Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

2017-09-11 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > I rebased the patch to the latest master and also fixed the duplicate OID > and some slot fixes. Updated patches are attached. > While analyzing the removal of HeapScanDesc usage other than heap modules, The

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Khandekar
On 11 September 2017 at 21:12, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> On 6 September 2017 at 21:47, Dilip Kumar wrote: > >> Actually, since transition tables came in, the functions

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

2017-09-11 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > >> > Attached the latest patch

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

2017-09-11 Thread Jing Wang
Hi Surafel, Sorry for that. Yes. The test case file is forgotten to be added into the previous patch. Kindly please use the updated patch in the attached file. Regards, Jing Wang Fujitsu Australia comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.1.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

2017-09-11 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Jing Wang wrote: > Please find the rebased patch based on latest version in the attached file. Hi Jing It looks like you created dbname.sql and dbname.out files for a regression test but forgot to "git add" them to your branch before you

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

2017-09-11 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello, At Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:30:01 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170908.163001.53230385.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > >> 2017-04-13 12:11:27.065 JST [85441] t/102_vacuumdb_stages.pl > > >> STATEMENT: ANALYZE; > > >>

Re: [HACKERS] More flexible LDAP auth search filters?

2017-09-11 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/8/17 13:24, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> My weapon of choice for LDAP deployments on POSIX-based systems is >> Arthur De Jong's nss-pam-ldapd (https://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd) >> which is far

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

2017-09-11 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > > > Attached the latest patch and performance report. > > > While looking into the patch, I realized that a normal backend has

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names

2017-09-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-09-11 22:28 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Jeevan Chalke writes: > [ psql-named-arguments-03-jeevan.patch ] > > Pushed with minor simplification of the test case. > > I'm not quite as convinced as Pavel that this is an improvement --- > it will

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > During my recent work on costing of parallel paths [1], I noticed that > we are missing to push target list below GatherMerge in some simple > cases like below. > I think this should be considered as a bug-fix for

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> + if (i == InvalidAttrNumber) >> + ereport(ERROR, >> + (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_COLUMN), >> +errmsg("column \"%s\" of relation \"%s\" does not >>

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present; >> that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the >> attached? > That

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/11 19:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> IMHO, we should make it the responsibility of the future patch to set a >> child PlanRowMark's prti to the direct parent's RT index, when we actually >> know that it's needed for something. We

[HACKERS] Removing wal_keep_segments as default configuration in PostgresNode.pm

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, Right now, PostgresNode.pm uses this set of parameters when initializing a node: print $conf "\n# Added by PostgresNode.pm\n"; print $conf "fsync = off\n"; print $conf "restart_after_crash = off\n"; print $conf "log_line_prefix = '%m [%p] %q%a '\n"; print $conf

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Jeff, Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be changed. Attached v3 with pg_usleep called instead. I didn't see the problem before the commit I originally indicated , so I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present; > that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the > attached? That looks good to me. I have tried pretty hard to break it, but

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

2017-09-11 Thread Jing Wang
Hi Surafel, Please find the rebased patch based on latest version in the attached file. Regards, Jing Wang Fujitsu Australia comment_on_current_database_for_pgdump_v4.patch Description: Binary data comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:50:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:12:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Well, we could add "MD5 users are encouraged to switch to > > > SCRAM-SHA-256". Now

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 08:53:51AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> "Add AFTER trigger transition tables to record changed rows (Kevin Grittner)" >> >> Any chance I could ask for a secondary author credit here? > > Sure,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 05:39:31PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I have committed the first draft of the Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 08:53:51AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 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

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:39:43PM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > On 07/13/2017 04:36 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > > Hello hackers, > > > > From: Peter Geoghegan > >> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:19:57 -0700 > >> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:30:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> Can you change the attribution on > >> Allow PL/Tcl functions to return composite types and sets > >> to Karl Lehenbauer? > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > So I think this is just an excuse for turning --no-security-labels > into --no-object-property=security-label. To me, that's just plain > worse. It does not seem that my thoughts here have been correctly transmitted

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Can you change the attribution on >> Allow PL/Tcl functions to return composite types and sets >> to Karl Lehenbauer? > Done and backpatched. Sorry for the delay. I don't see this pushed to

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

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have committed this patch, after a perltidy run, but the way the libz > detection was implemented was a bit too hackish for me, so I have > omitted that for now. Thanks. > I think a more robust way

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-09-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/24/17 8:31 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. > > > >The

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-09-11 Thread Dmitry Dolgov
> On 11 September 2017 at 23:45, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 11 September 2017 at 23:19, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Uh, what? Sure you can. Just because the existing code never has a > >> reason to create such a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 11 September 2017 at 23:19, Tom Lane wrote: >> Uh, what? Sure you can. Just because the existing code never has a >> reason to create such a dependency doesn't mean it wouldn't work. > Well, I thought that `pg_depend` was

[HACKERS] Postponement of v10 release schedule

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Per the discussion in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170909064853.25630.12825%40wrigleys.postgresql.org it seems that our new trigger-transition-table feature isn't really SQL-spec compliant. Rather than releasing v10 that way, and then causing compatibility problems when we fix it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-09-11 Thread Dmitry Dolgov
> On 11 September 2017 at 23:19, Tom Lane wrote: > > Uh, what? Sure you can. Just because the existing code never has a > reason to create such a dependency doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Well, I thought that `pg_depend` was not intended to be used from user-defined code

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > About dependencies between functions - as far as I understand one cannot > create a `pg_depend` entry or any other kind of dependencies between > custom user-defined functions. Uh, what? Sure you can. Just because the existing code never has a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-09-11 Thread Dmitry Dolgov
> On 9 September 2017 at 23:33, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > PostgreSQL and documentation with the patch compiles without any errors. All > regression tests passed. Thank you! > But honestly I still cannot say that I agree with *_extract() and *_assign() > functions

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

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/6/17 00:54, Michael Paquier wrote: >> - I think the tests will fail if libz support is not built. Again, >> pg_basebackup doesn't have tests for that. So maybe omit that and >> address it later. > > Let's address it now. This can be countered by querying pg_config() > before running the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Jeevan Chalke writes: [ psql-named-arguments-03-jeevan.patch ] Pushed with minor simplification of the test case. I'm not quite as convinced as Pavel that this is an improvement --- it will make error messages inconsistent between named and unnamed arguments.

Re: [HACKERS] More flexible LDAP auth search filters?

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/8/17 21:31, Thomas Munro wrote: > +if ($^O eq 'darwin') > +{ > + $slapd = '/usr/local/opt/openldap/libexec/slapd'; > + $ldap_schema_dir = '/usr/local/etc/openldap/schema'; > +} > > I'm guessing this is the MacPorts location, and someone from that > other tribe that uses Brew can

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >>> I attach a patch to remove replacement selection, which I'll submit to CF 1. >> >> This breaks the documentation build, because >>

Re: [HACKERS] More flexible LDAP auth search filters?

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/8/17 13:24, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > My weapon of choice for LDAP deployments on POSIX-based systems is > Arthur De Jong's nss-pam-ldapd (https://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd) > which is far more flexible than pam_ldap and fixes a large number of > bugs, including the tendency for pam_ldap

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-09-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-09-11 20:46 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > I think you're overly optimistic to believe that every failure will have a SQLSTATE; I don't think that's true for libpq-reported errors, such as connection loss. >>> >> Yep, I thought I was optimistic:-) Can I add

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Jeff, > > Ok, the problem was a little bit more trivial than I thought. > > The issue is that under a low rate there may be no transaction in > progress, however the wait procedure was relying on select's

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

2017-09-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/11/2017 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> On 09/08/2017 09:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Like you, I'm a bit worried about the code for extracting an exit >>> status from IPC::Run::run. We'll have to keep an eye on the buildfarm >>> for a

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/7/17 14:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 9/5/17 15:32, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I do agree with the idea that we should use the * notation in cases where >>> the reader might otherwise think that a plain function was being invoked, >>> ie I

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
I think you're overly optimistic to believe that every failure will have a SQLSTATE; I don't think that's true for libpq-reported errors, such as connection loss. Yep, I thought I was optimistic:-) Can I add a special SQLSTATE for that situation where libpq did not report an error? Meh.

[HACKERS] Re: DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/10/17 12:14, 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 ownership: >

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Fabien COELHO writes: >> I think you're overly optimistic to believe that every failure will >> have a SQLSTATE; I don't think that's true for libpq-reported errors, >> such as connection loss. > Yep, I thought I was optimistic:-) Can I add a special SQLSTATE for that >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 09/08/2017 09:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Like you, I'm a bit worried about the code for extracting an exit >> status from IPC::Run::run. We'll have to keep an eye on the buildfarm >> for a bit. If there's any trouble, I'd be inclined to

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Tom, Hm. Looking closer at this, I see that it doesn't work so well after all to put the variable-setting code in ProcessResult: that fails to cover the ExecQueryUsingCursor code path. Ok, I'll investigate this path. And it also fails to cover DescribeQuery, which arguably should set

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

2017-09-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/08/2017 09:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fabien COELHO writes: >> [ pgbench-tap-12.patch ] > Pushed, with some minor fooling with comments and after running it > through perltidy. (I have no opinions about Perl code formatting, > but perltidy does ...) > > The only

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Tatsuro Yamada > wrote: >> Thanks for the comment. >> >> As you know, CLUSTER command uses SEQ SCAN or INDEX SCAN as a scan method by >> cost estimation.

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> The question is what is the optimal replacement_sort_tuples value? I >> assume it's the number of tuples that effectively uses CPU

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-09-11 Thread amul sul
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > > wrote: > > >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. > > > > > > Given that we have

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > The question is what is the optimal replacement_sort_tuples value? See my remarks to Robert just now. I think that it's incredibly hard to set replacement_sort_tuples sensibly in 9.6. As of Postgres 10, it is

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> To be clear, you'll still need to set replacement_sort_tuples high >> when testing RS, to make sure that we really use it for at least the >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

2017-09-11 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Attached the latest patch and performance report. > While looking into the patch, I realized that a normal backend has to check almost 10 if conditions at worst case inside XLogWrite(6 in am_background_process

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Overall I think the results show quite significant positive impact of > the patch. There are a few cases of regression, but ISTM those may > easily be noise as it's usually 0.03 vs 0.04 second, or something. I'll

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > The question is what is the optimal replacement_sort_tuples value? I > assume it's the number of tuples that effectively uses CPU caches, at > least that's what our docs say. So I think you're right it to 1B

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Erik Rijkers
On 2017-09-11 02:12, Thomas Munro wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thomas Munro has hacked up a prototype of application testing automatically if patches submitted apply and build: http://commitfest.cputube.org/ I should add: this is

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/11/2017 05:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> To be clear, you'll still need to set replacement_sort_tuples high >> when testing RS, to make sure that we really use it for at least the >> first run when we're expected to.

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Fabien COELHO writes: > Small v7 update, sorry for the noise. Hm. Looking closer at this, I see that it doesn't work so well after all to put the variable-setting code in ProcessResult: that fails to cover the ExecQueryUsingCursor code path. And it also fails to cover

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

2017-09-11 Thread Dilip Kumar
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 6 September 2017 at 21:47, Dilip Kumar wrote: > Actually, since transition tables came in, the functions like > ExecARUpdateTriggers() or ExecARInsertTriggers() have this additional >

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/11/2017 03:01 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi Tomas, > >>> Unless there are any objections to give this idea a try I'm willing to >>> write and host a corresponding script. >>> >> That won't work until (2) is reliable enough. There are patches >> (for example my "multivariate MCV

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > To be clear, you'll still need to set replacement_sort_tuples high > when testing RS, to make sure that we really use it for at least the > first run when we're expected to. (There is no easy way to have > testing

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

2017-09-11 Thread Jesper Pedersen
Hi, On 09/08/2017 03:35 PM, Sokolov Yura wrote: I'm seeing -M prepared: Up to 11% improvement -M prepared -S: No improvement, no regression ("noise") -M prepared -N: Up to 12% improvement for all runs the improvement shows up the closer you get to the number of CPU threads, or above. Although

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was >> there a moment ago". I think it still behooves us to complain about >> anything else. If you

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> As there begins to be many switches of this kind and much code >> duplication, I think that some refactoring into a more generic switch >> infrastructure would be

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > Thanks for the comment. > > As you know, CLUSTER command uses SEQ SCAN or INDEX SCAN as a scan method by > cost estimation. In the case of SEQ SCAN, these two phases not overlap. > However, in INDEX SCAN, it

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I see the same thing when I use prepare and execute Hmm. Well, that's good, but it doesn't prove there's no bug. We have to understand where and why it's getting locked to know whether the behavior will

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > How difficult/tedious/troublesome would be to install the missing > partitions if you set hash partitioning with a default partition and > only later on notice that some partitions are missing? I think if the >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 8 September 2017 at 19:17, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> In that case, why can't we keep the workers also process in same >> order, what is the harm in that? > > Because of the way the logic

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

2017-09-11 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2017/08/17 17:27, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2017/07/11 6:56, Robert Haas wrote: I have to admit that I'm a little bit fuzzy about why foreign insert routing requires all of these changes.  I think this patch would benefit from being accompanied by several paragraphs of explanation outlining

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
Hi Tomas, > > Unless there are any objections to give this idea a try I'm willing to > > write and host a corresponding script. > > > That won't work until (2) is reliable enough. There are patches (for > example my "multivariate MCV lists and histograms") which fails to apply > only because the

Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector

2017-09-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/11/2017 01:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev > wrote: >> Moreover, RUM index >> stores positions + lexemes, so it doesn't need tsvectors for ranked >> search. As a result, tsvector becomes a storage for >> building

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/11/2017 11:41 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Great job! > +1 > Here is a crazy idea. What if we write a script that would automatically > return the patches that: > > 1) Are not in "Waiting on Author" status > 2) Don't apply OR don't pass `make installcheck-world` > >

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote: >> 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement >> SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt >> e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR SELECT count(*) FROM bigtable >> Internally a GUC setting already

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2017-09-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote: > 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement > SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt > e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR SELECT count(*) FROM bigtable > Internally a GUC setting already exists for a single use, via > GUC_ACTION_SAVE, so we just need to

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names

2017-09-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-09-11 9:46 GMT+02:00 Jeevan Chalke : > Hi Pavel, > > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2017-09-08 9:36 GMT+02:00 Jeevan Chalke : >> >>> Hi Pavel, >>> I like the

Re: [HACKERS] Constifying numeric.c's local vars

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > One large user of unnecessary non-constant static variables is > numeric.c. More out of curiosity - numeric is slow enough in itself to > make inlining not a huge win - I converted it to use consts. LGTM. > It's a bit ugly that some consts have to be

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> So, all partitioned partitions are getting locked correctly. Am I >> missing something? > > That's not a valid test. In that

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-09-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. > > > > Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering > > whether hash partitioned tables also should

Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > Moreover, RUM index > stores positions + lexemes, so it doesn't need tsvectors for ranked > search. As a result, tsvector becomes a storage for > building indexes (indexable type), not something that

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > So, all partitioned partitions are getting locked correctly. Am I > missing something? That's not a valid test. In that scenario, you're going to hold all the locks acquired by the planner, all the locks

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-09-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. > > Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering > whether hash partitioned tables also should have default partitions. > The way

Re: [HACKERS] mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217

2017-09-11 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: To Andres Freund 2017-09-11 <20170911095338.mqkiinkpk7gko...@msg.df7cb.de> > Re: Andres Freund 2017-09-11 > <20170911090306.s7sj4uyr4t72w...@alap3.anarazel.de> > > Could you pprint() the expression that's being initialized? > (gdb) p pprint(node) Andres helped me to produce a correct dump,

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Great job! > > Here is a crazy idea. What if we write a script that would automatically > return the patches that: > > 1) Are not in "Waiting on Author" status > 2) Don't apply OR don't pass

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Khandekar
On 8 September 2017 at 19:17, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 7 September 2017 at 11:05, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Amit Khandekar

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-09-11 Thread Alexander Kuzmenkov
Thanks Rafia, Amit, now I understand the ideas behind the patch better. I'll see if I can look at the new one. -- Alexander Kuzmenkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/11 16:23, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor >>> changes related to

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/09 2:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> I updated the patch to include just those changes. I'm not sure about >>> one of the Ashutosh's changes

Re: [HACKERS] Polyphase merge is obsolete

2017-09-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
Hi, I planned to do some benchmarking on this patch, but apparently the patch no longer applies. Rebase please? regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Allow GiST opcalsses without compress\decompres functions

2017-09-11 Thread Andrey Borodin
> 11 сент. 2017 г., в 12:57, Dmitriy Sarafannikov > написал(а): > Hi Andrew! Thanks for the patch, but patch > 0001-allow-uncompressed-Gist-2.patch no longer applies on current master > branch. > Please could you rebase it? Sure, see attachment. Thanks for looking

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
Hi Amit, On 2017/09/11 16:16, Amit Khandekar wrote: > Thanks Amit for the patch. I am still reviewing it, but meanwhile > below are a few comments so far ... Thanks for the review. > + next_parted_idx += (list_length(*pds) - next_parted_idx - 1); > > I think this can be replaced just by : >

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think >> for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the

Re: [HACKERS] mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217

2017-09-11 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Andres Freund 2017-09-11 <20170911090306.s7sj4uyr4t72w...@alap3.anarazel.de> > Could you pprint() the expression that's being initialized? (gdb) f 4 #4 0x5604ecedd124 in ExecInitNode (node=node@entry=0x5604ee884f80, estate=estate@entry=0x5604ee8c78a0, eflags=eflags@entry=16) at

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

2017-09-11 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
Hi Thomas, Great job! Here is a crazy idea. What if we write a script that would automatically return the patches that: 1) Are not in "Waiting on Author" status 2) Don't apply OR don't pass `make installcheck-world` ... to the "Waiting on Author" status and describe the problem through the

Re: [HACKERS] psql: new help related to variables are not too readable

2017-09-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Finally, as vertical scrolling is mandatory, I would be fine with > > skipping lines with entries for readability, but it is just a matter of > > taste and I expect there should be half a dozen different opinions on > > the matter of formatting. > > FWIW, +1 to extra

Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector

2017-09-11 Thread Ildus Kurbangaliev
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 23:08:14 +0200 Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/17/2017 12:23 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > > In my benchmarks when database fits into buffers (so it's > > measurement of the time required for the tsvectors conversion) it > > gives me these

Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

2017-09-11 Thread Konstantin Knizhnik
On 09.09.2017 06:35, Thomas Munro wrote: On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Attached please find rebased version of the autoprepare patch based on Tom's proposal (perform analyze for tree with constant literals and then replace them with

Re: [HACKERS] Red-black trees: why would anyone want preorder or postorder traversal?

2017-09-11 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
Hi Tom, > In short, therefore, I propose we rip out the DirectWalk and InvertedWalk > options along with their support code, and then drop the portions of > test_rbtree that are needed to exercise them. Any objections? Doesn't sound like something that will be used any time soon. When and if it

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Michael

Re: [HACKERS] mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217

2017-09-11 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2017-09-11 10:53:39 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: To Tom Lane 2017-09-11 <20170911083136.stdnc4w52wk3o...@msg.df7cb.de> > > postgres=# select test_param_where(); > > FEHLER: XX000: unrecognized node type: 217 > > KONTEXT: SQL-Anweisung »select bfrom numbers where a=x« > >

  1   2   >