[HACKERS] Migration to pglister - Before

2017-11-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, We will be migrating these lists to pglister in the next few minutes. This final email on the old list system is intended to let you know that future emails will have different headers and you will need to adjust your filters. The changes which we expect to be most significant to

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

2017-11-10 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, Tom, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > >> I'm guessing no, which essentially means that *we* consider acce

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

2017-11-09 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Further, I agree entirely that we > > shouldn't be deciding that certain capabilities are never allowed to be > > given to a user- but t

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

2017-11-09 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > This is not unlike the discussions we've had in the past around allowing > > non-owners of a table to modify properties of a table, where the

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

2017-11-09 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > While we have been working to reduce the number of superuser() checks in > > the backend in favor of having the ability to GRANT

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

2017-11-09 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, Michael, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY", > >> so that people who wanted true

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] Schedule for migration to pglister

2017-11-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > Each list will receive an email with a link to the wiki about the > > migration after the list has been migrated. > > I suggest doing that the other way 'round. Otherwise, t

[HACKERS] Schedule for migration to pglister

2017-11-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, The PostgreSQL Infrastructure team is working to migrate the project's mailing lists from the existing system (an ancient and unmaintained piece of software called "majordomo2") to a newly developed mailing list system (known as "PGLister"), which better addresses the needs of the

Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup

2017-11-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Lucas, * Lucas (luca...@gmail.com) wrote: > pg_dump was taking more than 24 hours to complete in one of my databases. I > begin to research alternatives. Parallel backup reduced the backup time to > little less than a hour, but it failed almost every time because of > concurrent queries that

Re: [HACKERS] Linking libpq statically to libssl

2017-11-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > and we've certainly not spent effort that I've seen to try to actually > make libpq work when multiple versions of libpq are linked into the same > running backend. ... errr, same running application, that is, not backend. Thanks!

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

2017-11-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > We seem to have a few options for PG11 > > > > 1. Do nothing, we reject MERGE > > > > 2. Implement MERGE for unique index situations only, attempting to > > avoid errors

Re: [HACKERS] Linking libpq statically to libssl

2017-11-02 Thread Stephen Frost
Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 10/27/17 08:24, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: > > I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary > > packages ship with their own copies of libpq and libssl; > > Aside from the advice of "don't do that" ... > > >

Re: [HACKERS] ArrayLists instead of List (for some things)

2017-11-02 Thread Stephen Frost
David, * David Rowley (david.row...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Our List implementation internally uses linked lists which are > certainly good for some things, but pretty bad at other things. Linked > lists are pretty bad when you want to fetch the Nth element, as it > means looping ever each

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

2017-11-02 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > Do we care about people upgrading to unreleased versions? We could do > > nothing, document it in the release notes, or ??? > > Do nothing. Agreed. Not much we can do there. Thanks! Stephen signature.asc

Re: [HACKERS] Remove inbound links to sql-createuser

2017-10-31 Thread Stephen Frost
David, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 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 > >

Re: [HACKERS] Query regarding permission on table_column%type access

2017-10-31 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Neha Sharma (neha.sha...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > I have observed that even if the user does not have permission on a > table(created in by some other user),the function parameter still can have > a parameter of that table_column%type. This is because the creation of the table

Re: [HACKERS] Adding column_constraint description in ALTER TABLE synopsis

2017-10-31 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Lætitia Avrot (laetitia.av...@gmail.com) wrote: > As Amit Langot pointed out, the column_constraint definition is missing > whereas it is used in ALTER TABLE synopsis. It can be easily found in the > CREATE TABLE synopsis, but it's not very user friendly. Agreed. > You will find

Re: [HACKERS] Remove inbound links to sql-createuser

2017-10-31 Thread Stephen Frost
David, * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote: > 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

2017-10-31 Thread Stephen Frost
Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 30 October 2017 at 19:55, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I don't think MERGE should be radically different from other database > > systems and just syntax sugar over a capability we have. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

2017-10-30 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Nothing I am proposing blocks later work. > > That's not really true. Nobody's going to be happy if MERGE has one > behavior in one set of cases and an astonishingly

Re: [HACKERS] Linking libpq statically to libssl

2017-10-30 Thread Stephen Frost
Daniele, * Daniele Varrazzo (daniele.varra...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Daniele Varrazzo writes: > >> I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary > >> packages ship with their own

Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType

2017-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > It seems to me that having ACL_OBJECT_* symbols alongside OBJECT_* > symbols is not useful and leads to duplication. Digging around in the > past suggests that we used to have a lot of these command-specific > symbols but got

Re: [HACKERS] Discussion on missing optimizations

2017-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
Laurenz, * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > One trick that some system use is avoid replanning as much as we do > > by, for example, saving plans in a shared cache and reusing them even > > in other sessions. That's hard to do in our architecture because

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

2017-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, all, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > I don't see a reason to block a directly-logged-in superuser from using a > > mapping. I asked in the closed list whether the current (released) > > behavior

Re: [HACKERS] On markers of changed data

2017-10-10 Thread Stephen Frost
Alvaro, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote: > Greg Stark wrote: > > > The general shape of what I would like to see is some log which lists > > where each checkpoint starts and ends and what blocks are modified > > since the previous checkpoint. Then to generate an incremental

Re: [HACKERS] On markers of changed data

2017-10-08 Thread Stephen Frost
Andrey, * Andrey Borodin (x4...@yandex-team.ru) wrote: > But my other question still seems unanswered: can I use LSN logic for > incrementing FSM and VM? Seems like most of the time there is valid LSN I haven't gone and audited it myself, but I would certainly expect you to be able to use the

Re: [HACKERS] On markers of changed data

2017-10-07 Thread Stephen Frost
Alvaro, Michael, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > > That’s actually what pg_rman is doing for what it calls incremental > > backups (perhaps that would be differential backup in PG > > terminology?), and the performance is bad as you can imagine. We

Re: [HACKERS] On markers of changed data

2017-10-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrey Borodin writes: > >> Is it safe to use file modification time to track that file were changes > >> since previous backup? >

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

2017-10-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Wood, Dan wrote: > > >> Yes, I’ve been testing 9.6. I’ll try Alvaro’s patch today. > > >> > > >> I would prefer to

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

2017-10-03 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) 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 going to verify against?

Re: [HACKERS] Logging idle checkpoints

2017-10-03 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > At Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:23:08 +0900, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in > <cab7npqq3q1j_wbc7ypxk39do0rgvbm4-nyp2gmrcj7pfpjx...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1

Re: [HACKERS] list of credits for release notes

2017-10-02 Thread Stephen Frost
Bruce, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 9/29/17 11:35, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier > > > wrote: > > >> Looking at this list, the first name

Re: [HACKERS] Logging idle checkpoints

2017-10-02 Thread Stephen Frost
Vik, all, * Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > I recently had a sad because I noticed that checkpoint counts were > increasing in pg_stat_bgwriter, but weren't accounted for in my logs > with log_checkpoints enabled. > After some searching, I found that it was the idle

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

2017-09-26 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any other votes out there? > > > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > > to release. (I got

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

2017-09-26 Thread Stephen Frost
Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch > > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just appl

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

2017-09-25 Thread Stephen Frost
Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 5 August 2017 at 10:03, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Patch applies cleanly, make html ok, new table looks good to me. > > So I started looking at this patch, but before even considering the > new table proposed, I

Re: [HACKERS] Reading backup label file for checkpoint and redo location during crash recovery

2017-09-25 Thread Stephen Frost
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Satyanarayana Narlapuram (satyanarayana.narlapu...@microsoft.com) wrote: > > > During crash recovery, last checkpoint record information is obta

Re: [HACKERS] Built-in plugin for logical decoding output

2017-09-25 Thread Stephen Frost
Andres, all, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-09-25 19:32:29 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > On 25/09/17 19:26, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Alvaro Hernandez writes: > > >> In my opinion, logical decoding plugins that don't come with core > > >> are close to

Re: [HACKERS] Reading backup label file for checkpoint and redo location during crash recovery

2017-09-25 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings Satya, * Satyanarayana Narlapuram (satyanarayana.narlapu...@microsoft.com) wrote: > During crash recovery, last checkpoint record information is obtained from > the backup label if present, instead of getting it from the control file. > This behavior is causing PostgreSQL database

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] USER Profiles for PostgreSQL

2017-09-20 Thread Stephen Frost
Bruce, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:28:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > > chiru r <chir...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > We are looking for User profiles in ope so

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] USER Profiles for PostgreSQL

2017-09-19 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > chiru r writes: > > We are looking for User profiles in ope source PostgreSQL. > > For example, If a user password failed n+ times while login ,the user > > access has to be blocked few seconds. > > Please let us know, is there

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-09-15 02:22:49 +, Douglas Doole wrote: > > Thanks all. Making and installing the contribs got me rolling again. (I > > tried "make world" but ran into trouble with the XML docs. But that's pain > > and suffering for another day.) >

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > No, one of the baseline requirements of pg_upgrade is to *not* screw > > with the existing cluster. Removing its WAL or "clea

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Peter, Douglas, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Doole wrote: > > I just cloned PostgreSQL to a new machine today (Ubuntu 17.04). "make > > install" and "make check-world" run fine but "make installcheck-world" is > > having

Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Andres, Simon, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-09-15 01:06:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > If we add something to an area then its a good time to refactor it > > since we were going to get bugs anyway. > > We've added something to the area on a regular basis. As in last in

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, all, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh > wrote: > > I tested upgrading from 9.6 to 10 now, using pg_upgrade, and pg_upgrade > > creates the new data-dir with pg_wal "in it" (just like regular

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

2017-09-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, all, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> > Both Oracle and MySQL allow finite values after MAXVALUE (usually > >> > listed as "0" in code examples, e.g. see [1]). Oracle explicitly > >> > documents the

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

2017-09-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Bruce, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > I have applied the attached patch to show examples of using rsync on > PGDATA and tablespaces, documented that rsync is only useful when in > link mode, and explained more clearly how rsync handles links. You can > see the results here: > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-09-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, all, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > Alright, here's an updated patch which cleans things up a bit and adds > comments to explain what's going on. I also updated the comments in > acl.h to explain that ordering actually does matter. Getting back to this, here'

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

2017-09-12 Thread Stephen Frost
Andreas, * Andreas Joseph Krogh (andr...@visena.com) wrote: > I have to ask; Why not run pg_upgrade on standby, after verifying that it's > in > sync with primary and promoting it to primary if necessary and then making it > standby again after pg_upgrade is finished? I don't think that we

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

2017-09-12 Thread Stephen Frost
ffice? Or does this assume "pg_upgrade > > --link" > > AND "rsync --hard-links" and therefore it somewhat needs to transfer less > > data? > > As I stated above, rsync has to see _both_ hard links on the primary to > recreate them on the standby. I thought the

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

2017-09-10 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > As there begins to be many switches of this kind and much code > duplication, I think that some refactoring into a more generic switch > infrastructure would be nicer. I have been thinking about this also and agree that it would be

Re: [HACKERS] Not listed as committer

2017-08-25 Thread Stephen Frost
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Michael Meskes > wrote: > > I just committed a patch that is listed in the CF and had to put > > somebody (I chose you Bruce :)) in as a committer because I was not > > listed. Do I have to

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

2017-08-24 Thread Stephen Frost
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:24:34PM +0200, Tobias Bussmann wrote: > > I've tested the new \gx against 10beta and current git HEAD. Actually one > > of my favourite features of PostgreSQL 10! However in my environment it was > > behaving strangely. After

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

2017-08-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:24:34PM +0200, Tobias Bussmann wrote: > > I've tested the new \gx against 10beta and current git HEAD. Actually one > > of my favourite features of PostgreSQL 10! However in my environment it was > > behaving strangely. After

Re: [HACKERS] Updating line length guidelines

2017-08-22 Thread Stephen Frost
Craig, all, * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 21 August 2017 at 10:36, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund

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

2017-08-19 Thread Stephen Frost
Noah, all, * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:24:34PM +0200, Tobias Bussmann wrote: > > I've tested the new \gx against 10beta and current git HEAD. Actually one > > of my favourite features of PostgreSQL 10! However in my environment it was > > behaving

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

2017-08-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Noah, all, On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 22:24 Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:24:34PM +0200, Tobias Bussmann wrote: > > I've tested the new \gx against 10beta and current git HEAD. Actually > one of my favourite features of PostgreSQL 10! However in my environment

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > All of (1)-(3) are legitimate user choices, although not everyone will > > make them. (4) is unfortunately the procedure recommended by our > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-04 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 23:17 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Thanks for the patches. I'm planning to push them tomorrow morning > > after a bit more review and testi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I'll provide another update tomorrow. Hopefully Michael is able to produce > > a 9.6 patch, otherwise I'll do it. > > I have sent an u

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-03 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-08-03 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, all, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > This needs more cleanup, testing, and comments explaining why we're > doing this (and then perhaps comments, somewhere.. in the backend ACL > code that explains that the ordering needs to be preserved), but the > basic idea seems

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-02 Thread Stephen Frost
Noah, On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 20:52 Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Noah, all, > > > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due f

Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

2017-08-02 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I wish you'd stop splitting error message strings across multiple lines. > > I've been trapped by a faulty grep not matching a split error message a > > number of times :-( I know by now to remove words

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-08-02 Thread Stephen Frost
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-07-31 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> AFAICT, pg_dump has no notion that it needs to be careful about the order > >> in which permissions are granted. I did > &

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-31 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly > >> send >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-27 Thread Stephen Frost
Noah, all, * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: Based on the ongoing

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-07-26 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > AFAICT, pg_dump has no notion that it needs to be careful about the order > in which permissions are granted. I did I'm afraid that's correct, though I believe that's always been the case. I spent some time looking into this today and from what I've

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-26 Thread Stephen Frost
All, * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> What the change would do is make

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-07-25 Thread Stephen Frost
Thom, On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 20:29 Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 26 July 2017 at 00:52, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Thom, > > > > * Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote: > >> This is the culprit: > >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-07-25 Thread Stephen Frost
Thom, * Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote: > This is the culprit: > > commit 23f34fa4ba358671adab16773e79c17c92cbc870 > Author: Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > Date: Wed Apr 6 21:45:32 2016 -0400 Thanks! I'll take a look tomorrow. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump does not handle indirectly-granted permissions properly

2017-07-25 Thread Stephen Frost
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=# create user bob; > CREATE ROLE >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-24 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Those backup scripts might very well be, today, producing invalid > > backups though, which would be much less good.. > > True. Howe

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-24 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40 AM, David Steele wrote: > > Before reviewing the patch, I would note that it looks like this issue was > > introduced in b6a323a8c before the 9.6 release. The documentation states > > that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-24 Thread Stephen Frost
David, * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 7/23/17 11:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> > >>I started discussing this with David off-list and he'd like a chance to > &g

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-21 Thread Stephen Frost
Masahiko, all, * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Masahiko, Michael, > > > > * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > This is beginning to shape.

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

2017-07-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I agree that it's a common problem for VACUUM to go too fast, or for > > VACUUM to go too slow, but that's really what the vacuum_cost_limit > &g

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

2017-07-20 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Sokolov Yura > wrote: > > But in fact, vacuum process performs FSYNC! It happens, cause vacuum > > evicts dirty pages from its ring buffer. And to evict dirty page, it > > has to

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise

2017-07-20 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Sokolov Yura (y.soko...@postgrespro.ru) wrote: > I wrote two days ago about vacuum ring buffer: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8737e9bddb82501da1134f021bf4929a%40postgrespro.ru > > Increasing Vacuum's ring buffer to size of Bulk Writer's one reduces > autovacuum time in

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise

2017-07-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > At PGConf US Philly last week I was talking with Jim and Jan about > > performance. One of the items that came up is that PostgreSQL can't run > > full throttle for long periods of time. The long and

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Masahiko, Michael, * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > > This is beginning to shape. > > Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you > are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've checked it > whether there is other typos. Please review it.

Re: [HACKERS] Why have we got both largeobject and large_object test files?

2017-07-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I happened to notice that the regression tests contain both > largeobject.sql and large_object.sql. This seems at best confusing and at > worst a source of mistakes. The second file was added in March by commit > ff992c074, has never been touched by

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

2017-07-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Magnus, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I'd suggest that we try to understand why Kerberos couldn't be used in > > that environment. I suspect in at least some cases what

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

2017-07-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Mark, * Mark Cave-Ayland (mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk) wrote: > On 16/07/17 23:26, Thomas Munro wrote: > > Thank you very much for this feedback and example, which I used in the > > documentation in the patch. I see similar examples in the > > documentation for other things on the web. > > >

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

2017-07-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Magnus, all, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > (FWIW, a workaround I've applied more than once to this in AD environments > (where kerberos for one reason or other can't be done, sorry Stephen) is to > set up a RADIUS server and use that one as a "middle man". But it would be >

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II

2017-07-14 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Vladimir Borodin (r...@simply.name) wrote: > > 14 июля 2017 г., в 1:33, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> написал(а): > > What would be really nice for such cases is support for Kerberos and > > delegated Kerberos credentials. Having pgpool support that w

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, all, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you > > are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've checked it

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II

2017-07-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings Tatsuo, * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote: > > What I am suggesting here is that in order to handle properly SCRAM > > with channel binding, pgpool has to provide a different handling for > > client <-> pgpool and pgpool <-> Postgres. In short, I don't have a > > better answer

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-07-09 Thread Stephen Frost
All, * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure. I t

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II

2017-07-07 Thread Stephen Frost
Tatsuo, * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote: > > I recall vaguely Ishii-san mentioning me at PGcon that pgpool was > > actually cheating, but my memories are a bit fuzzy for this part. > > What I meant by "cheating" was, Pgpool-II behaves as if PostgreSQL > server in md5 auth. > > For

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II

2017-07-07 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > IIUC, things will get even worse once channel binding is committed, > > presumably for PostgreSQL 11. The point of channel binding is to > > guarantee

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

2017-06-30 Thread Stephen Frost
Peter, all, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation > >> for > >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug > >> so I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend can terminate background workers and autovacuum launchers

2017-06-23 Thread Stephen Frost
Alvaro, all, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > I tried to make it. Patch attached. > > > > It is easy and simple. Although I haven't tried for autovacuum worker, > > I confirmed I can change other process' parameters without affecting others. > > Do

Re: [HACKERS] Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

2017-06-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut > >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> O

Re: [HACKERS] Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

2017-06-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 6/16/17 10:51, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So I'm back to the position that we ought to stick the indent > >> code under src/tools/ in our main repo. Is

Re: [HACKERS] RLS policy not getting honer while pg_dump on declarative partition

2017-06-19 Thread Stephen Frost
Amit, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2017/06/17 9:20, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I think we could certainly consider if this behavior is desirable in a > > system which includes partitioning instead of inheritance, > > Do we want CREATE POLICY f

Re: [HACKERS] RLS policy not getting honer while pg_dump on declarative partition

2017-06-16 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > While doing some testing I noticed that RLS policy not getting honer > while pg_dump on declarative partition. > > I can understand that while doing SELECT on individual child > table, policy of parent is not getting applied. But is

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Data at rest encryption

2017-06-15 Thread Stephen Frost
Bruce, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:27:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I expect the same would happen with the shell-command approach suggested > > up-thread and the prompt-on-stdin approach too, they aren't great but I > > exp

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >