Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> After your fix, now tupleid is invalid which is expected, but seems >> like we need to do something more. As per the comments seems like it

Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate usage of tablespace location?

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > If we can accept multiple server versions share a tablespace > directory, pg_basebackup also can allow that situation. The > attached patch does that. Similary to the server code, it > correctly fails if

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_basebackup and 'shared' tablespace

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > I didn't have much time to spend on that issue until today, and I found a > way to solve it that seems acceptable to me. > > The biggest drawback will be that if the backup is interrupted, previous > tablespaces

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > After your fix, now tupleid is invalid which is expected, but seems > like we need to do something more. As per the comments seems like it > is expected to get the oldtuple from planSlot. But I don't see any > code for

[HACKERS] Typos in pg_basebackup.c

Hi all, Found $subject while working on the area. A patch is attached. Thanks, -- Michael basebackup-typo.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:25:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > >> an installation

Re: [HACKERS] Removal of plaintext password type references

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:08:30AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas writes: > >>> Also note

Re: [HACKERS] If subscription to foreign table valid ?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 11/05/17 15:43, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > We do check for this, but only during replication which we have to do > > because the fact that relation 't' was foreign table during ALTER > >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:28:38PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/8/17 02:58, Noah Misch wrote: > > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due > > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > > item ownership[1] and then

[HACKERS] Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description on connect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:54:13AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tsunakawa, > > Takayuki > > I found a wrong sentence here in the doc. I'm sorry, this is what I asked > > you to add... > >

[HACKERS] Fix a typo in reorderbuffer.c

Hi, Attached patch for $subject. I think "that's" is correct word. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center fix_typo_in_reorderbuffer_c.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

On 2017-05-14 14:54:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 13/05/17 22:23, Andres Freund wrote: > >> And wait for session 3 to finish slot creation, takes about 20 mins on > >> my laptop without patches, minute and half with your patches for 0004 > >> and 0005 (or with your 0004 and my 0005) and about

Re: [HACKERS] If subscription to foreign table valid ?

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:55:02PM +0530, tushar wrote: > I observed that -we cannot publish "foreign table" in Publication > > postgres=# create foreign table t (n int) server db1_server options > (table_name 't1'); > CREATE FOREIGN TABLE > > postgres=# create publication pub for table t; >

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 06:27:30PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I encountered a situation where DROP SUBSCRIPTION got stuck when > initial table sync is in progress. In my environment, I created > several tables with some data on publisher. I created subscription on > subscriber and drop

Re: [HACKERS] Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups

At Fri, 12 May 2017 11:44:19 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 01:06:03PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-14 15:59:09 -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > > Personally while I would like to avoid code that actively crashes or > > fails basic tests on Vax > > I personally vote for simply refusing to run/compile on non-IEEE > platforms,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:50:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > Bruce, the release notes do not mention yet that support for cleartext > > passwords is removed. This has been done recently by Heikki in > > eb61136d. This has as consequence that

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

On 2017/05/14 1:07, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attached is the correct version. > > Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with > the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item.

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I would not really expect that reconnection would retry after > > arbitrary failure cases. Should it retry for "wrong database name", for > instance? > > It's not

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

Hi, On 2017-05-14 21:22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > but wanting a CHECK constraint that applies to only one partition > seems pretty reasonable (e.g. CHECK that records for older years are > all in the 'inactive' state, or whatever). On a hash-partitioned table? > Now that's not to say that

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-14 18:25:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It may well be that we can get away with saying "we're not going >> to make it simple to move hash-partitioned tables with float >> partition keys between architectures

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >> wrote: >>> Likewise, when the first host has already reached max_connections,

[HACKERS] Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description on connect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tsunakawa,> Takayuki > Instead, I think we should fix the program to match the documented behavior. > Otherwise, if the first database machine is down, libpq might wait for about > 2 hours

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I agree that the Far Eastern systems that can't easily be replaced > by Unicode are that way mostly because they're a mess. But I'm > still of the opinion that locking ourselves into Unicode is a choice > we might regret, far

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > [2] > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.cbcux01/flotcop.htm#flotcop Though looking more closely I see that the default is IEEE in 64 bit builds, which seems like a

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Releasing alpha/beta is not the same as branching, which I didn't expect >> us to do for a while yet.. > Well, tagging then. Imo it still should be done before we tag > beta1/alpha1. Too late,

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

Peter Geoghegan writes: > The express goal of the Unicode consortium is to replace all existing > encodings with Unicode. My personal opinion is that a Unicode > monoculture would be a good thing, provided reasonable differences can > be accommodated. Can't help remembering Randall

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On 2017-05-14 18:25:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It may well be that we can get away with saying "we're not going > to make it simple to move hash-partitioned tables with float > partition keys between architectures with different float > representations". But there's a whole lot of daylight

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-05-14 15:59:09 -0400, Greg Stark wrote: >> Personally while I would like to avoid code that actively crashes or >> fails basic tests on Vax > I personally vote for simply refusing to run/compile on non-IEEE > platforms, including VAX. The

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > On 13 May 2017 at 10:29, Robert Haas wrote: >> - Floats. There may be different representations in use on different >> hardware, which could be a problem. Tom didn't answer my question >> about whether

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > > > afternoon,

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? > > > > Shouldn't we

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? > > Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> So, it would be something like: >> postgres pg_upgrade \ >> ... > > It's great to have a recipe `that works', so thanks! > > However, whether or not we automate this, I cannot help to wonder if > we should support downgrading -- at least to

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > The latter is > generally false already. Maybe LATIN1 -> UTF8 is no-fail, but what > about UTF8 -> LATIN1 or SJIS -> anything? Based on previous mailing > list discussions, I'm under the impression that it is sometimes

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On 2017-05-14 15:59:09 -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > Personally while I would like to avoid code that actively crashes or > fails basic tests on Vax I personally vote for simply refusing to run/compile on non-IEEE platforms, including VAX. The benefit of even trying to get that right, not to speak

Re: [HACKERS] issue: record or row variable cannot be part of multiple-item INTO list

2017-05-14 5:04 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-05-13 22:20 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > >> Pavel Stehule writes: >> > I am working on migration large Oracle application to Postgres. When I >> > started migration procedures

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On 13 May 2017 at 10:29, Robert Haas wrote: > - Floats. There may be different representations in use on different > hardware, which could be a problem. Tom didn't answer my question > about whether any even-vaguely-modern hardware is still using non-IEEE > floats, which

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the intended alpha/beta release date, Wednesday would be too late,

[HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

So I put in the patch I'd proposed to reduce sleep delays in the stats regression test, and I see that frogmouth has now failed that test twice, with symptoms suggesting that it's dropping the last stats report --- but not all of the stats reports --- from the test's first session. I considered

[HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Good day, everyone. I've been playing a bit with unlogged tables - just random updates on simple key-value table. I've noticed amount of cpu spent in a compactify_tuples (called by PageRepareFragmentaion). Most of time were spent in qsort of itemidbase items. itemidbase array is bounded by

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((const void*)(fdw_trigtuple) != ((void *)0)) > ^ ((bool) (((const void*)(tupleid) != ((void *)0)) && > ((tupleid)->ip_posid != 0", File: "trigger.c", Line: 2428) > > I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

Roel Janssen writes: > So, it would be something like: > postgres pg_upgrade \ > ... It's great to have a recipe `that works', so thanks! However, whether or not we automate this, I cannot help to wonder if we should support downgrading -- at least to the previous version in this case? If I'm

[HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will

Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

On 13/05/17 22:23, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-12 10:57:55 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Hmm, well it helps but actually now that we don't track individual >> running transactions anymore it got much less effective (my version of >> 0005 does as well). >> >> The example workload I test with

[HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables

Hello hackers, i was experimenting with fdw tables recently, and discovered two bugs in postgres core code (tested on stable 9.6 and master). Steps to reproduce: 1) create parent table 2) create child local table 3) create child foreign table 4) create 'before row update` trigger at foreign

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:08 PM, amul sul wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find the following updated patches attached: > > I have done some testing with the new patch, most of the cases worked > as per

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:08 PM, amul sul wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find the following updated patches attached: >> >> 0001-Cleanup.patch : Does some cleanup and code refactoring