Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype

On 18/12/13 10:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 12/17/2013 04:42 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: On 11/15/2013 05:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: A fundamental problem with this is that it needs to handle isolation reliable, so that the assertion cannot be violated when two concurr

Re: [HACKERS] gaussian distribution pgbench

On 20/12/13 09:36, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: So what I'd actually like to see is \setgaussian, for use in custom scripts. +1. I'd really like to be able to run a benchmark with a Gaussian and uniform distribution side-by-side for comparat

Re: [HACKERS] make_interval ??

On 21/12/13 06:29, Josh Berkus wrote: Pavel, So constructor should to look like: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION make_interval(years int DEFAULT 0, months int DEFAULT 0, ...) and usage: SELECT make_interval(years := 2) SELECT make_interval(days := 14) Is there a interest for this (or similar) fu

Re: [HACKERS] make_interval ??

On 21/12/13 13:40, Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/20/2013 03:09 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: What about leap years? What about them? some years have 365 days others have 366, so how any days in an interval of 2 years?, 4 years? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

On 10/01/14 12:41, David Fetter wrote: [..] David (who is among that tiny minority who believe that arrays should be indexed from 0.5 as a compromise ;) Clearly we should use 1/e as the starting index, where 'e' is Euler's constant 2.718... :-) (Much more mathematically profound!) Cheers, G

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

On 10/01/14 12:55, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter wrote: We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in it will be in other kinds of trouble, too. While the decisio

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql.consistent_into

On 13/01/14 11:44, Florian Pflug wrote: On Jan12, 2014, at 22:37 , Pavel Stehule wrote: There is GUC for variable_conflict already too. In this case I would to enable this functionality everywhere (it is tool how to simply eliminate some kind of strange bugs) so it needs a GUC. We have GUC fo

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

On 14/01/14 14:29, Tom Lane wrote: [...] (2) the float and numeric variants should be implemented under nondefault names (I'm thinking FAST_SUM(), but bikeshed away). People who need extra speed and don't mind the slightly different results can alter their queries to use these variants. One rea

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: EXPLAIN ANALYZE formatting

On 29/01/17 05:31, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2017-01-28 17:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane >: Pavel Stehule mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> writes: > Now EXPLAIN ANALYZE produce too wide rows for usage in presentations > What do you think about possibility to impleme

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On 05/12/16 17:00, Mithun Cy wrote: [...] errorMessage even outside PQconnectPoll. But that seems not required. Attacting the new patch which fixes the same. -- Thanks and Regards Mithun C Y EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com [...] Is that meant to be 'at

Re: [HACKERS] RustgreSQL

On 08/01/17 22:09, Joel Jacobson wrote: Hi all, Is anyone working on porting PostgreSQL to Rust? Corrode looks a bit limited for the task, but maybe it can be a start. It doesn't support goto or switch, but maybe the gotos patterns are not too complicated. My motivation is primarily I don't

Re: [HACKERS] RustgreSQL

On 09/01/17 11:31, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Jan de Visser wrote: Your fear of C in unfounded. The definitive c89 reference is a little book of about 250 pages, more than half of which is about the standard library of which you'll never use more than half. If you ha

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

On 09/04/16 02:58, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Steele mailto:da...@pgmasters.

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable it by default for at least the beta peri

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 23/04/16 00:56, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely it be more likely to flush out race condit

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 22/04/16 17:36, Amit Kapila wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gavin Flower mailto:gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz>> wrote: On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

On 26/04/16 06:38, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 04/25/2016 09:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: max_parallel_nodes I hope you are trolling me. Actually I wasn't. It is usually a little more obvious when I troll, subtlety is not exactly my stro

Re: [HACKERS] Naming of new tsvector functions

On 05/05/16 21:20, Stas Kelvich wrote: On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote: Stas Kelvich writes: On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote: The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me. Okay, so chan

Re: [HACKERS] Naming of new tsvector functions

On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote: Stas Kelvich writes: On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote: Also, I'd supposed that we'd rename to tsvector_something, since the same patch also introduced tsvector_to_array() and array_to_tsvector(). What's the motivation for using ts_ as the prefix? Th

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] "David G. Johnston" writes: "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs rewording. Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure tha

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 09/05/16 10:22, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Flower writes: On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. To me the phrase "which see" is

Re: [HACKERS] Academic help for Postgres

On 12/05/16 02:20, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am giving a keynote at an IEEE database conference in Helsinki next week (http://icde2016.fi/). (Yes, I am not attending PGCon Ottawa because I accepted the Helsinki conference invitation before the PGCon Ottawa date was changed from June to May). As pa

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 14/05/16 09:31, David G. Johnston wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2016, Tom Lane > wrote: Robert Haas > writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > If we don't want to stick with the current practice of debating when > to bump the same

Re: [HACKERS] Reviewing freeze map code

On 18/05/16 09:34, Vik Fearing wrote: On 17/05/16 21:32, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Is SCAN_ALL really the best we can do here? The business of having an underscore in an option name has no precedent (other than CURRENT_DATABASE and the like). ALTER DATABASE has options for ALLOW_CONNECTIONS, CONNE

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add EXPLAIN (ALL) shorthand

On 20/05/16 10:11, David G. Johnston wrote: [...] EXPAIN ABCTV (might need permission to document this variation though) What has an Australian Broadcast Corporation Television got to do with this??? :-) [...] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make c

Re: [HACKERS] Does people favor to have matrix data type?

On 31/05/16 12:01, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: On 05/29/2016 04:55 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: For the closer integration, it may be valuable if PL/R and PL/CUDA can exchange the data structure with no serialization/de-serialization when PL/R code tries to call SQL functions. I had been thinking about so

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric

On 28/01/15 06:29, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Peter" == Peter Geoghegan writes: Peter> What I find particularly interesting about this patch is that it Peter> makes sorting numerics significantly faster than even sorting Peter> float8 values, Played some more with this. Testing on some differ

Re: [HACKERS] Expanding the use of FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER for declarations like foo[1]

On 19/02/15 15:00, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Moreover, if we have any code that is assuming such cases are okay, it probably needs a second look. Isn't this situation effectively assuming that a variable-length array is fixed-len

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for Numeric

On 21/02/15 18:18, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, On 21.2.2015 02:06, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 21.2.2015 02:00, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra writes: >> Right...so don't test a datum sort case, since that isn't supported >> at all in the master branch. Your test case is invalid for

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for Numeric

On 22/02/15 22:59, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Gavin" == Gavin Flower writes: Gavin> What are the standard deviations? Gavin> Do the arithmetic means change much if you exclude the 2 fastest Gavin> & 2 slowest? Gavin> How do the arithmetic means compare t

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL on z/OS UNIX?

On 25/02/15 11:12, Tom Lane wrote: Gord Tomlin writes: z/OS UNIX does have certification as a UNIX system, but there are some quirks. The most common sources of problems when porting packages to z/OS UNIX are its use of EBCDIC, and autoconf problems. I guess it's time for some fail/rinse/repeat

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

On 27/02/15 14:08, David Steele wrote: [...] I agree with Jim's comments. I've generally followed column ordering that goes something like: 1) primary key 2) foreign keys 3) flags 4) other programmatic data fields (type, order, etc.) 5) non-programmatic data fields (name, description, etc.) Th

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

On 28/02/15 09:09, Josh Berkus wrote: Tomas, So for an API, 100% of the use cases I have for this feature would be satisfied by: ALTER TABLE __ ALTER COLUMN _ SET ORDER # and: ALTER TABLE _ ADD COLUMN colname coltype ORDER # If that's infeasible, a function would be less optimal,

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

On 28/02/15 09:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tomas Vondra wrote: 1) change the order of columns in "SELECT *" - display columns so that related ones grouped together (irrespectedly whether they were added later, etc.) - keep columns synced with COPY - requires user interface (A

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

On 28/02/15 12:21, Josh Berkus wrote: On 02/27/2015 03:06 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 27.2.2015 23:48, Josh Berkus wrote: Actually, I'm going to go back on what I said. We need an API for physical column reordering, even if it's just pg_ functions. The reason is that we want to enable people w

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

On 28/02/15 18:34, Jim Nasby wrote: On 2/27/15 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tomas Vondra wrote: 1) change the order of columns in "SELECT *" - display columns so that related ones grouped together (irrespectedly whether they were added later, etc.) FWIW, I find the ordering more

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: raise default for max_wal_segments to 1GB

On 04/03/15 08:57, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus writes: Do we want to remove unit comments from all settings which accept "MB,GB" or "ms,s,min"? There's more than a few. I'd be in favor of this, but seems like (a) it should be universal, and (b) its own patch. Meh. Doing this strikes me as a

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

On 17/12/14 10:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: Your new version 1.7 of the patches fixes that issue, as well as the OID conflict. Good. You're probably aware that I maintain a stress testing suite for the patch here: https://github.com/petergeogh

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 19/12/14 07:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 12/18/2014 04:53 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Having your name in a list of other names at the bottom of the release notes page, without any indication of what you helped with, would work better? Perhaps it would but I tend to doubt it. Out of

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 20/12/14 03:54, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 12/19/2014 04:39 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Marko Tiikkaja (ma...@joh.to) wrote: On 12/19/14 3:27 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: We'd have to coach our users to constantly be tweaking the enable_parallel_query (or whatever) option for the queries where

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions

On 08/07/11 18:21, Darren Duncan wrote: Jeff Davis wrote: On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 20:56 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: When you create a temporary table, PostgreSQL needs to add rows in pg_class, pg_attribute, and probably other system catalogs. So there are writes, which aren't possible in a read

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 20/05/15 07:37, Jan de Visser wrote: On May 19, 2015 07:04:56 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying: My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade resets timeline to 1

On 29/05/15 12:59, Noah Misch wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:26:56PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: Re: Noah Misch 2015-05-28 <20150528150234.ga4111...@tornado.leadboat.com> To clarify for the archives, the 2015-05-16 changes did not revert to 9.3 and earlier behavior. Rather, they standardiz

Re: [HACKERS] Is it possible to have a "fast-write" Index?

On 06/06/15 04:07, deavid wrote: There are several use cases where I see useful an index, but adding it will slow too much inserts and updates. For example, when we have 10 million rows on a table, and it's a table which has frequent updates, we need several index to speed up selects, but then

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/15 21:07, Simon Riggs wrote: On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 09/06/15 00:59, David Gould wrote: I think Alphas are valuable and useful and even more so if they have release notes. For example, some of my clients are capable of fetching sources and building from scratch and filing bug reports and are often interested in particular new features. They even

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 01/07/15 17:37, Amit Kapila wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Jeff Davis > wrote: > > [Jumping in without catching up on entire thread. [...] . > 2. Where is the speedup coming from? How much of it is CPU and IO > overlapping (i.e. not leaving disk or CPU id

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

On 25/06/16 08:33, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford wrote: My observation has been that the PostgreSQL development group aims for correctness and the elimination of surprising results. This was part of the reason to eliminate a number of automatic casts to dat

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 21/06/16 03:53, Mark Dilger wrote: On Jun 18, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 06/16/2016 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: I thought about raising this, but I think in the end it's replacing one confusing and weird versioning scheme for another confusing and weird versioning scheme. It

Re: [HACKERS] to_date_valid()

On 04/07/16 15:19, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2016-07-04 4:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer >: On 3 July 2016 at 09:32, Euler Taveira mailto:eu...@timbira.com.br>> wrote: On 02-07-2016 22 :04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote: > The attached patch ad

Re: [HACKERS] MVCC overheads

Please see comment at the bottom of this post. On 08/07/16 10:48, Pete Stevenson wrote: Good info, thanks for the note. Agreed that it is difficult to pull things apart to isolate these features for offload — so actually running experiments with offload is not possible, as you point out (and f

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 10/07/16 08:00, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by wanting to do arithmetic on the >> numbers. My phrasing of the problem is that after a long query, you >> might get output like this: >> Time: 1234567.

Re: [HACKERS] \timing interval

On 10/07/16 12:08, Andrew Gierth wrote: "Gavin" == Gavin Flower writes: >> How about >> >> Time: 1234567.666 ms (20m 34.6s) Gavin> I like that, but I think the human form should retain the 3 Gavin> decimal places. Scale it. Time: 12.345 ms (0.0

Re: [HACKERS] System load consideration before spawning parallel workers

On 01/08/16 18:08, Haribabu Kommi wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: we observed that spawning the specified number of parallel workers for every query that satisfies for parallelism is sometimes leading to perfor

Re: [HACKERS] Why --backup-and-modify-in-place in perltidy config?

On 16/08/16 16:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/15/2016 02:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 08/15/2016 10:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: We should probably specify -bext='/', which would cause the backup files to be deleted unless an error occurred. Really?

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb and nested hstore

On 15/03/14 08:45, Oleg Bartunov wrote: 9.5 may too optimistic :) On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 03/14/2014 04:52 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: VODKA index will have no lenght limitation. Yeah, so I think we go with what we have, and tell people "if you're hitting these l

Re: [HACKERS] Display of timestamp in pg_dump custom format

On 01/05/14 02:51, Bruce Momjian wrote: The table of contents for pg_restore -l shows the time the archive was made as local time (it uses ctime()): ; Archive created at Wed Apr 30 10:03:28 2014 Is this clear enough that it is local time? Should we display this better, perhaps with a t

Re: [HACKERS] Display of timestamp in pg_dump custom format

On 01/05/14 12:04, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 08:27:49AM +1200, Gavin Flower wrote: On 01/05/14 02:51, Bruce Momjian wrote: The table of contents for pg_restore -l shows the time the archive was made as local time (it uses ctime()): ; Archive created at Wed Apr 30 10

Re: [HACKERS] default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

On 09/05/14 15:34, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 06:39:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I think the idea of hashing only keys/values that are "too long" is a reasonable compromise. I've not finished coding it (because I keep getting distracted by other problems in the code :

Re: [HACKERS] New timezones used in regression tests

On 13/05/14 11:16, Tom Lane wrote: Christoph Berg writes: 84df54b22e8035addc7108abd9ff6995e8c49264 introduced timestamp constructors. In the regression tests, various time zones are tested, including America/Metlakatla. Now, if you configure using --with-system-tzdata, you'll get an error if th

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm animals and 'snapshot too old'

On 21/05/14 01:42, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 05/20/2014 07:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert's got a point here. In my usage, the annoying thing is not animals that take a long time to report in; it's the ones that lie about the snapshot time (which is how you get "512abc4 in the

Re: [HACKERS] PG Manual: Clarifying the repeatable read isolation example

On 08/06/14 05:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: [...] I found it hard to decide how far to go in the docs versus the Wiki page. Any suggestions or suggested patches welcome. [...] I know this is subjective, but that seems to me a little too much in an academic style for the docs. In the Wiki page ex

Re: [HACKERS] "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension

On 09/06/14 17:47, David G Johnston wrote: Ian Barwick wrote Hi, The JDBC API provides the getGeneratedKeys() method as a way of retrieving primary key values without the need to explicitly specify the primary key column(s). This is a widely-used feature, however the implementation has signific

Re: [HACKERS] "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension

On 09/06/14 23:42, Vik Fearing wrote: On 06/09/2014 09:06 AM, Gavin Flower wrote: From memory all unique keys can be considered 'candidate primary keys', but only one can be designated 'the PRIMARY KEY'. Almost. Candidate keys are also NOT NULL. Yeah, obviously! (Ex

<    1   2   3