Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap'

2015-10-16 Thread Jinyu Zhang
Update the patch_brin_optimze_mem according to your comment. At 2015-10-16 10:13:35, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: >zhangjinyu wrote: > >> However I wonder if it would be simpler to have the dtup structure have >> the pointers, so that you can pass it as NULL

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

2015-10-16 Thread Shay Rojansky
> > > > If not, the only solution I can see is for PostgreSQL to not protest > if it > > > sees the > > > parameter in the startup packet. > > > > > > > Yeah, that's the ideal solution here as far as I'm concerned. > > Well, it seems that's where we're ending up then. Could you prepare a > patch?

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

2015-10-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-10-16 10:30:20 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > On 10/16/2015 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Alternatively you can just have a elevate_user() function that does the > > logging and escalating? That seems like the same amount of code and it'd > > work with released versions of postgres? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Attached is the patch which takes care of above comments. I spent some time on this patch today. But it's still not right. I've attached a new version which fixes a serious problem with your last version

Re: [HACKERS] Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> What would happen if we didn't do anything at all? >> >> Nothing, really. It's essentially some code beautification. A worthwhile >> goal, but

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

2015-10-16 Thread Jerry Sievers
Joe Conway writes: > In many environments there is a policy requiring users to login using > unprivileged accounts, and then escalate their privileges if and when > they require it. In PostgreSQL this could be done by granting the > superuser role to an unprivileged user with

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Another some what related point is currently we are using random() > function to ensure a unique name for dsm and it seems to me that > it is always going to generate same number on first invocation (at least > thats

[HACKERS] checkpoint_segments upgrade recommendation?

2015-10-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
The release notes say that checkpoint_segments has been replaced by max_wal_size and min_wal_size, but there is no indication on how to convert between the old and new settings. I think a lot of people will have checkpoint_segments delicately tuned, so we should at least give them a hint on how

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > As for #2, I updated the patch, which uses a local join execution plan for > an EvalPlanQual rechech, according to the comment from Robert [1]. Attached > is an updated version of the patch. This is a WIP patch,

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> - Oversize item computation needs more testing (c.f. ereport(ERROR) >> calls in brin_getinsertbuffer). This is pretty vague, and there's no >> thread linked. If there's a stability issue

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm failures on crake and sittella

2015-10-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/16/2015 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Andrew, The FileTextArrayFDW-build failure on crake, and the RedisFDW-build failure on sittella, are expected results of my commit 5043193b78919a1bd144563aadc2f7f726549913. If those FDWs do not push quals down, they just need to be updated to pass

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > in GoodData we have this feature implemented - little bit different named - > DROP DATABASE FORCE > > It is useful in complex environment with mix of pooled and not pooled > connections - and in our environment -

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoint_segments upgrade recommendation?

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The release notes say that checkpoint_segments has been replaced by > max_wal_size and min_wal_size, but there is no indication on how to > convert between the old and new settings. I think a lot of people will > have

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Yeah, but I think the scenario is legitimate. When a query gets run >> from within PL/pgsql, parallelism is an option, at least as we have >> the code today. So if a Gather were present, and the query used a >>

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > in GoodData we have this feature implemented - little bit different named - > > DROP DATABASE FORCE > > > > It is useful in complex

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

2015-10-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> - Oversize item computation needs more testing (c.f. ereport(ERROR) > >> calls in brin_getinsertbuffer). This is pretty vague, and there's no > >> thread linked.

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

2015-10-16 Thread Nikolay Shaplov
So what's next? We need something else to discuss? We need somebody else's opinion to rule this out? Or it's ready to commit, and just not marked this way? I am going to make report based on this patch in Vienna. It would be nice to have it committed until then :) On 02.10.2015 07:10, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-10-16 16:32:25 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this would be a useful feature. What would one do about > > prepared transactions? > > > > Isn't "rollback all prepared" before an option? Not

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Anyway, the real problem here is the decision to pass procedure arguments > by assigning them to keys in the global dict. That is just brain-dead, > both because it means that recursive calls can't possibly work and because > it creates the bizarre scoping behavior mentioned in >

[HACKERS] shm_mq fix for non-blocking mode

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
The shm_mq code handles blocking mode and non-blocking mode asymmetrically in a couple of places, with the unfortunate result that if you are using non-blocking mode, and your counterparty dies before attaching the queue, operations on the queue continue to return SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK instead of, as

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-10-16 21:12 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas : > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > in GoodData we have this feature implemented - little bit different > named - > > DROP DATABASE FORCE > > > > It is useful in complex environment

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

2015-10-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-10-16 8:12 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 16 October 2015 at 02:47, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > postgres=# do $$ > > x = plpy.SPIError('Nazdarek'); > > x.spidata = (100, "Some detail", "some hint", None, None); > > raise x; > > $$ language

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

2015-10-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2015-10-16 8:12 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 16 October 2015 at 02:47, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > postgres=# do $$ > > x = plpy.SPIError('Nazdarek'); > > x.spidata = (100, "Some detail", "some hint", None, None); > > raise x; > > $$ language

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > This is wrong, current code does well for this case. I should > broke the code during investigating the problem. > > > > So, to make the windows version behave as the same, > > > dsm_impl_windows should

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

2015-10-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Beena Emerson wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> > It would be good even if there are some restriction

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

2015-10-16 Thread Craig Ringer
On 16 October 2015 at 01:07, Robbie Harwood wrote: > The short - and probably most important - answer is that no, I haven't > tested it, and it would be difficult for me to do so quickly. IIRC it's pretty easy to fire up AWS instances that're primary domain controllers, and

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > From what I understood by looking at code in this area, I think the check > > params != estate->paramLI and code under it is

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

2015-10-16 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
This is wrong, current code does well for this case. I should broke the code during investigating the problem. > > So, to make the windows version behave as the same, > > dsm_impl_windows should return false if GetLastError() == > > ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS regardless of hmap is valid. The current >

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

2015-10-16 Thread Craig Ringer
On 16 October 2015 at 02:47, Pavel Stehule wrote: > postgres=# do $$ > x = plpy.SPIError('Nazdarek'); > x.spidata = (100, "Some detail", "some hint", None, None); > raise x; > $$ language plpythonu; Shouldn't that look more like raise plpy.SPIError(msg="Message",

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> >> On 2015/10/15 11:36, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > >>> In case of scanrelid==0, expectation to ForeignScan/CustomScan is to > >>> behave as if local join exists here. It requires ForeignScan to generate > >>> joined-tuple as a result of remote join, that may contains multiple junk > >>> TLEs to

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
I briefly browsed the patch apart from my preference towards the approach. It has at least two oversight. *** 48,59 ExecScanFetch(ScanState *node, + /* +* Execute recheck plan and get the next tuple if foreign join. +*/ + if

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have spend the past few days updating our TODO list, removing > completed and now-unnecessary items: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo > > Thanks. It can help encourage many new entrants to community.

Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

2015-10-16 Thread Dmitry Vasilyev
On Пт, 2015-10-16 at 09:02 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Dmitry Vasilyev pro.ru> wrote: > > I think that function dsm_impl_windows() with EACCES error should > > not > > do ereport() with FATAL level. It works, but it is likely to make > > an

[HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Filip Rembiałkowski
DROP DATABASE mydb CONCURRENTLY; That would perform forced shutdown 1) reject any new backends to mydb 2) terminate old backends 3) drop db 40 upvotes here http://dba.stackexchange.com/a/11895/3710 inspired me to propose this improvement. If you think it's a good idea please include it as a

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

2015-10-16 Thread Rajeev rastogi
On 14 October 2015 14:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI: >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process > >At Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:08:37 +0530, Amit Kapila >wrote in > >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: DROP DATABASE variant that kills active sessions

2015-10-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi 2015-10-16 12:13 GMT+02:00 Filip Rembiałkowski < filip.rembialkow...@gmail.com>: > DROP DATABASE mydb CONCURRENTLY; > > That would perform forced shutdown > > 1) reject any new backends to mydb > 2) terminate old backends > 3) drop db > > 40 upvotes here

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2015/10/14 17:31, Etsuro Fujita wrote: As KaiGai-san also pointed out before, I think we should address this in each of the following cases: 1) remote qual (scanrelid>0) 2) remote join (scanrelid==0) As for #2, I updated the patch, which uses a local join execution plan for an

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Etsuro Fujita
>> On 2015/10/15 11:36, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >>> In case of scanrelid==0, expectation to ForeignScan/CustomScan is to >>> behave as if local join exists here. It requires ForeignScan to generate >>> joined-tuple as a result of remote join, that may contains multiple junk >>> TLEs to carry

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

2015-10-16 Thread Albe Laurenz
Shay Rojansky wrote: > Just to give some added reasoning... > > As Andres suggested, Npgsql sends ssl_renegotiation_limit=0 because we've > seen renegotiation bugs with > the standard .NET SSL implementation (which Npgsql uses). Seems like everyone > has a difficult time > with renegotiation.

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Jeevan Chalke
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > I confirmed that an epqtuple of foreign parameterized scan is > > correctly rejected by fdw_recheck_quals with modified

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Jeevan Chalke
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Jeevan Chalke < jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> wrote: >> > I confirmed that an

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > [ new patch for heapam.c changes ] > > I went over this in a fair amount of detail and reworked it somewhat. > The result is attached as

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think due to above changes it will report sync location on each page > scan, don't we want to report it once at end of scan? I think reporting for each page is correct. Isn't that what the non-parallel case does?

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Some more tests that failed in similar configuration settings. > 1. Table that is created under a begin statement is not visible in the worker. > 2. permission problem in worker side for set role command. The

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread Euler Taveira
On 15-10-2015 05:41, kolo hhmow wrote: I have already explained this in my previous post. Did you read this? > Yes, I do. So why postgresql give users an abbility to use a pam modules, when in other side there is advice to not use them? Anyway. > Where is such advise? I can't see it in docs

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

2015-10-16 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > We've got a few open items remaining at > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items - we should > try to get rid of them. Of the 8 items there, 3 are documentation > issues. It looks to me like one of those is for Stephen to deal

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Glenn Zhu
Hi Tom, Thanks for the reply. We are currently running 9.4.4. 9.4.5 notes have two references to gin index but does not seem to address the issue. We are however able to create same index on some other databases. So it maybe data related or size of table related? So far, the failed cases

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Glenn Zhu writes: > Currently, after hitting the error, the indexes were still created but > marked with status of "invalid" That's just what CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY would do with any error. (It might be worth checking whether a non-CONCURRENTLY build hits the same error,

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread kolo hhmow
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 15-10-2015 05:41, kolo hhmow wrote: > >> I have already explained this in my previous post. Did you read this? >> > > > Yes, I do. > > So why postgresql give users an abbility to use a pam modules, when in >> other

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

2015-10-16 Thread Stephen Frost
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 16 October 2015 at 01:07, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Looking at > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/protocol-message-formats.html > > suggests that SSPI follows a separate codepath from the GSS code; > > certainly

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

2015-10-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-10-16 16:41:16 +0300, Shay Rojansky wrote: > > If not, the only solution I can see is for PostgreSQL to not protest if it > > sees the > > parameter in the startup packet. > > > > Yeah, that's the ideal solution here as far as I'm concerned. Well, it seems that's where we're ending up

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Glenn Zhu writes: > We are currently running 9.4.4. 9.4.5 notes have two references to gin > index but does not seem to address the issue. > We are however able to create same index on some other databases. So it > maybe data related or size of table related? I'd guess that

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > I think some more interesting questions are: > - Did he implement this correctly? > - Would it break anything? > - Are there lots of other knobs we should expose too instead of just one? > - What would it take to turn this into a committable patch? > - Would the cost of

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I think due to above changes it will report sync location on each page > > scan, don't we want to report it once at end of scan? > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

2015-10-16 Thread Shay Rojansky
> > As far as I remember, that was introduced because of renegotiation bugs > with Mono: > http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/npgsql-devel/2010-February/001074.html > http://fxjr.blogspot.co.at/2010/03/ssl-renegotiation-patch.html > > Of course, with renegotiation disabled, nobody knows whether

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Glenn Zhu
Currently, after hitting the error, the indexes were still created but marked with status of "invalid" Looks like we shall see inserts to fail with the index on the column, regardless of the index status ("valid" or "invalid"), if we start to receive the "bad" values? Maybe I shall drop all

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:50:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have spend the past few days updating our TODO list, removing > completed and now-unnecessary items: > >        

[HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Glenn Zhu
We are getting an error on the following statement: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY customer_jsonb_fields_idx ON customer USING gin (jsonb_fields jsonb_path_ops); ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 2013265920 Anyone know what is causing it? It does not seem to be data corruption as when we

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Glenn Zhu writes: > We are getting an error on the following statement: > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY customer_jsonb_fields_idx ON customer USING gin > (jsonb_fields jsonb_path_ops); > ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 2013265920 > Anyone know what is causing it?

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 15-10-2015 05:41, kolo hhmow wrote: >> >> I have already explained this in my previous post. Did you read this? > >> > Yes, I do. > >> So why postgresql give users an abbility to use a pam modules, when in >> other

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Glenn Zhu
We can't test a non-concurrent index build in production - but your word is just as good. We only see this on some of production databases. We did not see it in QA testing. But we will try to get a test case in QA. Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug in

[HACKERS] buildfarm failures on crake and sittella

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
Andrew, The FileTextArrayFDW-build failure on crake, and the RedisFDW-build failure on sittella, are expected results of my commit 5043193b78919a1bd144563aadc2f7f726549913. If those FDWs do not push quals down, they just need to be updated to pass an additional NIL argument to

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:00:11PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have spend the past few days updating our TODO list, removing > > completed and now-unnecessary items: > > > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo > > Thanks. We have "TodoDone" pages for items

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > OTOH, now that the catalog is MVCC capable, do we even still need to lock > the objects for a schema-only dump? Yes. The MVCC snapshots used for catalog reads are stable only for the duration of one particular catalog

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:02:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Are you suggesting I remove those links? It is kind of odd to have > > links to patches for features we don't want, or just keep it? > > No, quite the contrary -- I think the links allow some other

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Euler Taveira wrote: >> I feel like we've got somebody new showing up to our community with an >> idea that is not obviously stupid. If we want such people to stick >> around, we should try to give their ideas a fair shake. >> > I share the

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

2015-10-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Any news on this item from 2013, worked on again 2014? > > --- > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:55:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 29,

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread Euler Taveira
On 16-10-2015 10:37, Robert Haas wrote: - Did he implement this correctly? > - Would it break anything? > I did not review the patch. - Are there lots of other knobs we should expose too instead of just one? > We are providing PAM_USER and PAM_CONV. The complete list of options are [1].

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

2015-10-16 Thread Craig Ringer
On 16 October 2015 at 21:34, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 16 October 2015 at 01:07, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> > Looking at >> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/protocol-message-formats.html >> >

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have spend the past few days updating our TODO list, removing > completed and now-unnecessary items: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo Thanks. We have "TodoDone" pages for items that were done in specific releases, but only for 8.4, 9.0 and 9.1. I guess

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Are you suggesting I remove those links? It is kind of odd to have > links to patches for features we don't want, or just keep it? No, quite the contrary -- I think the links allow some other person research the issue including the history of patches and discussion, and

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Glenn Zhu writes: > Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug in > general? My gut says it's GIN-specific, but that's really only an educated guess; we have too little info. What I would recommend is that you get the data onto a non-production

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Probably the most controvertial change was to move on-disk bitmap > indexes to the "not wanted" section, though I kept the links in case we > change our minds. I just can't see how they would be a win with GIN and > in-memory bitmaps. Yeah, I recall we discussed bitmap

Re: [HACKERS] Error creating gin index on jsonb columns

2015-10-16 Thread Glenn Zhu
We will follow your instructions and get back to you. Thank you Tom. Much appreciated! -glenn On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Glenn Zhu writes: > > Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug > in > >

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updates

2015-10-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43:10AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Probably the most controvertial change was to move on-disk bitmap > > indexes to the "not wanted" section, though I kept the links in case we > > change our minds. I just can't see how they would be a

Re: [HACKERS] Improve the concurency of vacuum full table and select statement on the same relation

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > It's just how the authors of pg_repack decided to handle it. It seems pretty > reasonable, since you probably don't want an errant DDL statement to cause > the rollback of hours or days of pg_repack work. > >

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

2015-10-16 Thread kolo hhmow
Ok. Thak you all! :) On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Euler Taveira > wrote: > >> I feel like we've got somebody new showing up to our community with an > >> idea that is not obviously stupid.

Re: [HACKERS] a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Attached are 14 patches. Patches #1-#4 are > essential for testing purposes but are not proposed for commit, > although some of the code they contain may eventually become part of > other patches which are proposed for

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Partial sort

2015-10-16 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Andreas Karlsson > wrote: > > Are you planning to work on this patch for 9.6? > > FWIW I hope so. It's a nice patch. > I'm trying to to whisk dust. Rebased version of

[HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

2015-10-16 Thread Joe Conway
In many environments there is a policy requiring users to login using unprivileged accounts, and then escalate their privileges if and when they require it. In PostgreSQL this could be done by granting the superuser role to an unprivileged user with noinherit, and then making the superuser role

Re: [HACKERS] Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?

2015-10-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > OK, committed his, and yours. > > I back-patched his spin.h comment fix to 9.5 since that's a factual > error, but the rest of this seems like optimization so I committed it > only to master. That sounds right. Thanks! -- Michael -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > I think, it is right approach to pretend EPQ doesn't exist if scanrelid==0, > because what replaced by these ForeignScan/CustomScan node are local join > node like NestLoop. They don't have its own EPQ slot, but

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Kouhei Kaigai writes: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >> I don't see how this can be right. You're basically just pretending >> EPQ doesn't exist in the remote join case, which isn't going to work >> at all. Those

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

2015-10-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > So what's next? Wait and see a bit. > We need something else to discuss? > We need somebody else's opinion to rule this out? The spec of the patch looks clear to me. > Or it's ready to commit, and just not

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> Kouhei Kaigai writes: > >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita > >> wrote: > >> I don't see how this can be right. You're basically just pretending > >> EPQ doesn't exist in the remote join case, which isn't going to work > >> at

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:30:01PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being > > called from copyParamList() by checking whether params != > > estate->paramLI. I

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > My opinion is, simply, ForeignScan/CustomScan with scanrelid==0 takes > over the responsibility of EPQ recheck of entire join sub-tree that is > replaced by the ForeignScan/CustomScan node. > If ForeignScan run a remote

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: > > As for #2, I updated the patch, which uses a local join execution plan for > > an EvalPlanQual rechech, according to the comment from Robert [1]. Attached > > is an updated version of the patch. This is a

[HACKERS] WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
I've occasionally heard complaints that our regex engine only has lookahead constraints not lookbehind constraints, while Perl's for example does have those. While I was fooling around with the other issues in that code, I learned enough to realize that it would not be that hard to implement such

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Both you and Etsuro Fujita are proposing to fix this problem by > somehow making it the FDW's problem to reconstruct the tuple > previously produced by the join from whole-row images of the baserels. > But that's not looking back far enough: why are we

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

2015-10-16 Thread Stephen Frost
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 16 October 2015 at 21:34, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> It's a different auth request, but the handling in be-auth.c is > >> co-mingled to handle the cases: > > > > be-auth.c? You mean src/backend/libpq/auth.c? > > Ahem. Yes.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:30:01PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being > > >

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > This seems like a very Rube-Goldbergian way of setting up a local > namespace for the user-defined code. I think perhaps what we should do > is: > 1. Compile the user-supplied code directly into a code object, without > wrapping it in a "def". (Hence, PLy_procedure_munge_source goes

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

2015-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Both you and Etsuro Fujita are proposing to fix this problem by >> somehow making it the FDW's problem to reconstruct the tuple >> previously produced by the join from whole-row

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

2015-10-16 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Rajeev rastogi wrote: > > > Yes it will be really helpful to know the earlier reason for "not making > backend exit on postmaster death". > Please let me know if there is any thread, which I can refer to find the > same. > > IMHO there

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

2015-10-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-10-16 09:20:26 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > One of the problems with this is we would ideally like to know whenever > joe escalates himself to postgres. Right now that is not really possible > without doing untenable things such as logging every statement. Alternatively you can just have a

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

2015-10-16 Thread Joe Conway
On 10/16/2015 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Alternatively you can just have a elevate_user() function that does the > logging and escalating? That seems like the same amount of code and it'd > work with released versions of postgres? > > Sure, that has some disadvantages over your approach,