[HACKERS] latest buildfarm client release

I have just released version 4.16 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client It can be downloaded from Several bugs have been fixed, and there are these non-trivial changes: * capturing of TAP test logs * bin check enabled on Windows *

Re: [HACKERS] Error with index on unlogged table

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > For master and perhaps 9.5, I would think that a dedicated WAL record > type enforcing the fsync is the way to go. This special treatment > would go only for btree and spgist when they use INIT_FORKNUM and we >

Re: [HACKERS] Additional role attributes && superuser review

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > Even so, in the interest of having more fine-grained permission > controls, I've gone ahead and added a pg_switch_xlog default role. > Note that this means that

Re: [HACKERS] COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..)

On 2015-11-16 08:24, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: Attached is a patch for being able to do $SUBJECT without a CTE. The reasons this is better than a CTE version are: 1) It's not obvious why a CTE version works but a plain one

Re: [HACKERS] [Pgbuildfarm-members] latest buildfarm client release

Andrew Dunstan writes: > I have just released version 4.16 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client I updated my critters to 4.16, and since nothing much was happening in git, decided to test by doing "run_build.pl --nosend --verbose --force" manually on prairiedog. That run went

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Isn't it better to destroy the memory for readers array as that gets > > allocated > > even if there are no workers available for

Re: [HACKERS] onlyvalue aggregate (was: First Aggregate Funtion?)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > Hi Dean, > > Here's v2 of the patch. How's this look? > > > .m > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: >

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL

On 21 November 2015 at 03:54, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 11/19/15 10:47 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> - only superusers? > > > I would think the owner of the table (index?) should also be able to run > this. agreed, that makes sense -- Jaime Casanova

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:11:00PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > I fixed many of the issues that caused complaints at the end of the 9.5 > cycle, but there are still two remaining items I would want to address > before resubmitting: > > 1) There was concern about audit messages being sent to the

Re: [HACKERS] latest buildfarm client release

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I have just released version 4.16 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client > > It can be downloaded from < > http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/downloads/latest-client.tgz> > > Several bugs have been fixed, and there are these

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension

On 11/21/15 2:47 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:11:00PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> I fixed many of the issues that caused complaints at the end of the 9.5 >> cycle, but there are still two remaining items I would want to address >> before resubmitting: >> >> 1) There was

Re: [HACKERS] new full text search configurations

> I checked new snowball site http://snowballstem.org/ and found several new > stemmers appeared (as external contributions): > > Irish and Czech > Object Pascal codegenerator for Snowball > Two stemmers for Romanian > Hungarian > Turkish > Armenian > Basque (Euskera) > Catalan > > Some of them we

Re: [HACKERS] CreateFunction Statement

Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > 2015-11-21 7:09 GMT+01:00 Praveen M : > > > Hi All, > > > > I am trying to get the schema name of the create function call from the > > parse tree. When I look at the structure of the CreateFunctionStmt , I do > > not see the schemaname information