On 15 September 2017 at 19:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Thom,
>
> Thanks for taking a whack at this!
>
> On 2017-09-15 12:16:22 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I've run a fairly basic test with a table with 101 columns, selecting
>> a single row from the table
On 14 September 2017 at 07:34, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When running workloads that include fast queries with a lot of columns,
> SendRowDescriptionMessage(), and the routines it calls, becomes a
> bottleneck. Besides syscache lookups (see [1] and [2]) a major cost of
> that is manipulation
On 14 September 2017 at 09:58, amul sul wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Jesper Pedersen
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amul,
>>
>> On 09/08/2017 08:40 AM, amul sul wrote:
>>>
>>> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA.
>>>
>>
>> This patch needs a rebase.
>>
>
> Thanks for your note
On 17 August 2017 at 10:59, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
>> wrote:
>> > I have rebased the patches on the latest commit.
>>
>> This needs another rebase.
>
>
> I have rebased the patch and ad
On 26 July 2017 at 00:52, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Thom,
>
> * Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote:
>> This is the culprit:
>>
>> commit 23f34fa4ba358671adab16773e79c17c92cbc870
>> Author: Stephen Frost
>> Date: Wed Apr 6 21:45:32 2016 -0400
>
> Thanks
On 25 July 2017 at 21:47, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Tom,
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 16:43 Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> AFAICT, pg_dump has no notion that it needs to be careful about the order
>> in which permissions are granted. I did
>>
>> regression=# create user joe;
>> CREATE ROLE
>> regression=# cr
On 8 April 2016 at 07:13, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 22:17, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>>
>> Quickly skimming 0001 in [4] there appear to be a number of issues:
>> * LWLockHeldByMe() is only for debugging, not functional differences
>> * ReplicationSlotPersistentData is now in an xlog r
On 25 July 2017 at 12:09, tushar wrote:
> v9.6
>
> postgres=# CREATE LANGUAGE alt_lang1 HANDLER plpgsql_call_handler;
> CREATE LANGUAGE
> postgres=# \q
>
> v10 , run pg_upgrade - failing with this error -
>
> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject_metadata "pg_largeobject_metadata"
> pg_restore: crea
On 20 July 2017 at 14:04, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 20 July 2017 at 13:23, tushar wrote:
>> Steps to reproduce -
>>
>> v9.6
>>
>> postgres=# create sequence seq_9166 start 1 increment 1;
>> CREATE SEQUENCE
>> postgres=# create or replace view v3_9
On 20 July 2017 at 13:23, tushar wrote:
> Steps to reproduce -
>
> v9.6
>
> postgres=# create sequence seq_9166 start 1 increment 1;
> CREATE SEQUENCE
> postgres=# create or replace view v3_9166 as select * from seq_9166;
> CREATE VIEW
>
> v10
>
> run pg_upgrade , going to fail with this error
>
>
On 20 July 2017 at 13:09, tushar wrote:
> Steps to reproduce -
>
> v9.6
>
> 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 JOIN t1 d;
> CREATE VIEW
>
> v10 -
>
> run pg_upgrade -
On 22 June 2017 at 22:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Mithun Cy
> wrote:
>> [ new patch ]
>
> I think this is looking better. I have some suggestions:
>
> * I suggest renaming launch_autoprewarm_dump() to
> autoprewarm_start_worker(). I think that will be clearer. R
On 2 May 2017 at 12:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> DROP SUBSCRIPTION mysub NODROP SLOT;
>
> I'm pretty uninspired by this choice of syntax. Logical replication
> seems to have added a whole bunch of syntax that involves prefixing
> words with "
On 26 April 2017 at 18:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -hackers,
>
> We have had ALTER SYSTEM for some time now. It is awesome to be able to make
> changes that can be system wide without ever having to hit a shell but it
> does lack a feature that seems like an oversight, the ability to comment.
>
>
On 23 January 2017 at 11:56, Ivan Kartyshov wrote:
> Thank you for reviews and suggested improvements.
> I rewrote patch to make it more stable.
>
> Changes
> ===
> I've made a few changes:
> 1) WAITLSN now doesn`t depend on snapshot
> 2) Check current replayed LSN rather than in xact_redo_com
On 6 January 2017 at 03:48, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Herewith a patch for doing grouping sets via hashing or mixed hashing
> and sorting.
>
> The principal objective is to pick whatever combination of grouping sets
> has an estimated size that fits in work_mem, and minimizes the number of
> sorting
On 17 February 2017 at 14:14, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 2/16/17 09:44, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I've noticed that when creating a subscription, it can't be
>> interrupted. One must wait until it times out, which takes just over
>> 2 minutes. I'm guessing AL
On 16 February 2017 at 17:00, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> More progress in vectorized Postgres extension (VOPS). It is not required
> any more to use some special functions in queries.
> You can use vector operators in query with standard SQL and still get ten
> times improvement on some queries.
Hi,
At the moment, partitioned tables have a restriction that prevents
them allowing INSERT ... ON CONFLICT ... statements:
postgres=# INSERT INTO cities SELECT 1, 'Crawley',105000 ON CONFLICT
(city_id) DO NOTHING;
ERROR: ON CONFLICT clause is not supported with partitioned tables
Why do we hav
Hi,
I've noticed that when creating a subscription, it can't be
interrupted. One must wait until it times out, which takes just over
2 minutes. I'm guessing ALTER SUBSCRIPTION would have the same
problem.
Shouldn't we have an interrupt for this?
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to fix 2 typos.
1) s/mypubclication/mypublication/
2) Removed trailing comma from last column definition in example.
Thanks
Thom
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_subscription.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_subscription.sgml
index 59e5ad0..250806f 100644
--
On 5 January 2017 at 01:21, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 5 January 2017 at 09:19, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> so here's a rebased series on top of master. No other changes.
>
> Now with actual patches.
Patch 5 no longer applies:
patching file src/include/pgstat.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 745.
1 out of 1 hunk
ay stay in idle in
> transaction state).
>
> 0003 - Fixes buffer initialization in walsender that I found when
> testing the above two. This one should be back-patched to 9.4 since it's
> broken since then.
>
> 0004 - Fixes the foreign key issue reported by Thom Brown and also
Hi,
There's an issue which I haven't seen documented as expected
behaviour, where replicating data to a table which has a foreign key
results in a replication failure. This produces the following log
entries:
LOG: starting logical replication worker for subscription "contacts_sub"
LOG: logical
On 20 October 2016 at 01:15, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Victor Wagner wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:30:59 +0530
> >> Mithun Cy wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Victor Wagner
> >>> wrote:
> >
On 22 October 2016 at 01:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
> > I'm using the latest version of Linux Mint Debian Edition, having
> recently
> > upgraded from an older version, and now I can't get make check-world to
> > finish successfully.
>
> &
On 13 October 2016 at 10:53, Victor Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:30:59 +0530
> Mithun Cy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Victor Wagner
>> wrote:
>
>> Okay but for me consistency is also important. Since we agree to
>> disagree on some of the comments and others have not ex
On 1 September 2016 at 10:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> As outlined in the commit message, this adds support for restrictive RLS
>> policies. We've had this in the backend since 9.5, but they were only
>> available via hooks and therefore exten
On 5 August 2016 at 08:54, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> Working on page compression and some other issues related to
> access methods, I found out that the code related to heap
> looks too complicated. Much more complicated, than it should be.
> Since I anyway got into this area, I want to sugge
On 12 June 2016 at 12:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > Aren't those already set by recoveryStopsBefore()?
>
> It is possible to exit the main redo loop if a NULL record is found
> after calling ReadRecord, in which case
On 11 June 2016 at 13:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > It may be the wrong way of going about it, but you get the idea of what
> I'm
> > suggesting we output instead.
>
> Surely things could be better.
Hi all,
When recovery_target_time is set, but recovery finishes before it reaches
that time, it outputs "before 2000-01-01 00:00:00+00" to the .history
file. This is because it uses recoveryStopTime, which is initialised to 0,
but is never set, and is then passed to timestamptz_to_str, which give
On 15 May 2014 at 19:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:58:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > A recent question from Tim Kane prompted me to measure the overhead
> > costs of EXPLAIN ANALYZE, which I'd not checked in awhile. Things
> > are far worse than I thought. On my current
On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Thom Brown writes:
>> > ...or at least according to the warning message:
>> > postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ;
>> > WARNING: type input fun
Hi,
If a database with the bloom extension installed is dumped and restored,
there's an error with the access method creation:
createdb bloomtest
psql -c 'CREATE EXTENSION bloom;' bloomtest
pg_dump -d bloomtest > ~/tmp/bloom.sql
createdb bloomtest2
psql -d bloomtest2 -f ~/tmp/bloom.sql
The outpu
...or at least according to the warning message:
postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ;
WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile
Thom
On 2 June 2016 at 10:13, konstantin knizhnik
wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 14:20, Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why domain types can not be used for specification of array
>> element:
>>
>>
On 1 June 2016 at 14:20, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> I wonder why domain types can not be used for specification of array
> element:
>
> create domain objref as bigint;
> create table foo(x objref[]);
> ERROR: type "objref[]" does not exist
> create table foo(x bigint[]);
> CREATE TABLE
>
> Is
On 22 May 2016 at 18:52, Josh berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This came up at pgCon.
>
> The 'word <-> word <-> word' syntax for phrase search is not
> developer-friendly. While we need the <-> operator for SQL and for the
> sophisticated cases, it would be really good to support an alternate
> syntax
On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have
>> already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support.
>
> I suspect that won't be an issue (I
On 13 May 2016 at 16:19, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should
>> instead be called 10.0. Initially, opinions were mixed, but consensus
>> seems now to have emerged tha
On 13 May 2016 at 16:05, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should
> instead be called 10.0. Initially, opinions were mixed, but consensus
> seems now to have emerged that 10.0 is a good choice, with the major
> hesitation being that we'v
On 4 May 2016 at 09:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-28 17:41:29 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > I've noticed another breakage, which I can reproduce consistently.
>
> Thanks for the testing! I pushed a fix for this. This wasn't actually
> an issue in the original
On 22 April 2016 at 18:07, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-14 11:09:29 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>> At 2016-04-12 09:00:57 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 3) Actually handle the case of the last open segment
On 22 March 2016 at 02:30, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/03/19 3:30, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is the updated version of the patch.
I've noticed that you now can't cancel a query if there's DML pushdown
to a foreign server
On 17 March 2016 at 21:15, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
> show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
In session 1, I've run:
# begin transaction isolation level repeatable read ;
BEGIN
*# declare stuff scroll cursor for select
On 15 March 2016 at 14:00, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:3
On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks for the suggestion. I have updated the patch to include
>>> > w
On 9 March 2016 at 13:31, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If yes, then the only slight worry is that there will lot of repetition
> in wait_event_type column, otherwise it is okay.
> >
> >
> > There is morerows attribute of entry tag
On 6 Mar 2016 8:27 p.m., "Peter Geoghegan" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree with that. I am utterly mystified by why Bruce keeps
> > beating this drum, and am frankly pretty annoyed about it. In the
> > first place, he seems to think that he invent
On 4 March 2016 at 13:41, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
> I think the wait event types should be documente
On 4 March 2016 at 13:35, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 4 March 2016 at 04:05, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
>>> >> I wouldn't
On 4 March 2016 at 04:05, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> >> I wouldn't bother tinkering with it at this point. The value isn't
>> >> going to be recorded on disk anywhere, so it will be ea
On 2 March 2016 at 14:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is v10 of the patch series. There are 9 parts at the moment:
>
> 0001-teach-pull_-varno-varattno-_walker-about-RestrictInf.patch
> 0002-shared-infrastructure-and-functional-dependencies.patch
> 0003-clause-reduction-using-fun
On 27 February 2016 at 13:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>> The replay_lag is particularly cool. Didn't think it was possible to
>> glean this information
On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
>>>> There seems
On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> There seems to be a copy-pasto there - shouldn't that be:
>>
>> + if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_REP_WAIT_FLUSH] < MyWalSnd->flush)
>
> Indeed, thanks! New patch attached.
I've given this a tes
Hi,
At the moment, if we try to set up a configuration parameter for a
user which doesn't make sense in that context, we get an error message
that doesn't really tell us that we're not allowed to set it for
users:
# ALTER ROLE moo SET log_line_prefix = '%s';
ERROR: parameter "log_line_prefix" ca
Hi all,
As it currently stands, max_parallel_degree is set to a superuser
context, but we probably want to discuss whether we want to keep it
this way prior to releasing 9.6. Might we want to reduce its level so
that users can adjust it accordingly? They'd still be limited by
max_worker_processe
On 10 February 2016 at 08:00, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Fujita-san, I am attaching update version of the patch, which added
> the documentation update.
>
> Once we finalize this, I feel good with the patch and think that we
> could mark this as ready for committer.
I find this wording a bit confusi
On 7 January 2016 at 05:24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Here procArrayGroupXid sounds like Xid at group level, how about
>> >> > procArrayGroupMemberXid?
>> >> > Find the pat
On 4 February 2016 at 15:07, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> public | pgbench_accounts_pkey | index | thom | pgbench_accounts | 214 MB |
>> public | pgbench_branches_pkey | index | thom | pgbench_branches | 24 k
On 4 February 2016 at 14:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> So you disagree with only third version that I proposed, i.e.,
>>> adding some hooks for sync replication? If yes and you're OK
>>> with
On 2 February 2016 at 11:47, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
>
>
> 29.01.2016 20:43, Thom Brown:
>
>> On 29 January 2016 at 16:50, Anastasia Lubennikova
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 29.01.2016 19:01, Thom Brown:
>>>>
>>>> On 29 January 201
On 29 January 2016 at 16:50, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> 29.01.2016 19:01, Thom Brown:
>>
>> On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The
>>> only proble
On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The
> only problem I could find is that INSERT works considerably slower after
> applying a patch. Beside that everything looks fine - no crashes, tests
> pass, memory doesn'
On 28 January 2016 at 17:03, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Anastasia Lubennikova <
> a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>>
>> 28.01.2016 18:12, Thom Brown:
>>
>> On 28 January 2016 at 14:06, Anastasia Lubennikov
On 28 January 2016 at 17:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I'm surprised that efficiencies can't be realised beyond this point. Your
>> results show a sweet spot at around 1000 / 1000, with it getting
>> slig
On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Anastasia Lubennikova <
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> 28.01.2016 18:12, Thom Brown:
>
> On 28 January 2016 at 14:06, Anastasia Lubennikova <
> a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>>
>> 31.08.2015 10:41, Anasta
On 28 January 2016 at 14:06, Anastasia Lubennikova <
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> 31.08.2015 10:41, Anastasia Lubennikova:
>
> Hi, hackers!
> I'm going to begin work on effective storage of duplicate keys in B-tree
> index.
> The main idea is to implement posting lists and posting tree
On 24 January 2016 at 20:11, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 19:53, Victor Wagner wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:58:10 +0000
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Output of \set variables without patch:
>>>
>>> H
On 24 January 2016 at 19:53, Victor Wagner wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:58:10 +
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Output of \set variables without patch:
>>
>> HOST = '127.0.0.1'
>> PORT =
>> '5530,127.0.0.1:5531,127.0.0.1:55
On 24 January 2016 at 15:30, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 +0000
>>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The seg
On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 +0000
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The segfault issue I originally reported now appears to be resolved.
>>&
On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 +0000
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The segfault issue I originally reported now appears to be resolved.
>>&
On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 +
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> The segfault issue I originally reported now appears to be resolved.
>>
>> But now I have another one:
>>
>> psql
>> 'p
On 21 December 2015 at 14:50, Victor Wagner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:18:37 +0300
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but there is something wrong with your patch:
>> % patch -p1 -C < ~/Downloads/libpq-failover-5.patch
>
> Really, somehow broken version of the patch got into message.
>
> Her
Hi,
I've noticed that if I alter the parent of a inheritance tree, there
can be ambiguity of which tables the column definitions were merged
with.
For example:
# CREATE SCHEMA remote;
CREATE SCHEMA
# IMPORT public FROM SERVER remote INTO remote;
IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA
# CREATE TABLE public.cust
On 12 January 2016 at 11:49, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/01/12 20:36, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> On 8 January 2016 at 05:08, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>> On 2016/01/06 20:37, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run
On 3 January 2016 at 13:26, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Munro
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
On 18 January 2016 at 10:46, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Hi All,
> PFA patches for postgres_fdw join pushdown, taken care of all TODOs in my
> last mail.
>
> Here is the list of things that have been improved/added new as compared to
> Hanada-san's previous patch at [1].
>
> 1. Condition handling for
On 15 January 2016 at 15:21, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Currently, when attempting to vacuum a table on a tablespace with no space
>> left, we get an error:
>>
>> postgres=# vacuum test;
>> ERROR: could no
On 8 January 2016 at 05:08, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/01/07 21:50, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>> On 2016/01/06 20:37, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 December 2015 at 10:00, Etsuro Fujita
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Attached is an
On 25 December 2015 at 10:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2015/12/24 4:34, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Rushabh Lathia
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I like idea of separate FDW API for the DML Pushdown. Was thinking can't
>>> we
>>> can re-use the IterateForeignScan(Fo
On 4 January 2016 at 15:17, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2016-01-04 12:46 GMT+01:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr
> :
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-12-30 17:33 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas :
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
w
On 7 December 2015 at 01:30, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 9/14/15 7:24 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>> On 09/12/2015 11:35 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, a grep indicates that there are two places that
>>> MemoryContextData.nextchild is set (and we therefore probably need
>>> to also set
On 13 May 2015 at 04:10, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2015/05/13 0:55, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> Etsuro,
>>
>> * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is an updated version. In this version, the bug has been
>>> fixed, but any regression tests for that hasn't been added, b
On 19 November 2015 at 16:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I'm using git master, and if I crash the database whilst it's running
>> pgbench, then restart the database and try to run pgbench again, I
>> can't:
>&
On 27 March 2015 at 04:54, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:50:24 +0100, Andres Freund
> wrote in <20150326175024.gj...@alap3.anarazel.de>
>> I think the problem here is that the *primary* makes no such
>> assumptions. Init forks are logged via stuff like
>> smg
Hi,
I'm using git master, and if I crash the database whilst it's running
pgbench, then restart the database and try to run pgbench again, I
can't:
thom@swift:~/Development/postgresql$ pgbench -c 1 -j 1 -T 20 -S pgbench
...crash database...
connection to database "pgbench" failed:
could not conne
On 10 June 2015 at 14:41, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:54:59PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
>> I've certainly had quite the experience as a first-time contributor
>> working on this patch. Perhaps I bit off more than I should have and I
>> definitely managed to ruffle a few feathe
On 17 November 2015 at 20:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> However, the first parallel seq scan shows it getting 170314 rows.
>> Another run shows it getting 194165 rows. The final result is
>> correct, but as you can
On 26 October 2015 at 07:58, Victor Wagner wrote:
> On 2015.10.14 at 13:41:51 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote:
>
>> Attached patch which implements client library failover and
>> loadbalancing as was described in the proposal
>> <20150818041850.ga5...@wagner.pp.ru>.
>
> New version of patch
>
> 1. Hand
On 17 November 2015 at 15:43, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/17/15 4:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> Could someone post a TL;DR summary of what the current plan looks
>> like? I can see there is a huge amount of discussion to trawl back
>> through. I can see it's som
On 17 November 2015 at 10:29, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
On 2015-10-31 11:02:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On
On 13 November 2015 at 22:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>> I'm now designing the parallel feature of Append...
>>
>> Here is one challenge. How do we determine whether each sub-plan
>> allows execution in the background worker context?
>
> I've be
On 13 November 2015 at 15:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> On 13 November 2015 at 13:38, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Pavel Stehule
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>&
On 13 November 2015 at 13:38, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> yes - the another little bit unclean in EXPLAIN is number of workers. If I
>> understand to the behave, the query is processed by two processes if workers
>> in the explain is one.
On 13 November 2015 at 03:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> On 12 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Pavel Stehule
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
&
On 12 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have a first query
>>
>> I looked on EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and the numbers of filtered rows are
>> differen
>>
>
> Thanks for the report. The reason for this problem is t
1 - 100 of 784 matches
Mail list logo