Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-04-07 15:49:54 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > Right, I suggest we wait and see if all members go green again as a > > result of 40e42e1024c, and if they're happy then we could maybe leave > > it as is with the 2 alternatives output files. > > At least the

Re: csv format for psql

Pavel Stehule wrote: > so we can to have > > \pset format xxx > > and set of local possibly changed defaults > > \pset csv_fieldsep , > \pset csv_tuplesonly on > \pset unaligned_fieldsep | > \pset unaligned_tuplesonly off tuples_only (\t) is a single setting that is currently used by

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

On 4/6/18, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't think there's any great need to incorporate this into your patch > set. As far as I'm concerned, v14 is ready as-is, and I'll just apply > this over the top of it. (Note that I'll probably smash the whole thing > to one commit when the

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-04-06 17:59:28 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > + /* > > + * Create a database list. We don't need to concern ourselves with > > + * rebuilding this list during runtime since any database created >

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 08:57:03AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > If it's not obvious: This isn't ready, should be reverted, cleaned up, > > and re-submitted for v12. > > While I do think that it's still

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (the good and the bad)

On 2018-04-06 20:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote: [0001-Covering-v15.patch] After some more testing I notice there is also a down-side/slow-down to this patch that is not so bad but more than negligible, and I don't think it has been mentioned (but I may have missed something in this thread

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> Given that the difference only appeared on animals that David pointed >> out have big-endian architecture, it seems we'd only need two output >> files. > > Dunno, I'm wondering

Re: Corrupted data due to system power failure

This kind of reports is the exact reason you should never install the OS in a different language than english. you could have at least googled for the exact phrase "controllo di integrita fallito" to see how other people have solved it. On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 at 14:50 Enzo Diletti

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

John Naylor wrote: > On 4/6/18, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I don't think there's any great need to incorporate this into your patch > > set. As far as I'm concerned, v14 is ready as-is, and I'll just apply > > this over the top of it. (Note that I'll probably smash the whole

Re: csv format for psql

2018-04-07 13:55 GMT+02:00 Daniel Verite : > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > so we can to have > > > > \pset format xxx > > > > and set of local possibly changed defaults > > > > \pset csv_fieldsep , > > \pset csv_tuplesonly on > > \pset unaligned_fieldsep | > > \pset

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

Amit Langote wrote: > See if the attached makes it any better. > > Now I know we don't have the runtime pruning in yet, but since the > proposed patch would extend its functionality I have included its > description in the comment. Thanks! I edited it as attached, to 1. avoid mentioning

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > On close look, bts_btentry.ip_posid is not used anymore, I change > bts_btentry type to BlockNumber. As result, BTEntrySame() is removed. That seems like a good idea. > I'm not very happy with massive usage of >

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

Hi, On 2018-04-07 13:45:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> My point was that people didn't ask you to work harder on fixing the > >> patch, but in reverting it. You can work harder on

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

Hi, On 2018-04-07 13:33:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > To summarize how I see this patch, we have this workflow at the top of > the TODO list (which I think Simon helped with or suggested): > > Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit > > I think the MERGE patch

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

Andres Freund writes: > As Daniel pointed out in: > https://postgr.es/m/fb948276-7b32-4b77-83e6-d00167f8e...@yesql.se the > pg_atomic_flag fallback implementation is broken. That has gone > unnoticed because the fallback implementation wasn't testable until now: > ... > The

[sqlsmith] Failed assertion in create_gather_path

Hi, sqlsmith found a query that triggers the following assertion in master as of 039eb6e92f: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(subpath->parallel_safe)", File: "pathnode.c", Line: 1813) Backtrace and recipe against the regression database below. regards, Andreas #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at

Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in create_gather_path

Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Hi, > > sqlsmith found a query that triggers the following assertion in master > as of 039eb6e92f: > > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(subpath->parallel_safe)", File: "pathnode.c", Line: > 1813) > > Backtrace and recipe against the regression database below. Uh, that's

Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in create_gather_path

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Andreas Seltenreich wrote: >> sqlsmith found a query that triggers the following assertion in master >> as of 039eb6e92f: >> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(subpath->parallel_safe)", File: "pathnode.c", Line: >> 1813) > Uh, that's pretty strange --

[sqlsmith] Segfault in expand_tuple

Hi, the following query triggers a segfault for me when run against the regression database. Testing was done with master at 039eb6e92f. Backtrace below. regards, Andreas select case when pg_catalog.lastval() < pg_catalog.pg_stat_get_bgwriter_maxwritten_clean() then case when

Re: [sqlsmith] Segfault in expand_tuple

Hi, On 2018-04-07 21:28:39 +0200, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > the following query triggers a segfault for me when run against the > regression database. Testing was done with master at 039eb6e92f. > Backtrace below. Andrew, that looks like it's in your area? > Core was generated by `postgres:

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-04-07 08:13:23 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > I've also attempted to fix rhinoceros's failure I remarked upon a couple > > > hours ago in > > > https://postgr.es/m/20180406210330.wmqw42wqgiick...@alap3.anarazel.de > > > > And this, too.

Sv: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

På lørdag 07. april 2018 kl. 22:02:08, skrev Teodor Sigaev >: Thanks to everyone, pushed.   Rock!   -- Andreas Joseph Krogh  

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Thanks to everyone, pushed. I'll keep an eye on the buildfarm, since it's late in Russia. -- Peter Geoghegan

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (the good and the bad)

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2018-04-06 20:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> >> [0001-Covering-v15.patch] >> >> > After some more testing I notice there is also a down-side/slow-down to > this patch that is not so bad but more than negligible, and I

Re: Mop-up for the bootstrap data conversion patch

Tom Lane wrote: > I've always felt that the pg_foo_fn.h business was a kluge, and would > be happy to get rid of it. But one could also argue that it would be > a good design, if we adopted it uniformly instead of haphazardly. > But that'd require more code churn, and there's no longer a lot to

Re: csv format for psql

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Another thought: Isn't CSV just the same as unaligned output plus some > quoting? Could we add a quote character setting and then define --csv > to be quote-character = " and fieldsep = , ? Plus footer set to off. So --csv would be like \pset format unaligned

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (the good and the bad)

On 2018-04-07 14:27, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2018-04-06 20:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote: [0001-Covering-v15.patch] After some more testing I notice there is also a down-side/slow-down to this patch that is not so bad

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

David Rowley wrote: > It's not exactly wrong but: > > + * are turned into a set of "pruning steps", which are then executed to > + * produce a set of RTIs of partitions whose bounds satisfy the constraints > in > + * the step. Partitions not in the set are said to have been pruned. > > It's

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

Thanks to everyone, pushed Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: My thought experiments about pseudo-pages and avoiding the split stuff were not intended to get the patch

Re: json(b)_to_tsvector with numeric values

See workable sketch for parsing jsonb flags and new worker variant. Yep, thanks for the sketch. Here is the new version of patch, does it look close to what you have in mind? Patch looks good except error messaging, you took it directly from sketch where I didn't spend time for it. Please,

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

Hi, On 2018-04-07 12:57:53 +, Magnus Hagander wrote: > This is the same one you already committed right? Not a further one on top > of that? Yes, I pushed a few hours later. > That said,+1 for not bothering to back patch it. I did ;). I was more wondering about whether to backpatch the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

Teodor Sigaev writes: >> I dunno, how would you estimate whether this is actually a win or not? >> I don't think our model of sort costs is anywhere near refined enough >> or accurate enough to reliably predict whether this is better than >> just doing it in one step. Even if

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

On 7 April 2018 at 15:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, where are we on this patch? It isn't going to make it into PG 11? > Feature development for this has been going on for years. Unfortunately, I think there's no way that this will be ready for PG11. So far, I have only read

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-04-07 14:07:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> TRAP: UnalignedPointer("(((uintptr_t) ((uintptr_t)(ptr)) + ((sizeof(*ptr)) - >> 1)) & ~((uintptr_t) ((sizeof(*ptr)) - 1))) != (uintptr_t)(ptr)", File: >> "../../../src/include/port/atomics.h", Line:

[sqlsmith] Failed assertion on pfree() via perform_pruning_combine_step

Hi, testing with master at 039eb6e92f yielded another query triggering an assertion. Backtrace and query against the regression database below. regards, Andreas #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:51 #1 0x7f25474cf42a in __GI_abort () at abort.c:89 #2

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 06:52:42PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 7 April 2018 at 15:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Uh, where are we on this patch? It isn't going to make it into PG 11? > > Feature development for this has been going on for years. > > Unfortunately, I think

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 06:19:19PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Now I can see some people are annoyed, so I'm happy to apologize if > I've done things that weren't understood or caused annoyance. Time is > short at end of CF and tempers fray for us all. > > If Tom or Andres still feel that their

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

Simon Riggs writes: > On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> My point was that people didn't ask you to work harder on fixing the >> patch, but in reverting it. You can work harder on fixing things in the >> hope they change their minds, but

Re: json(b)_to_tsvector with numeric values

Thank you, pushed with some editorization Dmitry Dolgov wrote: On 7 April 2018 at 17:09, Teodor Sigaev wrote: See workable sketch for parsing jsonb flags and new worker variant. Yep, thanks for the sketch. Here is the new version of patch, does it look close to what you

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

On 2018-04-07 14:07:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > As Daniel pointed out in: > > https://postgr.es/m/fb948276-7b32-4b77-83e6-d00167f8e...@yesql.se the > > pg_atomic_flag fallback implementation is broken. That has gone > > unnoticed because the fallback

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

Hi, On 2018-04-07 14:23:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think I'd just drop those asserts altogether. The hardware is in charge > of complaining about misaligned pointers. Well, the problem is that some atomics operations on some platforms do not fail for unaligned pointers, they just loose their

Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in create_gather_path

Tom Lane writes: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Andreas Seltenreich wrote: >>> as of 039eb6e92f: >>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(subpath->parallel_safe)", File: "pathnode.c", >>> Line: 1813) > >> Uh, that's pretty strange -- that patch did not touch the planner at >> all, and

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Hi, sqlsmith triggered an assertion with the following MERGE statement against the regression database. Testing was done with master at 039eb6e92f. Backtrace below. regards, Andreas MERGE INTO public.pagg_tab_ml_p3 as target_0 USING public.hash_i4_heap as ref_0 ON target_0.b = ref_0.seqno

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Thanks to everyone, pushed. Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: On close look, bts_btentry.ip_posid is not used anymore, I change bts_btentry type to BlockNumber. As result, BTEntrySame() is removed. That seems like a good idea.

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

I'll keep an eye on the buildfarm, since it's late in Russia. Thank you very much! Now 23:10 MSK and I'll be able to follow during approximately hour. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Re: lazy detoasting

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 04/01/18 01:19, Tom Lane wrote: >> Chapman Flack writes: >>> If I copy an out-of-line, on-disk TOAST pointer into a memory context >>> with transaction lifetime, with an eye to detoasting it

Re: Checkpoint not retrying failed fsync?

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Gierth >> wrote: >>> Right. >>> >>> But I don't

Fix slot's xmin advancement and subxact's lost snapshots in decoding.

Hello, I've discovered a couple of bugs in logical decoding code, both leading to incorrect decoding results in somewhat rare cases. First, xmin of slots is advanced too early. This affects the results only when interlocking allows to perform DDL concurrently with looking at the schema. In fact,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

Hello Stephen, Might be interesting to support mutli-row (or no row?) returns in the future, but not something this patch needs to do, so this looks fine to me. It could match PL/pgSQL's INTO, that is first row or NULL if none. Yeah, but that's not really something that needs to go into

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 8 April 2018 at 01:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit had it as "indexes" also in his original. I wanted to avoid using > the "indexes" word alone, whose meaning is so overloaded. hmm, good point. > How about this? > "... which are then executed to produce a set of

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

David Rowley wrote: > On 8 April 2018 at 01:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit had it as "indexes" also in his original. I wanted to avoid using > > the "indexes" word alone, whose meaning is so overloaded. > > hmm, good point. > > > How about this? > > "... which are

Re: csv format for psql

Daniel Verite wrote: > The output might still differ compared to COPY in that line endings > depend on the client-side OS. There's also the minor issue > of a single \ by itself on a line, which gets quoted by COPY > and not by psql. I meant \. or backslash followed by period. This

Re: json(b)_to_tsvector with numeric values

> On 6 April 2018 at 18:55, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > > Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >>> >>> On 6 April 2018 at 16:25, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >>> 1) I don't like jsonb_all_to_tsvector too.. What if we will accept new >>> variant to index? Let me suggest: >>> >>> tsvector

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Can we have a recap on what the patch *does*? > Ggeneral idea hasn't been changed much since first email. > Incremental sort gives benefit when you need

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

Hello Stephen, Here's that review. Thanks for the review. + + + \cset [prefix] or + \gset [prefix] + Seems like this should really be moved down below the section for '\set'. Dunno. I put them there because it is in alphabetical order (for cset at least) and

Re: json(b)_to_tsvector with numeric values

> On 7 April 2018 at 17:09, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >>> See workable sketch for parsing jsonb flags and new worker variant. >> >> >> Yep, thanks for the sketch. Here is the new version of patch, does it look >> close to what you have in mind? > > > Patch looks good except error

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Stephen, On 4/6/18 10:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >> On 4/6/18 6:04 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 4/6/18 3:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: - Further discussion in the commit messages >>> >>> Agreed, these need some more work.  I'm happy

Re: Bring atomic flag fallback up to snuff

This is the same one you already committed right? Not a further one on top of that? That said,+1 for not bothering to back patch it. /Magnus On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 00:39 Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > As Daniel pointed out in: >

Re: csv format for psql

Isaac Morland wrote: > OK, mostly trying to avoid commenting because I doubt I have much to add. > But. If I ask for CSV and don't specify any overrides, I expect to get > "C"omma separated values, not some other character. More specifically, if I > say --csv I expect to get files that

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

I didn't like rel.h being included in itup.h. Do you really need a Relation as argument to index_truncate_tuple? It looks to me like you could pass the tupledesc instead; indnatts could be passed as a separate argument instead of IndexRelationGetNumberOfAttributes. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

Alvaro Herrera writes: > John Naylor wrote: >> Commit 9fdb675fc added a symbol to pg_opfamily.h >> where there were none before, so I went ahead and wrapped it with an >> EXPOSE_TO_CLIENT_CODE macro. > Actually, after pushing that, I was thinking maybe it's better to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov < a.kuzmen...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 06.04.2018 20:26, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> I personally am OK with reducing the scope of the patch like this. It's >> still beneficial for the common ORDER BY + LIMIT case, which is good. I >> don't

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 06:07:55PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > The attached patch version modifies how the non-MCV selectivity is > computed, along the lines explained in the previous message. > > The comments in statext_clauselist_selectivity() explain it in far more > detail, but we

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 04/07/2018 04:37 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> by this patch.  Revised version is attached. > > Fine, patch got several rounds of review in all its parts. Is any > places which should be improved before commit? > I personally feel rather uneasy about committing it, TBH. While I don't see any

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, On 2018-04-07 10:14:49 +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > Can the pg_verify_checksums command be kept at least, please? > > AFAICT this one is not contentious, the code is isolated, it's really > useful, orthogonal to online checksum activation and argueably could've > been committed as a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > > BTW, patch had conflicts with master. Please, find rebased version > attached. > > > > Despite by patch conflist patch looks commitable, has anybody objections > to > > commit it? > > >

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2018-04-07 08:13:23 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > I've also attempted to fix rhinoceros's failure I remarked upon a couple > > hours ago in > > https://postgr.es/m/20180406210330.wmqw42wqgiick...@alap3.anarazel.de > > And this, too. I was unsure if this was because

Re: Removing useless DISTINCT clauses

David Rowley writes: > It's certainly possible to do more here. I'm uncertain what needs to > be done in regards to cached plan invalidation, but we'd certainly > need to ensure cached plans are invalidated whenever the attnotnull is > changed. They already are;

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov < > a.kuzmen...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> On 06.04.2018 20:26, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >>> I personally am OK with reducing the scope of the patch like

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

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi Tom, All, > > On 2018-04-06 14:19:02 +0530, amul sul wrote: >> Thanks for the reminder -- fixed in the attached version. > > Tom, this seems to be the best approach for fixing the visibility issues > around this. I've

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 2018-04-07 12:06:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> Can we have a recap on what the patch *does*? > > > Ggeneral idea hasn't been changed much since

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

I dunno, how would you estimate whether this is actually a win or not? I don't think our model of sort costs is anywhere near refined enough or accurate enough to reliably predict whether this is better than just doing it in one step. Even if the cost model is good, it's not going to be better

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > by this patch. Revised version is attached. >> > > Fine, patch got several rounds of review in all its parts. Is any places > which should be improved before commit? Also I found that after planner changes of Alexander

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, On 2018-04-07 08:57:03 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Note however that I'm sans-laptop until Sunday, so I will revert it then or > possibly Monday. I'll deactive the isolationtester tests until then. They've been intermittently broken for days now and prevent other tests from being

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 09:21:54AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 5 April 2018 at 21:02, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > Simon, you have three committers in this thread suggesting this patch be >> > reverted. Are

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (the good and the bad)

Thank you!   create unique index ${t}uniqueinclude_idx on $t using btree (c1, c2) include (c3, c4); or for HEAD, just:   create unique index ${t}unique_idx on $t using btree (c1, c2); -- explain analyze select c1, c2 from nt0___1 where c1 < 1 -- explain analyze select c1, c2

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 8 April 2018 at 00:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I edited it as attached, to 1. avoid mentioning functionality that > doesn't yet exist, and 2. avoid excessive internal detail (we want a > high-level overview here), which from experience gets outdated pretty > quickly.

Re: Mop-up for the bootstrap data conversion patch

On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 09:25:44AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I've always felt that the pg_foo_fn.h business was a kluge, and would >> be happy to get rid of it. But one could also argue that it would be >> a good design, if we adopted it uniformly instead of haphazardly.

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

Hi, On 04/07/2018 04:45 AM, David Rowley wrote: Ok, so I've gone and done this. PartitionPruning has become PartitionPruneState PartitionRelPruning has become PartitionPruningData I've changed pointers to PartitionPruneStates to be named prunestate, sometimes having the node prefix; as_, ma_,

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > John Naylor wrote: > >> Commit 9fdb675fc added a symbol to pg_opfamily.h > >> where there were none before, so I went ahead and wrapped it with an > >> EXPOSE_TO_CLIENT_CODE macro. > > > Actually, after pushing that, I was

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

Hello, I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation : https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html If you agree I can add it to Open Items. Thanks, -- Adrien NAYRAT signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

by this patch.  Revised version is attached. Fine, patch got several rounds of review in all its parts. Is any places which should be improved before commit? -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

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

amul sul wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> +test: partition-key-update-1 > >> +test: partition-key-update-2 > >> +test: partition-key-update-3 > > > > Can you give these more descriptive names please (or further combine them)? > > As I

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Mar 21, 2018, at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > Hi David. > > On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote:

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

On 2018-04-07 20:13:36 +0530, amul sul wrote: > Attached is the patch does the renaming of this tests -- need to apply > to the top of v10 patch[1]. These indeed are a bit too long, so I went with the numbers. I've pushed the patch now. Two changes: - I've added one more error patch to

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 2018-04-07 23:02:08 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Thanks to everyone, pushed. Marked CF entry as committed. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On 2018-04-06 19:25:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: > > Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1]. Patch > > 0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-6.patch can be applied on top of patch > >

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

> "Teodor" == Teodor Sigaev writes: >> I'll keep an eye on the buildfarm, since it's late in Russia. Teodor> Thank you very much! Now 23:10 MSK and I'll be able to follow Teodor> during approximately hour. Support for testing amcaninclude via

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Thank you, I looked to buildfarm and completely forget about commitfest site Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-04-07 23:02:08 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote: Thanks to everyone, pushed. Marked CF entry as committed. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 04/07/2018 06:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Teodor Sigaev writes: >>> I dunno, how would you estimate whether this is actually a win or not? >>> I don't think our model of sort costs is anywhere near refined enough >>> or accurate enough to reliably predict whether this is better

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Support for testing amcaninclude via pg_indexam_has_property(oid,'can_include') seems to be missing? Also the return values of pg_index_column_has_property for included columns seem a bit dubious... should probably be returning NULL for most properties except 'returnable'. Damn, you right, it's

Re: Removing useless DISTINCT clauses

On 8 April 2018 at 08:55, Tom Lane wrote: > regression=# create table t1 (a int,b int, c int, d int, primary key(a,b)); > CREATE TABLE > regression=# explain verbose select distinct * from t1 order by a,c,b; > server closed the connection unexpectedly > This probably

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > Time to watch the buildfarm, > > That didn't take long. > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=culicidae=2018-04-07%2021%3A50%3A02 Yes, I'm taking a look at it. Thanks! Stephen

Searching for: Fast windows buildfarm animal

Hi, It's common that half the buildfarm has reported back before a single windows buildfarm animal reports. And if they report a failure one often has to wait for hours for the next run. It'd be awesome if somebody could set up a windows animal that runs frequently (i.e. checks for build needed

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

Fabien, * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: > >> > >>+ > >>+ > >>+ \cset [prefix] or > >>+ \gset [prefix] > >>+ > > > >Seems like this should really be moved down below the section for > >'\set'. > > Dunno. > > I put them there because it is in alphabetical order

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

> "Teodor" == Teodor Sigaev writes: >> Support for testing amcaninclude via >> pg_indexam_has_property(oid,'can_include') seems to be missing? >> >> Also the return values of pg_index_column_has_property for included >> columns seem a bit dubious... should probably be

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 8 April 2018 at 09:13, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I pushed this patch -- 0001, 0002 and 0003 only. I did not include > anything from 0004 and 0005; I didn't even get to the point of reading > them, so that I could focus on the first part. Oh great! Thank you for working

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

David, * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 4/6/18 10:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > >> On 4/6/18 6:04 PM, David Steele wrote: > >>> On 4/6/18 3:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > - Further discussion in the commit messages > >>> >

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=culicidae=2018-04-07%2021%3A50%3A02 > Yes, I'm taking a look at it. Since other animals are coming back successfully, my first suspicion lights on

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-04-06 19:25:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >> > Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1]. >> >

  1   2   >