Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

2015-06-23 Thread Fabien COELHO
It'd be interesting to see numbers for tiny, without the overly small checkpoint timeout value. 30s is below the OS's writeback time. Here are some tests with longer timeout: tiny2: scale=10 shared_buffers=1GB checkpoint_timeout=5min max_wal_size=1GB warmup=600 time=4000 flsh |

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-06-23 1:56 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com: On 6/22/15 2:46 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: FOREACH key, val IN RECORD myrow LOOP IF pg_typeof(val) IN ('int4', 'double precision', 'numeric') THEN val := val + 1; -- these variables can be mutable -- or maybe in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/23/2015 07:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: So... Attached are a set of patches dedicated at fixing this issue: Thanks for working on this! - 0001, add if_not_exists to pg_tablespace_location, returning NULL if path does not exist - 0002, same with pg_stat_file, returning NULL if file

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/23/2015 05:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 07:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: So... Attached are a set of patches dedicated at fixing this issue: Thanks for working on this! - 0001, add if_not_exists

Re: [HACKERS] Hash index creation warning

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote: On 6/12/15 5:00 PM, Thom Brown wrote: On 18 October 2014 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC. BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just change it. I have not any

Re: [HACKERS] A couple of newlines missing in pg_rewind log entries

2015-06-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/23/2015 07:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Hi all, Some grepping is showing up that a couple of newlines are missing in pg_rewind, leading to unreadable log entries: libpq_fetch.c:pg_log(PG_DEBUG, getting file chunks); Fixed. logging.c:pg_log(PG_PROGRESS, %*s/%s kB (%d%%)

Re: [HACKERS] upper planner path-ification

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: So, unless we don't find out a solution around planner, 2-phase aggregation is like a curry without rice Simon and I spoke with Tom about this upper planner path-ification problem at PGCon, and he indicated that he

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: Anything ever happen with this? I agree that LOG is to high for reporting

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] introduce XLogLockBlockRangeForCleanup()

2015-06-23 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2014-08-20 11:07:44 +0300, hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: I don't think the new GetBufferWithoutRelcache function is in line with the existing ReadBuffer API. I think it would be better to add a new ReadBufferMode - RBM_CACHE_ONLY? - that only returns the buffer if it's already in cache,

Re: [HACKERS] get_relation_info comment out of sync

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Munro thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com wrote: The comment for get_relation_info should probably include serverid in the list of rel members that it can update (see attached). Committed, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The

Re: [HACKERS] SSL TAP tests and chmod

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: The TAP tests in src/test/ssl are using system() in combination with chmod, but perl has a command chmod integrated into it, and it would work better on

Re: [HACKERS] Memory context at PG_init call ?

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote: Empirically, I seem to be getting the _PG_init call for a module while the active memory context lifetime is that of the function call which first needed to load the shared object. Is this the case ? Documented anywhere ?

Re: [HACKERS] Insufficient locking for ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: On 2015-06-21 11:45:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Now that I actually check with a non-relation object, I see pretty much the same error. So probably if instead of some narrow bug fix what we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 07:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: So... Attached are a set of patches dedicated at fixing this issue: Thanks for working on this! - 0001, add if_not_exists to pg_tablespace_location, returning NULL if

Re: [HACKERS] NULL passed as an argument to memcmp() in parse_func.c

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Glen Knowles gknow...@ieee.org writes: It appears that, according to the standard, passing NULL to memcmp is undefined behavior, even if the count is 0. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16362925/can-i-pass-a-null-pointer-to-memcmp for C99 and C++ standard references. Hmm ... looks like

[HACKERS] btree_gin and BETWEEN

2015-06-23 Thread Jeff Janes
If I use the btree_gin extension to build a gin index on a scalar value, it doesn't work well with BETWEEN queries. It looks like it scans the whole index, with the part of the index between the endpoints getting scanned twice. It is basically executed as if col1 between x and y were col1

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 05:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 07:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: So... Attached are a set of patches dedicated at

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be satisfied very well by just causing existing start/stop

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-23 15:20 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: I was thinking of a background worker flag, not a GUC. BGWORKER_QUIET, or something like that. But I guess we ought to just

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Robert Haas wrote: Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to DEBUG1. That has the advantage of not breaking backward compatibility. But I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Robert Haas wrote: Well, if the flag is BGWORKER_QUIET, then the default behavior remains unchanged, but when that flag is used, the log level is reduced to DEBUG1. That has

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_*_columns?

2015-06-23 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us

[HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Those of you who have been following http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1d3bc192-970d-4b70-a5fe-38d2a9f76...@me.com are aware that Red Hat shipped a rather broken version of openssl last week. While waiting for them to fix it, I've been poking at the behavior, and have found out that PG

Re: [HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Those of you who have been following http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1d3bc192-970d-4b70-a5fe-38d2a9f76...@me.com are aware that Red Hat shipped a rather broken version of openssl last week. While waiting for them to

Re: [HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the renegotiation fixes we did in 9.4. Specifically, I think

Re: [HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the renegotiation fixes we did in 9.4.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 05:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 07:51 AM,

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says. However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of wanting extra logging for a bgworker under development is unlikely to be satisfied very well by just causing existing

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_*_columns?

2015-06-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-22 21:05:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Interesting idea. We could consider the set of stats files a database unto itself and reserve a low-numbered OID for it. The obvious thing to do is use the database's OID as the relfilenode, but then how do you replace the stats file? The

Re: [HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the renegotiation fixes we did in

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/23/15 9:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2015-06-23 1:56 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com: On 6/22/15 2:46 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: FOREACH key, val IN RECORD myrow LOOP IF pg_typeof(val) IN ('int4', 'double

Re: [HACKERS] btree_gin and BETWEEN

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes: If I use the btree_gin extension to build a gin index on a scalar value, it doesn't work well with BETWEEN queries. It looks like it scans the whole index, with the part of the index between the endpoints getting scanned twice. It is basically executed

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_*_columns?

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/22/15 8:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: In totally different crazy way we could just use the existing buffer manager we have and simply put the stats file in shared_buffers. Inventing a per-database relfilenode that doesn't conflict doesn't seem impossible. With some care it shouldn't be hard to

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/23/15 3:22 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: I would rephrase that to: do X to all fields of an object. Array handling is pretty good now (minus arrays of arrays, but arrays Except that still won't make it easy to do something to each element of an array in SQL, which I think would be nice to

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/22/15 11:59 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: which might not be helpful for cases when checkpoint could have flushed soon-to-be-recycled buffers. I think flushing the sorted buffers w.r.t tablespaces is a good idea, but not giving any preference to clock-sweep point seems to me that we would loose

Re: [HACKERS] Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/23/15 3:40 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: BTW, I think this relates to the desire to be able to do more OO-ish things in the database. Like do X to all elements in this array. And to have actual classes, private members, real arrays of arrays. It seems like there's a bigger need

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_*_columns?

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: On 2015-06-22 21:05:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Interesting idea. We could consider the set of stats files a database unto itself and reserve a low-numbered OID for it. The obvious thing to do is use the database's OID

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-06-23 21:57 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com: On 6/23/15 9:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2015-06-23 1:56 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com: On 6/22/15 2:46 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: FOREACH key, val IN RECORD myrow

Re: [HACKERS] 9.5 release notes

2015-06-23 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: listitem para Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres Freund, Kevin Grittner) /para /listitem If this is ab5194e6f, I don't think it makes sense to mention buffer scan - it's just any

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote: On 6/23/15 9:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 1. parametrized record reference syntax - some like SELECT $1[$] 2. possibility to throw plan cache, if result has different type than is expected in cache. Well, the other

[HACKERS] Making sure this isn't a new recovery bug ...

2015-06-23 Thread Josh Berkus
Hackers, At one site, I have some duplicate row corruption in a staging database. This database was created by a binary backup from 9.3.5, which was restored via PITR with a timestamp target to 9.3.5, so known-bad versions. The strange thing about the duplicate rows is that they were all frozen

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: row_to_array function

2015-06-23 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote: On 6/23/15 3:22 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: I would rephrase that to: do X to all fields of an object. Array handling is pretty good now (minus arrays of arrays, but arrays Except that still won't make it easy to do

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

2015-06-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote: Hello Amit, medium2: scale=300 shared_buffers=5GB checkpoint_timeout=30min max_wal_size=4GB warmup=1200 time=7500 flsh | full speed tps | percent of late tx, 4 clients /srt | 1 client |

Re: [HACKERS] pg_rewind failure by file deletion in source server

2015-06-23 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote: On 06/23/2015 05:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Jun 23,

Re: [HACKERS] upper planner path-ification

2015-06-23 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
-Original Message- From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:06 PM To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) Cc: Robert Haas; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tom Lane Subject: Re: [HACKERS] upper planner path-ification On 23 June 2015 at 13:55, Kouhei

[HACKERS] how is a query passed between a coordinator and a datanode

2015-06-23 Thread Rui Hai Jiang
Hello, I'm trying to figure out how a query and its result is passed between a coordinator and a datanode. I know there are many messages passed between them to finish a query. I did a test against the coordinator by adding a row to a table and the sql was, insert into hg1(id, name)

Re: [HACKERS] PGXS check target forcing an install ?

2015-06-23 Thread Sandro Santilli
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:31:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote: I've noted that upgrading from PostgreSQL 9.3 to 9.5 I'm suddenly unable to specify a check rule in the Makefile that includes the PGXS one. The error

Re: [HACKERS] NULL passed as an argument to memcmp() in parse_func.c

2015-06-23 Thread Glen Knowles
It appears that, according to the standard, passing NULL to memcmp is undefined behavior, even if the count is 0. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16362925/can-i-pass-a-null-pointer-to-memcmp for C99 and C++ standard references. I didn't see a good reference for C89 but I find it almost

Re: [HACKERS] Time to get rid of PQnoPasswordSupplied?

2015-06-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 22 June 2015 at 22:00, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I do not follow Craig's argument that this is somehow connected to the wire protocol version. Upon revisiting it, neither do I. You know when you read code and think what idiot wrote this ... then git blame says it was you? I, at

Re: [HACKERS] 9.5 make world failing due to sgml tools missing

2015-06-23 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/23/15 1:06 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: http://www.keithf4.com On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net mailto:pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 6/18/15 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Sure; the point is that libxml2 has suddenly been reclassified as a

[HACKERS] Memory context at PG_init call ?

2015-06-23 Thread Sandro Santilli
Empirically, I seem to be getting the _PG_init call for a module while the active memory context lifetime is that of the function call which first needed to load the shared object. Is this the case ? Documented anywhere ? Initializing memory meant to be alive for the whole lifetime of a backend

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

2015-06-23 Thread Fabien COELHO
flsh | full speed tps | percent of late tx, 4 clients /srt | 1 client | 4 clients | 100 | 200 | 400 | N/N | 173 +- 289* | 198 +- 531* | 27.61 | 43.92 | 61.16 | N/Y | 458 +- 327* | 743 +- 920* | 7.05 | 14.24 | 24.07 | Y/N | 169 +- 166* | 187 +- 302* | 4.01 |

Re: [HACKERS] git push hook to check for outdated timestamps

2015-06-23 Thread Noah Misch
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:37:00PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/12/2015 09:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Could we update our git hook to refuse a push of a new commit whose

[HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-06-23 Thread Etsuro Fujita
Hi, While reviewing the foreign join pushdown core patch, I noticed that the patch doesn't perform an EvalPlanQual recheck properly. The example that crashes the server will be shown below (it uses the postgres_fdw patch [1]). I think the reason for that is because the ForeignScan node

Re: [HACKERS] upper planner path-ification

2015-06-23 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
-Original Message- From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:18 PM To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) Cc: David Rowley; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tom Lane Subject: Re: [HACKERS] upper

Re: [HACKERS] 9.5 release notes

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote: Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: listitem para Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres Freund, Kevin Grittner) /para /listitem If this is ab5194e6f, I

Re: [HACKERS] less log level for success dynamic background workers for 9.5

2015-06-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 24 June 2015 at 03:23, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote: On 6/23/15 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I concur: if we're to have a flag at all, it should work as Alvaro says. However, I'm not real sure we need a flag. I think the use-case of wanting extra logging for a bgworker under

Re: [HACKERS] how is a query passed between a coordinator and a datanode

2015-06-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Rui Hai Jiang ruihaiji...@msn.com wrote: I'm trying to figure out how a query and its result is passed between a coordinator and a datanode. I know there are many messages passed between them to finish a query. I did a test against the coordinator by adding

[HACKERS] Oh, this is embarrassing: init file logic is still broken

2015-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Chasing a problem identified by my Salesforce colleagues led me to the conclusion that my commit f3b5565dd (Use a safer method for determining whether relcache init file is stale) is rather borked. It causes pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index to be omitted from the relcache init file, because that