Re: [HACKERS] tap tests on older branches fail if concurrency is used

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> when using >> $ cat ~/.proverc >> -j9 >> some tests fail for me in 9.4 and 9.5. > > Weren't there fixes specifically intended to make that safe, awhile ago? 60f826c has not been

Re: [HACKERS] tap tests on older branches fail if concurrency is used

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 1 June 2017 at 08:15, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> when using >> $ cat ~/.proverc >> -j9 >> >> some tests fail for me in 9.4 and 9.5. E.g. src/bin/script's tests >> yields a lot of fun

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think I'd like to walk back my earlier statements about reverting > this patch just a little bit. Although putting the tuplestore at the > wrong level does seem like a fairly significant design mistake, Thomas > more

Re: [HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1

On 2017-06-07 14:29:04 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Q1. Why does wal_level default to "replica" and not "logical"? > > The difference of WAL generated is way higher between > archive->hot_standby than

Re: [HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Q1. Why does wal_level default to "replica" and not "logical"? The difference of WAL generated is way higher between archive->hot_standby than hot_standby->logical. And unlike replica, logical decoding is not something that is

Re: [HACKERS] BEFORE trigger can cause undetected partition constraint violation

On 2017/06/07 11:57, Amit Langote wrote: > How about we export ExecPartitionCheck() out of execMain.c and call it > just before ExecFindPartition() using the root table's ResultRelInfo? Turns out there wasn't a need to export ExecPartitionCheck after all. Instead of calling it from

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.

[HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1

Folks, I've put together some demos on PostgreSQL 10beta1. Here's a few feedback notes based on my experience with it. Things I tested * Logical replication pub/sub with replicating only two tables out of a 12-table FK heirarchy, including custom data types * Partitioning a

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

IIUC, default partition constraints is simply NOT IN ( other sibling partitions>). > If constraint on the default partition refutes the new partition's > constraints that means we have overlapping partition, and perhaps > error. > You are correct Amul, but this error will be thrown before we try

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: [...] >> >> The code in check_default_allows_bound() to check whether the default >> partition >> has any rows that would fit new partition looks quite similar to the code >> in >> ATExecAttachPartition() checking

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On 2017-06-07 00:03:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-06-06 23:32:53 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I'm not sure how you would parallelize these, since in most uses you > >> want to have a deterministic output order. > > > Unless you specify

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-06 23:32:53 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I'm not sure how you would parallelize these, since in most uses you >> want to have a deterministic output order. > Unless you specify ORDER BY you don't really have that anyway, consider >

Re: [HACKERS] Fix tab-completion of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 04:17, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> With this patch, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION [TAB] >> completes with "REFRESH" and "SKIP REFRESH". >> Specifying either REFRESH or SKIP REFRESH is

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

> On 6/6/17 13:52, Regina Obe wrote: >> It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support >> parallelization of aggregate functions using transitions, with the >> addition of serialfunc and deserialfunc to the aggregate definitions. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On 2017-06-06 23:32:53 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 13:52, Regina Obe wrote: > > It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support parallelization of > > aggregate functions using transitions, with the addition of serialfunc and > > deserialfunc to the aggregate definitions.

Re: [HACKERS] Is ECPG's SET CONNECTION really not thread-aware?

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Meskes > I'm pretty sure it is indeed thread-aware, although I didn't provide the > code for this feature myself. > > > So the doc seems to need fix. The patch is attached. > > Thanks,

Re: [HACKERS] Fix tab-completion of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION

On 6/6/17 04:17, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > With this patch, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION [TAB] > completes with "REFRESH" and "SKIP REFRESH". > Specifying either REFRESH or SKIP REFRESH is mandatory after ALTER > SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION, so i think it's good to add this. That syntax

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On 6/6/17 13:52, Regina Obe wrote: > It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support parallelization of > aggregate functions using transitions, with the addition of serialfunc and > deserialfunc to the aggregate definitions. > >

Re: [HACKERS] BEFORE trigger can cause undetected partition constraint violation

On 2017/06/07 1:19, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2017/06/03 1:56, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Amit Langote >>> wrote: Attached patch makes

Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?

On 6/6/17 15:58, Robert Haas wrote: > The problem with the status quo (after Peter's commit) is that there's > now nothing at all to identify the logical replication launcher, apart > from the wait_event field, which is likely to be LogicalLauncherMain > fairly often if you've got the launcher. I

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

On 6/6/17 13:24, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 15:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as the fallback_application_name, but in some

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/06/2017 02:44 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> On 06/06/2017 11:57 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas

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

On 2017-06-06 19:36:13 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > So the fact that we moved workers to standard interrupt handling broke > launcher in subtle ways because it still uses it's own SIGTERM handling > but some function it calls are using CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS (they are used > by worker as well). I

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

> > I'll give it a few days for objections before reverting. >> > > I can only say that the lack of this feature comes up on a weekly basis on > IRC, and a lot of people would be disappointed to see it reverted. > Not that my opinion matters, but I was very much looking forward to this feature in

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On 06/06/2017 02:44 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 06/06/2017 11:57 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joe Conway

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On 2017/06/07 0:19, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I think we can call it a bug of StorePartitionKey(). I looked at the >> similar code in index_create() (which actually I had originally looked at >> for reference

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On 2017/06/07 1:08, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> BTW, the places which check whether the collation to store a dependency >>> for is the database default collation don't

[HACKERS] Coverage improvements of src/bin/pg_basebackup and pg_receivewal --endpos

Hi all, The coverage of pg_basebackup is reaching 50%, which is not bad: https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/bin/pg_basebackup/index.html In this set pg_receivewal.c is the bad student with less than 20%. There are a couple of causes behind that, with no tests like: - option interactions like

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Also, ISTM that the code within ENRMetadataGetTupDesc() probably > requires more explanation, resource management wise. Also, it's not clear why it should be okay that the new type of ephemeral RTEs introduced don't have

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 : Proposal for predicate locking in gist index

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > First, I just do not know, can VACUUM erase page with predicate lock? For handling in btree, see:

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE > case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples. Also, ISTM that the code within ENRMetadataGetTupDesc() probably requires more

[HACKERS] Re: GSoC 2017 weekly progress reports ("Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides b-tree")

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Shubham Barai wrote: > GSoC (week 1) > 4. went through source code of gist index to understand its implementation > > 5. found appropriate places in gist index AM to insert calls to existing > functions (PredicateLockPage(),

Re: [HACKERS] Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode

On 2017-06-06 12:53:21 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-06 15:48:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Latches work in single user mode, it's just that the new code for some > > > reason uses uninitialized memory as

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

Hi Sokolov -- I tried your patch. I only had time for doing a few points on power8. pgbench rw on two sockets is awesome! Keeps getting more throughput as threads are added -- in contrast to base and my prototype. I did not run single socket pgbench. Hammerdb, 1 socket was in the same

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > After sleeping on it, I don't think we need to make that decision here > though. I think it's better to just move the tuplestores into > ModifyTableState so that each embedded DML statement has its own, and >

Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

On 06/06/17 23:42, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-06 23:24:50 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 06/06/17 23:17, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Right. I found a couple more instance of similarly iffy, although not >>> quite as broken, patterns in launcher.c. It's easy to get this wrong, >>> but it's

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/06/2017 11:57 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joe Conway wrote: Unless Robert

Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

On 2017-06-06 23:24:50 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 23:17, Andres Freund wrote: > > Right. I found a couple more instance of similarly iffy, although not > > quite as broken, patterns in launcher.c. It's easy to get this wrong, > > but it's a lot easy if you do it differently

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Nice as it would be to add a SQL standard feature and advance the > effort to get to incremental maintenance of materialized views, and > much as I really appreciate the efforts Thomas has put into trying > to solve these

Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

On 06/06/17 23:17, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-06 17:14:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> The function in $subject does: >> >>> ResetLatch(>procLatch); >>> rc = WaitLatchOrSocket(>procLatch, >>>

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication - still unstable after all these months

On 06/06/17 21:09, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> Belated apologies all round for the somewhat provocative $subject; but I >> felt at that moment that this item needed some extra attention. > > FWIW, it seemed like a pretty fair

Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

On 2017-06-06 17:14:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > The function in $subject does: > > > ResetLatch(>procLatch); > > rc = WaitLatchOrSocket(>procLatch, > >WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH |

Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

Andres Freund writes: > The function in $subject does: > ResetLatch(>procLatch); > rc = WaitLatchOrSocket(>procLatch, >WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_SOCKET_READABLE | >WL_LATCH_SET, >

[HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol

Hi, The function in $subject does: while (PQisBusy(streamConn)) { int rc; /* * We don't need to break down the sleep into smaller increments, * since we'll get interrupted by signals and can either handle *

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> It took years to get an in-depth review, then I was asked >> not to commit it because others were working on patches that would >> conflict. That

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw cost estimation defaults and documentation

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > In the documentation for fdw_startup_cost, it says "This represents the > additional overhead of establishing a connection, parsing and planning the > query on the remote side, etc.". I think that "establishing a

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Nice as it would be to add a SQL standard feature and advance the > effort to get to incremental maintenance of materialized views, and > much as I really appreciate the efforts Thomas has put into trying > to solve

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

Hi Ashutosh, Thanks for the detailed review. Also, please find my feedback on your comments in-lined, I also addressed the comments given by Robert in attached patch: On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Here's some detailed review of the

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

Dmitriy Sarafannikov writes: > Starting and stopping master after running pg_upgrade but before rsync to > collect statistics > was a bad idea. But, starting and stopping master after running pg_upgrade is *required* by documentation:

Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > (I'm tempted to add something like this permanently, at DEBUG1 or DEBUG2 > or so.) I don't mind adding it permanently, but I think that's too high. Somebody running a lot of parallel queries could easily get enough messages to

Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm. With some generous assumptions it'd be possible to think that >> aa1351f1eec4adae39be59ce9a21410f9dd42118 triggered this. That commit was >> present in 20 successful

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

Nice as it would be to add a SQL standard feature and advance the effort to get to incremental maintenance of materialized views, and much as I really appreciate the efforts Thomas has put into trying to solve these problems, I agree that it is best to revert the feature. It took years to get an

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On 06/06/2017 11:57 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> Unless Robert objects, I'll work with Mike to get a fix posted and >>> committed in the next

Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: >> Agreed with this. >> >> However, I am not sure about the bgw_name_extra. I think I would have >> preferred keeping full bgw_name field which would be used where full >> name is needed and bgw_type where only the

Re: [HACKERS] Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode

On 2017-06-06 15:48:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Latches work in single user mode, it's just that the new code for some > > reason uses uninitialized memory as the latch. As I pointed out above, > > the new code

Re: [HACKERS] Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Latches work in single user mode, it's just that the new code for some > reason uses uninitialized memory as the latch. As I pointed out above, > the new code really should just use MyLatch instead of > MyProc->procLatch.

Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance degradation of contended LWLock on NUMA

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Sokolov Yura wrote: > Good day, everyone. > > This patch improves performance of contended LWLock. > It was tested on 4 socket 72 core x86 server (144 HT) Centos 7.1 > gcc 4.8.5 > > Patch makes lock acquiring in single CAS loop: > 1.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On 2017-06-06 12:23:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:52:45PM -0400, Regina Obe wrote: > > It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support parallelization of > > aggregate functions using transitions, with the addition of serialfunc and > > deserialfunc to the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:52:45PM -0400, Regina Obe wrote: > It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support parallelization of > aggregate functions using transitions, with the addition of serialfunc and > deserialfunc to the aggregate definitions. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

On 6/3/17 01:04, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted >>> by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On 2017-06-06 14:45:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > A reasonable rule would actually be to only use [u]int32 and > > sig_atomic_t, never bool. > > Yes, I'd agree with that. Cool. I propose we change, once branched, the existing code using booleans, and

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication - still unstable after all these months

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > Belated apologies all round for the somewhat provocative $subject; but I > felt at that moment that this item needed some extra attention. FWIW, it seemed like a pretty fair subject line to me given your test results. I think

Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> One thought is that the only places where shm_mq_set_sender() should >> be getting invoked during the main regression tests are >> ParallelWorkerMain() and ExecParallelGetReceiver, and both of those >> places using

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication - still unstable after all these months

On 2017-06-06 20:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 6/4/17 22:38, Petr Jelinek wrote: Committed that, with some further updates of comments to reflect the Belated apologies all round for the somewhat provocative $subject; but I felt at that moment that this item needed some extra attention. I

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> Unless Robert objects, I'll work with Mike to get a fix posted and >> committed in the next day or two. > > That would be great. Thanks. I have

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication - still unstable after all these months

On 6/4/17 22:38, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 03/06/17 16:12, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Petr Jelinek >> > wrote: >> >> >> While I was testing something for different thread I noticed that I >>

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

Andres Freund writes: > A reasonable rule would actually be to only use [u]int32 and > sig_atomic_t, never bool. Yes, I'd agree with that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> That's an argument from false premises. The question here is what types >> are safe for an interrupt handler to *change*, not what can it read. > OK, but we certainly have code

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Don't think it's actually clear that errno is an integer - might very > well be just a sig_atomic_t, which can contain values up to like 127 or > so. I think the bigger point Tom was making is that we actually know > an

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On 2017-06-06 14:13:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think that's a pretty good argument, really. If there exists a > >> platform where only sig_atomic_t is safe to read from a signal > >> handler, then we already don't

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Greg/Amit's idea of using the CTID field rather than an infomask bit >> seems like a possibly promising approach. Not everything that needs >> bit-space can use the CTID field, so using it is a little less likely >>

Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: >> Buildfarm member lorikeet is failing occasionally with a failed >> assertion during the select_parallel regression tests like this: > I don't *think* we've

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > So, according to that, below would be the logic : > > Run partition constraint check on the original NEW row. > If it succeeds : > { > Fire BR UPDATE trigger on the original partition. > Run partition

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think that's a pretty good argument, really. If there exists a >> platform where only sig_atomic_t is safe to read from a signal >> handler, then we already don't work on that platform. Even saving and >> restoring errno

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully >>> in the postmaster process.

[HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

It seems CREATE AGGREGATE was expanded in 9.6 to support parallelization of aggregate functions using transitions, with the addition of serialfunc and deserialfunc to the aggregate definitions. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-createaggregate.html I was looking at the PostgreSQL 10

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

On 03/06/17 18:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/2/17 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/24/17 15:14, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> All the locking works just fine the way it is in master. The issue with >>> deadlock with apply comes from the wrong handling of the SIGTERM in the >>> apply (we

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Well, we already have some variables that aren't actually booleans, >> although I think all of them are only read not manipulated in signal >> handlers (InterruptHoldoffCount

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On 2017-06-06 13:07:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > We also already rely on int32 stores being atomic in other > > parts of the code, although that's between processes not between signal > > / normal path of execution. > > I don't think the issues are much different. Presumably no CPU >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully >> in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address >> could do anything but

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

On 06/06/17 15:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as >>> the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, >>> which could

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Hale Boyes wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks. Committed. > > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of > the sentence "this contains the OID of the the

Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Well, we already have some variables that aren't actually booleans, > although I think all of them are only read not manipulated in signal > handlers (InterruptHoldoffCount etc). So one could argue that there's > no

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully > in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address > could do anything but create an additional risk of postmaster startup >

Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Buildfarm member lorikeet is failing occasionally with a failed > assertion during the select_parallel regression tests like this: > > > 2017-06-03 05:12:37.382 EDT [59327d84.1160:38] LOG: statement:

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Robert Haas writes: > I think the idea of retrying process creation (and I definitely agree > with Tom and Magnus that we have to retry process creation, not just > individual mappings) is a good place to start. Now if we find that we > are having to retry frequently, then

Re: [HACKERS] Tweaking tab completion for some backslash commands

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Masahiko Sawada writes: >> Attached patch tweaks tab completion for some backslash commands. > > Pushed, thanks! > Thank you! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Agreed. By the way, while browsing about this problem, I found that > one other open source (nginx) has used a solution similar to what > Andres was proposing upthread to solve this problem. Refer: >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:15:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > There seems to be a problem. I can't see a patch dated 2017-06-07 on > > the commitfest page: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1161/ > > It looks to me like the patch is buried

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Hale Boyes wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks. Committed. > > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of > the sentence "this contains the OID of the the

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

Robert Haas writes: > I don't think it's true that we force the latest TLS version to be > used. The comment says: > /* > * We use SSLv23_method() because it can negotiate use of the highest > * mutually supported protocol version, while

Re: [HACKERS] BEFORE trigger can cause undetected partition constraint violation

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/06/03 1:56, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> Attached patch makes InitResultRelInfo() *always* initialize the >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

Hi, Kevin and Alvaro. I think disk I/O is not the bottleneck in our experiment, but the global lock is. For disk I/O, there are two evidences: 1) The total throughput is not more than 10 Ktps. Only a half are update transactions. An update transaction modifies 20 tuples; each tuple's size is

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

Bruce Momjian writes: > There seems to be a problem. I can't see a patch dated 2017-06-07 on > the commitfest page: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1161/ It looks to me like the patch is buried inside a multipart/alternative MIME section. That's evidently causing

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 01:06:22AM +0900, Man Trieu wrote: > 2017-06-07 0:31 GMT+09:00 Bruce Momjian : > I added the thread but there was no change.  (I think the thread was > already present.)  It appears it is not seeing this patch as the latest > patch. > >

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> BTW, the places which check whether the collation to store a dependency >> for is the database default collation don't need to do that. I mean the >> following

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

2017-06-07 0:31 GMT+09:00 Bruce Momjian : > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:10:25AM +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 29 Heisei, at 00:48, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Shouldn't you use "or is_letter_with_marks()", instead of "or > len(...) > > >

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: > > Thanks. Committed. > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of the sentence "this contains the OID of the the collation". The other section already had the double "the".

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> At the end, >>> everything has been rejected as Postgres enforces the use of the >>> newest one when doing the SSL handshake. >> >> TLS implementations, or TLS versions? What does the TLS version have >> to do

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:10:25AM +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote: > > On Jun 4, 29 Heisei, at 00:48, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Shouldn't you use "or is_letter_with_marks()", instead of "or len(...) > > 1"? Your test might catch something that isn't based on a 'letter' >

  1   2   >