At Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:31:12 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
> > On 26/04/17 01:01, Fujii Masao wrote:
> However this is overkill for small gain and false wakeup of the
> launcher is not so harmful (probably we can live with th
Hi,
Attached patch for $subject.
s/accomodate/accommodate/
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
fix_typo_in_subscriptioncmd_c.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 26/04/17 01:01, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> At Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:18:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote in
>>>
>> BEGIN;
>> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION hoge_su
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>> I suspect it could be done as of now, but I'm a little worried that it
>>> might create grammar conflicts in the future as we extend the syntax
>>> further. If we use CREATE TABLE
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/24/17 22:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>>> backported to 9.6 as well
Thanks for the reply.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Abbas Butt writes:
> > What is happening for me is that PG_RE_THROW takes me to PG_TRY in the
> same
> > function and then PG_TRY jumps to PG_CATCH where PG_RE_THROW again jumps
> to
> > PG_TRY in the same function resulti
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:38:55AM +0530, Rafia Sabih wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Andres Freund writes:
>> >> On 2017-04-24 23:37:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >>> I remember seeing those and those ar
On 26/04/17 01:01, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> At Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:18:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote in
> BEGIN;
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION hoge_sub ENABLE;
> PREPARE TRANSACTION 'g';
> BEGIN;
> SELECT 1;
Hi,
Thanks for testing.
On 2017/04/25 19:03, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> Thanks for looking into it. I have applied fixes and checked for triggers.
> I could see difference in behaviour of statement triggers for INSERT and
> UPDATE, for insert only root partition triggers are getting fired but
On 2017/04/26 3:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> The reason it doesn't work is that we do not allocate ResultRelInfos for
>> partitioned tables (not even for the root partitioned table in the
>> update/delete cases), because the current implementat
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let
> alone RFC links.
>
> Second, there seems to be some confusion over what SCRAM-SHA-256 gives
> us over MD5. I think there are a few benefits:
>
> o packets cannot be rep
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:17:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-25 22:13:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jeli
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches.
> >
> > When you say "logical decoding", you d
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 25 April 2017 at 16:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> I can't see any reason now why overwriteOK should exist at all. I'm
>>> guessing that the whole "overwriteOK" idea was an incorrect response
>>> to xids appearing where the
On 2017-04-25 22:13:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timelin
On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches.
>
> When you say "logical decoding", you don't mean contrib/test_decoding?
No. test_decoding is just an example o
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let
> > alone RFC links.
> >
> > Second, there seems to be some confusion over what SCRAM-SHA-256 gives
> >
Hi,
On 2017/04/25 20:07, 高增琦 wrote:
>
> 2017-04-25 15:07 GMT+08:00 Amit Langote :
>
>> $SUBJECT, if the table has, say, 2000 partitions.
>>
>> The main reason seems to be that RelationBuildPartitionDesc() will be
>> called that many times within the same transaction, which perhaps we
>> cannot d
On 2017/04/25 20:55, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> $SUBJECT, if the table has, say, 2000 partitions.
>>
>> The main reason seems to be that RelationBuildPartitionDesc() will be
>> called that many times within the same transaction, which perhaps
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:02:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:39:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>
> >> Add SCRAM-SHA-256
> >> support for password negotiation and storage (Michael
> >> Paquier, Heikk
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/21/17 00:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm. I have been actually looking at this solution and I am having
>> doubts regarding its robustness. In short this would need to be
>> roughly a two-step process:
>> - In PostmasterStateMachine
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a
> database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection).
>
> Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches.
When you say "logic
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/20/17 11:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> We have a possible solution but need to work out a patch. Let's say
>> next check-in on Monday.
>
> Update: We have a patch that looks promising, but we haven't made much
> progress in reviewin
From: 'Bruce Momjian' [mailto:br...@momjian.us]
> > I forgot to point out one thing.
> >
> > Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas)
> > libpq will connect with the first responsive host name.
> >
> > According to the following CF entry and my memory,
> >
> > https://c
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:33AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> Hello, Bruce
>
> I forgot to point out one thing.
>
> Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas)
> libpq will connect with the first responsive host name.
>
> According to the following CF entry a
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin
> Knizhnik
> Well, first of all I want to share results I already get: pgbench with default
> parameters, scale 10 and one connection:
>
> So autoprepare is as efficient as explicit prep
On 2017-04-26 08:41:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'd very much like to reduce the amount of magic global juggling done
> by the walsender, unify the XLogRead paths, unify the timeline
> following logic for physical walsenders, logical walsenders and
> logical decoding on normal backends, allow n
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yeah, there is that. But we simply cannot change the signature of an
> existing function. It would not only produce compile-time errors when
> building old applications, which would arguably be a good thing, but it
> would also cause ol
On 26 April 2017 at 02:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> For
> logical rep we'd alternatively add more complexity because we'd need
> both replication and non-replication connections (to stream changes, to
> copy tables, to query config), which'd also complicate administration
> because users & hba conf
On 26 April 2017 at 08:30, Huong Dangminh wrote:
> Default for hot_standby parameter should be "on" from PostgreSQL 10?
>
> In PostgreSQL 10, -w option is default for [pg_ctl start].
> So in order to start standby we have to setting hot_standby to "on" or
> start standby with -W option.
Yeah. Th
Hi,
Default for hot_standby parameter should be "on" from PostgreSQL 10?
In PostgreSQL 10, -w option is default for [pg_ctl start].
So in order to start standby we have to setting hot_standby to "on" or
start standby with -W option.
Change hot_standby to "on" will fix this inconvenience.
wal_
Hello, Bruce
I forgot to point out one thing.
Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas)
libpq will connect with the first responsive host name.
According to the following CF entry and my memory,
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/12/879/
Authors
mithun cy (mithun.c
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:39:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Add SCRAM-SHA-256
>> support for password negotiation and storage (Michael
>> Paquier, Heikki Linnakangas)
>>
>>
>> This proves better security than the existing 'md5'
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:45 AM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> The first write to a page after a checkpoint is always recorded in the WAL
> as a full page write. Every WAL file since the checkpoint must also be
> copied to the backed up system. The replay of those WAL files is what
> brings the rem
Hi hackers,
My colleague Prabhat Sahu reported off list that transition tables
don't work for views. I probably should have thought about that when
I fixed something similar for partitioned tables, and after some
experimentation I see that this is also broken for foreign tables.
For foreign tabl
via Newton Mail
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=9.4.52&pv=10.11.6&source=email_footer_2]
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Doug Doole wrote: It's
not always that simple, at least in postgres, unless you disregard
search_path. Consider e.g. cases like
CREATE SCHEMA a;
CREATE SCHEMA b
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:18:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> >> BEGIN;
>> >> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION hoge_sub ENABLE;
>> >> PREPARE TRANSACTION 'g';
>> >> BEGIN;
>> >> SELECT 1;
>> >> COMMIT; -- wake up the launcher at this
On 4/25/17, 6:34 PM, "pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org on behalf of Andres
Freund"
wrote:
It's not always that simple, at least in postgres, unless you disregard
search_path. Consider e.g. cases like
CREATE SCHEMA a;
CREATE SCHEMA b;
CREATE TABLE a.foobar(somecol int);
>
> (FWIW, on this list we don't do top-quotes)
>
I know. Forgot and just did "reply all". My bad.
It's not always that simple, at least in postgres, unless you disregard
> search_path. Consider e.g. cases like
>
> CREATE SCHEMA a;
> CREATE SCHEMA b;
> CREATE TABLE a.foobar(somecol int);
> SET s
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> I don't have an exploit yet. What concerns me is attackers' access to
> what is in essence the ability to poke at RULEs when they only have
> privileges to read.
>
If they want to see how it works they can read the source code. In terms
o
Hi,
(FWIW, on this list we don't do top-quotes)
On 2017-04-25 22:21:22 +, Doug Doole wrote:
> Plan invalidation was no different than for any SQL statement. DB2 keeps a
> list of the objects the statement depends on. If any of the objects changes
> in an incompatible way the plan is invalidat
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:35:21PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 07:54 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:11:09PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > On 24.04.2017 21:43, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2017-04-24 11:46:02 +0300, Kons
Plan invalidation was no different than for any SQL statement. DB2 keeps a
list of the objects the statement depends on. If any of the objects changes
in an incompatible way the plan is invalidated and kicked out of the cache.
I suspect what is more interesting is plan lookup. DB2 has something ca
On 2017-04-25 23:24:40 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 25/04/17 17:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund writes:
> >>> I've for a while suspected that the separation & duplication of
> >>> infrastructure between walsenders and normal backe
On 2017-04-25 21:11:08 +, Doug Doole wrote:
> When I did this in DB2, I didn't use the parser - it was too expensive. I
> just tokenized the statement and used some simple rules to bypass the
> invalid cases. For example, if I saw the tokens "ORDER" and "BY" then I'd
> disallow replacement repl
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 25/04/17 17:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > OTOH, I believe that logical replication is still useful even without
> > initial table sync feature. So reverting the table sync patch seems
> >
On 25/04/17 17:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> I've for a while suspected that the separation & duplication of
>>> infrastructure between walsenders and normal backends isn't nice.
>>
>> I think we should consider a more radi
When I did this in DB2, I didn't use the parser - it was too expensive. I
just tokenized the statement and used some simple rules to bypass the
invalid cases. For example, if I saw the tokens "ORDER" and "BY" then I'd
disallow replacement replacement until I hit the end of the current
subquery or s
On 2017-04-25 21:22:44 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 April 2017 at 19:59, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I don't think that's generally true.
>
> If you think that, from a risk perspective it is enough for me to
> continue to investigate and I have been doing that.
I'm not sure it's worth diggi
On 04/25/2017 11:40 PM, Serge Rielau wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
SELECT ‘hello’::CHAR(10) || ‘World’, 5 + 6;
You can substitute ‘hello’, ‘World’, 5, and 6. But not 10.
I am substituting only string literals. So the quer
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
>>
>> SELECT ‘hello’::CHAR(10) || ‘World’, 5 + 6;
>>
>> You can substitute ‘hello’, ‘World’, 5, and 6. But not 10.
>
> I am substituting only string literals. So the query above will be
> transformed to
>
> SELECT $1::CHAR(10) ||
On 04/25/2017 08:09 PM, Serge Rielau wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
On 25.04.2017 19:12, Serge Rielau wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
Another problem is caused b
On 04/25/2017 07:54 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:11:09PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 24.04.2017 21:43, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2017-04-24 11:46:02 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
So what I am thinking now is implicit query caching. If the same query with
d
On 24 April 2017 at 19:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think that's generally true.
If you think that, from a risk perspective it is enough for me to
continue to investigate and I have been doing that.
As I said before I thought I had found a problem.
I'm suggesting we take the approach tha
On 25 April 2017 at 16:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> I can't see any reason now why overwriteOK should exist at all. I'm
>> guessing that the whole "overwriteOK" idea was an incorrect response
>> to xids appearing where they shouldn't have done because of the
>> mistake you just co
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >> A) Have PQencryptPassword() return an md5 hash.
> >>
> >> B) Have PQencryptPassword() return a SCRAM verifier
> >>
> >> C) Have PQencryptPassword() retur
On 22/04/17 22:09, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 21/04/17 16:31, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 21/04/17 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 4/21/17 10:11, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 21/04/17 16:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/20/17 14:29, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> +/* Find unused
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:17:29PM -0400, Tels wrote:
> > I think all that was missing was "time":
> >
> > By default planning and execution time is display by
> > EXPLAIN ANALYZE and not display in other cases.
> > The new EXPLAIN option SUMMARY allows
> > explicit
On 4/20/17 15:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/19/17 23:02, 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. Refer to the policy on open item ownersh
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:12:05PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 25/04/17 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a
> >> database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection).
> >
> > Uh, why would that be impor
On 4/20/17 11:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/19/17 23:04, 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. Refer to the policy on open item ownersh
On Tue, April 25, 2017 1:21 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Tels wrote:
>> Moin,
>>
>> On Mon, April 24, 2017 9:31 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes.
>> They
>> > are current as of two days ago, and
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> The reason it doesn't work is that we do not allocate ResultRelInfos for
> partitioned tables (not even for the root partitioned table in the
> update/delete cases), because the current implementation assumes they are
> not required. That's f
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:37:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-04-25 13:11:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > I don't think this warrants inclusion in the release notes for reasons
>> > already discussed. The vacuum truncation op
On 4/6/17 08:24, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> The attached patch wakes up launcher when a subscription is
> enabled. This fails when a subscription is enabled immedaitely
> after disabling but it won't be a matter.
committed, thanks
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Post
On 2017-04-25 10:34:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I've for a while suspected that the separation & duplication of
> > infrastructure between walsenders and normal backends isn't nice.
>
> I think we should consider a more radical solution: trying to put
> general SQL query
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> A) Have PQencryptPassword() return an md5 hash.
>>
>> B) Have PQencryptPassword() return a SCRAM verifier
>>
>> C) Have PQencryptPassword() return a SCRAM verifier if connected to a v10
>> server, and an md5 ha
On 4/21/17 00:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm. I have been actually looking at this solution and I am having
> doubts regarding its robustness. In short this would need to be
> roughly a two-step process:
> - In PostmasterStateMachine(), SIGUSR2 is sent to the checkpoint to
> make it call Shutdown
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> algorithm as argument. But there are open decisions on what the old
> PQencryptPassword() function should do, and also what the new function
> should do by default, if you don't specify an algorithm:
>
> A) Have PQencryptPassword() retu
On 25/04/17 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a
>> database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection).
>
> Uh, why would that be important to users?
Because every tool that uses logical decoding to capture c
Hi,
On 2017-04-25 13:39:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Understood, but the question is whether the release notes are the right
> place to educate users of something that will no longer be a problem.
I think it's the *prime* place for it. It obviously doesn't matter if
you're not affected by $p
I feel it's getting a bit late for reworkings of this extent, also
considering the marginal nature of the problem we are trying to fix. My
patch from April 18 is very localized and gets the job done.
I think this is still a good direction to investigate, but if we have to
extend the hash table AP
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>> I suspect it could be done as of now, but I'm a little worried that it
>> might create grammar conflicts in the future as we extend the syntax
>> further. If we use CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF .. DEFAULT, then the
>> word DEFAULT appears
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:44:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:00:52AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> at this point, you can see, we've squarely left O(N) country, and
> >> entered the vast O(N^2) waste.
>
> > OK, I got it now. :-) Here is the
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:37:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-25 13:11:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I don't think this warrants inclusion in the release notes for reasons
> > already discussed. The vacuum truncation operation is a rare one and
> > an implementation detail.
>
>
On 4/21/17 09:59, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Rereading the code again, it's actually not bug as we update the rstate
> to what syncworker says, but it's obviously confusing so probably still
> worth to commit that.
We don't have the syncworker->relmutex at that point, so it's probably
better to read th
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:00:52AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> at this point, you can see, we've squarely left O(N) country, and
>> entered the vast O(N^2) waste.
> OK, I got it now. :-) Here is the new item:
> Improve table creation speed in sessions that ref
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:31:50PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >> Author: Álvaro Herrera, loosely based on a submission by Claudio Freire
> >> Discussion:
> >> https://postgr.es/m/cagtbqpa6nfgo_6g_y_7zqx8l9gchdsqkydo1tguh791z6py...@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > I don't think this warrants inclu
On 2017-04-25 13:11:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > The truncate scan has been measured to be five times faster than without
> > this patch (that was on a slow disk, but it shouldn't hurt on fast
> > disks.)
> >
> >
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> > I think it has been pretty common to accumulate a lot of such changes
>> > into generic entries like, say, "speedups for hash joins". More detail
>> > than that simply isn'
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:00:52AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> at this point, you can see, we've squarely left O(N) country, and
> entered the vast O(N^2) waste.
>
> 10 109ms
> 10 100 22ms
> 10 1000162ms
> 10 1 1497ms
> 10
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Tels wrote:
> Moin,
>
> On Mon, April 24, 2017 9:31 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They
> > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please
> > give me any feedback you
Hello Robert,
1. This patch makes assorted cosmetic and non-cosmetic changes to
pgbench.c. That is not expected for a testing patch.
Indeed, cosmetic changes should be avoided.
If those changes need to be made because they are bug fixes or whatever,
Yep, this is the case, minor bugs, plus
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Interesting. Seems like the question is really what we mean by "ONLY"
> here. For my 2c, at least, if we can check that all of the partitions
> already have the constraint enforced, such that the only thing we're
> changing is the partitio
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > I think it has been pretty common to accumulate a lot of such changes
> > into generic entries like, say, "speedups for hash joins". More detail
> > than that simply isn't useful to end users; and as a rule, our release
> > notes
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote: On 25.04.2017 19:12, Serge Rielau wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru
[k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru] > wrote: Another problem is caused by using integer
literals in context where parameters
Moin,
On Mon, April 24, 2017 9:31 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They
> are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please
> give me any feedback you have.
Thank you! Here is one thing I noticed:
"By default plann
On 2017-04-25 10:10:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 08:52:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-04-24 23:45:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Oh, I completely agree with accumulating related changes, and that
> > code-level details aren't useful. I think we skipped them
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:11:09PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 24.04.2017 21:43, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2017-04-24 11:46:02 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > So what I am thinking now is implicit query caching. If the same query
> > > with
> > > different literal
On 25.04.2017 19:12, Serge Rielau wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
Another problem is caused by using integer literals in context where
parameters can not be used, for example "order by 1”.
You will also need to deal with modif
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Rui Hai Jiang wrote:
> When pg_basebackup is launched, a checkpoint is created first, then all
> files are transferred to the pg_basebackup client. Is it possible that a
> data page(say page-N) in a data file is changed after the checkpoint and
> before the pg_b
Hello Nikolay,
- I agree to add a generic command TestLib & a wrapper in PostgresNode,
instead of having pgbench specific things in the later, then call
them from pgbench test script.
- I still think that moving the pgbench scripts inside the test script
is a bad idea (tm).
My sum up
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2017-04-24 23:37:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I remember seeing those and those are normally details I do not put in
>>> the release notes as there isn't a clear user experience change except
>>> "Postgres is fa
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I wonder why the restriction is there, which is probably part of the
> > reason that I'm thinking of phrasing the documentation that way.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of round to-its, is th
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
> Another problem is caused by using integer literals in context where
> parameters can not be used, for example "order by 1”.
You will also need to deal with modifiers in types such as VARCHAR(10). Not
sure if there are specific func
Hello,
Nope. TestLib does not know about PostgresNode, the idea is rather that
PostgresNode knows and wraps around TestLib when needed.
Actually as I look at this part, I feeling an urge to rewrite this code, and
change it so, that all command_like calls were called in a context of certain
no
Hello,
I'm checking how the pg_basebackup works and I got a question(maybe there are
no such issues):
When pg_basebackup is launched, a checkpoint is created first, then all files
are transferred to the pg_basebackup client. Is it possible that a data
page(say page-N) in a data file is change
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:22:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> >> Please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status
>> >> update
>> >> within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your
>> >> s
=?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Zara?= writes:
>> Le 25 avr. 2017 à 01:47, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> It looks like coypu is going to need manual intervention (ie, kill -9
>> on the leftover postmaster) to get unwedged :-(. That's particularly
>> disturbing because it implies that ServerLoop isn't iterating at a
Hello,
Did you get a chance to take a look into the issue?
Please consider it with high priority. We will be awaiting your inputs.
Regards,
Sandhya
_
From: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:36 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@po
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
