[HACKERS] psql connection reset failed

2013-05-10 Thread amul sul
I have observed the following situation a few times now , with 8.4.5.  Multiple PSQL clients are connected to server, some of them running  transaction and some of them are idle state.      When one of the backend is killed or crashed (using kill -9 backend-pid).  The connection reset attempt from

Re: [HACKERS] psql connection reset failed

2013-05-12 Thread amul sul
or too big? Is there any way to privide maxWaittime and minWaitTime, some other way by setting configuration parameters ? Thanks and regards, Amul Sul From: amul sul sul_a...@yahoo.co.in To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent

[HACKERS] Proposal to add connection request Wait-time in PSQL client.

2013-05-16 Thread amul sul
time for client in src/bin/psql/common.c (that is it changes things only  for psql clients)   Please check the attached patch for the modification.   Regards, Amul Sul 0001-psql-connection-reset-wait.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add connection request Wait-time in PSQL client.

2013-05-18 Thread amul sul
 of this, can we add loop in Client code, so it can keep trying to connection request?  in a way, we client terminal wont hangup by throwing  *The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed. !* Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add connection request Wait-time in PSQL client.

2013-05-20 Thread amul sul
in production. Initially, IMO, I thought no harm if PSQL client wait for few seconds till server recovered properly and ready to accept connection. Any way, I will follow-up your suggestion.  Thank you for sharing your concerns and explaining me actual needed things.  Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to .gitignore

2013-05-24 Thread amul sul
 ctags and etags be part of postgres source tree and its generate some output inside them, so I think we must ignore it.  +1 Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] create a git symbolic-ref for REL9_3_STABLE

2013-06-04 Thread amul sul
to REL9_3_STABLE , and pull the all changes pointing to master? 4. while actual happened then want to create  branch REL9_3_STABLE? Is this way? Regards Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove useless USE_PGXS support in contrib

2013-06-13 Thread amul sul
as follow   ifndef USE_PGXS top_builddir = ../.. makefile_global = $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global ifeq $(wildcard $(makefile_global)) USE_PGXS = 1  endif /* remaining code as it is */* Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

[HACKERS] undefined symbol: PQescapeLiteral

2013-08-15 Thread amul sul
missing something?  Thanks regards, Amul Sul

Re: [HACKERS] new unicode table border styles for psql

2013-11-21 Thread amul sul
YES! +1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] how set GUC_check_errhint_string in call_string_check_hook()

2014-02-13 Thread amul sul
                                 errdetail_internal(%s, GUC_check_errdetail_string) : 0, I have basic questions,   1. Condition testing of  GUC_check_errdetail_string or other GUC_*  is needed, even if we resting it? 2. Can I pass hint message in above ereport(), how? Thanks in advance ! Regards, Amul Sul

Re: [HACKERS] Selecting large tables gets killed

2014-02-20 Thread amul sul
/postgresql$ psql postgres I installed from HEAD(ae5266f25910d6e084692a7cdbd02b9e52800046) I failed to reproduce it, do I missing something?   Regards, Amul Sul

Re: [HACKERS] Selecting large tables gets killed

2014-02-20 Thread amul sul
3.11.0-12-generic #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 9 16:20:46 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Regards, Amul Sul

[HACKERS] Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||

2014-04-28 Thread amul sul
, concat operator || use textcat() function which is STRICT. my question is  1. Do we required textcat to be STRICT, why? 2. textcat() is used for concat operator ||, can't it possible using concat() function? Thanks in advance. Regards, Amul Sul   -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||

2014-04-28 Thread amul sul
; ;  ?column? --  abc (1 row) Thank for your help. Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] pass Form_pg_attribute to examine_attribute rather than Relation structure.

2014-06-04 Thread amul sul
. Regards, Amul Sul 0001-examine_attribute-function-s-arguments-changed.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-03 Thread amul sul
date existing data. Now, if we have two flag, which can separately use for there respective purpose, then why do you think that it is not readable? >As Marko points out that would be actually a new >SQL-level feature that requires much more than changing that line. May be yes. Regards

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-03 Thread amul sul
mand at a time of their choosing. This could be time consuming operation for big table, If I am pretty much sure that my constraint will be valid, simply I could set both flag(initially_valid & skip_validation) to true. Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgs

[HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-03 Thread amul sul
p validation of existing data as well as mark check constraint valid, when we have assurance that modified/added constraint are valid. Comments? Thoughts? Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.p

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-09 Thread amul sul
into attached patch & please share your thoughts and/or suggestions. Thanks, Amul Sul transformCheckConstraints-function-to-overrid-not-valid.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgr

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-09 Thread amul sul
nt >> (parse_utilcmd.c: line 1761). >Oops, forget the second one. No issue, first one make sense. Updated patch is attached. Thanks & Regards, Amul Sul transformCheckConstraints-function-to-overrid-not-valid_V2.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers maili

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-09 Thread amul sul
>On Thursday, 10 December 2015 8:22 AM, Amit Langote ><langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >You forgot to put braces around the if block. Does this really required? Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

[HACKERS] small query, about skipping dump in dumpAttrDef

2015-12-14 Thread amul sul
== Comments? Thoughts? Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

2015-12-16 Thread amul sul
Updated patch to add this table creation case in regression tests. PFA patch version V3. Regards, Amul Sul transformCheckConstraints-function-to-overrid-not-valid_V3.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

[HACKERS] Bug in MergeAttributesIntoExisting() function.

2016-01-04 Thread amul sul
from child c2 table, which we have inherited using ALTER command. Regards, Amul Sul MergeAttributesIntoExisting_fix.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in MergeAttributesIntoExisting() function.

2016-01-07 Thread amul sul
\d c2 Table "public.c2" Column | Type | Modifiers +-+--- a| integer | b | integer | Inherits: p1 Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] commit 5c45d2f need to be back-patch on branch 9.2 & before

2015-12-29 Thread amul sul
Hi, Uninitialized variable 'dtype' warning in date_in() is fix[1] on branch 9.3 & above, but not for 9.2 & older branches. I guess this should be back-patch. [1] commit link=> http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/5c45d2f87835ccd3ffac338845ec79cab1b31a11 Regards, Amul Sul -

[HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-06-13 Thread amul sul
:58 <— incorrect year (1 row) If there are one or more consecutive whitespace in the format, we should skip those as long as we could get an actual field. Thoughts? Thanks & Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make chang

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-06-15 Thread amul sul
ing this fix. Regards, Amul Sul. 0001-RM37358-space-in-the-format-string-should-skip-a-whi.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-06-23 Thread amul sul
On Monday, 20 June 2016 8:53 PM, Alex Ignatov <a.igna...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>On 13.06.2016 18:52, amul sul wrote: >And it wont stop on some simple whitespace. By using to_timestamp you >can get any output results by providing illegal input parameters values:

[HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

2016-08-12 Thread amul sul
ilar post:  [1] http://uk.comp.os.linux.narkive.com/Ve44sO4i/shared-memory-problem-no-space-at-dev-shm-causes-sigbus   Regards,Amul Sul

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

2016-08-12 Thread amul sul
 Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse brevity and tpyos. On Fri, 12 Aug, 2016 at 7:38 pm, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: amul sul <sul_a...@yahoo.co.in> writes: > When I am calling dsm_create on Linux using the POSIX DSM imp

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-15 Thread amul sul
spaces in the input string and  >>in the formatting string unless FX option is used, as Amul Sul wrote on  >>first message of this thread. But Ex.2 gives an error now with this >patch >(should we fix this too?). Why not, currently we are skipping whitespace exists at the start

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-15 Thread amul sul
Monday, 15 August 2016 9:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, amul sul <sul_a...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: >> On Thursday, 11 August 2016 3:18 PM, Artur Zakirov >> <a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: [Skipped..] >Wel

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-17 Thread amul sul
SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-02-30 15:43:36', '-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS'); > > >I attached second patch "0002-to-timestamp-validation-v2.patch". With it >PostgreSQL perform additional checks for date and time. But as I wrote >there is another patch in the thread "to_date_valid()" wich diff

[HACKERS] Constraint exclusion failed to prune partition in case of partition expression involves function call

2017-02-02 Thread amul sul
Hi, In following case, constraint exclusion not able prune partition (even if function is immutable), is this know behaviour? --CASE 1 : create table & insert data create table foo_list (a integer, b text) partition by list (abs(a)); create table foo_list1 partition of foo_list for values in

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2017-02-08 Thread amul sul
Hi Amit, Regarding following code in ATExecDropNotNull function, I don't see any special check for RANGE partitioned, is it intended to have same restriction for LIST partitioned too, I guess not? /* * If the table is a range partitioned table, check that the column is not * in the

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion failed to prune partition in case of partition expression involves function call

2017-02-04 Thread amul sul
I see, thanks Amit. Regards, Amul Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse brevity and tpyos.

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2017-02-08 Thread amul sul
About 0001-Check-partition-strategy-in-ATExecDropNotNull.patch, following test is already covered in alter_table.sql @ Line # 1918, instead of this kindly add test for list_partition: 77 +-- cannot drop NOT NULL constraint of a range partition key column 78 +ALTER TABLE range_parted ALTER a

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2017-02-15 Thread Amul Sul
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, passed Review of v7 patch: - Patch applies to the top of master HEAD

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-18 Thread amul sul
On Friday, August 19, 2016 12:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:35 AM, amul sul <sul_a...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > >> Hmm. I haven't really looked into the code, but with applying both patches >> it looks precisely i

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-03-02 Thread amul sul
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > ​[]​ > > I Agree that it is unavoidable partitions number in modulo hashing, > > but we can do in other hashing technique. Have you had thought about > > Linear hashing[1] or Consistent hashing​[2]?​ This will allow

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-24 Thread amul sul
+ prev_type; Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-25 Thread amul sul
You can add yourself as a reviewer. > Done, added myself as reviewer & changed status to "Ready for Committer". Thanks ! Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-25 Thread amul sul
NVAL ) to >> prev_type at following line: >> >> 256 + prev_type; > > >You are right. I assigned to prev_type NODE_TYPE_SPACE to be able to >execute such query: > > >SELECT to_timestamp('---2000JUN', ' MON'); > > >Will be it a proper be

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-09-29 Thread Amul Sul
to me, code in v6 does not differ much from v4 patch. Ready for committer review. Thanks ! Regards, Amul Sul The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-08-22 Thread amul sul
d()" wich differs from >this patch. @community : I am not sure what to do with this patch, should we keep it as separate enhancement? Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-09-29 Thread amul sul
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Artur Zakirov writes: >> - now DCH_cache_getnew() is called after parse_format(). Because now >> parse_format() can raise an error and in the next attempt >> DCH_cache_search() could return broken

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-09-28 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Artur Zakirov <a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 25.08.2016 13:26, amul sul wrote: >>> >>> Thanks. I've created the entry in >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/713/ >>> . You can add yourself as a revie

Re: [HACKERS] Fix some corner cases that cube_in rejects

2016-09-27 Thread Amul Sul
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:not tested Note for committer : There are unnecessary files (cube_1.out,

[HACKERS] Query regarding selectDumpableExtension()

2016-10-27 Thread amul sul
Hi ​,​ ​ selectDumpableExtension() function skip ​s dump of​ built-in extensions in case of binary-upgrade only, ​ ​ why not in normal ​dump​ ? ​ ​ Can't we assume those will already be installed in the target database ​ at restore ? Thanks ​ & Regards, Amul​

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

2016-11-06 Thread amul sul
r). > I am not agree to having this paragraph either, I'll leave the decision to committer. > I'll change the status to needs review. The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer Regards, Amul Sul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make c

[HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2016-11-23 Thread amul sul
Hi All, I would like to take over pg_background patch and repost for discussion and review. Initially Robert Haas has share this for parallelism demonstration[1] and abandoned later with summary of open issue[2] with this pg_background patch need to be fixed, most of them seems to be addressed

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump

2016-11-16 Thread Amul Sul
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, passed Patch v6 looks good to me, passing to committer. Thanks ! The

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump

2016-11-03 Thread amul sul
Hi Guillaume, With your v2 patch, -B options working as expected but --no-blobs options is still unrecognized, this happens is because of you have forgot to add entry for 'no-blobs' in long_options[] array. Apart from this concern patch looks good to me. Thanks Regards, Amul -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump

2016-11-03 Thread amul sul
Kindly ignore this, i've added this note to original thread. Sorry for noise. Regards, Amul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

2016-11-03 Thread amul sul
PostgreSQL also relies on the operating system cache, it is unlikely that an allocation of more than I may be wrong here, would like know your and/or community's thought on this. Thanks. Regards, Amul Sul The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Query regarding selectDumpableExtension()

2016-10-31 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:11 AM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> selectDumpableExtension() function skip >> s dump of >> built-in extensions in case of binary-upgrade o

Re: [HACKERS] Query regarding selectDumpableExtension()

2016-10-31 Thread amul sul
On 31 Oct 2016 6:48 pm, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There's a comment in dumpExtension() that explains it. >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2016-12-12 Thread amul sul
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > Hi! > Thanks a lot for your review. > Just in case you'd like to include sleepsort as a test, here it is > wrapped as a regression test(see attachment). But it has serious > downside: it runs no less than 5 seconds.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2016-12-13 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > 2016-12-13 12:55 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sula...@gmail.com>: >> I think background-session code is not that much deviated from >> pg_background code, > It is not derived, though it is not much

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2016-12-14 Thread amul sul
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > 2016-12-15 0:30 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut : > TryBeginSession()? What exactly would that do? >>> Return status (success\failure) and session object, if a function

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2017-01-12 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 1/9/17 7:22 AM, amul sul wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >> [skipped...] >>> >

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-01-02 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/16/16 10:38 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: >> 2016-12-16 20:17 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut >> : And one more thing... Can we have BackgroundSessionExecute()

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-01-04 Thread amul sul
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > 2017-01-04 10:23 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sula...@gmail.com>: >> One more query, can we modify >> BackgroundSessionStart()/BackgroundSession struct to get background >> worker PID as well? &

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2017-01-07 Thread amul sul
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > Hi! > > 2017-01-07 11:44 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sula...@gmail.com>: > >> Changes: >> 1. pg_background_launch renamed to pg_background_start >> 2. pg_background_detach renamed

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2017-01-09 Thread amul sul
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > [skipped...] > > Oh, hmm. So I guess if you do that when the background process is idle it's > the same as a close? > > I think we need some way to safeguard against accidental forkbombs for cases > where users aren't

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-01-03 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > 2017-01-03 19:39 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>: >> >> On 1/3/17 1:26 AM, amul sul wrote: >> > One more requirement for pg_background i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2017-01-06 Thread amul sul
Hi all, Attaching latest pg_background patch for review as per design proposed on 22 Dec '16 with following minor changes in the api. Changes: 1. pg_background_launch renamed to pg_background_start 2. pg_background_detach renamed to pg_background_close 3. Added new api to display previously

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2017-01-09 Thread amul sul
Hi, I got server crash due to assert failure at ATTACHing overlap rang partition, here is test case to reproduce this: CREATE TABLE test_parent(a int) PARTITION BY RANGE (a); CREATE TABLE test_parent_part2 PARTITION OF test_parent FOR VALUES FROM(100) TO(200); CREATE TABLE test_parent_part1(a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2016-12-19 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:21 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:16:53AM +0530, amul sul wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I would like to take over pg_background patch and repost for >> discussion and review. > > This looks grea

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

2016-12-22 Thread amul sul
References : [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1c2d331-ee6a-432d-e9f5-dcf85cffaf29%402ndquadrant.com. Regards, Amul Sul 0002-pg_background_worker_as_client_of_bgsession_trial.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-03-03 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 2 March 2017 at 13:03, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > create table foo (a integer, b text) partition by hash (a); > > create table foo1 partition of foo with (modulus 4, remainder 0); >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-02-28 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > Hi all, > > Now we have a declarative partitioning, but hash partitioning is not > implemented yet. Attached is a POC patch to add the hash partitioning > feature. I know we will need more discussions about the syntax and

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-07-27 Thread amul sul
Attaching newer patches rebased against the latest master head. Thanks ! Regards, Amul 0001-Cleanup_v6.patch Description: Binary data 0002-hash-partitioning_another_design-v16.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-07-03 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:41:15 +0900 > Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:03:58 +0530 >> amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-07-03 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:03:58 +0530 > amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Updated patch attached. > > I looked into the latest patch (v13) and have some comments > althogh t

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-07-05 Thread amul sul
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:39 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks to catching this, fixed in the attached version. > > Few comments on the latest version. > Thanks for your

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-08 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Thanks Rajkumar for testing and reporting this. > > > It seems like with we set the numParents and parents only for the > dumpable objects (flagInhTables()). Current patch relies on the numParents > and parents to

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

2017-08-18 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > Attached is a quick sketch of how this could perhaps be done (ignoring > > for the moment the relatively-boring opclass pushups). > >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-03 Thread amul sul
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >I spent some time today looking at these patches. It seems like there >is some more work still needed here to produce something committable >regardless of which way we go, but I am inclined to think that Amul's >patch

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-12 Thread amul sul
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:39 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-15 Thread amul sul
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Hash partitioning will partition the data based on the hash value of the >> partition key. Does that require collation?

[HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table for declarative partition table handling.

2017-05-09 Thread amul sul
Hi, Current pg_dump --exclude-table option excludes partitioned relation and dumps all its child relations and vice versa for --table option, which I think is incorrect. In this case we might need to explore all partitions and exclude or include from dump according to given pg_dump option,

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table for declarative partition table handling.

2017-05-09 Thread amul sul
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Hi Amul, >> >> On 2017/05/09 16:13, amul sul wrote: >>> Hi, >>&g

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-17 Thread amul sul
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:04 AM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, May

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-12 Thread amul sul
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:39 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>I spent some time toda

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-14 Thread amul sul
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:08 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find the following updated patches attached: >> >> 0001-Cleanup.p

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-14 Thread amul sul
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:08 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find the following updated patches attached: > > I have done some testing with the new p

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-15 Thread amul sul
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Collation is only relevant for ordering, not equality. Since hash >>> opclasses provide only equality, not

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-16 Thread amul sul
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: [...] >>> >>> +if (key->strategy == PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH) >>> +{ >>> +ndatums = nparts; >>> +hbounds = (PartitionHashBound **) palloc(nparts * >>> + >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-16 Thread amul sul
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Hi, > Here's patch with some cosmetic fixes to 0002, to be applied on top of 0002. > Thank you, included in v6 patch. Regards, Amul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

[HACKERS] Multi column range partition table

2017-06-22 Thread amul sul
Hi, While working on the another patch, I came across the case where I need an auto generated partition for a mutil-column range partitioned table having following range bound: PARTITION p1 FROM (UNBOUNDED, UNBOUNDED) TO (10, 10) PARTITION p2 FROM (10, 10) TO (10, UNBOUNDED) PARTITION p3 FROM

Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table

2017-06-22 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/06/22 20:48, amul sul wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While working on the another patch, I came across the case where >> I need an auto generated partition for a mutil-column

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-19 Thread amul sul
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: [...] > > Comments on the tests > +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING > +{ > +/* > + * Hash partition bound stores modulus and remainder at > + * b1->datums[i][0] and

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-24 Thread amul sul
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Updated patch attached. Thanks a lot for review. > Minor fix in the document, PFA. Regards, Amul 0002-hash-partitioning_another_design-v12.patch Description: Binary data 0001-Cleanup_v4.patch Descripti

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-22 Thread amul sul
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:32 AM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Updated patch attached. 0001-patch rebased against latest head. >> 0002-patch also incorporates code comments and erro

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-16 Thread amul sul
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:22 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> v6 patch has bug in partition oid mapping and indexing, fixed in the >> attached version. >> >&

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-05-16 Thread amul sul
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > [...] >>>> >>>> +if (key->strategy == PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH) &g

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

2017-06-06 Thread amul sul
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: [...] >> >> The code in check_default_allows_bound() to check whether the default >> partition >> has any rows that would fit new partition looks quite similar to the code >> in >> ATExecAttachPartition() checking

  1   2   >