Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure

2017-11-11 Thread Steve Singer
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested This causes the pgbench tests to fail (consistently) with not ok 194 -

Re: [HACKERS] 10 beta docs: different replication solutions

2017-07-31 Thread Steve Singer
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Steve Singer <st...@ssinger.info> wrote: We don't seem to describe logical replication on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/different-replication-solutions.html The attached patch adds a s

[HACKERS] 10 beta docs: different replication solutions

2017-07-30 Thread Steve Singer
We don't seem to describe logical replication on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/different-replication-solutions.html The attached patch adds a section. Steve diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml index 138bdf2..1329d1f 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on?

2017-04-16 Thread Steve Singer
On 04/10/2017 01:28 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: Hi, src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c * Worker started and attached to our shmem. This check is safe * because only launcher ever starts the workers, so nobody can steal * the worker slot. The tablesync

Re: [HACKERS] sequence data type

2017-01-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/31/2016 01:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Another updated patch, with quite a bit of rebasing and some minor code polishing. Patch applies cleanly and the tests pass The feature seems to work as expected. I've tried this out and it behaves as expected and desired. I also tested the

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2017-01-01 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/30/2016 05:53 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I rebased this for the changes made to inheritance and merged in the fixes that I previously sent separately. I'm not sure if the following is expected or not I have 1 publisher and 1 subscriber. I then do pg_dump on my subscriber ./pg_dump

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/18/2016 09:04 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 18/12/16 19:02, Steve Singer wrote: pg_dump is also generating warnings pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: don't know how to set owner for object type SUBSCRIPTION I know that the plan is to add proper ACL's for publications and subscriptions later. I

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-18 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/18/2016 05:28 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/12/16 18:34, Steve Singer wrote: On 12/16/2016 07:49 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Yeah subscriptions are per database. I don't want to make v14 just for these 2 changes as that would make life harder for anybody code-reviewing the v13 so attached

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-17 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/16/2016 07:49 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, attached is version 13 of the patch. I merged in changes from PeterE. And did following changes: - fixed the ownership error messages for both provider and subscriber - added ability to send invalidation message to invalidate whole relcache and

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-11-20 Thread Steve Singer
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 13/11/16 23:02, Steve Singer wrote: There is one exception though: *** 195,214 A conflict will produce an error and will stop the replication; it ! must be resolved manually by the user. ! The resolution can

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-11-13 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/31/2016 06:38 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 31/10/16 00:52, Steve Singer wrote: There are some fundamental issues with initial sync that need to be discussed on list but this one is not known. I'll try to convert this to test case (seems like useful one) and fix it, thanks for the report

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-11-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/31/2016 06:38 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: There are some fundamental issues with initial sync that need to be discussed on list but this one is not known. I'll try to convert this to test case (seems like useful one) and fix it, thanks for the report. In meantime I realized I broke the last

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-10-30 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/24/2016 09:22 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, attached is updated version of the patch. There are quite a few improvements and restructuring, I fixed all the bugs and basically everything that came up from the reviews and was agreed on. There are still couple of things missing, ie column

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-09-20 Thread Steve Singer
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 9/18/16 4:17 PM, Steve Singer wrote: I think if we want to prevent the creation of subscriptions that point to self, then we need to create a magic token when the postmaster starts and check for that when we connect. So more of a running

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-09-18 Thread Steve Singer
ion connects back to same db (although that check is somewhat imperfect) and if it gets stuck on create slot it should be normally cancelable (that should solve the issue Steve Singer had) - fixed the tests to work in any timezone - added DDL regress tests for subscription - added proper detect

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-09-18 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/08/2016 06:59 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: - the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION also tries to check if the specified connection connects back to same db (although that check is somewhat imperfect) and if it gets stuck on create slot it should be normally cancelable (that should solve the issue Steve

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-09-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/05/2016 03:58 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 08/31/2016 04:51 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, and one more version with bug fixes, improved code docs and couple more tests, some general cleanup and also rebased on current master for the start of CF. A few more things I noticed when

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-09-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 08/31/2016 04:51 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, and one more version with bug fixes, improved code docs and couple more tests, some general cleanup and also rebased on current master for the start of CF. To get the 'subscription' TAP tests to pass I need to set export PGTZ=+02

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-08-13 Thread Steve Singer
On 08/05/2016 11:00 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, as promised here is WIP version of logical replication patch. Thanks for keeping on this. This is important work Feedback is welcome. + + Publication + +A Publication object can be defined on any master node, owned by one +

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-02-02 Thread Steve Singer
On 01/26/2016 10:43 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 23 January 2016 at 11:17, Steve Singer <st...@ssinger.info <mailto:st...@ssinger.info>> wrote: ** Schema changes involving rewriting big tables Sometimes you have a DDL change on a large table that will involve a t

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-02-02 Thread Steve Singer
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, failed Here is some more review +-

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-01-22 Thread Steve Singer
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested This reply will covers a 10,000 foot level review of the feature (some of

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-01-16 Thread Steve Singer
On 01/15/2016 12:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: That's bug, fixed. Can you posted an updated patch with whatever fixes you have so far made? There are several statuses the table goes through, during the COPY it's in synchronizing status, so next logical step seemed to be synchronized. Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-01-10 Thread Steve Singer
On 01/09/2016 01:30 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: I'm not really sure what to do to 'recover' my cluster at this point so I'll send this off and rebuild my cluster and start over. I had a setup test1--->test2 (with 2 tables in the default set)

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-01-09 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). The pglogical contrib module provides extension which does the master-slave logical replication

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

2016-01-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). Hi, make check gives me for extra in ../../contrib/pglogical_output contrib/pglogical; do make

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

2015-11-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/15/2015 05:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: All other issues raised by Álvaro and Steve have been addressed, except for this one, which I will argue against: I've been looking through the updated patch In snapmgr.c + * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64 value to be atomic, we can

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

2015-09-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 08/31/2015 10:07 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Kevin, I've started to do a review on this patch but I am a bit confused with some of what I am seeing. The attached testcase fails I replace the cursor in your test case with direct selects from the table. I would have expected this to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] libpq: Allow specifying multiple host names to try to connect to

2015-07-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 04/19/2015 11:18 AM, Mikko Tiihonen wrote: Hi, I would like allow specifying multiple host names for libpq to try to connecting to. This is currently only supported if the host name resolves to multiple addresses. Having the support for it without complex dns setup would be much easier.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] HINT: pg_hba.conf changed since last config reload

2014-12-20 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/19/2014 10:41 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: I don't think so. The scenario this patch relies on assumes that the DBA will remember to look in the log if something goes wrong, and in your case there would be a message like the following: WARNING: pg_hba.conf not reloaded So an extra hint

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] HINT: pg_hba.conf changed since last config reload

2014-12-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 12/15/2014 11:38 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: These are all valid concerns IMHO. Attached is the modified version of the original patch by Craig, addressing the handling of the new hint_log error data field and removing the client-side HINT. I'm also moving this to the current CF. -- Alex

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/19/2014 08:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think we're overblowing the pg_upgrade issue. Surely we don't need to preserve commit_ts data when upgrading across major versions; and pg_upgrade is perfectly prepared to remove old data when upgrading (actually it just doesn't copy it; consider

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-11-17 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/16/2014 04:49 PM, Steve Singer wrote: I installed things following the above steps on a different system than my usual development laptop and I have been unable to reproduce the error so for (on that system). But I am still able to reproduce it on occasion on my normal development

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-11-17 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/17/2014 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-11-13 22:23:02 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: Also since updating (to 2c267e47afa4f9a7c) I've seen a assertion failure in a normal client connection, not the walsender #3 0x006b4978 in GetSerializableTransactionSnapshotInt

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-11-17 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/17/2014 11:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, Kevin: CCed you, because it doesn't really look like a logical decoding related issue. On 2014-11-17 11:25:40 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: On 11/17/2014 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-11-13 22:23:02 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: Also

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-11-16 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/13/2014 02:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi Steve, If it still happens, could you send me instructions of how to reproduce the problem after cloning the necessary source repositories? It's quite hard to validate a possible fix otherwise. 1. Install PG 9.4 2. Perform an initdb

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-14 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/14/2014 08:21 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: The requested information is already available, as discussed. Logical decoding adds commit ordering for *exactly* the purpose of using it for replication, available to all solutions. This often requested feature has now been added and doesn't need to be

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-11-13 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/13/2014 02:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote: H I've pushed a fix for a bug that could possibly also cause this. Although it'd be odd that it always hits the user catalog table. Except if your tests mostly modify the slony tables, but do not do much DDL otherwise? The test I was running

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-10 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/10/2014 08:39 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 09/11/14 17:57, Steve Singer wrote: On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still want to have some

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-09 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still want to have some bytes for storing the origin or whatever you want to call it there, as that's the

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/05/2014 11:23 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: Except that commit time is not guaranteed unique *even on a single system*. That's my whole point. If we're going to bother with all the commit time machinery it seems really silly to provide a way to uniquely order every commit. Clearly trying to

Re: [HACKERS] tracking commit timestamps

2014-11-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: Imo that's essentially a different feature. What you essentially would need here is a 'commit sequence number' - but no timestamps. And probably to be useful that number has to be 8 bytes in itself

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too large error when initializing logical replication (9.4)

2014-10-30 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/28/2014 01:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2014-10-25 18:09:36 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: I sometimes get the error snapshot too large from my logical replication walsender process when in response to a CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT. Yes. That's possible if 'too much' was going on until

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-10-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/28/2014 01:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-10-25 18:18:07 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: My logical decoding plugin is occasionally getting this error could not resolve cmin/cmax of catalog tuple I get this when my output plugin is trying to read one of the user defined catalog tables

[HACKERS] snapshot too large error when initializing logical replication (9.4)

2014-10-25 Thread Steve Singer
I sometimes get the error snapshot too large from my logical replication walsender process when in response to a CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT. This is in SnapBuildExportSnapshot in snapbuild.c newxcnt is 212 at that point I have max_connections = 200 procArray-maxProcs=212 Should we be testing

[HACKERS] logical decoding - reading a user catalog table

2014-10-25 Thread Steve Singer
My logical decoding plugin is occasionally getting this error could not resolve cmin/cmax of catalog tuple I get this when my output plugin is trying to read one of the user defined catalog tables (user_catalog_table=true) I am not sure if this is a bug in the time-travel support in the

Re: [HACKERS] Moving of INT64_FORMAT to c.h

2014-10-22 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/16/2014 08:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-10-16 08:04:17 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote: Hi, PostgreSQL has for ages defined INT64_FORMAT and UINT64_FORMAT in pg_config.h. This commit http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ce486056ecd28050 moved those definitions to

Re: [HACKERS] Moving of INT64_FORMAT to c.h

2014-10-22 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/22/2014 04:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Slonik used to include postgre_fe.h but back in 2011 or so we stopped doing so because it was causing issues (I think on win32 builds) That seems like something we ought to consider fixing, but obviously we'd need more details. When I'll try to find

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] HINT: pg_hba.conf changed since last config reload

2014-10-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/16/2014 11:34 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: Given the generally positive reception to this, here's a patch. The first patch adds an errhint_log , akin to the current errdetail_log, so we can send a different HINT to the server log than we do to the client. The patch behaves as you describe.

Re: [HACKERS] Replication identifiers, take 3

2014-09-27 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/26/2014 06:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-09-26 14:57:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Sure, it'll possibly not be trivial to move them elsewhere. On the other hand, the padding bytes have been unused for 8+ years without somebody laying claim on them but me. I don't think it's a good

Re: [HACKERS] Replication identifiers, take 3

2014-09-27 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/26/2014 10:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-09-26 09:53:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Let me try to summarize the information requirements for each of these things. For #1, you need to know, after crash

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 logical decoding assertion

2014-08-15 Thread Steve Singer
On 08/15/2014 09:42 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-08-14 16:03:08 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: I hit the following on 9.4 testing logical decoding. TRAP: FailedAssertion(!(prev_first_lsn cur_txn-first_lsn), File: reorderbuffer.c, Line: 618) LOG: server process (PID 3801) was terminated

[HACKERS] 9.4 logical decoding assertion

2014-08-14 Thread Steve Singer
I hit the following on 9.4 testing logical decoding. TRAP: FailedAssertion(!(prev_first_lsn cur_txn-first_lsn), File: reorderbuffer.c, Line: 618) LOG: server process (PID 3801) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted Unfortunately I don't have a core file and I haven't been able to reproduce

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 logical replication - walsender keepalive replies

2014-08-11 Thread Steve Singer
On 07/14/2014 01:19 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 07/06/2014 10:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi Steve, Right. I thought about this for a while, and I think we should change two things. For one, don't request replies here. It's simply not needed, as this isn't dealing with timeouts. For another

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 logical replication - walsender keepalive replies

2014-07-14 Thread Steve Singer
On 07/06/2014 10:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi Steve, Right. I thought about this for a while, and I think we should change two things. For one, don't request replies here. It's simply not needed, as this isn't dealing with timeouts. For another don't just check -flush sentPtr but also

[HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

2014-07-08 Thread Steve Singer
I've encountered a corrupt pg_control file on my 9.4 development cluster. I've mostly been using the cluster for changeset extraction / slony testing. This is a 9.4 (currently commit 6ad903d70a440e + a walsender change discussed in another thread) but would have had the initdb done with an

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

2014-07-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 07/08/2014 10:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info writes: I've encountered a corrupt pg_control file on my 9.4 development cluster. I've mostly been using the cluster for changeset extraction / slony testing. This is a 9.4 (currently commit 6ad903d70a440e + a walsender

[HACKERS] 9.4 logical replication - walsender keepalive replies

2014-06-30 Thread Steve Singer
In 9.4 we've the below block of code to walsender.c as /* * We only send regular messages to the client for full decoded * transactions, but a synchronous replication and walsender shutdown * possibly are waiting for a later location. So we send pings * containing the flush location every

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE REPLICATION SLOT fails on a timeout

2014-05-30 Thread Steve Singer
On 05/28/2014 06:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, Pushed a fix for it. I am pretty sure it will, but could you still test that it fixes your problem? Thanks! The fix seems to work (I am no longer getting the timeout on slot creation) Thanks Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] CREATE REPLICATION SLOT fails on a timeout

2014-05-16 Thread Steve Singer
I am finding that my logical walsender connections are being terminated due to a timeout on the CREATE REPLICATION SLOT command. with terminating walsender process due to replication timeout Below is the stack trace when this happens #3 0x0067df28 in WalSndCheckTimeOut

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE REPLICATION SLOT fails on a timeout

2014-05-16 Thread Steve Singer
On 05/16/2014 04:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, I don't think that's going to cut it though. The creation can take longer than whatever wal_sender_timeout is set to (when there's lots of longrunning transactions). I think checking whether last_reply_timestamp = 0 during timeout checking is

[HACKERS] assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical

2014-04-17 Thread Steve Singer
With master/9.4 from today (52e757420fa98a76015c2c88432db94269f3e8f4) I am getting an assertion when doing a truncate via SPI when I have wal_level=logical. Stack trace is below. I am just replicating a table with normal slony (2.2) I don't need to establish any replication slots to get

Re: [HACKERS] assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical

2014-04-17 Thread Steve Singer
On 04/17/2014 04:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2014-04-17 16:23:54 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: With master/9.4 from today (52e757420fa98a76015c2c88432db94269f3e8f4) I am getting an assertion when doing a truncate via SPI when I have wal_level=logical. Stack trace is below. I am just

Re: [HACKERS] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. Michael Paquier

2014-01-06 Thread Steve Singer
On 01/05/2014 09:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Mark Dilger markdil...@yahoo.com mailto:markdil...@yahoo.com wrote: I am building a regression test system for replication and came across this email thread. I have gotten pretty far into my implementation, but

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3

2013-12-07 Thread Steve Singer
On 08/22/2013 02:02 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: rebased Regards Pavel This patch again needs a rebase, it no longer applies cleanly. plpgsql_estate_setup now takes a shared estate parameter and the call in pl_check needs that. I passed NULL in and things seem to work. I think this is

Re: [HACKERS] Replication Node Identifiers and crashsafe Apply Progress

2013-11-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/14/2013 12:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hello, As you know, the reason we are working changeset extraction is that we want to build logical unidirection and bidirectional replication ontop. To use changeset extraction effectively, I think one set of related features ontop is very useful:

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.5

2013-11-13 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/11/2013 02:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-11-10 14:45:17 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: Not really keen - that'd be a noticeable overhead. Note that in the cases where DEFAULT|INDEX is used, you can just use the new tuple to extract what you need for the pkey lookup since they now have

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.5

2013-11-10 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/10/2013 09:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Still give me the following: update disorder.do_inventory set ii_in_stock=2 where ii_id=251; UPDATE 1 test1=# LOG: tuple in table with oid: 35122 without primary key Hm. Could it be that you still have an older test_decoding plugin lying around? The

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.5

2013-11-09 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/05/2013 10:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, Attached to this mail and in the xlog-decoding-rebasing-remapping branch in my git[1] repository you can find the next version of the patchset that: * Fixes full table rewrites of catalog tables using the method Robert prefers (which is to log

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.5

2013-11-09 Thread Steve Singer
On 11/09/2013 05:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-11-09 17:36:49 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: On 11/05/2013 10:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, Attached to this mail and in the xlog-decoding-rebasing-remapping branch in my git[1] repository you can find the next version of the patchset

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.1

2013-10-08 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/07/2013 09:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Todo: * rename treat_as_catalog_table, after agreeing on the new name * rename remaining timetravel function names * restrict SuspendDecodingSnapshots usage to RelationInitPhysicalAddr, that ought to be enough. * add InLogicalDecoding() function. *

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.2

2013-10-07 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/03/2013 04:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Ok, there were a couple of bugs because I thought mxacts wouldn't need to be supported. So far your testcase doesn't crash the database anymore - it spews some internal errors though, so I am not sure if it's entirely fixed for you. Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator - Review

2013-10-03 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/30/2013 09:08 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info wrote: How about To support matching of rows which include elements without a default B-tree operator class, the following operators are defined for composite type comparison: literal

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.2

2013-10-03 Thread Steve Singer
On 10/03/2013 12:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Does your code use SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE on system or treat_as_catalog tables? Greetings, Andres Freund Yes. It declares sl_table and sl_sequence and sl_set as catalog. It does a SELECT .. from @NAMESPACE@.sl_table T, @NAMESPACE@.sl_set

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.2

2013-10-01 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/30/2013 06:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, The series from friday was a bit too buggy - obviously I was too tired. So here's a new one: With this series I've also noticed #2 0x007741a7 in ExceptionalCondition ( conditionName=conditionName@entry=0x7c2908 !(!(tuple-t_infomask

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator - Review

2013-09-29 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/28/2013 03:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: para +To support matching of rows which include elements without a default +B-tree operator class, the following operators are defined for composite +type comparison: +literal*=/, +literal*lt;gt;/, +literal*lt;/, +

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.1

2013-09-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/27/2013 11:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote: I'm encountering a make error: Gah. Lastminute changes. Always the same... Updated patch attached. Greetings, Andres Freund I'm still encountering an error in the make. make clean . .make[3]: Entering directory

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/27/2013 05:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi Steve, On 2013-09-27 17:06:59 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik commands to add tables to replication (set add

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-27 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/26/2013 02:47 PM, Steve Singer wrote: I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik commands to add tables to replication (set add table, set add sequence). This is before the SUBSCRIBE SET

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-26 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/25/2013 01:20 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 09/25/2013 11:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-09-25 11:01:44 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit Rename various freeze multixact variables. And I am

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-25 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit Rename various freeze multixact variables. And I am even partially guilty for that patch... Rebased patches attached. While testing the logical replication changes against my WIP logical

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-25 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/25/2013 11:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-09-25 11:01:44 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit Rename various freeze multixact variables. And I am even partially guilty for that patch

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-24 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/24/2013 11:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Not having a consumer of the walsender interface included sounds like a bad idea to me, even if it were only useful for testing. Now, you could argue it should be in /contrib - and I wouldn't argue against that except it shares code with the rest of

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-21 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/20/2013 06:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, The points I find daunting are the semantics, like: * How do we control whether a standby is allowed prevent WAL file removal. What if archiving is configured? * How do we control whether a standby is allowed to peg xmin? * How long do we

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator - Review

2013-09-20 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/20/2013 08:38 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Did you look at the record_eq and record_cmp functions which exist before this patch? Is there a reason we should do it one way for the default operators and another way for this alternative? Do you think we should change record_eq and record_cmp

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator - Review

2013-09-19 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/12/2013 06:27 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Attached is a patch for a bit of infrastructure I believe to be necessary for correct behavior of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY as well as incremental maintenance of matviews. Here is attempt at a review of the v1 patch. There has been a

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

2013-09-18 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/18/2013 11:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Kevin Grittner (kgri...@ymail.com) wrote: = and aren't listed above even though they do a byte-for-byte comparison because, well, I guess because we have chosen to treat two UTF8 strings which produce the same set of glyphs using different bytes

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches git tree

2013-07-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 07/05/2013 08:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-06-27 21:52:03 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: Tried that, too, and problem persists. The log shows the last commit on your branch as 022c2da1873de2fbc93ae524819932719ca41bdb. Ok. I think I have a slight idea what's going on. Could you check

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches git tree

2013-07-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 07/05/2013 09:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-07-05 09:28:45 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: On 07/05/2013 08:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-06-27 21:52:03 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: Tried that, too, and problem persists. The log shows the last commit on your branch

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches git tree

2013-07-05 Thread Steve Singer
On 06/14/2013 06:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote: The git tree is at: git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/andresfreund/postgres.git branch xlog-decoding-rebasing-cf4 http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/andresfreund/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/xlog-decoding-rebasing-cf4 We discussed

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix conversion for Decimal arguments in plpython functions

2013-06-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 06/27/2013 05:04 AM, Szymon Guz wrote: On 27 June 2013 05:21, Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info mailto:st...@ssinger.info wrote: On 06/26/2013 04:47 PM, Szymon Guz wrote: Hi Steve, thanks for the changes. You're idea about common code for decimal and cdecimal is good, however

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix conversion for Decimal arguments in plpython functions

2013-06-26 Thread Steve Singer
On 06/26/2013 04:47 PM, Szymon Guz wrote: Attached patch has all changes against trunk code. There is added a function for conversion from Postgres numeric to Python Decimal. The Decimal type is taken from cdecimal.Decimal, if it is available. It is an external library, quite fast, but

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix conversion for Decimal arguments in plpython functions

2013-06-25 Thread Steve Singer
On 06/25/2013 06:42 AM, Szymon Guz wrote: Hi, I've attached a new patch. I've fixed all the problems you've found, except for the efficiency problem, which has been described in previous email. thanks, Szymon This version of the patch addresses the issues I mentioned. Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix conversion for Decimal arguments in plpython functions

2013-06-24 Thread Steve Singer
On 05/28/2013 04:41 PM, Szymon Guz wrote: Hi, I've got a patch. This is for a plpython enhancement. There is an item at the TODO list http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Server-Side_Languages Fix loss of information during conversion of numeric type to Python float This patch uses a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade fails, mismatch of relation OID - 9.1.9 to 9.2.4

2013-05-13 Thread Steve Singer
On 05/11/2013 04:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 08:03:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, this verifies that the table had a lot of DDL churn. I have no idea how to pursue this further because I am unsure how we are going to replicate the operations performed on this

Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release?

2013-04-23 Thread Steve Singer
but I haven't yet seen a patch. -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:35 PM To: Anne Rosset Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release? On 13-04-22 04:41 PM, Anne Rosset

Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release?

2013-04-23 Thread Steve Singer
really need to make sure). Thanks, Anne -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:33 AM To: Anne Rosset Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release? On 13-04-22 11:46 PM, Anne

Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release?

2013-04-22 Thread Steve Singer
On 13-04-22 01:38 PM, Anne Rosset wrote: Hi, We are seeing some overall performance degradation in our application since we installed the security release. Other commits were also done at the same time in the application so we don't know yet if the degradation has any relationship with the

Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release?

2013-04-22 Thread Steve Singer
this issue. I will dig into our logs to see for the query times. Thanks, Anne -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:59 PM To: Anne Rosset Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security

Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release?

2013-04-22 Thread Steve Singer
and doing manual vacuums during those times. -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:26 PM To: Anne Rosset Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance with the new security release? On 13-04-22 04:15 PM, Anne

  1   2   3   >