On 9 November 2018 at 19:18, Amit Langote wrote:
> I have a comment regarding how you chose to make
> PartitionTupleRouting private.
>
> Using the v14_to_v15 diff, I could quickly see that there are many diffs
> changing PartitionTupleRouting to struct PartitionTupleRouting, but they
> would be
On 2018/11/13 11:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch. Perhaps you are spotting something else?
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
Amit
On 12/11/2018 20:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, even if we had an arguably-better idea, I suspect that there would
> always be cases where it didn't work. For example, one idea is to make
> a temporary directory under the installation's normal socket directory
> (thus, /tmp/pg/ or some such).
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-11-13 00:01:49 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
>> So if this got added to a lot of compilers, that might suffice.
> No, unless those compiler versions will automatically be available in
> older distros. Which they won't.
Yeah. I think putting this in core is a long
út 13. 11. 2018 v 0:55 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-11-13 00:01:49 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> >> So if this got added to a lot of compilers, that might suffice.
>
> > No, unless those compiler versions will automatically be available in
> > older distros.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:34:50AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hmm, Assert or elog is your call, but I'd learned that we prefer elog when
> checking a value read from the disk?
Let's keep elog() then, which is consistent with the previous code. If
there is any meaning in switching to an
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical
> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and
> > "worker_spi", but it seems
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:19:31PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> When doing a set of ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS actions for relations, there
>> is a CCI happening after each truncation:
>
> Right, but note that this is not a loop so it's only one CCI, not one
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:45 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > * I had some ideas about some kind of "allocation rollback" interface:
> > you begin an "allocation transaction", allocate a bunch of stuff
> > (perhaps indirectly, by calling some API
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:42 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM Julian Hsiao wrote:
> > During a routine Coverity scan of our internal PostgreSQL fork, it
> > issued a buffer overrun warning for src/backend/libpq/hba.c,
> > gethba_options()[0]:
> >
> > MAIN_ISSUE
On 2018/11/13 12:40, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/11/13 11:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Attached is an updated patch. Perhaps you are spotting something else?
>
> Looks good to me.
Marked the CF entry as Ready for Committer.
Thanks,
Amit
=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Strobel?= writes:
> On 2018-11-12 17:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not entirely convinced that I buy that argument, especially not in
>> a case like this where it introduces logical inconsistencies where there
>> otherwise wouldn't be any.
> I think I missed something, what
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:39 PM, legrand legrand wrote:
Hi, Thanks for comments.
I had overlooked the reply from you.
>You are right, sampling has to be "tuned" regarding the event(s) you want to
>catch.
I see. For tuning, you need to know the length of processing you want to
sample?
> May
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:30 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:41 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Okay, changed the code as per Andres's and your suggestion. Do you
> >
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:55 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> > I can revert it back to void,
> >
>
> +1, as we don't see any good reason to break backward compatibility.
>
Thanks for the review.
Attached the updated patch with return type
"Higuchi, Daisuke" writes:
> From: Dmitry Dolgov [mailto:9erthali...@gmail.com]
>> Thanks for the patches. Unfortunately, judging from the cfbot.cputube.org
>> they
>> can't be applied anymore to the current master, could you please rebase them?
> Thank you for checking!
> I rebased patches on
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 12/11/2018 20:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, even if we had an arguably-better idea, I suspect that there would
>> always be cases where it didn't work. For example, one idea is to make
>> a temporary directory under the installation's normal socket directory
>>
Hi,
On 2018/11/12 22:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:11:35PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> And here is the new version. The break down into smaller local
>> functions for different partitioning methods is in patch 0002.
>
> Okay, here we go.
Thank you for reviewing.
>
Hi,
During a routine Coverity scan of our internal PostgreSQL fork, it
issued a buffer overrun warning for src/backend/libpq/hba.c,
gethba_options()[0]:
MAIN_ISSUE EventDescription: Overrunning array "options" of 12 8-byte
elements at element index 12 (byte offset 96) using index "noptions++"
Richard Guo writes:
> Currently for quals in the form of "NOT NOT (SubLink)", this SubLink would
> not be considered when pulling up sublinks.
Yup.
> Should we give it a chance, like the attached does?
What is the argument that this occurs often enough to be worth expending
extra cycles and
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Naoki Yotsunaga wrote:
>>2) it consumes system resources
>While the system is running, you are always sampling system information, do
>not you? Like Oracle ASH.
I don’t understand well how sampling is used.
In which scene do you use the sampling? Or is it both
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 08:17:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't like this too much, because it does not scale: there can be
> only one action that can rely on executing "just before we switch to
> TRANS_INPROGRESS".
Okay.
> I think the real bug here is that a bunch of potentially-failable
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical
> replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and
> "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented.
> If that sounds right
Michael Paquier writes:
> So, I have spent a couple of hours today looking a bit more at the
> problem, and I have hacked the attached patch that I am pretty happy
> with:
I don't like this too much, because it does not scale: there can be
only one action that can rely on executing "just before
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM Julian Hsiao wrote:
> During a routine Coverity scan of our internal PostgreSQL fork, it
> issued a buffer overrun warning for src/backend/libpq/hba.c,
> gethba_options()[0]:
>
> MAIN_ISSUE EventDescription: Overrunning array "options" of 12 8-byte
> elements at
po 12. 11. 2018 v 6:58 odesílatel Markus Winand
napsal:
>
> On 2018-11-9, at 05:07 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> čt 8. 11. 2018 v 15:18 odesílatel Markus Winand
> napsal:
>
>>
>> > On 2018-11-6, at 15:23 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > po 29. 10. 2018 v 11:45 odesílatel Pavel
At Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:27:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in <5be552ed.4040...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > Ok, I can live with that with no problem.
>
> OK
...
> > I think Thomas just saying that reading more lines can develop
> > problems. According to the current discussion, we should error
> > out if
At Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:32:54 +1300, Thomas Munro
wrote in
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:39 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Mmm..I didn't get an error at hand on both CentOS7 and High Sierra.
> >
> > | $ perl -e 'for (my $i=0; $i< 100; $i++) { print "$i\n"; }' | head -5
> > ...
> > | 4
> > |
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:34 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:45:17PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > + /* Set a different seed for random() in every backend. */
> > + srandom((unsigned int) MyProcPid ^ (unsigned int) MyStartTimestamp);
>
> > - TimestampDifference(0,
On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical
>> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:26 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Laurenz Albe writes:
> > > Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > > > Added comments along the lines that you mentioned. And also try
> > > > to update some more comments.
> > > Looks ok to me, I'll mark it as "ready for committer".
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:38 PM Iwata, Aya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I create a first libpq trace log patch.
>
> In this patch,
> - All message that PQtrace() gets are output to the libpq trace log file
> (I maybe select more effective message in the future patch)
> - Trace log output style is changed
On 11/8/18, David Rowley wrote:
> On 8 November 2018 at 22:46, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Could you adjust this to use fewer capital letters, unless they start
>> sentences or similar?
>
> Yeah. Changed in the attached.
Looks good to me. Since there have been no new suggestions for a few
On 04/11/2018 06:23, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> On 2 November 2018 at 20:30, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> - Execution-time partition pruning currently occurs for the
>> + Execution-time partition pruning currently only occurs for the
>> Append
On 30/10/2018 14:30, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> I attached new version of this patch due merge conflict with pg_promote
> function.
This patch looks pretty good to me functionality-wise. There are some
code details to work through, listed below.
In this review, I'm skipping over your
Hello
Last published patch index-skip-fallback-v2 applied and builds cleanly.
I found reproducible crash due assert failure: FailedAssertion("!(numCols >
0)", File: "pathnode.c", Line: 2795)
> create table tablename (i int primary key);
> select distinct i from tablename where i = 1;
Query is
(2018/11/12 18:52), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
At Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:27:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote
in<5be552ed.4040...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Ok, I can live with that with no problem.
OK
...
I think Thomas just saying that reading more lines can develop
problems. According to the current
On 2018-11-09 23:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> On 2018-Nov-09, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
>>> Regarding your example, what I expected is that *both* inserts would
>>> consistently result in a tuple of (1, 42) since p should route the
>>> insert to p1 and use p1's defaults. The
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:11:35PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> And here is the new version. The break down into smaller local
> functions for different partitioning methods is in patch 0002.
Okay, here we go. I have spent a couple of hours on this patch,
checking the consistency of the new
El 11/11/18 a las 07:38, Tom Lane escribió:
I think you have the right basic idea, but we don't have to completely
lobotomize the bitmap-and search logic in order to cope with this.
This code is only trying to figure out which paths are potentially
redundant, so for a path with too many quals,
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> I found reproducible crash due assert failure: FailedAssertion("!(numCols >
> 0)", File: "pathnode.c", Line: 2795)
> > create table tablename (i int primary key);
> > select distinct i from tablename where i = 1;
> Query is obviously
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Commit fc70a4b0df3 added backend_type to pg_stat_activity, but the
> documentation omitted "logical replication launcher". Patch attached.
>
Isn't this the fallout of commit 5373bc2a08 which has added background
worker types? If
On 2018-Nov-12, Jürgen Strobel wrote:
> With all due respect I suspect your view of implementation issues biases
> your judgement here. For me the partition's default handling was
> completely unexpected, especially with the documentation silent about
> default-applying behavior, and inconsistent
Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
> El 11/11/18 a las 07:38, Tom Lane escribió:
>> I think you have the right basic idea, but we don't have to completely
>> lobotomize the bitmap-and search logic in order to cope with this.
>> This code is only trying to figure out which paths are potentially
>>
On 11/12/18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM John Naylor wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Commit fc70a4b0df3 added backend_type to pg_stat_activity, but the
>> documentation omitted "logical replication launcher". Patch attached.
>>
>
> Isn't this the fallout of commit 5373bc2a08
On 2018-Nov-09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When doing a set of ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS actions for relations, there
> is a CCI happening after each truncation:
Right, but note that this is not a loop so it's only one CCI, not one
per relation. (This doesn't seem a big deal either way,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:36 AM Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Hello -
>
> I have an extension that uses background workers. I pass a database oid
> as an argument in order to launch the worker using function
> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid. In one of my regression tests
> that was
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:34 PM Noah Misch wrote:
>> Compared to the old code, the new code requires more wall time to visit every
>> possible seed value. New code xor's the PID bits into the fastest-changing
>> timestamp bits, so only about twenty bits can vary within
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 7 Nov 2018, at 08:23, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>> Why not always create a temporary directory and put it there. Then we
>> don't need an option. It's not like the current directory is a
>> particularly good choice anyway.
> I agree that cwd isn’t a terribly
Announcing Release 9 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client.
Along with numerous fixes of minor bugs and a couple of not so minor
bugs, this release has the following features:
* new command line parameter --run-parallel for run_branches.pl runs
all branches in parallel, possibly across
Laurenz Albe writes:
> Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> Added comments along the lines that you mentioned. And also try
>> to update some more comments.
> Looks ok to me, I'll mark it as "ready for committer".
I don't like this patch at all: the business with keeping two connections
open seems
I believe I found a race condition in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup in the
case where it encounters an ERROR during startup. I found that depending
on the speed of the system, it will unreliably return either status
BGWH_STOPPED or BGWH_STARTED. But I can reliably reproduce getting
BGWH_STOPPED
On Monday, November 12, 2018 1:08:37 PM EST Tom Lane wrote:
> Looking through the thread, it seems like there's a pretty fundamental
> design issue that hasn't been resolved, namely whether and how this
> ought to interact with default_transaction_read_only. The patch as
> it stands seems to be
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I’ve split the patch into two logical parts, the signalling functionality and
> the userfacing terminate/cancel part. For extra clarity I’ve also included
> the
> full v19 patch, in case you prefer that instead when seeing the two.
I'm a bit befuddled by this patch,
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> In extension_config_remove() we first ensure that pg_extension.extconfig
> cannot
> contain any NULL values in the array, ERRORing out if so. Later we however
> ask
> for NULL values back when deconstructing the array, throwing away the results
> knowing there wont
Melanie Plageman writes:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:28 AM Elvis Pranskevichus
> wrote:
>> Sorry for the long silence on this. I'm attaching a rebased and
>> cleaned-up patch with the earlier review issues addressed. I've checked
>> all relevant tests and verified manually.
> After taking a
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:42 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > 2015-09-25 0:25 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby :
> >> On 9/24/15 3:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would worry about the implicit casts you've added. They might cause
> >>>
On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> ... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C language:
>
> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/
Nice. Maybe we can get DECFLOAT into core around PostgreSQL 32 or so :-)
--
David Rowley
Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe writes:
> > Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > > Added comments along the lines that you mentioned. And also try
> > > to update some more comments.
> > Looks ok to me, I'll mark it as "ready for committer".
>
> I don't like this patch at all: the business with keeping two
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:05 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> * I had some ideas about some kind of "allocation rollback" interface:
> you begin an "allocation transaction", allocate a bunch of stuff
> (perhaps indirectly, by calling some API that makes query plans or
> whatever and is totally unaware of
Greetings,
This is my first attempt at a patch review, so I will take a pass at the
low hanging fruit.
Initial Pass
+ Patch applies
+ Patch builds
+ Patch behaves as described in the thread
I tried a few small things:
When I set a relative path for `PGLOGDIR`, the files were
On 13 November 2018 at 02:46, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Committed your change.
Thanks.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> One of the guiding principles that I think we should hold for
> partitioning is that operating directly into the partition should be
> seen as only an optimization compared to inserting into the parent table
> -- thus it should not behave differently. Applying different
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:39 AM Iwata, Aya wrote:
> I create a first libpq trace log patch.
Couple additional thoughts from a read-through of the patch:
- PQtrace() and the new trace-logging machinery overlap in some places
but not others -- and if both are set, PQtrace() will take precedence.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > ... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C language:
> >
> > https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/
>
> Nice. Maybe we can get DECFLOAT into core
Hi,
On 2018-11-12 23:51:35 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > ... and it has just been voted into the next revision of the C language:
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:57:37PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-11-12 23:51:35 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > > On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > > > ... and it has just been voted into
On 2018-11-13 00:01:49 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:57:37PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-11-12 23:51:35 +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:01:33AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > > > On 13 November 2018 at 10:39, Thomas
On 2018-11-12 17:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> One of the guiding principles that I think we should hold for
>> partitioning is that operating directly into the partition should be
>> seen as only an optimization compared to inserting into the parent table
>> -- thus it should
69 matches
Mail list logo
