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

2015-06-27 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-06-26 17:28 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote: I think it's a whole separate topicto Pavel's original proposal though, and really merits a separate thread. For Pavel's issue I'm all in favour of just

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule for 9.5alpha1

2015-06-27 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: I have a serious open item reported 1.5 month ago then reminded several times has not been fixed up yet.

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-06-27 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Fujita-san, BTW, if you try newer version of postgres_fdw foreign join patch, please provide me to reproduce the problem/ OK Did you forget to attach the patch, or v17 is in use? I'd like to suggest a solution that re-construct remote tuple according to the fdw_scan_tlist on

Re: [HACKERS] drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes: I have looked into it and found that the main reason for such a behaviour is that for those operations it traverses whole shared_buffers and it seems to me that we don't need that especially for not-so-big tables. We can optimize that path by

Re: [HACKERS] Semantics of pg_file_settings view

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What we evidently need to do is fix things so that the pg_file_settings data gets captured before we suppress duplicates. The simplest change would be to move the whole thing to

[HACKERS] Bogus postmaster-only contexts laying about in backends

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
I happened to notice these in a backend's memory context dump: ident parser context: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used hba parser context: 7168 total in 3 blocks; 3920 free (1 chunks); 3248 used Is there a good reason why these weren't made children of the PostmasterContext, so

Re: [HACKERS] drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers

2015-06-27 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: Sometime back on one of the PostgreSQL blog [1], there was discussion about the performance of drop/truncate table for large values of shared_buffers and it seems that as the value of shared_buffers increase the

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

2015-06-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-26 14:48:35 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andres Freund wrote: Rework the way multixact truncations work. I spent some time this morning reviewing this patch and had some comments that I relayed over IM to Andres. Thanks for that! 2. We set PGXACT-delayChkpt while the

Re: [HACKERS] Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)

2015-06-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes: On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to

Re: [HACKERS] Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes: On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches. The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That

[HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
I noticed that in EXEC_BACKEND builds (ie, Windows) the pg_file_settings view doesn't act as its author presumably intended. Specifically, it reads as empty until/unless the current session processes a SIGHUP event. This is because before that happens, it's depending on having inherited the state

[HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Noah Misch
convert_string_datum() says: /* * Note: originally we guessed at a suitable output buffer size, and * only needed to call strxfrm twice if our guess was too small. * However, it seems that some versions of Solaris have buggy

Re: [HACKERS] Semantics of pg_file_settings view

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Combining this with my idea about preserving the ConfigVariable list, I'm thinking that it would be a good idea for ProcessConfigFile() to run in a context created for the purpose of

Re: [HACKERS] Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?)

2015-06-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-27 12:10:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes: On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches. The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the dry if

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have access to Solaris with the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yeah, exactly. Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least not one that will work in installcheck mode. There's no way to predict what will be in the view in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
I noticed that in EXEC_BACKEND builds (ie, Windows) the pg_file_settings view doesn't act as its author presumably intended. Specifically, it reads as empty until/unless the current session processes a SIGHUP event. This is because before that happens, it's depending on having inherited the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes: I noticed that in EXEC_BACKEND builds (ie, Windows) the pg_file_settings view doesn't act as its author presumably intended. Specifically, it reads as empty until/unless the current session processes a SIGHUP event. I'm just wondering why we did not

[HACKERS] Refactoring pgbench.c

2015-06-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Main pgbench logic consists of single file pgbench.c which is 4036 lines of code as of today. This is not a small number and I think it would be nice if it is divided into smaller files because it will make it easier to maintain, add or change features of pgbench. I will come up with an idea how

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes: I noticed that in EXEC_BACKEND builds (ie, Windows) the pg_file_settings view doesn't act as its author presumably intended. Specifically, it reads as empty until/unless the current

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: PostgreSQL 9.5 adds a strxfrm() call in bttext_abbrev_convert(), which does not account for the Solaris bug. I wish to determine whether that bug is still relevant today. If you have

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
27.06.2015, 19:51, Noah Misch kirjoitti: convert_string_datum() says: /* * Note: originally we guessed at a suitable output buffer size, and * only needed to call strxfrm twice if our guess was too small. * However, it seems that

[HACKERS] pg_trgm version 1.2

2015-06-27 Thread Jeff Janes
This patch implements version 1.2 of contrib module pg_trgm. This supports the triconsistent function, introduced in version 9.4 of the server, to make it faster to implement indexed queries where some keys are common and some are rare. I've included the paths to both upgrade and downgrade

[HACKERS] proposal: condition blocks in psql

2015-06-27 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi I am thinking about simplifying a deployment some multiversion PostgreSQL extensions, and scripts. With current possibilities, we have to use DO statement, what is not optimal or possible in some use cases. The implementation of condition block (possible nested) is very simple. The proposed

Re: [HACKERS] drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers

2015-06-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: Attached patch implements the above idea and I found that performance doesn't dip much with patch even with large value of shared_buffers. I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
I'm just wondering why we did not catch this earlier. If this is because threre's no regression test case for pg_file_settings view, Yeah, exactly. Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least not one that will work in installcheck mode. There's no way to predict what will be

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: condition blocks in psql

2015-06-27 Thread Fabien COELHO
The proposed syntax of new psql commands \if_ver_eq 9.2 ... \else \endif What do you thinking about it? Couldn't this kind of thing be done directly with PL/pgSQL? -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior

2015-06-27 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think the point of Noah's query is to find out whether ancient is an accurate description. If indeed nothing newer than Solaris 8 exhibits the bug, I'd be okay with not working around it, but otherwise we have some

Re: [HACKERS] Semantics of pg_file_settings view

2015-06-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What we evidently need to do is fix things so that the pg_file_settings data gets captured before we suppress

Re: [HACKERS] pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

2015-06-27 Thread Sawada Masahiko
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yeah, exactly. Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least not one that will work in

Re: [HACKERS] drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers

2015-06-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes: I have looked into it and found that the main reason for such a behaviour is that for those operations it traverses whole shared_buffers and it seems to me that we don't need