Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > Presently, there are a few edge cases in vacuum_rel() and analyze_rel() that I > believe do not have sufficient logging. This was discussed a bit in the > vacuum-multiple-relations thread [0], but it was ultimately

Re: [HACKERS] Logging idle checkpoints

2017-10-04 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
At Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:22:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote in <2017100317.gj4...@tamriel.snowman.net> > Greetings, > > * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > > At Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:23:08 +0900, Michael Paquier > > wrote

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow multiple tables to be specified in one VACUUM or ANALYZE c

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Allow multiple tables to be specified in one VACUUM or ANALYZE command. > > Not much to say about this; does what it says on the tin. > > However, formerly, if there was a column list then the ANALYZE action was > implied; now

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Wood, Dan wrote: > Whatever you do make sure to also test 250 clients running lock.sql. Even > with the communities fix plus YiWen’s fix I can still get duplicate rows. > What works for “in-block” hot chains may not work when spanning

Re: [HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 10/2/17 03:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in >>> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP

2017-10-04 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Since v4 patch conflicts with current

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Wood, Dan
Whatever you do make sure to also test 250 clients running lock.sql. Even with the communities fix plus YiWen’s fix I can still get duplicate rows. What works for “in-block” hot chains may not work when spanning blocks. Once nearly all 250 clients have done their updates and everybody is

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Wong, Yi Wen wrote: >> My interpretation of README.HOT is the check is just to ensure the chain is >> continuous; in which case the condition should be: >> >> > if (TransactionIdIsValid(priorXmax)

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Not really; dynahash won't merge two keys just

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

2017-10-04 Thread Vaishnavi Prabakaran
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2017, at 07:44, Vaishnavi Prabakaran < > vaishnaviprabaka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

2017-10-04 Thread Badrul Chowdhury
Okay, I will add a mechanism to try connecting with 3.0 if 3.1 fails- that should be a few lines of code fe-connect.c; this will eliminate the need for a back-patch. What do you think of the rest of the change? Thanks, Badrul -Original Message- From: Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Wong, Yi Wen wrote: >> My interpretation of README.HOT is the check is just to ensure the chain is >> continuous; in which case the condition should be: >> >> > if (TransactionIdIsValid(priorXmax) &&

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

2017-10-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run > as > > the owner rather than the invoker. No one has talked me out

Re: [HACKERS] Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle

2017-10-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm not an SSL expert, so insert appropriate grain of salt, but AIUI the > >> question is what are you

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] crash in RestoreLibraryState during low-memory testing

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Tom Lane writes: >> Presumably somebody could dig into the libc source code and prove or >> disprove this, though it would sure help to know exactly what platform >> and version Andreas is testing on. > > This is the

Re: [HACKERS] why subplan is 10x faster then function?

2017-10-04 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-10-01 12:45 GMT+02:00 Sokolov Yura : > 1 октября 2017 г. 12:42:14 GMT+03:00, Pavel Stehule < > pavel.steh...@gmail.com> пишет: > >2017-09-30 23:23 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I have some strange slow queries based on

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Not really; dynahash won't merge two keys just because their hash >> codes come out the same. But you're right; that's probably not

Re: [HACKERS] Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle

2017-10-04 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:47:45AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > It's possible that we could adopt some policy like "if the root.crt file > > exists then default to verify" ... but that seems messy and unreliable, > > so I'm not

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

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I am not sure whether your assumption that expression with no Vars > would have em_relids empty is correct. I wonder whether we will add > any em_is_child members with empty em_relids; looking at >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Wood, Dan wrote: > The early “break;” here is likely the xmin frozen reason as I found in the > other loop. It looks that way. Since we're already very defensive when it comes to this xmin/xmax matching business, and we're defensive while

Re: [HACKERS] Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle

2017-10-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > It's possible that we could adopt some policy like "if the root.crt file > exists then default to verify" ... but that seems messy and unreliable, > so I'm not sure it would really add any security. > That is what we do.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

2017-10-04 Thread Nico Williams
Ah, David Fetter points out that I should also update tabe completion for psql. I'll do that at some point. I notice there's no table completion for column constraint attributes... If it's obvious enough I'll try to fix that too. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

2017-10-04 Thread Nico Williams
Ay, NOT WIP -- I left that in the Subject: by accident. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] [PATCH] WIP Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

2017-10-04 Thread Nico Williams
[make check-world passes. Tests and docs included. Should be ready for code review.] Attached are patches to add an ALWAYS DEFERRED option to CONSTRAINTs and CONSTRAINT TRIGGERs, meaning: SET CONSTRAINTS .. IMMEDIATE will not make immediate any constraint/trigger that is declared as ALWAYS

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Re: [PATCH] BUG #13416: Postgres >= 9.3 doesn't use optimized shared memory on Solaris anymore

2017-10-04 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2017-10-04 10:47:06 -0700, Sean Chittenden wrote: > Hello.  We identified the same problem.  Sam Gwydir and Josh Clulow were able > to put together the appropriate fix after. > > The breakage in src/backend/port/sysv_shmem.c and  > src/include/storage/dsm_impl.h should be back ported to

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] BUG #13416: Postgres >= 9.3 doesn't use optimized shared memory on Solaris anymore

2017-10-04 Thread Sean Chittenden
Hello.  We identified the same problem.  Sam Gwydir and Josh Clulow were able to put together the appropriate fix after. The breakage in src/backend/port/sysv_shmem.c and  src/include/storage/dsm_impl.h should be back ported to all supported versions (the regression was introduced between the

Re: [HACKERS] Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra

2017-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Brent Dearth writes: > Is there an issue tracker I could be looking at to follow along on the > progress on this issue? This email thread is pretty much it ... Current status is that I've filed a bug report with Apple and am waiting to see their response before deciding

Re: [HACKERS] Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra

2017-10-04 Thread Brent Dearth
Tom, Andres - Is there an issue tracker I could be looking at to follow along on the progress on this issue? Thanks so much! On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-10-02 19:50:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

2017-10-04 Thread Emre Hasegeli
> Now, it's also not clear that anything in PG really cares. But if we > do care, I think we should keep pg_hypot() ... and maybe clarify the > comment a bit more. I am not sure how useful NaNs are in geometric types context, but we allow them, so inconsistent hypot() would be a problem. I will

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

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > +Enables or disables the query planner's use of partition-wise join > +plans. When enabled, it spends time in creating paths for joins > between > +partitions and consumes memory to construct

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Wong, Yi Wen wrote: > My interpretation of README.HOT is the check is just to ensure the chain is > continuous; in which case the condition should be: > >> if (TransactionIdIsValid(priorXmax) && >>

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

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I decided to skip over 0001 for today and spend some time looking at > 0002-0006. Back to 0001. +Enables or disables the query planner's use of partition-wise join +plans. When enabled, it spends time in

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

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> About your earlier comment of making build_joinrel_partition_info() >> simpler. Right now, the code assumes that partexprs or

Re: [HACKERS] datetime.h defines like PM conflict with external libraries

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Meskes
> Isn't pgtypeslib/*.h exposed to ecpg-using applications? No, the public interface is is include/*.h, pgtypeslib/*.h is only internal. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael at xmpp

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Not really; dynahash won't merge two keys just because their hash > codes come out the same. But you're right; that's probably not the > best way to do it. TBH, why do we even have pgss_hash_fn? It seems > like using

Re: [HACKERS] datetime.h defines like PM conflict with external libraries

2017-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes writes: >> Maybe it'd be good idea to unify some of that stuff so that ecpg can >> use it, too? Having a second copy of the same stuff in >> src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt.h is pretty terrible. Even if not, >> let's make sure they don't diverge. >

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I am still on the learning curve with pg_stat_statements... This still > does not look complete to me. pgss_hash_fn only makes use of the last > four bytes of the query ID. What about computing the hash using as >

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this comment. >> >> I just mean that your patch is correct here. I don't always complain :) > >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Wong, Yi Wen wrote: > My interpretation of README.HOT is the check is just to ensure the chain is > continuous; in which case the condition should be: > > > if (TransactionIdIsValid(priorXmax) && > > !TransactionIdEquals(priorXmax, > >

Re: [HACKERS] Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle

2017-10-04 Thread Zeus Kronion
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:33:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > So to default to verification would be to default to failing to > > connect at all until user has created a ~/.postgresql/root.crt file with > > valid,

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: full merge join on comparison clause

2017-10-04 Thread Alexander Kuzmenkov
As discussed earlier, I changed the way we work with mergeopfamilies. I use the "is_equality" flag to indicate whether the clause is an equality one, and fill mergeopfamilies for both equality and inequality operators. The updated patch is attached (rebased to 20b6552242). -- Alexander

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

2017-10-04 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Just like the local constraints on a foreign table are not ensured on >> remote table (unless user takes steps to make that

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

2017-10-04 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > 0003: > > The commit message mentions estimate_num_groups but the patch doesn't touch > it. This was fixed when we converted many rel->reloptkind == RELOPT_BASEREL to IS_SIMPLE_REL(). I have removed this section from

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] WIP Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

2017-10-04 Thread Andreas Joseph Krogh
På onsdag 04. oktober 2017 kl. 00:24:19, skrev Vik Fearing < vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com >: On 10/03/2017 10:10 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > While we're in deferrable constraints land...; > I even more often need deferrable /conditional /unique-indexes.

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this comment. > > I just mean that your patch is correct here. I don't always complain :) Oh, OK. I'm all right with my patch being correct. Here's a new version that

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > > I thought that we no longer store FrozenTransactionId (xid 2) as our > > "raw" xmin while freezing, and yet that's what we see here. > > I'm doing this in 9.3. I can't tell if the new tuple freezing stuff > broke things more thoroughly, but

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Just like the local constraints on a foreign table are not ensured on > remote table (unless user takes steps to make that sure), WCO defined > locally need not be (and probably can not be) ensured remotely.

Re: [HACKERS] Warnings in objectaddress.c

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Perhaps we should apply some glorified version of this: > >> +if (list_length(object) < 2) >> +elog(ERROR, "fail"); > >> However, I'm not 100% sure that would be

Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

2017-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Badrul Chowdhury writes: >> 1. Pgwire protocol v3.0 with negotiation is called v3.1. >> 2. There are 2 patches for the change: a BE-specific patch that will be >> backported and a FE-specific patch that

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

2017-10-04 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/10/03 18:16, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> Enforcing WCO constraints imposed by the local server on the row/DML >> being passed to the foreign server is fine, but trying to impose them >> on the row being

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

2017-10-04 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2017/10/03 18:16, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Enforcing WCO constraints imposed by the local server on the row/DML being passed to the foreign server is fine, but trying to impose them on the row being inserted/updated at the foreign server looks odd. May be we should just leave this case as it is.

Re: [HACKERS] datetime.h defines like PM conflict with external libraries

2017-10-04 Thread Michael Meskes
> Maybe it'd be good idea to unify some of that stuff so that ecpg can > use > it, too? Having a second copy of the same stuff in > src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt.h is pretty terrible. Even if not, > let's make sure they don't diverge. Please let's unify whatever we can. The fewer manual

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Wood, Dan wrote: > One minor side note… Is it weird for xmin/xmax to go backwards in a hot row > chain? > > lp | t_ctid | lp_off | t_infomask | t_infomask2 | t_xmin | t_xmax > ++++-++ > 1 | (0,1) | 8152 | 2818 |

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Wood, Dan wrote: > There is a tangled web of issues here. With the community fix we get a > corrupted page(invalid redirect ptr from indexed item). The cause of that is: > pruneheap.c: > > /* >* Check the tuple XMIN against prior XMAX, if any >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I thought that we no longer store FrozenTransactionId (xid 2) as our > "raw" xmin while freezing, and yet that's what we see here. I'm doing this in 9.3. I can't tell if the new tuple freezing stuff broke things more thoroughly, but it is already broken in earlier

Re: [HACKERS] datetime.h defines like PM conflict with external libraries

2017-10-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 10/03/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I like the new-header-file idea because it will result in minimal code > > churn and thus minimal back-patching hazards. > > > > I do *not* like "PG_PM". For our own purposes that adds no uniqueness > > at all. If we're to

Re: [HACKERS] list of credits for release notes

2017-10-04 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > At the PGCon Developer Meeting it was agreed[0] to add a list of credits > > to the release notes, including everyone who was mentioned in a commit > > message. I have now completed that

Re: [HACKERS] Add TOAST to system tables with ACL?

2017-10-04 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > For pg_database, you'd have to make sure that the startup-time check of > database CONNECT privilege still works if the ACL's been pushed out of > line. > I've tried this case. At first, make database temp with no connect

Re: [HACKERS] JIT compiling - v4.0

2017-10-04 Thread Ants Aasma
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Here's an updated version of the patchset. There's some substantial > changes here, but it's still very obviously very far from committable as > a whole. There's some helper commmits that are simple and independent >

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

2017-10-04 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran > wrote: > > Option name "--enable-pgdumpall-behaviour" is very generic > > Yeah, that's a terrible name, at least in my opinion. >

Re: [HACKERS] Binary search in fmgr_isbuiltin() is a bottleneck.

2017-10-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-10-02 15:01:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-10-02 17:57:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > Done that way. It's a bit annoying, because we've to take care to > > > initialize the "unused" part of the array with a valid signalling it's > >

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

2017-10-04 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> Having said all that, I think that this patch only wants

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

2017-10-04 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Having said all that, I think that this patch only wants to handle the > subset of cases (2) and (4) where the relevant InitPlan is attached

Re: [HACKERS] list of credits for release notes

2017-10-04 Thread Laurenz Albe
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > At the PGCon Developer Meeting it was agreed[0] to add a list of credits > to the release notes, including everyone who was mentioned in a commit > message. I have now completed that list. > > Attached is the proposed documentation commit as well as the raw list. > The

Re: [HACKERS] JIT compiling - v4.0

2017-10-04 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, Here's an updated version of the patchset. There's some substantial changes here, but it's still very obviously very far from committable as a whole. There's some helper commmits that are simple and independent enough to be committable earlier on. The git tree of this work, which is

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts

2017-10-04 Thread Fabien COELHO
This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select() to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented, when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources. One based on 'master' which can also apply to REL_10_STABLE.