Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> * GIN fillfactor >> >> I'd like to put this one on Heikki's plate as well, since he's touched >> the GIN code more than anyone else lately. > > While sad, I think this is going to have to be mo

Re: [HACKERS] Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > It still looks quite dubious to me. >> > >> > The more I test this, the more fond I grow of the idea of having this >> > info

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

Andres Freund writes: > I think we can close the commitfest now? Moving these three entries to > the next one? Yeah, I don't think any of the remaining entries are committable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To m

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Looking at what remains open in the current commitfest: As of now the remaining items !bugfix entries are: > * GIN fillfactor > > I'd like to put this one on Heikki's plate as well, since he's touched > the GIN code more than anyone else lately. Wh

Re: [HACKERS] Final Patch for GROUPING SETS

On 2015-05-16 00:06:12 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > Andrew (and I) have been working on this since. Here's the updated and > rebased patch. > > It misses a decent commit message and another beautification > readthrough. I've spent the last hour going through the thing again and > all I hit was a

Re: [HACKERS] WALWriteLock contention

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > WALWriteLock contention is measurable on some workloads. In studying > the problem briefly, a couple of questions emerged: > > ... > > 2. I don't really understand why WALWriteLock is set up to prohibit > two backends from flushing WAL at t

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 5/14/15 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to >those with less power. Have you considered how demoralizing it is to >work in an unfair environment? Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we >are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause i

Re: [HACKERS] trust authentication behavior

2015-05-16 5:13 GMT+09:00 Robert Haas : > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:52 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Denis Kirjanov wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, but the idea is to do that without the pg_hba.conf >> >> You may want to try describing the problem and not just ask if th

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 5/13/15 7:46 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan > > > >This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares > >enough to justify putting it in the tree. We need to either push it to > >next CF or reject altogether. > >Agreed. I was fine with

Re: [HACKERS] brin regression test intermittent failures

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Just from reading the documentation, couldn't the symptom we're seeing >> arise from autovacuum having hit the table right before >> brin_summarize_new_values got called? > Well, I added a autovacuum_enabled=off to that table recently precisely > becaus

Re: [HACKERS] brin regression test intermittent failures

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> There's something odd about the brin regression tests. They seem to > >> generate > >> intermittent failures, which suggests some sort of race condition or > >> ordering failure. > >> > >> See for example > >>

Re: [HACKERS] i feel like compelled !

On 5/13/15 6:05 PM, Gianni wrote: What I really liked about Firebird, and then Postgres made me feel right at home, was standards-compliance with SQL and great feature set. I find myself most-often-than-not guessing how something ought to work in Postgres, based on past experiences, and finding t

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On 5/14/15 6:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I think this is now ready for committing, but I'm pretty tired now so I'll read through this one more time in the morning, so that I won't wake up to a red buildfarm. If anyone feels motivated to fi

Re: [HACKERS] brin regression test intermittent failures

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> There's something odd about the brin regression tests. They seem to generate >> intermittent failures, which suggests some sort of race condition or >> ordering failure. >> >> See for example >>

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 05/15/2015 12:32 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Note that I am not proposing a general delay in feature freeze. I am specifically proposing an additional week for Grouping Sets and *only* for Grouping Sets. Core is in charge of releases. I believe like the other semi and formal organizations aro

Re: [HACKERS] brin regression test intermittent failures

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > There's something odd about the brin regression tests. They seem to generate > intermittent failures, which suggests some sort of race condition or > ordering failure. > > See for example >

[HACKERS] brin regression test intermittent failures

There's something odd about the brin regression tests. They seem to generate intermittent failures, which suggests some sort of race condition or ordering failure. See for example and

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 05/15/2015 04:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I guess JDBC has the same problem as Perl and JavaScript here: ? signals a bind variable. The next question is, why isn't there some escaping mechanism for that, like writing ?? or \? or something? FTR, Perl's DBD::Pg lets you do this: $dbh->{pg

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: > >> On 05/15/2015 11:31 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakan

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

Bruno Harbulot writes: > That said, I'd still suggest providing new operators and deprecating the > ones containing a question mark if possible. (There are 8 distinct operator > names like this: "?-", "?&", "?", "?#", "?||", "?-|", "?|" and "".) There are more in contrib ...

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

Bruno Harbulot wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >>> Well our solution was to use ?? but that does mean we have to >>> do some extra parsing which in a perfect world wouldn't be >>> necessary. It seems like maybe

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

Emre Hasegeli wrote: > > I pushed patches 04 and 07, as well as adopting some of the changes to > > the regression test in 06. I'm afraid I caused a bit of merge pain for > > you -- sorry about that. > > No problem. I rebased the remaining ones. Thanks, pushed. There was a proposed change by E

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > On 15 May 2015 at 16:44, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> >> >> On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >>> >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this >>> >> with

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this > >> without understanding what's really going on here. > >> > > Well our solution was to use ?? but that does mean we ha

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:44, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >> >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this >> >> without understanding what's really going on here. >> >> >> > Well o

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this > >> without understanding what's really going on here. > >> > > Well our solution was to use ?? but that does mean we have to do

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this >> without understanding what's really going on here. >> > Well our solution was to use ?? but that does mean we have to do some extra > parsing which in a perfect world wouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:35, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new, > >> less-problematic operator names and then eventually deprecate the old > >> ones. Personally, it wouldn't take a lot t

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

> As far, as I can tell, question mark operators are also incompatible > with PostgreSQL's ECPG when using dynamic SQL. > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ecpg-dynamic.html > (I'm pasting an example at the end of this message, tried with a > PostgreSQL 9.4 server.) Indeed it is. The q

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >> Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new, >> less-problematic operator names and then eventually deprecate the old >> ones. Personally, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me that if a >> certain set of operator nam

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > > Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed > so > > to speak > > Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new, > less-problematic operator n

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed so > to speak Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new, less-problematic operator names and then eventually deprecate the old ones. Personall

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Really? I was thinking of the test code as throwaway. I just wanted >> to fix the bug. > > Oh, that's fine then. I thought you wanted to push it. Nah, sorry, I shoulda been more clear about that. That was just so I could actually be su

Re: [HACKERS] log bloating with shortlife bgworkers?

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am planning to use short living bg workers. I was little bit surprised so > any start and finish does entry in log. Is there any plan to decrease a log > level for these purposes? Parallel query is going to hit that issue, too. I imagine

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> > The test code I used to verify that this works is also attached. > >> > > >> > If there are no objections, I will commit and bac

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > The test code I used to verify that this works is also attached. >> > >> > If there are no objections, I will commit and back-patch. >> >> Oops. Really attach

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed so to speak Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On 15 May 2015 at 15:14, Bruno Harbulot wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying to use the new JSONB format using JDBC, and ran into > trouble wit

Re: [HACKERS] trust authentication behavior

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:52 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Denis Kirjanov wrote: >> >> Yeah, but the idea is to do that without the pg_hba.conf > > You may want to try describing the problem and not just ask if the chosen > solution is possible - of which I am d

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > The test code I used to verify that this works is also attached. > > > > If there are no objections, I will commit and back-patch. > > Oops. Really attached this time. We have spi_worker in src/test/modules now -- I t

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: adaptive ndistinct estimator v4

On 05/15/2015 12:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 05/15/2015 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Once we enter beta (or even feature freeze), it's too late to whack >>> around the algorithm heavily. We're pretty much committed to >>> releasing and

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: adaptive ndistinct estimator v4

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 05/15/2015 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Once we enter beta (or even feature freeze), it's too late to whack >> around the algorithm heavily. We're pretty much committed to >> releasing and supporting whatever we have got at that point.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for bug #12845 (GB18030 encoding)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > However, I'm not that excited about changing it. We have not heard field > complaints about these converters being too slow. What's more, there > doesn't seem to be any practical way to apply the same idea to the other > conversion direction, wh

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: >> The documentation (or this feature) is broken still >> >> If dbname is NULL or dboid is InvalidOid, the session is not connected to >> any particular database, but shared catalogs can

Re: [HACKERS] broken documentation: BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(NULL, NULL);

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > The documentation (or this feature) is broken still > > If dbname is NULL or dboid is InvalidOid, the session is not connected to > any particular database, but shared catalogs can be accessed. If username is > NULL or useroid is InvalidOid,

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: adaptive ndistinct estimator v4

On 05/15/2015 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Once we enter beta (or even feature freeze), it's too late to whack > around the algorithm heavily. We're pretty much committed to > releasing and supporting whatever we have got at that point. I guess > we could revert it if it doesn't work out, but t

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 05/14/2015 03:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 06:57:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Stephen Frost writes: >>> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch is rejected to due to time. I might lo

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for bug #12845 (GB18030 encoding)

Arjen Nienhuis writes: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> According to that, about half of the characters below U+ can be >> processed via linear conversions, so I think we ought to save table >> space by doing that. However, the remaining stuff that has to be >> processed

[HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

Hello, I've been trying to use the new JSONB format using JDBC, and ran into trouble with the question mark operators (?, ?| and ?&). I realise there has already been a discussion about this (actually, it was about hstore, not jsonb, but that's more or less the same problem): - http://www.postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to create_foreign_table.sgml

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > The attached patch adds missing NO INHERIT to the CHECK clause in the > synopsis section in the reference page on CREATE FOREIGN TABLE. Good catch. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgre

Re: [HACKERS] Missing importing option of postgres_fdw

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On second thought, I noticed that as for this option, we cannot live without > allowing IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA to return ALTER FOREIGN TABLE statements > because we cannot declare the convalidated information in the CREATE FOREIGN > TABLE stat

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: adaptive ndistinct estimator v4

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > With the warning it is very hard to correlate the discrepancy you do see > with which column is causing it, as the warnings don't include table or > column names (Assuming of course that you run it on a substantial > database--if you just run it

Re: [HACKERS] WALWriteLock contention

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> WALWriteLock contention is measurable on some workloads. In studying >> the problem briefly, a couple of questions emerged: > >> 1. Doesn't it suck to rewrite an entire 8kB block every time, instead >> of only the new byte

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery

On 15 May 2015 at 19:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > Alternatively we could make MultiXactIdIsRunning() return false < 9.3 > > when in recovery. I think that'd end up fixing things, but it seems > > awfully fragile to me. > > Hm, why fragile? It seems a pretty decent answe

Re: [HACKERS] Changes to backup.sgml

On 05/15/2015 10:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 1. File System Level Backup The section should be a note within the larger document. It is largely a legacy section from before 8.3. I agree. I think this section is just plain weird at th

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery

Andres Freund wrote: > Alternatively we could make MultiXactIdIsRunning() return false < 9.3 > when in recovery. I think that'd end up fixing things, but it seems > awfully fragile to me. Hm, why fragile? It seems a pretty decent answer -- pre-9.3, it's not possible for a tuple to be "locked" in

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 2015-05-15 18:00:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-14 23:28:33 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > > I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on > > structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement. > > Andrew worked really hard and addressed the

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics / patch v6

Hello, On 05/15/15 08:29, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Hello, At Thu, 14 May 2015 12:35:50 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote in <55547a86.8020...@2ndquadrant.com> ... Regarding the functional dependencies - you're right there's room for improvement. For example it only works with dependencies between

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics / patch v6

Hello, On 05/15/15 08:29, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Hello, Regarding the functional dependencies - you're right there's room for improvement. For example it only works with dependencies between pairs of columns, not multi-column dependencies. Is this what you mean by incomplete? No, It overru

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option

Yes, I'd like to know if Alvaros suggestion would in deed achieve consensus (possibly with Andrews addition). It looks like the most general solution but might be some work using autoconf ... Best regards, Volker On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at

Re: [HACKERS] WALWriteLock contention

Robert Haas writes: > WALWriteLock contention is measurable on some workloads. In studying > the problem briefly, a couple of questions emerged: > 1. Doesn't it suck to rewrite an entire 8kB block every time, instead > of only the new bytes (and maybe a few bytes following that to spoil > any ol

Re: [HACKERS] Changes to backup.sgml

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 1. File System Level Backup > > The section should be a note within the larger document. It is largely a > legacy section from before 8.3. I agree. I think this section is just plain weird at this point. Most people would assume that yo

Re: [HACKERS] WALWriteLock contention

On 05/15/2015 09:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 2. I don't really understand why WALWriteLock is set up to prohibit two backends from flushing WAL at the same time. That seems unnecessary. Suppose we've got two backends that flush WAL one after the other. Assume (as is not unlikely) that the seco

[HACKERS] WALWriteLock contention

WALWriteLock contention is measurable on some workloads. In studying the problem briefly, a couple of questions emerged: 1. Doesn't it suck to rewrite an entire 8kB block every time, instead of only the new bytes (and maybe a few bytes following that to spoil any old data that might be there)? I

Re: [HACKERS] Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

On 2015-05-14 23:28:33 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on > structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement. Andrew worked really hard and addressed the voiced concerns with the way chaining was done. In my last

Re: [HACKERS] i feel like compelled !

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Gianni wrote: > Oh well... then, THANKS GUYS!!! > > I'm not the original poster, btw. > > I felt a bit 'abandoned' a while back, since I started using > Interbase/Firebird since, like, ~2000. But since Firebird never really took > off, I felt I had to look for bett

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for bug #12845 (GB18030 encoding)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Arjen Nienhuis writes: >> GB18030 is a special case, because it's a full mapping of all unicode >> characters, and most of it is algorithmically defined. > > True. > >> This makes UtfToLocal a bad choice to implement it. > > I disagree with that

Re: [HACKERS] Changes to backup.sgml

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 08:15:51AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > > On 05/15/2015 07:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>3. Push the rsync paragraph (and edit where appropriate) within the > >>continuous archiving section. > >> > >>3a. Add information about robocopy (windows rsync) > > > >Oh, yes

Re: [HACKERS] Changes to backup.sgml

On 05/15/2015 07:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: 3. Push the rsync paragraph (and edit where appropriate) within the continuous archiving section. 3a. Add information about robocopy (windows rsync) Oh, yes, we should mention robocopy. I had never heard of that. 4. Move continuous arch

Re: [HACKERS] best place for "rtree" strategy numbers

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > So here's a patch for this. > > Looks reasonable to me (though I only eyeballed it, not tested). > > Do we want to push this into 9.5, or wait for 9.6? My intention is to push this now, before pushing brin inclusion. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Changes to backup.sgml

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:53:01AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > > -hackers, > > After my brain flatulence last week on backups, I decided to read > the docs again. There are some improvements that I would like to > make and wanted some feedback: > > 1. File System Level Backup > > The section s

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for bug #12845 (GB18030 encoding)

Arjen Nienhuis writes: > GB18030 is a special case, because it's a full mapping of all unicode > characters, and most of it is algorithmically defined. True. > This makes UtfToLocal a bad choice to implement it. I disagree with that conclusion. There are still 3+ characters that need to be

Re: [HACKERS] best place for "rtree" strategy numbers

Alvaro Herrera writes: > So here's a patch for this. Looks reasonable to me (though I only eyeballed it, not tested). Do we want to push this into 9.5, or wait for 9.6? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make cha

Re: [HACKERS] Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission

* Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 5/1/15 12:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2015-04-08 19:19:29 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > >>> I'm not sure what the best way to handle the hand-off from patch > >>> contribution t

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow GiST distance function to return merely a lower-bound.

On 05/15/2015 03:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 05/15/2015 03:05 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: Seems this patch causes the regression test of pg_trgm fail. The regression diff that I got is: *** /home/postgres/pgsql/head/contrib/pg_trgm/expected/pg_trgm.out 2013-07-23 16:46:22.212488785 +0900 ---

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery

Hi hackers, Any chance to get this fixed in time for 9.1.16? .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] 9.5 open items

I have processed all the open email items I can through mid-March, though I do have two pg_upgrade fixes pending application today. I will continue processing doc fixes and major bug fixes for 9.5, but everything else I do will be for 9.6. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us Enterpri

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Sawada Masahiko >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 5/7/15, Saw

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:48:29PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/15/2015 11:31 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >>On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> > >>>I think this is now ready for committing, but I'

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Beena Emerson wrote: > There was a discussion on support for N synchronous standby servers started > by Michael. Refer > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr9c84ig0zuvhmqamq53vqsd4rc82vyci4dr27pvof...@mail.gmail.com > . The use of hooks and dedicated

[HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

There was a discussion on support for N synchronous standby servers started by Michael. Refer http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr9c84ig0zuvhmqamq53vqsd4rc82vyci4dr27pvof...@mail.gmail.com . The use of hooks and dedicated language was suggested, however, it seemed to be an overkill fo

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/15/2015 11:31 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >> >> On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> >>> I think this is now ready for committing, but I'm pr

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On 05/15/2015 11:31 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I think this is now ready for committing, but I'm pretty tired now so I'll read through this one more time in the morning, so that I

Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

On 1 May 2015 at 18:05, Simon Riggs wrote: > * TABLESAMPLE clause >> Doesn't seem very far from being done. Some questions about including >> (or not) DDL and contrib modules seem to remain. >> > > Will commit this soon > OK, completely happy with this now and will commit today. It's fina

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Sawada Masahiko >> wrote: >>> The v15 patch emits a line for each table when reindexing multiple >>> tables, and emits a line for each index when rei

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for bug #12845 (GB18030 encoding)

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> wrote: Maybe not, but at the very least we should consider getting it fixed in 9.5 rather than waiting a full development cycle. Same as in

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/15/2015 02:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> I think this is now ready for committing, but I'm pretty tired now so >> I'll read through this one more time in the morning, so that I won't >> wake up to a red buildfarm. >> > > F

Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [HACKERS] [v9.5] Custom Plan API)

2015-05-15 8:43 GMT+09:00 Kouhei Kaigai : > Regarding of FDW, as Hanada-san mentioned, I'm uncertain whether > similar feature is also needed because its join-pushdown feature > scan on the result-set of remotely joined relations, thus no need > to have local child Path nodes. > So, I put this cust

[HACKERS] Minor improvements to alter_foreign_table.sgml

Hi, Here is a patch to improve the ALTER FOREIGN TABLE documentation a bit: (1) fix markup for ADD table_constraint [ NOT VALID ] and (2) remove an unnecessary comma from an example query. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_foreign_table.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_