Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add two-arg for of current_setting(NAME, FALLBACK)

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Christensen wrote: > The two-arg form of the current_setting() function will allow a > fallback value to be returned instead of throwing an error when an > unknown GUC is provided. This would come in most useful when using > custom

Re: [HACKERS] Account for cost and selectivity of HAVING quals

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Tels wrote: > > ​​ > That looks odd to me, it first uses output_tuples in a formula, then > overwrites the value with a new value. Should these lines be swapped? > ​IIUC it is correct: the additional total_cost comes from

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 parenthesized single-column updates can produce errors

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > According to the spec, the elements of a parenthesized > SET list should be assigned from the fields of a composite RHS. If > there's just one element of the SET list, the RHS should be a single-field > composite value, and

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 parenthesized single-column updates can produce errors

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Rob McColl wrote: > >> I believe that this is not an intended change or behavior, but is instead >> an unintentional side effect of 906bfcad7ba7cb3863fe0e2a7810be8e3cd84fbd >> Improve handling of "UPDATE ... SET (column_list) =

[HACKERS] Remove inbound links to sql-createuser

Since CREATE USER is officially an alias for CREATE ROLE other parts of the documentation should point to CREATE ROLE, not CREATE USER. Most do but I noticed when looking at CREATE DATABASE that it did not. Further searching turned up the usage in client-auth.sgml. That one is questionable

Re: [HACKERS] Interest in a SECURITY DEFINER function current_user stack access mechanism?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:13:29PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > > More useful than this, for me, would be a way to get the top-most user. > > > > That would be "session_user

Re: [HACKERS] Interest in a SECURITY DEFINER function current_user stack access mechanism?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 01:43:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > More useful than this, for me, would be a way to get the top-most user. > > ​That would be "session_user"?​ >

Re: [HACKERS] Interest in a SECURITY DEFINER function current_user stack access mechanism?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:15:01PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > there is a function session_user() already > > But it doesn't do this. Are you saying that I should add a > session_user(int)? > > ​Regardless of the

[HACKERS] v10 telease note for pg_basebackup refers to old --xlog-method argument

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml index 116f7224da..f1f7cfed5f 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ This changes pg_basebackup's - -X/--xlog-method default to stream. +

Re: [HACKERS] search path security issue?

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 10/05/2017 02:54 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com >> <mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>>wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] search path security issue?

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I get being able to change my search_path on the fly but it seems odd that > as user foo I can change my default search path? > Seems down-right thoughtful of us to allow users to change their own defaults instead

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

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > ​T​ > hat > ​ ​ > doesn't work today, and this patch doesn't fix it, but it does create > enough confusion that we never would be able to fix it. > > I'd be much happier if there were some notational difference > between

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

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > Actually, this does work, just not the way one would immediately expect. > > On closer inspection, what's actually happe

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

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Aside from being inconsistent, it doesn't cover all > the cases --- what if you have just one query output column, that is > composite, and you'd like it to go into a composite variable? That > doesn't work today, and this

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

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule > writes: > > 2017-09-14 12:33 GMT+02:00 Anthony Bykov >: > >> As far as I understand, this patch adds functionality (correct me if

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

On Thursday, September 14, 2017, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > > wrote: > > Sorry again, but how can we handle this? A non-PG-developer, Tels (and > possibly someone else, IIRC)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Robert, all, > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > I vote for rejecting it. DDL compatibility is less valuable than other > > > compatibility. The hypothetical affected application can change

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

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Tom, > > Probably it needs some rebase after Tom committed result status variables. >>> >> >> As it is a style thing, ISTM that the patch is ready if most people agree >>> that it is better this way and there

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

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: > > personally I prefer syntax without FOR keyword - because following > keyword > > must be reserved keyword > > > SET x = .., y = .. SELECT ... ; > > Nope. Most of the

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

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 8/30/17, 5:37 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > > Yeah... Each approach has its cost and its advantages. It may be > > better to wait for more opinions, no many people have complained yet >

Re: [HACKERS] show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-client.html > > > > ​V​ > ACUUM performs an aggressive scan > ​Maybe this should gets its own thread/patch but I'll tack this on here since

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

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > The patch applies cleanly to current master and all tests run without > > failures. > > > > I also test against all current supported versions (9.2 ... 9.6) and > didn't > > find any issue. > > > > Changed status to

Re: [HACKERS] dubious error message from partition.c

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > A small suggestion is that it'd be better to write it like "Specified > upper bound \"%s\" precedes lower bound \"%s\"." I think "succeeds" has > more alternate meanings than "precedes", so the wording you have seems > more

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 8 August 2017 at 19:22, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Dean Rasheed > wrote: > >> Also drop the constraint prohibiting finite values

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > So maybe --load-via-partition-root if nobody likes my previous > > suggestion of --partition-data-via-root ? > > WFM. > ​+1 David J.​

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

On Thursday, August 3, 2017, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > > --use-partitioned-table [partitioned_name, ...] # if > names are omitted it defaults to all the partitioned tables. > > Here user need to specify the root relation name in the option - and any > partition table

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> --restore-via-partition-root ? > > > I worry someone will think that pg_dump is now restoring stuff,

Re: [HACKERS] Possible bug in 9.3.17 using operator <>

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Nick Dro wrote: > The operator <> seems to not work properly comparing citext types in > triggers function. > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45441840/posgresql- > 9-3-operator-doesnt-give-logical-result > > Can someone figure out

Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > On 2017/07/13 19:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Amit Langote > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14759: insert into foreign data partitions fail

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > > On a second thought though, I think we should list the foreign table > partitions' limitations in only one place, that is, the CREATE FOREIGN > TABLE reference page. Listing them under 5.10.2.3. seems a bit

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14759: insert into foreign data partitions fail

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Amit Langote < langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > I'm curious what the other limitations are... > > When I first wrote that documentation line (I am assuming you're asking > about "although these have some limitations that normal tables do not"), I > was

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed if view contain natural left join condition

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > tushar writes: > > postgres=# create table t(n int); > > CREATE TABLE > > postgres=# create table t1(a int); > > CREATE TABLE > > postgres=# create view ttt1 as SELECT e.n FROM t e NATURAL LEFT

Re: [HACKERS] Domains and arrays and composites, oh my

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, Tom Lane wrote: > > regression=# select * from fdc(); > fdc > --- > (1,2) > (1 row) > > Select (fdc).* from fdc(); is considerably more intuitive that the cast. Does that give the expected multi-column result? David J.

Re: [HACKERS] CAST vs ::

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, Tom Lane wrote: > Maybe we can hack ruleutils to use > the CAST syntax only in this specific context. > Given the lack of complaints, and ubiquity of ::, this would seem ideal and sufficient. While there is something to be said for using standard

Re: [HACKERS] \set AUTOROLLBACK ON

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:19 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote: > > Hi hackers, > > > > A colleague of mine wondered if there is a way to always run > > everything you type into psql in a db txn and automatically rollback >

Re: [HACKERS] Adding connection id in the startup message

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think the problem is real, > but I'm not sure that this is the best solution. On the other hand, > I'm also not entirely sure I understand the proposal yet. Given the problems with changing the protocol it does seem

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in insert.sgml

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> This was not a typo, this was intentional. > >> To me, Julien's change seems to

Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Satyanarayana Narlapuram wrote: > Unless you have a lot of users running psql manually, I don't see how > this is actually very useful or actionable. What would the user do with > the information? Hopefully

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql transactons not fully isolated

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: > I get the reported result (DELETE 0 and a table containing 2 and 3) > in both 'read committed' and 'read uncommitted'. Practically speaking those are a single transaction isolation mode.

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in insert.sgml

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > On 6/18/17 03:16, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > >> Patch attached. > > > > This was not a typo, this was intentional.

Re: [HACKERS] psql's \d and \dt are sending their complaints to different output files

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: >> The docs also indicate that we don't include materialized views as >> part of "\d" which seems like an oversight so

Re: [HACKERS] psql's \d and \dt are sending their complaints to different output files

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/19/17 09:00, Oleksandr Shulgin wrote: >> I wonder if it is intentional that \d complains on stderr if it cannot >> find relations to match, but \dt prints the message to the current >> output file?

Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql bug report - unexpected behavior of suppress_redundant_updates_trigger

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... If the trigger is succeeding (ie, >>> detecting a no-op update) often enough that it would be worth that, >>> you've really got an

Re: [HACKERS] how are the rpms configured that are available in PostgreSQL RPM Building Project - Yum Repository

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Cook, Malcolm wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am referring to the contents of https://yum.postgresql.org/ > (specifically version 9.6 rpms for CentoOS7) > > > > More specifically I wonder if they are configured:--with-python > --with-tcl --with-pam

[HACKERS] PATCH: Don't downcase filepath/filename while loading libraries

On Thursday, June 15, 2017, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> (2) My inclination would be not to back-patch. This change could break > >> configurations that

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like > we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing > "all tables". The following looks right - given a publication it would nice

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Whatever you put in the hostaddr field - or any field other than host > and port - is one entry. There is no notion of a list of entries in > any other field, and no attempt to split any other field on a comma or > any

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > If people are on board with throwing an error, I'll go see about > writing a patch. > +1 from me. David J.​

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

Stephen, On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > David, > > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > > * Rob

Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, but with this you're trading that problem for "is the right version > of pg_config in my PATH?". > That is probably a solved problem for those who are parsing the output of --version today. ​ > > This idea might well be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > Attached is a small patch to teach pg_config how to output a > --version-num > > > > With Pg 10, parsing versions got more

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

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Robins Tharakan (thara...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Attached is a patch adds a --no-comments argument to pg_dump to skip > > generation of COMMENT statements when generating a backup. This is > crucial > >

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing dash character in LTREE

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Cyril Auburtin wrote: > Ah sorry, first time, I thought it didn't pass > ​You should check our excellent online mailing list archives before re-sending. https://www.postgresql.org/list/ David J. ​

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing dash character in LTREE

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Cyril Auburtin wrote: > It could be useful to allow the `-` char in allowed LTREE label characters > (currently > a-zA-Z0-9_ https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/ltree.html) > > The reason is to allow to use more easily base64

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

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > > Who is right is a judgement call, but I don't think it's self-evident > that > >

Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, considering that this behavior has been there since 8.4, > I think it's sheerest chutzpah to claim that changing the docs in > v10 would materially reduce the backward-compatibility concerns > for whatever we might do

Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 5/5/17 08:43, David Rowley wrote: > > How about we get the ball rolling on this in v10 and pull that part > > out of the docs. If anything that'll buy us a bit more wiggle room to > > change this in

Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Yeah, the idea that this won't cause possibly significant pain is quite > wrong. Quite by accident I came across an example just this morning where > rewriting as a CTE makes a big improvement. > > I wrote

Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote: > On 05/01/2017 04:33 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se > > I am not sure I like decorators since this means adding an a

Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 05/01/2017 04:17 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >> Maybe we could allow a "decorator" that would tell the planner the CTE >>> could be inlined? >>> >>> WITH INLINE mycte AS ( ...) >>> >> >> +1 for a decorator, -1 for

Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Fetter wrote: > I don't have an exploit yet. What concerns me is attackers' access to > what is in essence the ability to poke at RULEs when they only have > privileges to read. > ​If they want to see how it works they can read the

Re: [HACKERS] Separation walsender & normal backends

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 25/04/17 17:13, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > OTOH, I believe that logical replication is still useful even without > > initial table sync

Re: [HACKERS] question: data file update when pg_basebackup in progress

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Rui Hai Jiang wrote: > When pg_basebackup is launched, a checkpoint is created first, then all > files are transferred to the pg_basebackup client. Is it possible that a > data page(say page-N) in a data file is changed after the checkpoint

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup issue

For reference this has been asked, and eventually answered on -general at: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKFQuwZDS7nA0SvVnumwjHBxz4CWKQm3bVNTHVeWdtAW_oXNJg%40mail.gmail.com#cakfquwzds7na0svvnumwjhbxz4cwkqm3bvnthvewdtaw_ox...@mail.gmail.com Further comments below; partly a rehash of

Re: [HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > The distinction between the standard representation of '{}' as an array > with zero dimensions and nonstandard representations as a 1-dimensional > array with zero elements has come up in a couple of contexts on

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 4/11/17 11:47, David G. Johnston wrote: > > ​A potential middle-ground is to start, but then only allow superuser > > connections. > > Then you might as well start an

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 4/10/17 23:22, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Personally I'd err on the side of "starting up degraded is better than > >> not starting at all". Or maybe we should

Re: [HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Second is aclitem[], past bug #8395 which was not really resolved; empty > ACLs are actually 1-dim arrays of length 0, and all the ACL functions > insist on that, which means that you can't call aclexplode('{}')

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Warn users about duplicate configuration parameters

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Aleksander Alekseev < a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Andres, Tatsuo, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > > > -1 - I frequently just override earlier parameters by adding an > > include at the end of the file. Also, with postgresql.auto.conf it's > >

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Daniel Verite wrote: > Queries can be as complex as necessary, they just have to fit in one line. ​Line continuation in general is missed though I thought something already when in for 10.0 that improves upon this...​ > In no way at

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to > >> fear of breaking existing

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Robert, > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Frost > wrote: > > > While I understand that you'd like to separate the concerns between > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at > initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should > create an "rhaas" database for me, so that this works: > > initdb > pg_ctl

Re: [HACKERS] Our feature change policy

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > . #3 and #4 would need to be weighted depending on > whether choosing them would delay progress, e.g. it did delay progress > on standard-conforming strings, but the delay was determined to be > reasonable. > w.r.t.

Re: [HACKERS] Our feature change policy

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Tom, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Stephen Frost writes: > > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > >> 1. make the change now and mention it in the release notes > > >> 2.

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > One point here is that we need to distinguish problems in the expression, > which could arise from changing variable values, from some other types of > mistakes like \elif with no preceding \if. When you see something

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > * Whether or not you think it's important not to expand skipped variables, > I think that it's critical that skipped backtick expressions not be > executed. > ​ [...] ​ > I do not think that a skipped \if or \elif > should

Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera < > alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > > is incomplete. > > Sure. We can just reword that along

Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera < > alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > There are several ways to

Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I am a bad speaker, I am writing a talk three weeks before the conference > > (as opposed to on the plane). > > Hah. > > > I noticed in the docs we still reference the > > passing of

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running >> > with

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 24 February 2017 at 14:57, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I dislike an error. I'd say that making partition "just work" here is > > material f

Re: [HACKERS] Make subquery alias optional in FROM clause

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:35 AM, David Fetter wrote: > > > => SELECT "?column"? FROM (select 1+1 as "?column?", 1+1) AS x; > > ERROR: 42703: column "?column" does not exist > > LINE 2: SELECT "?column"? FROM (select 1+1 as "?column?", 1+1) AS x; > >^ > > HINT:

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Friday, February 24, 2017, Simon Riggs wrote: > > 2. I know that DB2 handles this by having the user specify WITH ROW > MOVEMENT to explicitly indicate they accept the issue and want update > to work even with that. We could have an explicit option to allow > that. This

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Friday, February 24, 2017, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: > > I am inclined to at least have some option for the user to decide the > > behaviour. In the future we can even consider

Re: [HACKERS] Range Partitioning behaviour - query

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/24 8:38, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > >> Upper bound of a range partition is an exclusive bound. A note was > added > >> recently to the

Re: [HACKERS] Make subquery alias optional in FROM clause

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Or else not generate > a name at all, in which case there simply wouldn't be a way to refer to > the subquery by name; I'm not sure what that might break though. > ​Yeah, usually when I want this I don't end up needing refer

Re: [HACKERS] Make subquery alias optional in FROM clause

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Bernd Helmle writes: > >> From time to time, especially during migration projects from Oracle to > > PostgreSQL, i'm faced with people questioning why the alias in the FROM > > clause for subqueries in

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > What about adding a paragraph into pg_basebackup docs, explaining that > with 'fast' it does immediate checkpoint, while with 'spread' it'll wait > for a spread checkpoint. > I agree that a better, and

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Peter Moser wrote: > >> Using common terms such as ALIGN and NORMALIZE for such a specific > >> functionality seems a bit wrong. > > > > Would ALIGN RANGES/RANGE

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >>> Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated: > >>> 1. Rename nothing: Daniel, > >>> 2.

Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter writes: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:22:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yes. I think a new set-operation keyword would inevitably have to > >> be fully reserved --- UNION, INTERSECT, and

Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Jacobson writes: > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Uh ... maybe check whether SELECT set1 EXCEPT SELECT set2 > and SELECT set2 EXCEPT SELECT set1 are both empty? >

Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Tom, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Stephen Frost writes: > > > This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful > > > or sensible, to me. \gx isn't

Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > This particular bike-shedding really doesn't seem to be terribly useful > > or sensible, to me. \gx isn't "consistent" or "descriptive", frankly. > > Why not? To me it reads as

Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:13 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > In any case the more idiomatic way of writing your query these days (since > 9.4 came out) is: > > SELECT * > FROM pg_constraint pc > LEFT JOIN LATERAL generate_series(1, case whe

Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Consider the below test; > > CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key); > > SELECT * > FROM pg_constraint pc, > CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, > array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE

Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > D'Arcy Cain wrote: > > > > > I am a pretty heavy user of psql but I don't think that that would be > so > > > helpful. I assume you mean a new option, let's call it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > We decided s/pg_xlog/pg_wal/ was necessary because people lost their > data, and we couldn't come up with a reasonable way to change it without > the name. The tradeoff is dataloss vs. dealing with directory renaming >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I *personally* don't think it's worth > changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than > we're apparently willing to do. I'm ok with loosing that argument. I > just don't think the previous

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >