Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 16 April 2017 07:14:21 EEST, Noah Misch wrote: >This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. >Kindly send >a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent >status >update. I will pick this up on Tuesday. The consensus seems

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Maybe we need to rethink the division of labor between parallel.c > and execParallel.c, but that would depend on somebody explaining > what the difference is in the first place. parallel.c handles general concerns related to

Re: [HACKERS] Re: extended stats not friendly towards ANALYZE with subset of columns

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:58:54AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Noah Misch wrote: > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Álvaro, > > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > > item. > > I'll commit a fix for this problem no

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

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > >> (2) > > > >> There will be

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:33:27AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:10:23AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 04/11/2017 04:52 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >On 4/10/17 04:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > >>One thing to consider is that we just made the decision that

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

I wrote: > If we want to go any further back with 1.1 support, we have a range > of options: > 1. Back-patch that patch, probably also including the followup adjustments > in 86029b31e and 36a3be654. > 2. Add #if's to use 31cf1a1a4's coding with OpenSSL >= 1.1, while keeping >the older code

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

Andreas Karlsson writes: > On 09/15/2016 05:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I suppose some interested party could grab the patch that Heikki >> committed to the new branches and produce a back-patch that can be >> applied to the older branches. > Here is the result of

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL support in our back branches

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 18:04:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5 >> branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that >> it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later. The failures are >>

[HACKERS] Failed recovery with new faster 2PC code

After this commit, I get crash recovery failures when using prepared transactions. commit 728bd991c3c4389fb39c45dcb0fe57e4a1dccd71 Author: Simon Riggs Date: Tue Apr 4 15:56:56 2017 -0400 Speedup 2PC recovery by skipping two phase state files in normal path After

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL support in our back branches

On 2017-04-15 18:04:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5 > branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that > it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later. The failures are > unsurprising given that commit 593d4e47d wasn't

[HACKERS] OpenSSL support in our back branches

I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5 branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later. The failures are unsurprising given that commit 593d4e47d wasn't back-patched further than 9.5, but I wonder whether it

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:30:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Concretely, I propose the attached patch. We'd have to put it into > >> all supported branches, since culicidae is showing intermittent > >> "could not

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder whether we could work around that by just destroying the created >> process and trying again if we get a collision. It'd be a tad >> inefficient, but hopefully collisions wouldn't happen often

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Concretely, I propose the attached patch. We'd have to put it into >> all supported branches, since culicidae is showing intermittent >> "could not reattach to shared memory" failures in all the

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process > >> before it executes take care of that? > > > Because of ASLR of the main

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process >> before it executes take care of that? > Because of ASLR of the main executable (i.e. something like PIE). Not following. Are you

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > That seems quite reasonable. I'm afraid we're going to have to figure > > out something similar, but more robust, for windows soon-ish :/ > > Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > That seems quite reasonable. I'm afraid we're going to have to figure > out something similar, but more robust, for windows soon-ish :/ Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process before it executes take care of that? > As a

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I think what may be the most effective way to proceed is to provide > > a way to force the shmem segment to be mapped at a chosen address. > > It looks like, at least on x86_64 Linux, mapping shmem at > > 0x7E00 would work

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

I wrote: > I think what may be the most effective way to proceed is to provide > a way to force the shmem segment to be mapped at a chosen address. > It looks like, at least on x86_64 Linux, mapping shmem at > 0x7E00 would work reliably. > Since we only care about this for testing

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

On 04/15/2017 02:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> Sure. Just means putting this code a bit later in the file. "make check" >> is only one initdb, so it won't cost much. I'm still inclined to force a >> TAP test for initdb with no TZ set, though.

Re: [HACKERS] PANIC in pg_commit_ts slru after crashes

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Since all those offsets fall on a page boundary, my guess is that we're > somehow failing to handle a new page correctly. > > Looking at the patch itself, my feeling is that the following code > in

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 15/04/17 06:01, Tom Lane wrote: >> I've had more than enough of seeing buildfarm failures from culicidae, >> so I whacked this around until I was happy with it and pushed it. >> Further adjustments welcome of course. > Thanks. Seems like

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in htup_details.h

Amit Kapila writes: > Attached patch to fix $SUBJECT. Pushed, thanks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Sure. Just means putting this code a bit later in the file. "make check" > is only one initdb, so it won't cost much. I'm still inclined to force a > TAP test for initdb with no TZ set, though. I'd like that to be an additional tweak for

Re: [HACKERS] Self-signed certificate instructions

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > The instructions on how to create a self-signed certificate in s 18.9.3 > > of the docs seem unduly cumbersome. > > Yeah, I noticed that they seemed unnecessarily

Re: [HACKERS] Self-signed certificate instructions

Andrew Dunstan writes: > The instructions on how to create a self-signed certificate in s 18.9.3 > of the docs seem unduly cumbersome. Yeah, I noticed that they seemed unnecessarily manual. +1 for simplifying. regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On April 14, 2017 9:42:41 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2017-04-15 04:31:21.657 GMT [16792] FATAL: could not reattach to >> shared memory (key=6280001, addr=0x7f692fece000): Invalid argument >> >> Presumably, this is the same issue

[HACKERS] Extracting GiST index structure stats?

Hi all, I am interested in getting simple statistics of a GiST index structure. For example, height of tree. It seems that the other indexes have a metapage for this. I am still unsure but it looks to me like the GiST access method internal does not work exactly in this way so it is a bit

Re: [HACKERS] Minor typo in partition.c

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> I waited quite a while for you to review Amit's patches on that >> thread, but as you never did, I eventually picked it up. > > Sorry about that, I guess I was concentrating on things listed on the > CF app at that

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 14 April 2017 at 20:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Yeah, I think if you're concerned about MITM then you would also be > concerned about MITM siphoning off your data. So you should be using > TLS and then you don't need channel binding. No. You can use TLS

Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> If we're talking about making things easier to understand, wouldn't a >> random user rather know what a WAL "location" is instead of a WAL "LSN"? > > I wouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

On 04/15/2017 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> What I had in mind was the attached plus roughly this in the buildfarm >> client: >> $ENV{TZ} ||= 'US/Eastern'; >> or whatever zone we choose to use. > How about letting the first "make

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

Andrew Dunstan writes: > What I had in mind was the attached plus roughly this in the buildfarm > client: > $ENV{TZ} ||= 'US/Eastern'; > or whatever zone we choose to use. How about letting the first "make check" run with whatever is in the environment, and

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

On 04/15/2017 11:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Alternatively, we could have an initdb TAP test that explicitly removed >> the environment setting so we'd get coverage of select_default_timezone, >> and have the buildfarm set TZ to something if it's not already set. >

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Alternatively, we could have an initdb TAP test that explicitly removed > the environment setting so we'd get coverage of select_default_timezone, > and have the buildfarm set TZ to something if it's not already set. What about having an initdb option that runs

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] Small issue in online devel documentation build

Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 09:38:32PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > > On 4/14/17 14:45, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Attached is a patch that can be applied to pgweb

[HACKERS] Comment typo in xlogutils.c

Hi, Attached patch for $subject. s/apruptly/abruptly Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center fix_typo_in_xlogutils_c.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] Self-signed certificate instructions

On 04/15/2017 09:58 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > The instructions on how to create a self-signed certificate in s 18.9.3 > of the docs seem unduly cumbersome. AFAICT we could replace all the > commands (except the chmod) with something like this: > > |openssl req -new-x509 -days 365-nodes \

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm

On 15/04/17 06:01, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> So this is what I came up with on plane. Generalized the loading >> functionality into load_library_function which that can load either >> known postgres functions or call load_external_function. > > I've

[HACKERS] Typo in htup_details.h

Attached patch to fix $SUBJECT. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com typo_htup_details.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

[HACKERS] Self-signed certificate instructions

The instructions on how to create a self-signed certificate in s 18.9.3 of the docs seem unduly cumbersome. AFAICT we could replace all the commands (except the chmod) with something like this: |openssl req -new-x509 -days 365-nodes \ -text -outserver.crt\ -keyout server.key\ -subj

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

On 04/15/2017 12:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andreas Karlsson writes: >> Looked some at this and what take time now for me seems to mainly be >> these four things (out of a total runtime of 560 ms). >> 1. setup_conversion:140 ms >> 2. select_default_timezone: 90 ms >>

Re: [HACKERS] Minor typo in partition.c

On 14 April 2017 at 09:18, Amit Langote wrote: >> Where shall I mention BRIN in that chapter? > > Maybe just append a new right below where id="ddl-partitioning-constraint-exclusion"> ends? > > I had included both BRIN and UNION ALL views under a sub-section

Re: [HACKERS] Minor typo in partition.c

On 14 April 2017 at 14:02, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Oh, just looks very different to what we discussed, so I presumed more >> changes were coming. > > I waited quite a while for you to review Amit's