Traditionally (prior to v10), PQhost() returned the "host" connection
parameter if that was nonempty, otherwise the default host name
(DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR or "localhost" depending on platform).
That got whacked around to a state of brokenness in v10 (which I'll return
to in a bit), and then
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Tom> My impression is that there was consensus for per-extension
> Tom> subdirectories, but the usage scenario isn't totally designed yet.
> Tom> In principle, only the layout question has to be resolved to make
> Tom> it OK to ship this in
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Daniel Verite wrote:
>
> That makes sense, thanks for elaborating, although there are also
> a fair number of ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED in copy.c
> that are raised on forbidden/nonsensical combination of features,
> so the consistency argument could work both
On 2018-08-02 10:54:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, "near future" means "before Monday". I don't want to ship beta3
> with this in place if we end up reverting later, because it'd mean
> thrashing packagers' file manifests, which they won't appreciate.
> It might be best to revert in v11 for
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
>> Also, "near future" means "before Monday". I don't want to ship
>> beta3 with this in place if we end up reverting later, because it'd
>> mean thrashing packagers' file manifests, which they won't
>> appreciate. It might be best to revert in v11 for
Hello Pavel,
I couldn't find the documentation. Attached patch adds one.
Probably this function should have been named pg_*. Too late.
I think this is intentionally hidden function, like others started with acl*.
Yep, I thought of that.
However, the point of having hidden and/or
On 02/08/2018 01:36, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 July 2018 at 11:51, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached v6 delta replaces the v5 delta and should be applied on
>> top of the full v4 patch.
>
> (now committed)
>
> Many thanks for committing this Peter and many thanks to Melanie and
> Karen for
On 2018-08-02 17:53:17 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
>
> >> Also, "near future" means "before Monday". I don't want to ship
> >> beta3 with this in place if we end up reverting later, because it'd
> >> mean thrashing packagers' file manifests, which
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> (EXPLAIN isn't a very adequate tool for testing this, since
> it fails to show anything about what pruning tests are attached to an
> Append. I wonder if we need to create something that does show that.)
I've asked for that more than once and
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> Maybe this all just works without much thought, but given that
Tom> smart people like Peter E. seem to be unsure of that, I'd sure
Tom> like to see a concrete set of rules that extensions should follow
Tom> for this.
I'll comment on the more substantive
>> They can be, but currently they might not be. So this requires at least
>> big fat warning in docs and description on how to access user catalogs
>> from plugins correctly (ie to always use systable_* API on them). It
>> would be nice if we could check for it in Assert builds at least.
>
Ok,
Hello Fabien,
However, the point of having hidden and/or undocumented functions
fails me: they are hard/impossible to find if you do not know they
exist from
the start, and if you ever find one you do not know what they do
without reading the source code in detail, eg to know what to give
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have created three patches (a) move InstrStartParallelQuery from its
> original location so that we perform it just before ExecutorRun (b)
> patch to fix the gather stats by calling shutdown at appropriate place
> and allow stats collection
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:17 PM Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 05:21:43PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Thank you, Arthur. These examples shows downside of this patch, where
> > users may be faced with incompatibility. But it's good that this
> > situation can be handled
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> It seems like there were two separate areas of
Tom> disagreement/questioning, one being the file layout (whether to
Tom> add per-extension subdirectories) and then one about how one would
Tom> actually use this, ie what would the -I switch(es) look like
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On the other hand, _I'm_ getting pressure from at least one packager to
>> nail down a final release of pllua-ng so they can build it along with
>> beta3 (in place of the old broken pllua), which obviously I can't do if
>> I keep having to
[ bringing this discussion back to the original thread ]
David Rowley writes:
> The attached patch removes the Assert, but I think it should be
> probably be done as part of [1]'s patch since that's also adding the
> code to handle subplans for tables that don't belong in the partition
>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:17 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> After some experiments I found that when you mix spaces and separators
> between two fields, then Oracle takes into account only length of last
> group of spaces/separators.
>
> # SELECT to_timestamp('2018- -01 02', ' ---
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-08-02 19:13:05 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> And none of the plpython transforms can even parse their makefiles with
>> USE_PGXS, let alone build, because they have an "include" directive
>> pointing into src/pl/plpython.
> FWIW, I'd be perfectly on board with
> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes:
Tom> There's also a question of whether we need to change anything in
Tom> contrib/ so that it plays by whatever rules we set. There's an
Tom> expectation that contrib modules should be buildable with PGXS,
Tom> so they need to follow the rules.
Sakai, Teppei wrote:
> This is my first posting to the mailing list.
>
> Currently our customer uses PostgreSQL 9.5 and hits problem during Windows
> service start.
> The Windows service status of the instance is different from actual status.
>
> We got the following situation.
> 1. Register
On 2018-08-02 19:13:05 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes:
>
> Tom> There's also a question of whether we need to change anything in
> Tom> contrib/ so that it plays by whatever rules we set. There's an
> Tom> expectation that contrib modules should be
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 19:18:11 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:25:18 -0700, Andres Freund wrote
> in <20180801162518.jnb2ql5dfmgwp...@alap3.anarazel.de>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The issue at [1] is caused by missing invalidations, and [2] seems like
> > a likely candidate too. I
Shay>Npgsql currently always sends a describe as part of statement
execution (for server-prepared messages the describe is done only once, at
preparation-time). Vladimir, are you doing things differently here?
The same thing is for pgjdbc. It does use describe to identify result row
format.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 01:04:37PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> The query and the result with four columns fit the current width.
Just wondering, what is your reason behind the addition of restart_lsn?
This part of the documentation focuses on slot creation, so slot_name,
slot_type and
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 04:41:44PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> postgres=# \df acl*
> List of fun
> Schema | Name | Result data type |
> +-+--+--
> pg_catalog | aclcontains | boolean | aclitem[], aclitem
Robert Haas writes:
> Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? It seems to me that there
> are several people who are quite willing to complain about the fact
> that this hasn't been fixed, but not willing to express an opinion
> about the shape of the fix. Either the RMT needs to take
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 16:30:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> With this change, we'd be able to say that new statements will
> definitely see the results of concurrent DDL.
I don't think it really gets you that far. Because you're suggesting to
do it at the parse stage, you suddenly have issues with
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> There's still a question here, at least from my perspective, as to which
>> is actually going to be faster to perform recovery based off of. A good
>> restore command, which pre-fetches the WAL in parallel and gets it local
>> and on the
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> The new approach seems to me more localized than what Ashutosh had proposed.
> One obvious advantage of the new approach is that we no longer need changes
> to postgres_fdw for it to work for partitionwise joins, which would apply
> for any
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 06:25:14PM +0100, Alexandra Ryzhevich wrote:
> I have noticed that there is no regression tests for default monitoring
> roles such as pg_read_all_stats.
A bug has been recently fixed for that, see 0c8910a0, so having more
coverage would be welcome, now your patch has a
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 15:57:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Right. If nobody sees a reason not to change that, I think we should.
> >> It would make the behavior more predictable with, I hope, no real
> >> loss.
> >
> > What precisely are you
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> [1]
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKoxK%2B5fVodiCtMsXKV_1YAKXbzwSfp7DgDqUmcUAzeAhf%3DHEQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12259.1532117...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> As for [1], it is not a issue on
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:55:11AM +, Ahsan Hadi wrote:
> Can you rebase the reindex-priv-93.patch, it is getting some hunk failures.
Patch reindex-priv-93.patch is for REL9_3_STABLE, where it applies
cleanly for me. reindex-priv-94.patch is for REL9_4_STABLE and
reindex-priv-95-master.patch
On 2 August 2018 at 17:07, Cynthia Shang
wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Daniel Verite
> wrote:
> >
> > That makes sense, thanks for elaborating, although there are also
> > a fair number of ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED in copy.c
> > that are raised on forbidden/nonsensical
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If we knew that we were never going to do deletes/non-HOT updates from
> the table we could continue to use the existing mechanism, otherwise
> we will be better off to use sorted index entries. However, it does
> appear as if keeping entries
On 2018-08-02 16:51:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > [ reasons why DDL under less than AEL sucks ]
>
> Unfortunately, none of these problems are made to go away with an
> AcceptInvalidationMessages at statement start. That just makes the
> window smaller. But DDL effects
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> It's particularly bad for these cases, since what they demonstrate
Tom> is that it's impossible to build transform modules for plperl or
Tom> plpython out-of-tree at the moment.
Right. Both plperl and plpython install _some_ header files (which
behavior
David Rowley writes:
>> It's probably best discussed on the other thread, but it seems to be
>> by design in accumulate_append_subpath(). Parallel Append nodes don't
>> get flattened if they contain a mix of parallel aware and non-parallel
>> aware subplans.
I don't really understand the issue
On 02.08.2018 08:25, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 4:53 PM
To: Yamaji, Ryo/山地 亮
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
I failed
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
Tom> There's also a question of whether we need to change anything in
Tom> contrib/ so that it plays by whatever rules we set. There's an
Tom> expectation that contrib modules should be buildable with PGXS,
Tom> so they need to follow the rules.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Right. If nobody sees a reason not to change that, I think we should.
>> It would make the behavior more predictable with, I hope, no real
>> loss.
>
> What precisely are you proposing?
Inserting AcceptInvalidationMessages() in some
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> What precisely are you proposing?
> Inserting AcceptInvalidationMessages() in some location that
> guarantees it will be executed at least once per SQL statement. I
> tentatively propose the beginning of
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Inserting AcceptInvalidationMessages() in some location that
>> guarantees it will be executed at least once per SQL statement. I
>> tentatively propose the beginning of parse_analyze(), but I am open to
>> suggestions.
>
> I'm inclined to
Robert Haas writes:
> [ reasons why DDL under less than AEL sucks ]
Unfortunately, none of these problems are made to go away with an
AcceptInvalidationMessages at statement start. That just makes the
window smaller. But DDL effects could still be seen - or not -
partway through a statement,
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 15:19:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? It seems to me that there
> are several people who are quite willing to complain about the fact
> that this hasn't been fixed, but not willing to express an opinion
> about the shape of the fix.
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 06:17:01PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> So, if number of spaces/separators between fields in input string is
> more than in format string and list space/separator skipped is minus
> sign, then it decides to glue that minus sign to TZH. I think this
> behavior is nice
Hello.
At Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:19:45 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote in
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >
> >> But good thing is because of join and aggregate
> >> push-down we already have ability to push arbitrary kinds of nodes
> >> down to the foreign server
At Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:50:55 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in
>
>
> On 08/01/2018 01:40 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> >> Ah, so there's an assumption that NaNs are handled earlier and never
> >> reach
> >> this place? That's probably a safe assumption. I haven't thought about
> >> that,
> >> it
At Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:05:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > I thought it's to be deprecated for some reason so I'm leaving
> > wal_keep_segments in '# of segments' even though the new GUC is
> > in MB. I'm a bit uneasy that the two
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:31 PM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:01 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I added new API in the tableam.h to get all the page visible tuples to
> abstract the bitgetpage() function.
>
> >>- Merge tableam.h and tableamapi.h and make most tableam.c
At Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:38:40 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20180803.133840.180843182.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> At Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:50:55 +0200, Tomas Vondra
> wrote in
>
> >
> >
> > On 08/01/2018 01:40 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> > >> Ah, so there's an
We recently had a customer report a very strange problem, involving a
very large insert-only table: without explanation, insertions would
stall for several seconds, causing application timeout and process
accumulation and other nastiness.
After some investigation, we narrowed this down to
On 2018-Aug-01, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > On 20 July 2018 at 01:03, David Rowley wrote:
> >> I've attached a patch intended for master which is just v2 based on
> >> post 5220bb7533.
>
> I've pushed the v3 patch with a lot of editorial work (e.g. cleaning
> up comments you
At Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:40:50 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote in
pg> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
pg> wrote:
pg> >> [1]
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKoxK%2B5fVodiCtMsXKV_1YAKXbzwSfp7DgDqUmcUAzeAhf%3DHEQ%40mail.gmail.com
pg> >> [2]
Hello, thank you for the comment.
At Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:21:57 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in <5b61a5e5.6010...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> (2018/06/12 12:19), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > I have demonstrated and actually shown a problem of the
> > PARAM_EXEC case.
>
> > A. Just detecting and
On 3 August 2018 at 05:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, looking at the explain posted upthread, the issue is specifically
> that some of the child paths might be for Gathers over subsets of the
> partitioning hierarchy. It's not real clear to me whether such a subset
> would necessarily correspond to
2018-08-02 5:38 GMT+09:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> On 2018-Aug-01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Right, makes sense. Pushed that way.
>
> KaiGai, if you can please confirm that the pushed change fixes your test
> case, I'd appreciate it.
>
Can you wait for a few days? I can drop the test dataset and reuse
Hi,
I appreciate the feedback and suggestions.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> How would this work if a relfilenode number that belonged to an old
>> relation got recycled for a new relation?
>> ..
>> I think something like this could be made to work -- both on the
>>
(looking at the v5 patch but replying to an older email)
On 2018/07/31 16:03, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached a complete v4 patch.
>
>> By the way, when going over the updated code, I noticed that the code
>> around child_parent_tupconv_maps could use some refactoring too.
>> Especially, I
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> Something that copes with different modules installing headers
Tom> with the same base name. Allowing for that was the driving force
Tom> for going with subdirectory-per-extension, but if we really want
Tom> that to work, there seems to be no alternative
On 3 August 2018 at 07:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't really understand the issue at hand, but let me just make a
> comment about accumulate_append_subpath(). If we have a regular
> Append on top of another regular Append or on top of a MergeAppend, we
> can flatten the lower Merge(Append)
On 2018-Aug-03, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> 2018-08-02 5:38 GMT+09:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> > On 2018-Aug-01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> >> Right, makes sense. Pushed that way.
> >
> > KaiGai, if you can please confirm that the pushed change fixes your test
> > case, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Can you wait
Paul Guo writes:
> [ make the postmaster execute setsid() too ]
I'm a bit skeptical of this proposal. Forcing the postmaster to
dissociate from its controlling terminal is a good thing in some
scenarios, but probably less good in others, and manual postmaster
starts are probably mostly in the
Andrew Gierth writes:
> [ postgres_fdw is not smart about exploiting fast-start plans ]
Yeah, that's basically not accounted for at all in the current design.
> One possibility: would it be worth adding an option to EXPLAIN that
> makes it assume cursor_tuple_fraction?
[ handwaving ahead ]
I
Robert Haas writes:
> Yeah, I would have voted -1 if I'd realized that it was close. Now
> we're in a situation where we have patch not everyone likes not only
> in master (which is OK, because we've got a year to decide whether to
> change anything) but also in v11 (where we have a lot less
Hello.
I have had complaints several times on lack of this kind of
feature.
At Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:33:39 +0200, Marco van Eck wrote
in
> After explaining the patch to a college we identified potentially execution
> of another user when it is defined in as a command parameter. To protect
>
On 1 August 2018 at 23:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-01, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> See attached patch which fixes it, and adds a test for it.
>
> Pushed, thanks.
Thanks
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training
On 08/01/2018 03:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Committed to master and v11. Thanks for the review.
Thanks!
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018-08-02 08:21:58 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think something on the lines what Tom and you are suggesting can be
>>> done with the help of EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD, but I
On 08/01/2018 04:07 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
I think there are three different things that need to be addressed:
* Underspecified comments.
I agree. My patch added comments, the next one with actual fixes adds
more. I just didn't want to invest even more time on them while the
code is
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 11:25, Marco van Eck wrote:
> Indeed having unencrypted password lying (.pgpass or PGPASSWORD or -W)
> around is making my auditors unhappy,
>
With the greatest of respect, perhaps you need to get auditors who
understand crypto better.
Having a user that has the
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 10:41, I wrote:
> Perhaps you could make your auditors happier by restricting that user's
> permissions to only run a defined function, and make that function do the
> work that the automation script wants? So even if the attacker can access
> the password he will still only
Hello.
At Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:25:18 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in
<20180801162518.jnb2ql5dfmgwp...@alap3.anarazel.de>
> Hi,
>
> The issue at [1] is caused by missing invalidations, and [2] seems like
> a likely candidate too. I wonder if it'd be good to have a relcache test
> mode akin to
I changed field name from 'reply_time' to 'last_msg_send_time'.
Because 'last_msg_send_time' is used in
pg_stat_wal_receiver/pg_stat_subsctiption view.
I think that field has the same meaning.
test example>
postgres=# select pid, last_msg_send_time from pg_stat_replication;
-[ RECORD 1
On 08/01/2018 01:40 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
Ah, so there's an assumption that NaNs are handled earlier and never reach
this place? That's probably a safe assumption. I haven't thought about that,
it simply seemed suspicious that the code mixes direct comparisons and
float8_mi() calls.
The
(2018/08/02 2:44), Robert Haas wrote:
Tom, Ashutosh, and I all seem to agree that we shouldn't try to
re-jigger things at create-plan time. I think that a 3-1 consensus
against your proposal is sufficient to say we shouldn't go that way.
Agreed.
Now, here you've got a new approach which
Apologies for disappearing from this conversation for a week.
First off, on the .NET side I have the exact same issue that Vladimir
Sitnikov described for the Java side. The .NET database API (ADO.NET) has a
standard, portable way for calling "server-side code". Since stored
procedures are in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I thought it's to be deprecated for some reason so I'm leaving
> wal_keep_segments in '# of segments' even though the new GUC is
> in MB. I'm a bit uneasy that the two similar settings are in
> different units. Couldn't we turn it into
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> By my count of people expressing opinions, we had Michael -1, Stephen -1,
> me -0.1 or so, Alvaro +1, Peter -1, presumably +1 from Andrew; and Andres
> made a comment about not waiting, which perhaps Andrew read as a +1 for
> backpatching. So
Simon Muller wrote:
> I changed the error type and message for consistency with other similar
> errors in that file. Whenever options are combined that are incompatible,
> it looks like the convention is for a ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR to be thrown.
That makes sense, thanks for elaborating,
(2018/08/02 4:30), Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
I updated the patch that way. Updated patch attached. I fixed a bug and
did a bit of cleanups as well.
Looking this over from a technical point of view, I think it's better
than what you proposed
Hi,
This is my first posting to the mailing list.
Currently our customer uses PostgreSQL 9.5 and hits problem during Windows
service start.
The Windows service status of the instance is different from actual status.
We got the following situation.
1. Register service with 'pg_ctl register -N
83 matches
Mail list logo
