Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On 11/15/17 6:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: Find my review below. On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have added as well a STOP TIMELINE

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

Hi Michael, On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order >> dependency is attractive but there may be other progra

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

On 11/29/17 12:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > > Please note that I am still -1 for using a methodology different than > what is used for base backups with an inclusive method, and would much > prefer an exclusive

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On 11/27/17 7:11 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:06 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: read_backup_label() is a static function in the backend code. With #2 I do not imply to change the order of the elements w

Re: Is it OK to ignore directory open failure in ResetUnloggedRelations?

Hi Tom, On 12/4/17 3:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > While working through Michael Paquier's patch to clean up inconsistent > usage of AllocateDir(), I noticed that ResetUnloggedRelations and its > subroutines are not consistent about whether a directory open failure > results in erroring out or just

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 8:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> On 2017-12-12 18:04:44 -0500, David Steele wrote: >>> If the forks are written out of order (i.e. main before init), which is >>> definitely possible, then

Re: Basebackups reported as idle

Hi Magnus, On 12/19/17 4:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always > reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to have been an > oversight in the "include walsender backends in pg_stat_activity" in 10, > which does include it for

Re: MemoryContextCreate change in PG 11 how should contexts be created

On 12/19/17 10:11 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Paul Ramsey writes: > > If I'm reading right, using MemoryContextRegisterResetCallback on a > AllocSetContext created under our PortalContext should do

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/13/17 10:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Just to be clear- the new base backup code doesn't actually *do* the non-init fork removal, it simply doesn't include the non-init fork in the backup when there is an init fork, right? It does *not* do the unlogged non-init fork removal. The code I

Re: That mode-700 check on DATADIR again

On 12/11/17 9:41 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: I have, more or less, this classic question: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4667C403.1070807%40t3go.de However, when you stat a file with a POSIX ACL, you get shown the ACL's 'mask' entry (essentially the ceiling of all the 'extra' ACL

Re: Error generating coverage report

Hi Peter, On 12/12/17 3:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: make: Entering directory `/home/vagrant/test/build/src/bin/pg_basebackup' /usr/bin/lcov --gcov-tool /usr/bin/gcov -q --no-external -c -i -d . -d /postgres/src/bin/pg_basebackup -o lcov_base.info geninfo: ERROR: no .gcno files found in

Error generating coverage report

I'm working on improving coverage and would like to generate some reports (other than the text versions) to help me find uncovered code. However, my source path and build path are not the same and I'm running into problems. This works fine and produces gcov output: $ make -C

PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Including unlogged relations in base backups takes up space and is wasteful since they are truncated during backup recovery. The attached patches exclude unlogged relations from base backups except for the init fork, which is required to recreate the main fork during recovery. *

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Andres, On 12/12/17 5:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 17:49:54 -0500, David Steele wrote: Including unlogged relations in base backups takes up space and is wasteful since they are truncated during backup recovery. The attached patches exclude unlogged relations from base backups

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Michael, On 12/12/17 6:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: If the forks are written out of order (i.e. main before init), which is definitely possible, then I think worst case is some files will be backed up that don't need to be. The main fork is unlikely to be very large at that point so it

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 6:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 18:18:09 -0500, David Steele wrote: On 12/12/17 6:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote: It's quite different - in the recovery case there's no other write activity going on. But on a normally running cluster the persistence of existing tables can

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 6:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 18:30:47 -0500, David Steele wrote: If we had a way to prevent relfilenode reuse across multiple checkpoints this'd be easier, although ALTER TABLE SET UNLOGGED still'd complicate. Or error the backup if there is wraparound

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

Hi Michael, Find my review below. On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have > added as well a STOP TIMELINE field in the backup history file. Note > that START TIMELINE gets automatically into the backup history file. >

Re: [HACKERS] pg audit requirements

On 11/13/17 1:43 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2017-11-13 19:19 GMT+01:00 David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net > Thanks for the input!  I'm not sure this is the best forum for comments, however, since pgAudit is not part of Postgres. Issues can be opened at the github site:

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> with HEAD at 8c6227a2 (latest as of writing this message). > > > Document that pg_internal.init files do not > need to be included in the base backup (David Steele) > > Does not seem necessary to add that in the release notes.. I was actually just about to respond abou

Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header

Hi Simon, On 5/13/18 6:18 PM, Simon Muller wrote: > This patch adds the capability to use the HEADER feature with the "text" > format of the COPY command. The patch includes the related update to > documentation and an additional regression test for this feature. > > Currently you can only add a

Re: perlcritic and perltidy

On 5/8/18 8:11 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: >> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:14:06PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> While I appreciate the support, I'm not sure that you're actually >>> agreeing with me.. I was arguing that braces should

Re: -D option of pg_resetwal is only works with absolute path

On 5/23/18 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: tushar writes: In the  latest PG v11,  found that  -D option of pg_resetwal is only works with absolute path .. not with relative path Confirmed here. This did work in previous releases, so I'd say it's unquestionably a

Re: -D option of pg_resetwal is only works with absolute path

On 5/23/18 11:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: On 5/23/18 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Seems to be caused by careless placement of new umask-changing code. I wonder how many other places that patch broke similarly. I'll look into this today. I pushed a

Re: Monitoring time of fsyncing WALs

On 6/27/18 12:32 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of fsyncing WAL segments? Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added it yet? If so, please find very small patch which adding WAIT_EVENT_WAL_FSYNC event

Re: Basebackups reported as idle

On 12/29/17 6:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Could you update the patch? >> >> I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/8/18 8:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/3/18 08:11, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>>>> I think MakeDirectory() is a good wrapper, but isn't >>>> MakeDirectoryPerm() sort of silly

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Masahiko, Thanks for the review! On 1/22/18 3:14 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> We would also have a problem if the missing file caused something in >> recovery to croak on the grounds that the file was expected

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/25/18 12:31 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:25 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Here is the first review comments. >>> >>> + unloggedDelim = strrchr(path, '/'); >>> >&g

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/19/18 4:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/19/18 14:07, David Steele wrote: >> I have yet to add tests for pg_rewindwal and pg_upgrade. pg_rewindwal >> doesn't *have* any tests as far as I can tell and pg_upgrade has tests >> in a shell script -- it's not cle

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 8:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Adam Brightwell > <adam.brightw...@crunchydata.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:17 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Whoops, my bad. Temp

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 9:13 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/29/18 5:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> But I >> have a question; can we exclude temp tables as well? The pg_basebackup >> includes even temp tables. But I don't think that it's necessary for >> backups > Tha

Re: New gist vacuum.

Hi Andrey, On 2/7/18 10:46 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> 7 февр. 2018 г., в 18:39, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> написал(а): >> >> Hi Andrey, >> >> On 1/21/18 5:34 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >>> Hello, Alexander! >>>> 16 янв. 2018 г.,

Re: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Separate log file for extension

Hi Antonin, On 1/10/18 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Antonin Houska writes: >> After having read the thread on your patch I think that the reason you were >> asked to evaluate performance was that your patch can possibly make syslogger >> a bottleneck. In contrast, my patch does

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression

Hi Oleg, On 1/22/18 4:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Oleg, > > I'm not really sure why this is still in Needs Review as a review was > posted and I don't see any follow-up. I've changed this to be Waiting > for Author. > > * Antonin Houska (a...@cybertec.at) wrote: >> Oleg Ivanov

Re: Re: New gist vacuum.

Hi Andrey, On 1/21/18 5:34 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Hello, Alexander! >> 16 янв. 2018 г., в 21:42, Andrey Borodin написал(а): >> Please find README patch attached. > > Here's v2 version. Same code, but x2 comments. Also fixed important typo in > readme BFS->DFS. Feel

Re: Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/21/17 2:02 PM, David Steele wrote: On 3/18/17 3:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I think Tom's concerns about people doing insecure stuff are excessive.  People can do insecure stuff no matter what we do, and trying to prevent them often leads to them doing even-more-insecure stuff.  That having

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Robert, Thanks for looking at the patches. On 12/31/17 1:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: Attached is a new patch set that should address various concerns raised in this thread. 1) group-access-v3-01-mkdir

2018-03 CFM

Hackers, Just a few days left until the last Commitfest for the PG11 release begins! I'm planning to fill the CFM role, unless there are objections. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: Standby trying "restore_command" before local WAL

On 8/2/18 4:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

Re: Standby trying "restore_command" before local WAL

On 8/7/18 11:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>> CRC's are per WAL record, and possibly some WAL records might not be ok >>> to replay, or at least we need to make sure that we replay the right set >>> of WAL in the right order even when there are partial WAL files being >>> given to PG (that

Re: Standby trying "restore_command" before local WAL

On 8/7/18 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> All I'm saying is that (assuming my understanding of RestoreArchivedFile is >> correct) we can't just do that in the current restore_command. We do need a >> way to ask the archive for some metadata/checksums, and restore_command is >> too late. > >

Re: Standby trying "restore_command" before local WAL

On 8/8/18 11:45 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 08/08/2018 04:08 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 8/7/18 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>>>> All I'm saying is that (assuming my understanding of RestoreArch

Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

On 8/15/18 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > >> Personally, I'd prefer to >> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of >> variables and code on grounds of style and readability. > > ... which I agree with. We already have -Wdeclaration-after-statement to

Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

On 8/15/18 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> On 08/15/2018 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas writes: Personally, I'd prefer to continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of variables and code on grounds of style and readability. > >>>

Re: Would it be possible to have parallel archiving?

On 8/28/18 8:32 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * hubert depesz lubaczewski (dep...@depesz.com) wrote: >> I'm in a situation where we quite often generate more WAL than we can >> archive. The thing is - archiving takes long(ish) time but it's >> multi-step process and includes talking to remote

Re: Would it be possible to have parallel archiving?

On 8/28/18 4:34 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> >> I still don't think it's a good idea and I specifically recommend >> against making changes to the archive status files- those are clearly >> owned and managed by PG and should not be whacked around by external >> processes. > If you do not write to

Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)

On 8/22/18 10:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 22/08/2018 14:02, Andres Freund wrote: >> If we agree on that, I'm going to propose a patch that includes: >> - relevant cleanups to configure >> - adapts sources.sgml to refer to C99 instead of C89 >> - add some trivial conversions to for(int i;;)

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/23/18 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Brian Faherty writes: > There does not really seem to be a need for this behavior as all the information postgres needs is in memory at this point. I propose with a patch to just recreate pg_control on updates if it does not exist. I would vote to reject

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On July 25, 2018 7:18:30 AM PDT, David Steele wrote: It seems like an easy win if we can find a safe way to do it, though I admit that this is only a benefit in corner cases. What would we win here? Which scenario that's not contrived would be less

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-25 10:52:08 -0400, David Steele wrote: I favor the contrived scenario that helps preserve the current cluster instead of a hypothetical newly init'd one. I also don't think that users deleting files out of a cluster is all that contrived

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-25 11:19:49 -0400, David Steele wrote: If one wanted to improve recoverability in scenarios like this, there'd be actually useful things like adding the option to extract control files, FPIs, clog contents from the WAL with pg_waldump. I

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregious cases that were hard to read and write, and error prone because

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/23/18 9:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:18:51AM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/20/18 5:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Making this possible would require first some >>> refactoring of PostgresNode.pm so as a node is aware of t

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/20/18 5:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:54:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> If the only problem is that buildfarm would run tests twice, then I >> think we should just press forward with this regardless of that: it >> seems a

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/23/18 9:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> Unless I read it wrong the buildfarm is not doing cross-version >> upgrades, but a developer/user can do so manually using the same script? > > The buildfarm isn't doing that *by defaul

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/19/18 4:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/19/18 14:07, David Steele wrote: >> I have yet to add tests for pg_rewindwal and pg_upgrade. pg_rewindwal >> doesn't *have* any tests as far as I can tell and pg_upgrade has tests >> in a shell script -- it's not cle

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/5/18 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:07:20PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:52:32PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >>> I don't quite understand here. I have

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, On 3/7/18 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:56:32AM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/6/18 10:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Seems like you forgot to re-add the chmod calls in initdb.c. >> >> Hmmm, I thought we were tal

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

On 3/12/18 11:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/11/18 05:11, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:23:48PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> This seems like a useful test. >>> >>> On 3/5/18 12:35, David Steele wrote: >>>> +mkdir

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest 2018-9 duplicate patch deletion request.

On 3/12/18 6:12 AM, Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote: > > Last week, I posted a patch to Commitfest 2018-9 which title is "[WIP] > Document update for Logical Replication security". > > I do not know the reason, but the same content duplicated. Since I can > not delete posts, would you please delete

PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

These tests were originally included in the exclude unlogged tables patch [1] to provide coverage for the refactoring of reinit.c. After review we found a simpler implementation that did not require the reinit.c refactor so I dropped the tests from that patch. I did not include the refactor here

2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

Hackers! I'll be starting the Commitfest at midnight AoE (07:00 ET, 13:00 CET) so please get your patches in before then. Please remember that if you drop a new and large (or invasive patch) into this CF it may be moved to the next CF. This last CF for PG11 should generally be restricted to

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

On 2/28/18 1:08 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > > The attached small patch verifies checksums (in case they are enabled) > during a basebackup. The rationale is that we are reading every block in > this case anyway, so this is a good opportunity to check them as well. > Other and complementary ways of

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, Thanks for having a look at the patches. On 1/30/18 3:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:29:08PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> >> Adds a *very* basic test suite for pg_resetwal. I was able to make this >> utility core dump (floating

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 8:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Adam Brightwell >> >> If it is agreed that the temp file exclusion should be submitted as a >> separate patch, then I will mark 'ready for committer'. > > Agreed, please mark this patch as "Ready for Committer".

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

On 3/1/18 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > I think that we should summarily bounce to the September 'fest anything > submitted in the last two days; certainly anything that's

Re: Re: Cast jsonb to numeric, int, float, bool

On 2/28/18 7:12 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > On 01.03.2018 00:43, Darafei Praliaskouski wrote: >> >> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Attached new version of the patch in which I removed duplicated code > using new subroutine JsonbExtractScalar(). I am not sure what is

Re: Reduce amount of WAL generated by CREATE INDEX for gist, gin and sp-gist

Hi Anastasia, On 2/28/18 11:03 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > I want to propose a bunch of patches which allow to reduce WAL traffic > generated by CREATE INDEX for GiST, GIN and SP-GiST. Similarly to b-tree > and RUM, we can now log index pages of other access methods only once > in the end

Re: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Hi Nikita, On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > >> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters. >> >> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru: >>

Re: Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

Hi Ivan, On 3/6/18 9:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:24:24PM +0300, Ivan Kartyshov wrote: >> Hello, I now is preparing the patch over syntax that Simon offered. And in >> few day I will update the patch. >> Thank you for your interest in thread. > > It has been more

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

Thanks for reviewing, Peter. On 3/9/18 5:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This seems like a useful test. > > On 3/5/18 12:35, David Steele wrote: >> +mkdir($tablespaceDir) >> +or die "unable to mkdir \"$tablespaceDir\""; > &

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/13/18 2:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:14:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> We already had a discussion about having a GUC for this and concluded, >> rightly in my view, that it's not sensible to have since we don't want >> all of the various tools having to read

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/13/18 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: >> * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: >>> If the problem is parsing, it could as well be more portable to put that >>> in the control file, no? > >> Then we'd need a tool to allow changing it for people

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

Hi, On 2/28/18 10:55 AM, David Steele wrote: > This is a follow-up patch from the exclude unlogged relations discussion > [1]. > > The patch excludes temporary relations during a base backup using the > existing looks_like_temp_rel_name() function for identification. >

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, On 3/12/18 3:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:51:14PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> How about a GUC that enforces one mode or the other on startup? Default >> would be 700. The GUC can be set automatically by initdb based on the >&g

Re: Fixes for missing schema qualifications

On 3/9/18 2:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > In light of CVE-2018-1058, user's applications need to be careful about > the use of schema-unqualified queries. A lookup at the upstream code is > showing four areas which are missing such handling: > - psql has one problem in get_create_object_cmd

Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

On 3/7/18 7:41 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:17 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> Hi Masahiko, >> >> On 1/30/18 5:00 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut >>> <peter

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Álvaro, On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: > >> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, >>> it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rat

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

Hi Masahiko, On 1/30/18 5:00 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 1/24/18 02:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> Thank you for notification. Since it seems to me that no one is >>> interested in this patch, it

Re: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

Hi Nikita, On 3/2/18 1:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-03-01 00:58:42 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: >> Attached 3rd version of kNN for SP-GiST. > > Given that this was submitted to the last v11 CF, after not being > developed for a year, I think it's unfortunately too late for v11. As we

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order?

On 3/2/18 1:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-02-10 20:45:40 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> I've contacted Postgres Professional. Marina Polyakova had kindly provided >> their patch. >> The patch allows to use libc locale with ICU collation as default for >> cluster or database. >> >> It

Re: Re: [PATCH] GET DIAGNOSTICS FUNCTION_NAME

On 3/5/18 10:09 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:29:58 -0800 > Andres Freund wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 2018-01-11 11:03:26 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: >>> However, I don't inisist on this patch, so If anyone other don't need this >>> feature, I'll withdraw this. >>

Re: Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT

Hi Matheus, On 3/3/18 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/20/18 10:10, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: >> Besides that, there is a another change in this patch on current ALTER >> CONSTRAINT about deferrability options. Previously, if the user did >> ALTER CONSTRAINT without specifying an option

Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hi Marina, On 3/6/18 4:45 AM, Marina Polyakova wrote: > On 05-03-2018 18:21, David Steele wrote: >> Hello Marina, > > Hello, David! > >> On 1/12/18 12:01 PM, Marina Polyakova wrote: > ... >> >> This patch was marked Waiting on Author on Jan 8 a

Re: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

On 3/2/18 9:26 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: >> >> >> On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> >>> wrote: >>>> * Konstantin

Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

On 3/6/18 9:06 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net > <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > > On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Unlinking it first se

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Jing, On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jing Wang writes: >> [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.7.patch ] > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > The argument for

Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi Amit, On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Peter Eisentraut writes: There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to treat

Re: Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

Hi Alexander, On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Korotkov >

Re: Fwd: [BUGS] pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug

On 3/6/18 7:04 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> I agree with Teodor (upthread, not quoted here) that the documentation >> could use some editing. >> >> I started to do it myself, but quickly realized I have no knowledge of >> the content.  I'm afraid I would destroy the meaning while updating the >>

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/6/18 10:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:32:49PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/5/18 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> Those two are separate issues. Could you begin a new thread on the >>> matter? This will attract more

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, On 3/13/18 9:31 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:19:07PM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> I'll attach new patches in a reply to [1] once I have made the changes >> Tom requested. > > Cool, thanks for your patience. Looking forward to seeing

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi, On 3/13/18 12:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >> On 3/13/18 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, I took a quick look through this patch and don't have any problem >>> with the approach, which appears to be "

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

On 3/14/18 9:07 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/13/18 10:12, David Steele wrote: >> A new patch is attached. > > Committed. Thanks, Peter! -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

complications for back-patching. > Yes, we can. Yes! We can! New patches attached. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net From f8c2604ebb6ae16b3b843c2db491d10efe2737fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 19:17:46 -0400 S

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

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 to do that but I'll need a bit more time.  Have a look at the new patches and I'll work on some better messages. I'm

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

be more comments, but I'm not sure what to add without just running on. New patches attached. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net >From 792a6809cd3b6e7c006af6221011bfbc2b376601 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 09:29:15 -0400 Subject: [

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, On 4/6/18 10:20 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:15:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> I'll reply to David's last email (where the latest set of patches were >> included) with my comments/suggestions and I expect we'll be able to get >> those addressed today

Re: Function to track shmem reinit time

On 3/29/18 9:40 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/28/2018 08:55 PM, David Steele wrote: > >> I'm setting this entry to Waiting on Author, but based on the discussion >> I think it should be Returned with Feedback. >> > > Fine with me. This entry has been marked Re

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >