Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

On 15 September 2017 at 19:23, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 si

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

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

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

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

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

On 26 July 2017 at 00:52, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Thom, > > * Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote: >> This is the culprit: >> >> commit 23f34fa4ba358671adab16773e79c17c92cbc870 >> Author: Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> >&g

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Failover Slots

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 >> *

Re: [HACKERS] Create language syntax is not proper in pg_dumpall and not working using pg_upgrade

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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed if view is based on sequence

On 20 July 2017 at 14:04, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 20 July 2017 at 13:23, tushar <tushar.ah...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Steps to reproduce - >> >> v9.6 >> >> postgres=# create sequence seq_9166 start 1 increment 1; >> CREATE SE

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed if view is based on sequence

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 ,

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

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

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: ALTER SYSTEM [...] COMMENT

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,

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

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

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for grouping sets

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

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION uninterruptable

On 17 February 2017 at 14:14, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> 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 m

Re: [HACKERS] VOPS: vectorized executor for Postgres: how to speedup OLAP queries more than 10 times without changing anything in Postgres executor

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

[HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

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

[HACKERS] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION uninterruptable

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

[HACKERS] 2 doc typos

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

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

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

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

the other side may 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 Brow

[HACKERS] Logical replication failing when foreign key present

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:

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] make check-world failing for me

On 22 October 2016 at 01:52, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> 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-wo

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for restrictive RLS policies

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

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring of heapam code.

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

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing recovery message when target not hit

On 12 June 2016 at 12:51, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > Aren't those already set by recoveryStopsBefore()? > > It is possible to exit the main redo loop if a NULL reco

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing recovery message when target not hit

On 11 June 2016 at 13:22, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > It may be the wrong way of going about it, but you get the idea of what > I'm > > suggesting we output instead. >

[HACKERS] Confusing recovery message when target not hit

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

Re: [HACKERS] gettimeofday is at the end of its usefulness?

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

Re: [HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile

On 3 June 2016 at 15:26, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> writes: >> > ...or at least according to the warning message: &

[HACKERS] Problem with dumping bloom extension

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

[HACKERS] chkpass_in should not be volatile

...or at least according to the warning message: postgres=# CREATE EXTENSION chkpass ; WARNING: type input function chkpass_in should not be volatile Thom

Re: [HACKERS] array of domain types

On 2 June 2016 at 10:13, konstantin knizhnik <k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Thom Brown wrote: > > On 1 June 2016 at 14:20, Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> > wrote: > >> I wonder why domain types can no

Re: [HACKERS] array of domain types

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

Re: [HACKERS] Adding an alternate syntax for Phrase Search

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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have >> already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. > &

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions

On 4 May 2016 at 09:59, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 iss

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions

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

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

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

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 15 March 2016 at 14:00, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

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

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

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. > >

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

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 > >

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

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

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 4 March 2016 at 13:35, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 4 March 2016 at 04:05, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

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

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics v10

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data

On 27 February 2016 at 13:20, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> The replay_

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data

On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> >> wrote: >>> On

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data

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)

[HACKERS] max_parallel_degree context level

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

[HACKERS] Invalid user-level setting = confusing error message

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"

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

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

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

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

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

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., >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 4 February 2016 at 15:07, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> public | pgbench_accounts_pkey | index | thom | pgbench_accounts | 214 MB | >> public | pgbench_branches_pkey | index | thom

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 2 February 2016 at 11:47, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > > 29.01.2016 20:43, Thom Brown: > >> On 29 January 2016 at 16:50, Anastasia Lubennikova >> <a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>> >>> 29.01.2016 19

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

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,

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 29 January 2016 at 16:50, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > 29.01.2016 19:01, Thom Brown: >> >> On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev >> <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>> >>> I tested this

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 28 January 2016 at 17:09, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> I'm surprised that efficiencies can't be realised beyond this point. Your >> results show a sweet spot at around 1000

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

On 28 January 2016 at 17:03, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> 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 Lube

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

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

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

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

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

On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 + >> Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> The segfau

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

On 24 January 2016 at 15:30, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 + &

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

On 24 January 2016 at 19:53, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:58:10 +0000 > Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > >> >> Output of \set variables without patch: >> >> HOST = '127.0.0.1' >> PORT = >>

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

On 24 January 2016 at 20:11, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 24 January 2016 at 19:53, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:58:10 + >> Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Ou

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

On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 +0000 > Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > >> >> The segfault issue I originally reported now appears to be resolved. >> >> But now I have another on

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

On 23 January 2016 at 03:32, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2016 at 19:30, Victor Wagner <vi...@wagner.pp.ru> wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:34:54 + >> Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> The segfau

[HACKERS] Column merging for inherited tables aren't schema-qualified

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

Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)

On 12 January 2016 at 11:49, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2016/01/12 20:36, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> On 8 January 2016 at 05:08, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> wrote: > > >>>> On 2016/01/06 20:37, T

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

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

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

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

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

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

Re: [HACKERS] Truncating/vacuuming relations on full tablespaces

On 15 January 2016 at 15:21, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> Currently, when attempting to vacuum a table on a tablespace with no space >> left, we get an error: >> >> p

Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)

On 8 January 2016 at 05:08, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> 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 >>> <fujita.ets...@lab

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

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

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

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

Re: [HACKERS] Double linking MemoryContext children

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

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

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

[HACKERS] pgbench unusable after crash during pgbench

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

Re: [HACKERS] Error with index on unlogged table

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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench unusable after crash during pgbench

On 19 November 2015 at 16:11, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> I'm using git master, and if I crash the database whilst it's running >> pgbench, then restart the database and try to ru

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension

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

Re: [HACKERS] Freeze avoidance of very large table.

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

Re: [HACKERS] Freeze avoidance of very large table.

On 17 November 2015 at 15:43, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> 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 >> t

Re: [HACKERS] Patch (3): Implement failover on libpq connect level.

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

Re: [HACKERS] [DESIGN] ParallelAppend

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

Re: [HACKERS] [DESIGN] ParallelAppend

On 17 November 2015 at 20:08, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > >> However, the first parallel seq scan shows it getting 170314 rows. >> Another run shows it getting 194165 rows.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 13 November 2015 at 15:22, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >> On 13 November 2015 at 13:38, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 a

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

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

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 13 November 2015 at 03:39, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> >> On 12 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 a

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

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 >> > >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >