Re: [HACKERS] GiST penalty functions [PoC]

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Borodin
> This thread has basically died, so marking as returned with feedback. Well, not exactly died, but it's kind of in blind lead. I'll summarize a bit for future references: 1. cube extension for indexing lowered dimensionality data (2d in 3d) is broken. Queries effectively will degrade to full

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2016-09 is now closed

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > There was something like 60~70 patches still listed as active in the > CF app on Friday my time, so doing the vacuum cleanup has taken some > time by marking patches as returned with feedback, rejected (few) and >

[HACKERS] Commit fest 2016-09 is now closed

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, Per $subject, I would like to thank on behalf of Fabrizio everybody who has taken the time to send patches, review them and argue about them. This has been by experience the largest commit fest ever, with more than 200 entries in total. The delay in stabilizing 9.6 is likely the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 15 August 2016 at 12:17, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> >> > comments? >> >> This looks like a good feature

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2016-10-02 Thread Amit Langote
On 2016/10/03 13:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> I removed DEPENDENCY_IGNORE. Does the following look good or am I still >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2016-07-14 13:46:23 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:06:24 +0200 > Gilles Darold wrote: > >> Thank you very much for the patch review and please apologies this too >> long response delay. I was traveling since end of April and

Re: [HACKERS] sequence data type

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 9/10/16, Jim Nasby wrote: >> On 9/3/16 6:01 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: >>> I am curious as to the use cases for other possibilities. >> >> A hex or base64 type might be interesting,

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am sending fresh version of COPY RAW patch. Moved to next CF per this status. +++ b/src/interfaces/libpq/test/copy-raw-regress.pl @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +#!/usr/bin/perl -w + +use strict; I don't understand why this is

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I removed DEPENDENCY_IGNORE. Does the following look good or am I still >> missing something? > > You missed your commit message,

Re: [HACKERS] NOT EXIST for PREPARE

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > As an aside; most (all?) of our INEs apply to persistent schema objects. > Extending that to session objects is a conceptual leap. There is close to no activity here, so I marked the patch as returned with

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous and vectorized execution

2016-10-02 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
At Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:14:23 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Sorry for no response, but, the answer

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > v6 fixes recently-introduced bit-rot. Not as big as I thought, only 2k when both patches are combined... The patch without noapi in its name needs to be applied first, and after the patch with noapi can be applied. 60

Re: [HACKERS] sequences and pg_upgrade

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > 23.09.2016 21:06, Peter Eisentraut: >> >> Here is an updated patch set. Compared to the initial set, I have >> changed pg_dump's sorting priorities so that sequence data is always >> after table data.

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous and vectorized execution

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Sorry for no response, but, the answer is yes. We could be able > to avoid the problem by managing execution state for every > node. But it needs an additional flag in *State structs and > manipulating on

Re: [HACKERS] Aggregate Push Down - Performing aggregation on foreign server

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> >> This patch will need some changes to conversion_error_callback(). That >> function reports an error in case

Re: [HACKERS] Macro customizable hashtable / bitmapscan & aggregation perf

2016-10-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-10-02 02:59:04 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 10/02/2016 02:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > ... > > > > > > > I think a crucial part of the benchmarking will be identifying and > > > > > measuring corner cases, e.g. a lot of rows with the same key, etc. > > > > > Although that

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-tenancy with RLS

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The above changes are based on my understanding to the discussion occurred in > this mail. In case if I miss anything, please let me know, i will > correct the same. The patch series still apply. +

Re: [HACKERS] pg_sequence catalog

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-09-10 17:23:21 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> > >>> >>> I may be missing something here, but why would it contend on a lock, >>> as

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Logical decoding timeline following take II

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Attached is a rebased and updated logical decoding timeline following > patch for 10.0. Moved to next CF, nothing has happened since submission. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm happy to get rid of the LCM behavior, I just want to have some wiggle > room to be able to get it back if somebody really needs it. Er, actually no that's this thread for this CF entry:

Re: [HACKERS] Changed SRF in targetlist handling

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Comments? This thread has no activity for some time now and it is linked to this CF entry: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/759/ I am marking it as returned with feedback.. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Stopping logical replication protocol

2016-10-02 Thread Craig Ringer
On 3 Oct. 2016 10:15, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 26 September 2016 at 21:52, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote: > >>>You should rely on time I tests as little as possible.

Re: [HACKERS] Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-08-30 21:59:44 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> > While profiling some queries and looking at executor overhead, I realized >> > that

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

2016-10-02 Thread Craig Ringer
On 3 October 2016 at 10:10, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 6 September 2016 at 16:10, Daniel Verite wrote: >>> Craig Ringer wrote: >>> Updated patch

Re: [HACKERS] GiST penalty functions [PoC]

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > [blah] > > Practically, this algorithm cannot be implemented in current GiST API > (only if we provide non-penalty-based choose subtree function, > optional for GiST extension), but it certainly has scientific value.

Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > I think that this needs to be updated again for v8 of concurrent and v5 > of wal > > Adding the rebased patch over [1] + [2] > > [1]

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: speeding up GIN build with parallel workers

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If we flushed the tree to a tape instead, then we could perhaps use the > machinery that Peter's parallel B-tree patch is adding to tuplesort.c, to > merge the tapes. I'm not sure if that works out, but I think it's

Re: [HACKERS] Tracking wait event for latches

2016-10-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> The way that we're constructing the wait event ID that ultimately gets >> advertised in pg_stat_activity is a bit silly in this

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] Notice lock waits

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> What do you think of Jim Nasby's idea of making a settable level, rather >> just on or off? > > [reading the code] > That would be a

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/23/16 9:28 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> Document to what extent other relation types are supported (e.g., >>> > materialized views as source, view or foreign table or temp table as >>> > target).

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for restrictive RLS policies

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > >> > 4. It will be good if we have an example for this in section >> > "5.7. Row Security Policies" >> >> I haven't added one yet, but will plan to do so. >> > I think you are going to add this

Re: [HACKERS] Notice lock waits

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > What do you think of Jim Nasby's idea of making a settable level, rather > just on or off? [reading the code] That would be a better idea. The interface proposed, aka 2 GUCs doing basically the same thing is quite

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Amul Sul wrote: > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer And moved to next CF with same status. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > Ok, I'll write it in a few days. Marked as returned with feedback per last emails exchanged. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 23/09/2016 21:10, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> On 9/20/16 4:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: No, I'm assuming that the

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2016-09-27 5:53 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : >> >> [...] >> ... so please delete that text. I thought I'd tested it but the state >> of my tests dir says I just got distracted by another task at

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I agree, but we need to cope with above two problems. I have marked the patch as returned with feedback per the last output Ashutosh has provided. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Stopping logical replication protocol

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 26 September 2016 at 21:52, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote: >>>You should rely on time I tests as little as possible. Some of the test >>> hosts are VERY slow. If possible something deterministic

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python adding support for multi-dimensional arrays

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/29/16 1:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >> Jim, I was confused, but you agreed with me. Were you also confused, or >> am I missing something? > > > I was confused by inputs: I have marked the patch as returned

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 September 2016 at 16:10, Daniel Verite wrote: >> Craig Ringer wrote: >> >>> Updated patch attached. >> >> Please find attached a couple fixes for typos I've came across in >> the

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.

2016-10-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Yeah, I don't have a good solution for this problem so far. > We might need to improve group locking mechanism for the updating > operation or came up with another approach to resolve this problem. > For example, one

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/02/2016 07:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: It occurs to me that a back-patchable workaround for this would be to make get_loadable_libraries sort the library names in order by length (and I guess we might as well sort same-length names alphabetically). This would for example guarantee

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for lazy_scan_heap

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Some initial comments on optimize_lazy_scan_heap_v2.patch. Seems worth pursuing. Marking as returned with feedback because of lack of activity and some basic reviews sent. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > 0001_track_root_lp_v4.patch: This patch uses a free t_infomask2 bit to track > latest tuple in an update chain. The t_ctid.ip_posid is used to track the > root line pointer of the update chain. We do this only in

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2016-10-02 12:40 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Greg Stark wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Partial sort

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Korotkov >> wrote: >> > Hmm... I'm not completely agree with that.

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> IMV the process is to post a patch to this list to certify that it >> is yours to contribute and free of IP encumbrances that would >> prevent us

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v19)

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > This patch set is in pretty good shape, the only problem is that it's so big > that no-one seems to have the time or courage to do the final touches and > commit it. Did you see my suggestions about simplifying its SQL

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > One more comment about GenSlab, particularly about unpredictability of the > repalloc() behavior. It works for "large" chunks allocated in the AllocSet > part, and mostly does not work for "small" chunks

Re: [HACKERS] GiST support for UUIDs

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Paul A Jungwirth wrote: > This is my first patch, so my apologies if anything is missing. I went > the guidelines and I think I have everything covered. :-) I am moving this patch to next CF, removing Julien Rouhaud and Teodor

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade documentation improvement patch

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Yuri Niyazov wrote: > Should I update the documentation patch to instruct the use of > pg_controldata exclusively? I guess so. Marked as returned with feedback because the thread has died. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] "Re: Question about grant create on database and pg_dump/pg_dumpall

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The fundamental thing we have to do in order to move forward on this is > to rethink what's the division of labor between pg_dump and pg_dumpall. > I find the patch as presented quite unacceptable because it's made no >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.

2016-10-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. >> >> Add omitted names for some function parameters. >> Fix some minor grammatical issues. > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] add option to pg_dumpall to exclude tables from the dump

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Gerdan Rezende dos Santos > wrote: >> After review, I realized that there is a call to the function: >> doShellQuoting (pgdumpopts, OPTARG), which no longer seems to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: > But backward compatibility is more > important thing, so I now assume, that user tries to connect just one > node, and this node is read only, user knows what he is doing. Moved this patch to next CF. (Note that I am in

Re: [HACKERS] Forbid use of LF and CR characters in database and role names

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > And seeing nothing happening here, I still don't know what to do with > this patch. Thoughts? If we are going to do nothing I would suggest to > just remove the comment in string_utils.c saying that such LF and

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.

2016-10-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. > > Add omitted names for some function parameters. > Fix some minor grammatical issues. Why do you keep insisting on changing case where I've written "which" to instead

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > It occurs to me that a back-patchable workaround for this would be to > make get_loadable_libraries sort the library names in order by length > (and I guess we might as well sort same-length names alphabetically). > This would for example guarantee that hstore_plpython is probed after >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-10-02 17:59:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> So now I'm thinking you're right, it'd be better to have some solution >> whereby dfmgr.c knows about cross-module dependencies and loads the >> dependencies first. Not sure how to approach that. The

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-10-02 17:59:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I've found that the Linux '-l:hstore.so' solution works on HPUX as well, > at least to the extent of being able to run LOAD. However, it doesn't > seem to be possible to make it work on macOS, which has a hard distinction > between "loadable

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > So it doesn't seem that we've broken anything since 9.5 --- it didn't > work before either. The seeming successes may have been due to chance, > i.e. pg_upgrade probing the libraries in an order that happened to work. > I see no evidence that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/02/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> [ digs more deeply ... ] Oh, weird: it looks like this succeeded in >> every case except 9.6->HEAD upgrade. Did we break something recently? > Yeah, my latest version of the test module (soon to hit

[HACKERS] Non-empty default log_line_prefix

2016-10-02 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Tom Lane 2016-09-29 <18642.1475159...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > Possibly the longer version could be added as an example in the > > documentation. > > I suspect that simply having a nonempty default in the first place > is going to do more to raise peoples' awareness than anything we > could do in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/02/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: The biggest issue is this: the upgrade fails completely on ltree-plpython and hstore-plpython, presumably because these modules rely on the plpython module being loaded first. pg_upgrade rather

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/02/2016 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Because pg_dump with --binary-upgrade neglects to emit >> ALTER EXTENSION bloom ADD ACCESS METHOD bloom; >> which it would need to do in order to make this work right. The other >> small problem is that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/02/2016 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: So then why are the pre-upgrade and post-upgrade dumps different? Because pg_dump with --binary-upgrade neglects to emit ALTER EXTENSION bloom ADD ACCESS METHOD bloom; That's what I suspected. which it would need to do in order to make this work

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/02/2016 09:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> It looks like we have some work to do to teach pg_dump about handling access >>> methods in extensions. This doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > I suspect the explanation is that macOS's dynamic linker is smart enough > to pull in plpython when one of those modules is LOAD'ed. The ideal fix > would be to make that happen on all platforms. I'm not actually sure > why it doesn't already; surely every dynamic linker in existence

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > The biggest issue is this: the upgrade fails completely on > ltree-plpython and hstore-plpython, presumably because these modules > rely on the plpython module being loaded first. pg_upgrade rather > simple-mindedly calls LOAD on the object library

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

2016-10-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2016-10-02 12:40 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> For one thing, we can stop shipping a totally broken feature in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/02/2016 09:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: It looks like we have some work to do to teach pg_dump about handling access methods in extensions. This doesn't look quite as bad as the first issue, but it's a pity

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing docs about GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > I performed basic test with patch, > > a) patch get applied cleanly on latest source, > b) able to build documentation cleanly. > > Marking this as ready for committer. Oops, incorrect patch... I am moving it to

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvement to fdwhandler.sgml

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Here is a small patch to do s/for/For/ to two section titles in > fdwhandlers.sgml, for consistency. I am grepping 54 places where "for" is used in a , and none of them use an upper case for its first letter. I

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK, so I have done a review of this patch keeping that in mind as > that's the consensus. I am still getting familiar with the code... Returned with feedback for now. This just needs polishing so feel free to

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Let's remove it and move on then. By looking again at this thread and > particularly > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160926190618.gh5...@tamriel.snowman.net > (thanks Stephen for the summary) that's

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby writes: >> On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+ >>> altogether. I stand by that. People who are used to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > It looks like we have some work to do to teach pg_dump about handling access > methods in extensions. This doesn't look quite as bad as the first issue, > but it's a pity 9.6 escaped into the wild with this issue.

Re: [HACKERS] Forbid use of LF and CR characters in database and role names

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> I discourage documenting LF/CR restrictions. For the epsilon of readers who >> would benefit from this knowledge, the error message

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2016/09/26 20:27, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> >> Hello Amit, >> I am marking the pgbench-into-5.patch [1] as "Ready for Committer" as I have no further comments at the moment. >>> >>> Wait... Heikki's

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Attached version changes: > - removes C operators not present in psql > - document operators one per line Moved to next CF with same status: "Ready for committer". -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

[HACKERS] pg_upgade vs config

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I'm working on updating and making production ready my experimental cross version pg_upgrade testing module for the buildfarm. A couple of things have emerged that are of concern. This module does a much more complete test that our normal test for pg_upgrade, which only checks upgrading the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: > Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> A few minor comments regarding the patch: >> >> 1) CopyStartSend seems pretty pointless - It only has one function call >> in it, and is called on exactly one place (and all other

Re: [HACKERS] [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
> So, if I understand correctly, then we can mark the version posted by > you upthread [1] which includes a test along with Kyotaro's fix can be > marked as Ready for committer. If so, then please change the status > of patch accordingly. Patch moved to next CF 2016-11, still with status "ready

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Add putenv support for msvcrt from Visual Studio 2013

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK, let's get to the next step of the game and get a committer to look > at this patch. Moved to next CF. It would be good to get a committer on this one. We have come on a conclusion on what to do. Actually,

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >>> The attached patch adds the >>> dependencies from create_foreignscan_plan() which is called for any >>> foreign access. I have also added testcases to test the functionality. >>> Let me know your

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:59:55 +0900, Michael Paquier > wrote in > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

2016-10-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/01/2016 02:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 09/30/2016 12:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Seems to be some additional prep work needed somewhere ... No upgrade_install_root at /home/bfarm/bf-scripts/build-farm-4.17/PGBuild/Modules/TestUpgradeXversion.pm

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> For one thing, we can stop shipping a totally broken feature in release >> after release > > For what it's worth I'm for any patch that can accomplish

Re: [HACKERS] On conflict update & hint bits

2016-10-02 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It also looks like the DO NOTHING variant is similarly affected, even > when the isolation level is READ COMMITTED.:-( Actually, the DO NOTHING variant is also only affected in isolation levels greater than READ