On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:58:08 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Yes, more simplly, the following query also works;
>
> CREATE INDEX ON test((i)) INCLUDE (i);
>
> However, a problem is that when we use pg_dump for the database, this
> generate the following query
>
> CREATE INDEX test_i_i1_idx ON p
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:35:53PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I think it makes sense to remove unnecessary temporary WAL files although
> I'm not sure how high the risk of ENOSPC is.
It depends on how close to the partition size limit max_wal_size is set,
and how much a system is unstable. Switc
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:50:28AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:17:48AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Let me review tomorrow.
>
> Of course, please feel free.
Alvaro, are you planning to look at that to close the loop? The latest
version is here:
https://postgr.e
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2018-07-11 12:56:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Yeah, it is good practice to drop the objects at the end. It is
>>> strange that original commit adfb81d9e1 has this at the end of the
>>> test, but a later commit 36
Hi,
During looking into other thread[1], I found a problem on pg_dump of range
partition table using expressions. When we create a range partitioned table,
we cannot use a column more than once in the partition key.
postgres=# create table t (i int) partition by range(i,i);
ERROR: column "i"
Hi Heikki,
Thank you very much for your review!
I will prepare a new patch and make it ready soon.
Regards,
Haozhou
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:03 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 26/03/18 19:07, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> > Attached fixed 3th version of the patch:
>
> Thanks, I'm reviewing this n
On 12/07/18 07:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:01:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I started digging into this more closely, and ran into a little problem. If
channel binding is not used, the client sends a flag to the server to
indicate if it's because the client does
On 11-07-2018 20:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jul-11, Marina Polyakova wrote:
can we try something like this?
PGBENCH_ERROR_START(DEBUG_FAIL)
{
PGBENCH_ERROR("client %d repeats the failed transaction (try %d",
st->id, st->retries + 1);
if
Nagata-san,
On 2018/07/12 16:59, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During looking into other thread[1], I found a problem on pg_dump of range
> partition table using expressions. When we create a range partitioned table,
> we cannot use a column more than once in the partition key.
>
> postgres=#
On 11-07-2018 21:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Just a quick skim while refreshing what were those error reporting API
changes about ...
Thank you!
On 2018-May-21, Marina Polyakova wrote:
v9-0001-Pgbench-errors-use-the-RandomState-structure-for-.patch
- a patch for the RandomState structure (thi
Thanks Ashutosh.
On 2018/07/10 22:50, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I didn't see any hackers thread linked to this CF entry. Hence sending this
> mail through CF app.
Hmm, yes. I hadn't posted the patch to -hackers.
> The patch looks good to me. It applies cleanly, compiles cleanly and make
> check
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:26:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It seems that all implementations can support tls-server-end-point, after
> all, so I'm not too worried about this anymore. The spec says that it's the
> default, but I don't actually see any advantage to using it over
> tls-serv
Hi
2018-07-10 12:01 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 23.01.18 17:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > attached updated patch
>
> This appears to be the patch of record in this thread. I think there is
> general desire for adding a setting like this, and the implementa
On 11-07-2018 22:34, Fabien COELHO wrote:
can we try something like this?
PGBENCH_ERROR_START(DEBUG_FAIL)
{
PGBENCH_ERROR("client %d repeats the failed transaction (try %d",
Argh, no? I was thinking of something much more trivial:
pgbench_error(DEBUG, "message format %d %s...", 12,
On 2018/07/12 2:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> On 2018/07/11 13:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>
What's the solution here then? Prevent domains as partition key?
>>>
>>> Maybe if a domain is used in a partition key so
On 12/07/18 12:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:26:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It seems that all implementations can support tls-server-end-point, after
all, so I'm not too worried about this anymore. The spec says that it's the
default, but I don't actually see an
Hi,
In the PG source code function "write_relcache_init_file()", I found that
the whole 'Relation' structs were directly written into the file
'pg_internal.init'. This brings some binary differences of that file, if we
run pg_initdb multiple times, because the struct 'Relation' contains some
poin
On 02/07/18 10:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.06.18 18:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The first should be simple and non-controversial. It allows
src/tools/msvc/build.pl to be called in such a way that it only creates
the project files and then stops. This is a one line addition to the
script and
Hi,
The documentation[1] says that both pg_create_logical_replication_slot
and pg_create_physical_replication_slot returns slot_name as a name
type. But only pg_create_logical_replication_slot returns it as text
type. I think these should be united as the name type. Attached small
patch fixes it.
On 12/07/18 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:35:53PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
One little thing I noticed is the function name "RemoveXLogTempFiles".
Other similar functions are named as RemoveOldXlogFiles or RemoveXlogFile
(using Xlog not XLog), so it seem to me more con
Hi
2018-07-09 21:44 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> > + ereport(errlevel,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_
> ROWS),
> >errmsg("query returned
> more than one row"),
> > -
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi
wrote:
> I did regression tests (make check-world) and
> checked manually pg_dump --on-conflict-do-nothing works properly.
> Also it seems to me the code has no problem.
> This feature has advantage to some users with small code change.
>
> So I ma
On 18/01/18 12:26, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hm. Could we get somewhere by making the test look for that, and
adjusting the loop logic inside pgbench so that (maybe only with the
tested switch values) it's guaranteed to print at least one progress
output regardless of timing, because it won't check f
On 2018/07/12 18:12, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
2018-07-10 12:01 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>>:
On 23.01.18 17:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> attached updated patch
This appears to be the patch of record in this thread. I think there is
general
On 07/12/2018 02:25 AM, David Pacheco wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
On 2018-Jul-10, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> 2) Disabling WAL recycling reduces reliability, even on COW filesystems.
I think the problem here is that
On 07/12/2018 03:44 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:37:46 +0200
Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 07/11/2018 01:28 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I don't think we should change add_path() for this. We will
unnecessarily check that condition even for the cases where we do not
create index
(2018/07/12 13:38), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
(2018/07/11 20:02), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Actually, even if we could create such an index on the child table and
the
targetlist had the Con
On 10.07.18 03:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:19:35PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
>> If you can wait for the next commitfest (the original one I put the
>> patch into, i.e. September) I am committed to making it happen. But if
>> you are anxious to getting this into the curren
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:06:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I think that this patch might be splitted but I will be able to send
>> an updated patch in the next week. As you suggestion this patch needs
>> more careful thoughts. I'll
Hello Tom,
11.07.2018 23:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> /make clean/
>> # Also you can just install binary packages to get the same state.
>> make installcheck-world
>> # This check fails.
> I do not think that should be expected to work. It would require that
> "make installcheck" first invoke "make a
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:15:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/07/18 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > + snprintf(path, MAXPGPATH, XLOGDIR "/%s", xlde->d_name);
> > + elog(DEBUG2, "removed temporary WAL file \"%s\"", path);
> > + unlink(path);
>
> The elo
On 12/07/18 15:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:15:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/07/18 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
+ snprintf(path, MAXPGPATH, XLOGDIR "/%s", xlde->d_name);
+ elog(DEBUG2, "removed temporary WAL file \"%s\"", path)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>
>> I think your fix is correct. I slightly modified it along with updating
>> nearby comments and added regression tests.
>
> I updated regression tests to reduce lines. There is no point in
> repeating tests like v2 patch did.
+ *
+
On 07/12/2018 10:08 AM, samuel.coulee wrote:
Hi,
In the PG source code function "write_relcache_init_file()", I found that
the whole 'Relation' structs were directly written into the file
'pg_internal.init'. This brings some binary differences of that file, if we
run pg_initdb multiple times, b
I think we should add this to open items list so that it gets tracked.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think your fix is correct. I slightly modified it along with updating
>>> nearby comments and added r
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:34:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Meh. We're not going implement tls-unique, anyway, in some of the upcoming
> non-OpenSSL TLS implementations that don't support it.
True enough. Only GnuTLS supports it:
https://www.gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Channel-Bindings.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:00:47PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking at the GnuTLS docs, I believe it has everything we need.
> gnutls_certificate_get_peers() and gnutls_certificate_get_ours() can be used
> to get the certificate, and gnutls_x509_crt_get_signature_algorithm() gets
> the si
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:00:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The documentation[1] says that both pg_create_logical_replication_slot
> and pg_create_physical_replication_slot returns slot_name as a name
> type. But only pg_create_logical_replication_slot returns it as text
> type. I think thes
"samuel.coulee" <313914...@qq.com> writes:
> In the PG source code function "write_relcache_init_file()", I found that
> the whole 'Relation' structs were directly written into the file
> 'pg_internal.init'. This brings some binary differences of that file, if we
> run pg_initdb multiple times, be
On 07/12/2018 05:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/07/18 10:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.06.18 18:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The first should be simple and non-controversial. It allows
src/tools/msvc/build.pl to be called in such a way that it only creates
the project files and then
On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote:
The iteration interface, however, seems quite specific for the use
case of vacuumlazy, so
On 07/10/2018 11:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Thanks for picking this up!
(I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell
script seems to be difficult. I also trimmed the CC list, if that helps.)
On
On 12/07/18 16:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/10/2018 11:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Thanks for picking this up!
(I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell
script seems to be difficult. I also
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:13:40AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I just pushed it before seeing your message.
> Fine as well, thanks for picking this up. The buildfarm shows no
> failures about this patch.
I scraped all the compiler warnings from the buildfarm this m
At least [1] and [2] hit into to that issues and have an objections/questions
about correctness of cost sort estimation. Suggested patch tries to improve
current estimation and solve that issues.
Sorry for long delay but issue was even more complicated than I thought. When I
tried to add cost_
On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:13:40AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I just pushed it before seeing your message.
Fine as well, thanks for picking this up. The buildfarm shows no
failures about this patch.
I scraped all the compi
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> bowerbird and hamerkop have some gripes like this:
>>
>> bowerbird | c:\perl64\lib\core\win32.h(218): warning C4005: 'isnan' :
>> macro redefinition (src/pl/plperl/SPI.c)
>> [G:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\plperl.vcxproj]
OK, so Fi is pretty much whatever CREATE FUNCTION ... COST says, right?
exactly
Hmm, makes sense. But doesn't that mean it's mostly a fixed per-tuple
cost, not directly related to the comparison? For example, why should it
be multiplied by C0? That is, if I create a very expensive comparator
(s
V8 contains fixes of Tomas Vondra complaints:
- correct usage of comparison_cost
- remove uneeded check of sortop
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
diff --git a/src/backend/o
One more thought about estimating the worst case - I wonder if simply
multiplying the per-tuple cost by 1.5 is the right approach. It does not
seem particularly principled, and it's trivial simple to construct
counter-examples defeating it (imagine columns with 99% of the rows
having the same v
On 11.07.2018 21:03, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26/03/18 19:07, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Attached fixed 3th version of the patch:
Thanks, I'm reviewing this now. Nice speedup!
Thank you for your review.
There is no test coverage for some of the added code. You can get a
code coverage rep
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mmm, yeah, I suppose it should say "all framing options" rather than
>> implying that we've implemented every other window-related frammish
>> there is in the spec.
> +1. Attached patch that does exactly that.
Pushed,
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> I think we also can update the doc about that GROUPS offset mode
> requires ORDER BY clause. Thoughts? Attached patch updates it.
Ooops, I forgot to check the docs. This isn't quite the right fix
though --- the problem is that there's a sentence at the end of that
para
On 07/12/2018 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
bowerbird and hamerkop have some gripes like this:
bowerbird | c:\perl64\lib\core\win32.h(218): warning C4005: 'isnan' : macro
redefinition (src/pl/plperl/SPI.c)
[G:\prog\bf\root\HE
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
>> I think we also can update the doc about that GROUPS offset mode
>> requires ORDER BY clause. Thoughts? Attached patch updates it.
>
> Ooops, I forgot to check the docs. This isn't quite the right fix
> though --- the
It would be easier to figure this out if the btree_gist code weren't
so desperately undocumented. Teodor, do you remember why it's like
this?
Will look.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://ww
Hi John,
John Naylor writes:
>> On 4/26/18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> if I counted correctly. (Array entries should be ignored for this
>>> purpose; maybe we'll autogenerate them someday.)
>>
>> Hmm, that wouldn't be too hard. Add a new metadata field called
>> 'array_type_oid', then if it finds suc
Hello Heikki,
Thanks for having a look at this small patch which aim at improving
pgbench coverage.
How pgbenchs prints a progress if none were printed, or if the last
progress was over 0.5 seconds ago, so as to have kind of a catchup in the
end.
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For
The point is to avoid building the message with dynamic allocation and so
if in the end it is not used.
Ok! About avoidance - I'm afraid there's one more piece of debugging code
with the same problem:
Indeed. I'd like to avoid all instances, so that PQExpBufferData is not
needed anywhere,
Hi!
PFA v5 of the patch series.
> 11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as far as I
> can see, this patch never marks internal pages as deleted, only leaf pages.
> However, we should have something like this
On 12/07/18 18:06, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
I have added some cross-type test cases and now almost all new code is covered
(excluding several error cases which can be triggered only by custom numeric
type implementations).
Thanks! Some of those new tests actually fail, if you run them against
unp
On 12/07/18 19:00, Fabien COELHO wrote:
How pgbenchs prints a progress if none were printed, or if the last
progress was over 0.5 seconds ago, so as to have kind of a catchup in the
end.
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For the tests, we only need to ensure
that at least one progress rep
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:59:16PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Anyway, this patch seems to fix it, and adds what I think is appropriate
> > test coverage.
>
> This looks good to me. I am noticing that the documentation of TRUNCATE
> does not mention
Pavel Stehule writes:
> PLpgSQL FETCH documentation is has ref on SQL FETCH command. SQL FETCH
> allows only int constants as count. PLpgSQL allows any expressions. In this
> case documentation is not clear, and people can be messy - and apply SQL
> FETCH limits on PLpgSQL FETCH.
Right. Pushed w
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
On 12/07/18 19:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas
написал(а):
This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as
far as I can see, this patch never marks internal pages as deleted,
only leaf pages. However, we should have something like this in
Hi Tom,
On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Since Tom has been revamping this code lately, I think it's a good
> > idea to wait for his input.
>
> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
> next. If you don't mind putting the to
Hi,
On 2018-06-29 13:52:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> From 95fc7156afe521b715fab08d44606774df875e92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Peter Eisentraut
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:28:39 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix assert in nested SQL procedure call
Andrew, Peter, are you happy with this? I
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
>> next. If you don't mind putting the topic on hold that long, I'll
>> be happy to take responsibility for it.
> Is that still the plan? Do you forsee an
On 2018-07-11 09:16:33 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Attached, please find an updated patch based on comments by Alvaro.
> > See, if this looks okay to you guys.
>
> LGTM as far as my previous comments are concerned.
I see Amit pushed a patch here yester
I was asked to perform two different tests:
1) A benchmarksql run with WAL recycling on and then off, for comparison
2) A test when the filesystem fills up
For #1, I did two 15 minute benchmarksql runs and here are the results.
wal_recycle=on
--
Term-00, Running Average tpmTOTAL: 299.8
Hi Alexander, Teodor,
On 2018-06-28 18:28:03 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> According to the error message, it is not allowed to alter statistics on
> included column because this is "non-expression column".
>
> postgres=# create table test (i int, d int);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# create index
2018-07-12 18:29 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > PLpgSQL FETCH documentation is has ref on SQL FETCH command. SQL FETCH
> > allows only int constants as count. PLpgSQL allows any expressions. In
> this
> > case documentation is not clear, and people can be messy - and apply SQL
>
On 2018-Jul-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
> >> next. If you don't mind putting the topic on hold that long, I'll
> >> be happy to take responsibility for it.
> 12 июля 2018 г., в 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> On 12/07/18 19:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> 11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> написал(а):
>>> This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as
>>> far as I can see, this patch never marks internal p
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:49:59PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
> > On the master head, getConstraints() function skips FK constraints for
> > a partitioned table because of tbinfo->hastriggers is false.
> >
> > While creating FK constraints on the partitioned t
PostgreSQL 9.6.9, Windows Server 2012 Datacenter (64-bit).
We're trying to diagnose the error:
requested timeline 105 does not contain minimum recovery point
A58/6B109F28 on timeline 103
The error occurs when a WAL-shipping (not streaming) secondary starts up.
These two machines have b
Hi,
On 2018-07-12 10:20:06 -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> PostgreSQL 9.6.9, Windows Server 2012 Datacenter (64-bit).
>
> We're trying to diagnose the error:
>
> requested timeline 105 does not contain minimum recovery point
> A58/6B109F28 on timeline 103
>
> The error occurs when a WA
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For the tests, we only need to
ensure that at least one progress report is printed, right?
[...]
I still don't understand.
Let's look at the code:
if (progress && thread->tid == 0)
{
...
if (last_report == thread_start || now - l
On 12.06.18 18:47, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> While testing this, I ran into another semi-related issue:
> shmem_exit_inprogress isn't ever being cleared in the postmaster, which
> means that if you ever have a crash-restart, any attempt to do a
> rollback in a procedure will then crash or get some oth
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Changing pg_class.relhastriggers is out of scope because as far as I
> know partitioned tables have no triggers, so the current value is
> correct, and that would be a catalog change at this stage which would
> cause any existing deployments of v11 to compl
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems like a *really* ad-hoc place to put it. Why should it be
>> there, and not (say) somewhere inside InitializeSessionUserId, or maybe
>> (also?) inside PerformAuthentication? Why do the existing call sites for
>>
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
> Done.
> Attachment contains an update for use v.2 of the 'Ensure nbtree leaf tuple
> keys are always unique' patch.
My v3 is still pending, but is now a lot better than v2. There were
bugs in v2 that were fixed.
One area that might be w
Nico Williams writes:
> Attached is an additional patch, as well as a new, rebased patch.
>
> This includes changes responsive to Álvaro Herrera's commentary about
> the SET CONSTRAINTS manual page.
This patch looks good to me. +1; Álvaro, please update the CF entry
when you're also satisfied.
> On Jul 4, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 03.07.18 19:20, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-06-29 10:19:17 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2018-06-29 13:56:12 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/29/18 13:07, amul sul wrote:
> This happens because of i
chenhj writes:
> When execute sql with prepared protocol, read committed transaction will hold
> backend_xmin until the end of the transaction.
No, just till the active portal is dropped.
In the case you show, the issue is that libpq doesn't bother to issue
an explicit Close Portal message, but
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:29, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> This needs a lot more information before somebody can reasonably act on
> it.
Happy to provide, of course!
The two relevant hosts are "Ash" and "Chi". As mentioned, they've been flipped
back and forth repeatedly using pg_rewind: One will
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:40:43PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Sure.
Thanks for the reviews, I have pushed the patch after moving the elog()
call and changing the logs to mention "WAL segments" instead of "WAL
files".
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Indeed… but then throttling would not be tested:-) The point of the test
is to exercise all time-related options, including throttling with a
reasonable small value.
Ok. I don't think that's really worthwhile. If we add some code that only
runs in testing, then we're not really testing the re
On 07/12/2018 12:38 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudi
Asim R P writes:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Asim R P writes:
>>> One can find several PageInit() calls with no content lock held. See,
>>> for example:
>>> fill_seq_with_data()
>> That would be for a relation that no one else can even see yet, no?
> Yes, when the se
On 2018-Jul-12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I fully understand. I think this needs to go back to "Waiting on Author".
Why? Heikki's patch applies fine and passes the regression tests.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Tr
On 07/12/2018 06:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jul-12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I fully understand. I think this needs to go back to "Waiting on Author".
Why? Heikki's patch applies fine and passes the regression tests.
Well, I understood Claudio was going to do some more work (see
Hi, thanks for the revision.
>
>+Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING clause in the INSERT commands.
>
>I think this would be better as: Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
>to
>INSERT commands.
Agreed.
>+printf(_(" --on-conflict-do-nothing dump data as INSERT
>commands with ON CONFLICT DO NOTHIN
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:18:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's a small thing, but I agree with you. As far as I can see slot
> names are always mapped with the name type. I'll push that tomorrow if
> there are no objections.
Pushed, with a catalog version bump.
While double-checking
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:26:17PM -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> What surprises me about the error is that while the recovery point
> seems reasonable, it shouldn't be on timeline 103, but on timeline
> 105.
Wild guess: you did not issue a checkpoint on the promoted standby
before running pg_r
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:45:37PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks, looks good. I propose to add following pg_dump test to ensure
> this stays fixed.
Thanks for adding the test. I was looking at a good way to add a test
but could not come up with something which can be summed up with one
q
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> I don't follow Alvaro's reasoning, TBH. There's a couple of things that
> confuse me ...
>
> I don't quite see how reusing WAL segments actually protects against full
> filesystem? On "traditional" filesystems I would not expect any differenc
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Doesn't have to be a trigger, could be a CHECK constraint, datatype input
> function, etc. Admittedly, having a datatype input function that inserts to
> the table is worth a "huh?", but I'm feeling very confident that we can
> c
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi
wrote:
>>+Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING clause in the INSERT commands.
>>
>>I think this would be better as: Add ON CONFLICT DO
>>NOTHING to
>>INSERT commands.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>+printf(_(" --on-conflict-do-nothing dump data as INSERT
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
