Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > A typo in all the messages the patch adds: > "to an another" -> "to another" > Thanks for the looking into the patch, will fix in the next version. Regards, Amul

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Jan Michálek wrote: > Thanks Please avoid top-posting. This breaks the thread logic. > My english is little bit poor and my understanding of formal part of commit > process is only partial. Don't worry, we'll all here to learn. If you

Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:18 PM, amul sul wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul

Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:53:41PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Is it possible for you to test the attached patch and see if you are > still seeing any unexpected values? well, not really. the explains i had were posted by people on explain.depesz.com, so i don't have original queries nor their

Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 04:55:17PM +, Oliver Ford wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> > On 2017-11-27 17:34, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2017-11-27 16:01, Oliver Ford

Re: default range partition and constraint exclusion

Horiguchi-san, thanks for the clarifying comment. On 2017/11/27 18:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:49:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote >> OK, so I am still confused about whether the constraint is wrong or >> the constraint exclusion logic is wrong. One of them, at least, has >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM, amul sul wrote: > Thanks a lot Rajkumar for this test. I am able to reproduce this crash by > enabling partition wise join. > > The reason for this crash is the same as > the > previous[1] i.e node->as_whichplan > value. This time

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

> On 28 Nov 2017, at 12:01, Jan Michálek wrote: > > Sorry, I haven`t any new progres. > Can you move my patch to next (or it is problem)? I have to solve some > personal issues. I want to finish this, but im not able to promise, that it > will be in next months. No

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

Thanks My english is little bit poor and my understanding of formal part of commit process is only partial. 2017-11-28 12:07 GMT+01:00 Daniel Gustafsson : > > > On 28 Nov 2017, at 12:01, Jan Michálek wrote: > > > > Sorry, I haven`t any new progres. > >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > In short, we should get rid of all of this expensive and broken logic and > just make EPQ recheck on a foreign join be a no-op, just as it is for a > foreign base table. I'm not sure that it is. What of

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I also wonder whether there should be a mechanism to turn off channel > binding from the client. Right now, there is no way to test the > non-PLUS mechanism in an SSL build. I think that would be a

Re: documentation is now XML

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart >> to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well. > My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't

Re: documentation is now XML

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 11/28/2017 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> One thing we'd definitely better do is enable some buildfarm coverage. >> AFAIK, the only buildfarm animal that's building the docs is guaibasaurus, >> and it only seems to be doing that on HEAD.

Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Rady, Doug wrote: > This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select() > to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented, > when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources.

Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> I haven't checked whether this fixes the bug, but if it does, we can >> avoid introducing an extra branch in BitmapHeapNext. > > With my test it's fixing the problem. I tested it some more and found that, for me, it

Re: documentation is now XML

On 11/28/2017 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > One thing we'd definitely better do is enable some buildfarm coverage. > AFAIK, the only buildfarm animal that's building the docs is guaibasaurus, > and it only seems to be doing that on HEAD. Since this has considerably > increased the risks of

Re: default range partition and constraint exclusion

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I am out of time for today but will try to look at this some more tomorrow. Upon closer study this seems to definitely be a correct fix, so I have committed it. Apologies for my earlier confusion. -- Robert Haas

Re: documentation is now XML

On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote: > I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart > to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well. My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if anyone else wants to investigate it. But it took us years to

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 11/28/17 10:34, Simon Riggs wrote: > Is ERRCODE_INVALID_FUNCTION_DEFINITION still appropriate? Well, maybe not, but changing that is likely more trouble than it's worth. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training &

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

On 10/31/17 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 2) SPI needs some work. It thinks that it can clean everything away at > transaction end. I have found that instead of TopTransactionContext one > can use PortalContext and get a more suitable life cycle for the memory. > I have played with some

Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support

On 11/28/2017 04:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 11/19/17 20:56, Michael Paquier wrote: --with-ssl=(openssl|gnutls) I'm not sure whether this is a great improvement. Why upset existing build and packaging scripts? The usual options style is --with-nameoflib. We can have separate

Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51:19AM +, Oliver Ford wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 AM, David Fetter wrote: > > I've taken the liberty of adding float8, somewhat mechanically. Do > > the docs need some change, assuming that addition is useful? > > > > Best, > > David. >

Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Anything "below" "Gather"? >> > I think it is "actual_time * 1" for anything below Gather. The actual time amounts below Gather show total elapsed time divided by loop count, just as they do anywhere else in the

Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Dilip Kumar > wrote: > > I think BitmapHeapScan check whether dsa is valid or not if DSA is not > > valid then it should assume it's non-parallel plan. > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 29 November 2017 at 02:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a new patch that addresses the previous review comments. > > If there are no new comments, I think this might be ready to go. Is ERRCODE_INVALID_FUNCTION_DEFINITION still appropriate? Other than

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 11/26/17 06:59, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> So attached are rebased patches: >> - 0001 to introduce the connection parameter saslchannelbinding, which >> allows libpq to enforce the type of channel binding

Re: Fix a typo in xact.c

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached patch for $subject. > > s/recoreds/record/ Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: new function for tsquery creartion

Hi Victor, > I like the idea and I think it's a great patch. However in current shape it > requires some amount of reworking to meet PostgreSQL standards of code > quality. Also I would like to add that I agree with Thomas Munro: > Calling this search syntax just "query" seems too general and

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: add --if-exists to pg_recvlogical

On 11/27/17 21:11, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 9/22/17 15:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> I suggest you create a patch that focuses on the --create part. >>> >>> You can create a separate follow-on

Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support

On 11/19/17 20:56, Michael Paquier wrote: >> If I get it right we ignore gnutls and use openssl (as it's the first >> checked in #ifdefs). Shouldn't we enforce in configure that only one TLS >> implementation is enabled? Either by some elaborate check, or by >> switching to something like >> >>

Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 27 November 2017 at 14:28, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> It's assumed in PostgreSQL codebase that pgrename atomically replaces >> target file with source file even if target file is

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> We'd definitely need to do things that way in 9.6. I'm not quite sure >>> whether it's too late to adopt the clean solution in v10. >> It probably is now. Are you

Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I think BitmapHeapScan check whether dsa is valid or not if DSA is not > valid then it should assume it's non-parallel plan. > > Attached patch should fix the issue. So, create the pstate and then pretend we didn't?

Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-11-28 09:47:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Korotkov > > wrote: > > > Attached patch atomic-pgrename-windows-1.patch fixes this problem.

Re: pgindent run?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > There are only four source files where more than a dozen lines will be > touched... ...and of course by "four" I mean "five". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: pgindent run?

Hi, On 2017-11-28 14:51:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > If nobody minds too much, I'd like to update typedefs.list and > pgindent the whole tree again. +1. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: Updated macOS start scripts

Mark Dilger writes: > Upon further review, I have noticed that `pg_ctl stop` does not work once > the org.postgresql.postgres service has been started. I was trying to stop, > reinstall and re-initdb and restart postgres and this service was a pita. I > had > to go

Re: Typo in ExecBuildSlotPartitionKeyDescription prologue

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Here is a patch for fixing the function > ExecBuildSlotPartitionKeyDescription() > prologue. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgindent run?

If nobody minds too much, I'd like to update typedefs.list and pgindent the whole tree again. We've generally done a pretty good job with pgindenting patches as they are committed this cycle, but we're starting to accumulate things here and there that are not indented according to what pgindent

Re: Updated macOS start scripts

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >> Upon further review, I have noticed that `pg_ctl stop` does not work once >> the org.postgresql.postgres service has been started. I was trying to stop, >> reinstall and

Re: With commit 4e5fe9ad19, range partition missing handling for the NULL partition key

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> Good point. Updated patch attached. > > Thanks Amit. > > Patch looks good to me. Committed, except I left out the comment tweak, which seemed irrelevant. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB:

Re: Add PGDLLIMPORT lines to some variables

Sorry, I'm new to pg-hackers, so I'm not sure what the next step is. Do I submit this to commitfest? When submitting, do I submit multiple changes, one per branch this should be packported to?

Re: pgindent run?

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > If nobody minds too much, I'd like to update typedefs.list and > pgindent the whole tree again. We've generally done a pretty good job > with pgindenting patches as they are committed this cycle, but we're > starting

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-28 11:49 GMT+03:00 Peter Geoghegan : > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Юрий Соколов wrote: > > Attached patched replaces gen_qsort_tuple.pl with qsort_template.h - generic > > qsort template header. > > Some tests do not specify exact order (ie

Re: pgindent run?

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-11-28 14:51:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> If nobody minds too much, I'd like to update typedefs.list and >> pgindent the whole tree again. > +1. OK by me --- I've several times restrained myself from just doing an ad-hoc reindent on some of

using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Hello I write patch to speed up ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL by check existed check constraints or indexes. Huge phase 3 with verify table data will be skipped if table has valid check constraint cover "alteredfield IS NOT NULL" condition or by SPI query if found index with compatible condition or

Re: Updated macOS start scripts

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > >> On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Mark Dilger writes: On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: The stuff in

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached latest patch incorporated all comments so far. Please review it. I think you only need RelExtLockReleaseAllI() where we currently have LockReleaseAll(DEFAULT_LOCKMETHOD, ...) not where we have

Re: Updated macOS start scripts

Mark Dilger writes: >> On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm. Maybe we should have the plist file set KeepAlive to false not true? >> This would mean you'd need manual action to restart a failed postmaster, >> but that probably comes

Re: pgindent run?

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Dilger writes: >> I have no objection, but if the community intends to keep everything >> indented per project standards, why is there no git hook to reject >> improperly indented code at commit

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

Feike Steenbergen writes: > On a server with a very frequent xid wraparound I can see that the > anti-wraparound vacuum is finished very quickly with the heap, yet it still > scans all the indexes, which causes it to still have to read a lot of data, > which takes a

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

On 28 November 2017 at 22:48, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > There is a patch in the ongoing CF to do this: Ah, thanks, I'll probably review that one then > It's a lot harder to do this correctly than it first appears. I already thought my naive approach would not suffice

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

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > I also test against all current supported versions (9.2 ... 9.6) and didn't > find any issue. > > Changed status to "ready for commiter". On a very fast read this patch looks OK to me, but I'm a bit

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

Robert Haas writes: > OK, let me try to summarize where we are with this. > Currently, postgres_fdw requires a password unless you are logged in > as a superuser. Jeff proposes to change that so that it requires a > password if you are EITHER logged in as a superuser OR

Re: pgindent run?

Thomas Munro writes: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think that'd be taking it too far, especially given that the dependency >> on a typedefs list means that the git hook might have a different idea >> of what's correctly

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

Sorry, I didn't attach a good patch, this one should be better 0002-skip_cleanup_for_stale_relation.patch Description: Binary data

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Yes, that means that sometimes when superusers run things they get > permission denied errors. That's always been the case, and is correct. OK, let me try to summarize where we are with this. Currently, postgres_fdw

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 partitioning - odd behavior/possible bug

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > I was playing around with partitioning and found an oddity that is best > described with the following reasonably minimal test case: I can reproduce this without partitioning, just by creating two independent tables with the

Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch. I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also that he didn't update the thread, so perhaps some interested committer (Fujii Masao?) might have

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: > On a server with a very frequent xid wraparound I can see that the > anti-wraparound vacuum is finished very quickly with the heap, yet it still > scans all the indexes, which causes it to still have to read a

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > It might be okay to put such a short-circuit in at a lower level, > eg within the btree AM. I don't remember at the moment whether > a btree vacuum scan accomplishes anything much if there are no dead > tuples. > > One thing

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> I also wonder whether there should be a mechanism to turn off channel >> binding from the client. Right now, there is no

Re: Skip index cleanup if autovacuum did not do any work

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: > On a server with a very frequent xid wraparound I can see that the > anti-wraparound vacuum is finished very quickly with the heap, yet it still > scans all the indexes, which causes it to still have to read a

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after > the change? These should be just specializations of the template version > imo. I also wonder why regression test output has changed. Wasn't this

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause

Peter Eisentraut writes: > I've been playing with a few test cases and I'm a bit confused by how > some of this is supposed to work. AFAICT, in the SQL standard, foreign > tables can't have column defaults, but in PostgreSQL it's allowed. This > creates some

Re: pgindent run?

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think that'd be taking it too far, especially given that the dependency >>> on a typedefs list means

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 partitioning - odd behavior/possible bug

On 11/28/2017 04:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> I was playing around with partitioning and found an oddity that is best >> described with the following reasonably minimal test case: > > I can reproduce this without

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause

On 11/3/17 07:53, Michael Paquier wrote: > Trying to insert some data using OVERRIDING SYSTEM VALUE on a foreign > table with a remote relation defined with GENERATED ALWAYS would just > fail: > =# insert into id_always_foreign OVERRIDING system VALUE values (8); > ERROR: 428C9: cannot insert

Re: pgindent run?

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >> I have no objection, but if the community intends to keep everything >> indented per project standards, why is there no git hook to reject >> improperly indented code at

Re: Add PGDLLIMPORT lines to some variables

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Brian Cloutier wrote: > Sorry, I'm new to pg-hackers, so I'm not sure what the next step is. > > Do I submit this to commitfest? > > When submitting, do I submit multiple changes, one per branch this should be > packported to? If you want a

Re: pgindent run?

Mark Dilger writes: >> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think that'd be taking it too far, especially given that the dependency >> on a typedefs list means that the git hook might have a different idea >> of what's correctly indented

Re: Updated macOS start scripts

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 11/28/17 14:07, Mark Dilger wrote: >> Upon further review, I have noticed that `pg_ctl stop` does not work once >> the org.postgresql.postgres service has been started. I was trying to stop, >>

Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch. > > I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also that > he didn't

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 11/28/17 17:33, Michael Paquier wrote: > 1) Have a special value in the parameter saslchannelbinding proposed > in patch 0001. For example by specifying "none" then no channel > binding is used. I was thinking if it's empty then don't use channel binding. Right now, empty means the same thing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Jing Wang wrote: > A few general comments. > > + FreeSpaceMapVacuum(onerel, 64); > > Just want to know why '64' is used here? It's better to give a description. > > +else > + { > + newslot = fsm_get_avail(page, 0); > + } > >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

Tom, Robert, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > OK, let me try to summarize where we are with this. > > > Currently, postgres_fdw requires a password unless you are logged in > > as a superuser. Jeff proposes to change that so that it

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >>> Additional changes that are done in

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > This patch has been marked Ready for Committer in the current commitfest > without being committed or rejected. Moving to the next commitfest, but since > it has bitrotted I’m moving it to Waiting for author. No updates

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I was just looking at the tsearch code which uses pg_strcmpcase, and > those are defined with makeDefElem() so you should switch to strcmp in > this case as well, no? If I patch the code myself I would get an

Re: [HACKERS] Race between SELECT and ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >> By the way, I will take a look at your patch when I come back from the >> vacation. Meanwhile, I noticed that it needs another rebase after >> 0a480502b092 [1]. Moved to CF 2018-01. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > My apologies for slacking here. I would still welcome some regression > tests to stress the bloom API you are proposing! For now I am moving > this patch to next CF. I still don't think that regression tests as

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > So, in the upcoming patch version, I am intending to include the above > two, and if possible, Robert's idea of re-using is_partition_attr() > for pull_child_partition_columns(). Discussions are still going on, so

Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility >> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't >>

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I should point out that I shipped virtually the same code yesterday, > as v1.1 of the Github version of amcheck (also known as amcheck_next). > Early adopters will be able to use this new "heapallindexed" > functionality in

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > I would also like to address a couple of important points here: > > 1. I think default restrictions plus additional paths is the best, safest > way forward. Excluding shell-globs doesn't solve the "I need this >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In short, we should get rid of all of this expensive and broken logic and >> just make EPQ recheck on a foreign join be a no-op, just as it is

Re: scan-build plpython stuff

On 11/28/17, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/24/17 08:40, John Naylor wrote: >> I built plpython with scan-build using Python 2.7.12 and Clang 3.8. On >> master, I got 13 warnings, and with your patches only one warning >> (report attached). > > Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> The largest obstacle to do that is that walreceiver is not >> utterly concerned to record internals. In other

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > My understanding of your earlier remarks, rightly or wrongly, was that > you wanted me to adopt the Bloom filter to actually be usable from SQL > in some kind of general way. As opposed to what I just said -- adding > a stub

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put > in foreign tables, because early drafts of postgres_fdw did what you > propose here, and we ran into very nasty problems. We eventually decided > that

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > The patch still applies (with some hunks). I have added it in CF [1] > to avoid losing track. > > [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1341/ This did not get reviews and the patch still applies. I am moving it

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Would that address your concern? There would be an SQL interface, but >> it would be trivial. > > That's exactly what I think you should do, and mentioned so upthread. > A SQL interface can also show a good

Re: new function for tsquery creartion

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> I like the idea and I think it's a great patch. However in current shape it >> requires some amount of reworking to meet PostgreSQL standards of code >> quality. > > Also I would like to add that I agree

Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I'm a reviewer of this patch but I think I'm not allowed to mark > this "Ready for Commiter" since the last change is made by me. Yes, it is a better idea to wait for reviews here. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > This proposal is first time, when we cannot to detect full semantic from > \xxx command. When user extend query correctly, then it is better than > before, when not it is worse than before. As the discussion is

TupleDescCopy doesn't clear atthasdef, attnotnull, attidentity

Hi hackers, Andrew Gierth complained off-list that TupleDescCopy() doesn't clear atthasdef. Yeah, that's an oversight. The function is new in commit cc5f81366c36 and was written by me to support "flat" (pointer-free) tuple descriptors for use in DSM. Following the example of

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > For local constraints on foreign tables, it's the user's responsibility to > ensure that those constraints matches the remote side, so we don't need to > ensure those constraints locally. But I'm not sure if the

Re: [HACKERS] CUBE seems a bit confused about ORDER BY

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: >>> >>> Seems fine to me,

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Ok. Removed the documentation changes that it cannot be used for normal > scenarios, and also added a Note section explaining the problem of using > the dump with pg_restore command with --clean and --create

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > It looks amazingly simple from here. Which probably means there's more to it > that I haven't seen yet. I could use advice from someone who knows the > locking subsystem better. The status of this patch is I think not

  1   2   >