Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Corey Huinker corey.huin...@gmail.com wrote: What is required to get the New Patch superpower? I'm also in need of it. CCing Magnus... I am not sure myself, but I would imagine that the commit fest needs to be Open and not In Process to be able to add patches. --

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time

2015-02-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Corey Huinker corey.huin...@gmail.com wrote: What is required to get the New Patch superpower? I'm also in need of it.

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2015-02-17 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 17/02/15 23:11, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: sending new version that is updated along the lines of what we discussed at FOSDEM, which means: - back to single bytea amdata column (no custom columns) Well, the main argument

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/17/15 1:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: What I'd prefer to see is a way to decouple the OS account from any DB account. Clearly that doesn't protect us from the OS user doing something bad, but at least then there's no way for them to just silently run SQL commands. If the DB account isn't a

Re: [HACKERS] Configurable location for extension .control files

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/17/15 4:39 PM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: 10.06.2013, 17:51, Dimitri Fontaine kirjoitti: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: In any case, no packager is going to ship an insecure-by-default configuration, which is what Dimitri seems to be fantasizing would happen. It would have to

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

2015-02-17 Thread Petr Jelinek
Hi, I looked at the patch and have several comments. First let me say that modifying the individual paths of the json is the feature I miss the most in the current implementation so I am happy that this patch was submitted. I would prefer slightly the patch split into two parts, one for the

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2015-02-17 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 18/02/15 02:59, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 23:11, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: sending new version that is updated along the lines of what we discussed at FOSDEM, which means: - back to single bytea amdata column (no

Re: [HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, James Sewell james.sew...@lisasoft.com wrote: I've just noticed something in the Commit fest post - Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL This reduces the lock taken for ADD FOREIGN KEY to ShareRowExclusiveLock, authorizing SELECT and SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] Configurable location for extension .control files

2015-02-17 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
10.06.2013, 17:51, Dimitri Fontaine kirjoitti: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: In any case, no packager is going to ship an insecure-by-default configuration, which is what Dimitri seems to be fantasizing would happen. It would have to be local option to relax the permissions on

Re: [HACKERS] sloppy back-patching of column-privilege leak

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: Thanks for the review and comments. I'll remove the extraneous #define, the comment change which was made to the other #define (as it's not relevant since the #define is only located in one place) and fix the regression test comments to match the

Re: [HACKERS] Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement

2015-02-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/20/15 6:32 PM, David G Johnston wrote: In fact, as far as the database knows, the values provided to this function do represent an entire population and such a correction would be unnecessary. I guess it boils down to whether future queries are considered part of the population or

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behavior of updatable security barrier views on foreign tables

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Etsuro, * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: On 2015/02/11 4:06, Stephen Frost wrote: I had been trying to work out an FDW-specific way to address this, but I think Dean's right that this should be addressed in expand_security_qual(), which means it'll apply to all cases and

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: On 2/17/15 1:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: What I'd prefer to see is a way to decouple the OS account from any DB account. Clearly that doesn't protect us from the OS user doing something bad, but at least then there's no way for them to just

[HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread James Sewell
Hello all, When I add a FK with a statement like this: ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES b(id); I see a lock on table b: select locktype,mode,granted from pg_locks, pg_stat_activity where relation::regclass::text = 'b' AND pg_locks.pid = pg_stat_activity.pid; locktype | relation

Re: [HACKERS] ExplainModifyTarget doesn't work as expected

2015-02-17 Thread Tom Lane
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes: On 2015/02/10 14:49, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2015/02/07 1:09, Tom Lane wrote: I think your basic idea of preserving the original parent table's relid is correct; but instead of doing it like this patch does, I'd be inclined to make ModifyTable

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Corey Huinker corey.huin...@gmail.com wrote: What is required to get the New Patch superpower? I'm also in need of it. CCing Magnus... I am not sure

Re: [HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread James Sewell
Oh, I've just noticed something in the Commit fest post - Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL Perhaps I just need to be more patient. Cheers, James Sewell, Solutions Architect __ Level 2, 50 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000 *P *(+61) 3

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time

2015-02-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Corey Huinker corey.huin...@gmail.com wrote: What is required to get the New Patch superpower? I'm also in need of it. CCing Magnus... I am not sure myself, but I would imagine that the commit fest needs to be Open and not In Process

Re: [HACKERS] Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, When calling vacuum(), there is the following assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE: Assert((vacstmt-options VACOPT_VACUUM) ||

Re: [HACKERS] Perl coding error in msvc build system?

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: This patch been reviewed by 4 people, resulting in 2 minor suggestions for changes (adding an m modifier, and removing a bogus last). It has 2 clear upvotes and 0 downvotes. I think it should be revised along the lines

Re: [HACKERS] Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Yes, the existing assertion is right. My point is that it is strange that we do not check the values of freeze parameters for an ANALYZE query, which should be set to -1 all the time. If this is thought as not worth checking, I'll drop

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2015-02-17 13:01:46 -0500, sfr...@snowman.net wrote: I have to admit that I'm confused by this. Patches don't stabilise through sitting in the archives, they stabilise when the comments are being addressed, the patch updated, and further comments are addressing less important issues. The

Re: [HACKERS] Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement

2015-02-17 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 17/02/15 16:12, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-02-17 15:50:39 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 03:07, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 03:03, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/16/2015 08:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Average of 3 runs of read-only pgbench on my system all with

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2015-02-17 10:52:55 -0500, sfr...@snowman.net wrote: From the old thread, David had offered to submit a pull request if there was interest and I didn't see any response... For whatever it's worth, that's because I've been away from work, and only just returned. I had it on my list to look

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Neil Tiffin
On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:40 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi list, . . . . . Auditing superuser access means auditing beyond the running database. The superuser can dump a table, and pipe this data everywhere outside of the auditing domain. I cannot begin to imagine the kind

Re: [HACKERS] Add pg_settings.pending_restart column

2015-02-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: When managing configuration changes through automatic systems like Chef or Puppet, there is a problem: How do you manage changes requiring a restart? Generally, you'd set it up so that when a configuration file is

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Simon Riggs
On 17 February 2015 at 15:52, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: I vote to include pgaudit in 9.5, albeit with any changes. In particular, David may have some changes to recommend, but I haven't seen a spec or a patch, just a new version of

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-11 15:49:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: And good chunk sizes et al depend on higher layers, selectivity estimates and such.

Re: [HACKERS] multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-14 14:10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I don't think it's actually 675333 at fault here. I think it's a long standing bug in LockBufferForCleanup() that can just much easier be hit with the new interrupt code. Imagine what happens in

Re: [HACKERS] parallel mode and parallel contexts

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-11 13:59:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The only reason I'd like it to be active is because that'd *prohibit* doing the crazier stuff. There seems little reason to not da it under the additional protection

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: I vote to include pgaudit in 9.5, albeit with any changes. In particular, David may have some changes to recommend, but I haven't seen a spec or a patch, just a new version of code (which isn't how we do things...). Hrm. I thought David's new

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw foreign keys with default sequence

2015-02-17 Thread Tim Kane
Slight typo on my local host example there. s/clone/local/ More like the below: CREATE FOREIGN TABLE IF NOT EXISTS live.devices ( device_id bigint NOT NULL ); CREATE MATERIALISED VIEW local.devices; CREATE test_table (device_id bigint FOREIGN KEY (device_id) REFERENCES

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Yeb, * Yeb Havinga (yebhavi...@gmail.com) wrote: On 20/01/15 23:03, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/20/15 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: +1. In particular I'm very concerned with the idea of doing this via roles, because that would make it trivial for any superuser to disable auditing. Rejecting the

Re: [HACKERS] Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-17 15:50:39 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 03:07, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 03:03, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/16/2015 08:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Average of 3 runs of read-only pgbench on my system all with pg_stat_statement activated: HEAD: 20631 SQRT: 20533

Re: [HACKERS] Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c

2015-02-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, When calling vacuum(), there is the following assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE: Assert((vacstmt-options VACOPT_VACUUM) || !(vacstmt-options (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); I think that this should

Re: [HACKERS] Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
David, I've CC'd Abhijit, the original author of pgaudit, as it seems likely he'd also be interested in this. * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: I've posted a couple of messages over the last few weeks about the work I've been doing on the pg_audit extension. The lack of response

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Gilles Darold gilles.dar...@dalibo.com wrote: Le 19/01/2015 14:41, Robert Haas a écrit : On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Gilles Darold gilles.dar...@dalibo.com wrote: I attach a patch that solves the issue in pg_dump, let me know if it might be included in

Re: [HACKERS] __attribute__ for non-gcc compilers

2015-02-17 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
17.02.2015, 15:46, Andres Freund kirjoitti: On 2015-02-17 15:41:45 +0200, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: 15.01.2015, 21:58, Robert Haas kirjoitti: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I think I'd for now simply not define pg_attribute_aligned() on platforms

Re: [HACKERS] Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement

2015-02-17 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 17/02/15 03:07, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 03:03, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/16/2015 08:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/16/2015 08:48 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 17/02/15 01:57, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: We

Re: [HACKERS] pg_check_dir comments and implementation mismatch

2015-02-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marco Nenciarini marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote: Il 02/02/15 21:48, Robert Haas ha scritto: On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Marco Nenciarini marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote: Il 30/01/15 03:54, Michael Paquier ha scritto: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at

Re: [HACKERS] KNN-GiST with recheck

2015-02-17 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com wrote: Following changes has been made in attached patch: * Get sort operators from pathkeys. * Recheck argument of distance function has been reverted. Few comments were added and pairing heap comparison function

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread David Steele
On 2/17/15 4:40 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: On 20/01/15 23:03, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/20/15 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sena...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So when I'm trying to decide what to audit, I have to: (a) check if the current user is

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Simon Riggs
On 17 February 2015 at 14:44, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: The patch as it is, is targeted at auditing user/application level access to the database, and as such it matches the use case of auditing user actions. Right, and that's a *very* worthwhile use-case. Agreed. So, we are

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2015 - mentors, students and admins.

2015-02-17 Thread Alexander Korotkov
I'd like to remind Be Early advice for GSoC students. http://www.postgresql.org/developer/summerofcodeadvice/ Students which starts discussion of their project early have much more chances to show favourable sides of their proposals. As result they have more chances to get proposals accepted.

Re: [HACKERS] __attribute__ for non-gcc compilers

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-17 15:41:45 +0200, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: 15.01.2015, 21:58, Robert Haas kirjoitti: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I think I'd for now simply not define pg_attribute_aligned() on platforms where it's not supported, instead of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup -x/X doesn't play well with archive_mode wal_keep_segments

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-17 12:18:41 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2015-02-12 11:44:05 -0800, Sergey Konoplev wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: This obviously should not be

Re: [HACKERS] multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1

2015-02-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2015-02-14 14:10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: If you just gdb into the VACUUM process with 6647248e370884 checked out, and do a PGSemaphoreUnlock(MyProc-sem) you'll hit it as well. I think we should

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/17/15 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: My views are from working with FDA validated environments, and I don’t really understand the above. It is not db auditing’s job to stop or control the access to data or to log what happens to data outside of PostgreSQL. To audit a db superuser is

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/17/15 12:23 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: On 2/17/15 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: I agree that it's not the auditing job to stop or control access to data, but it's not so simple to audit the superuser completely. The issue is that even if you

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: David's work is potentially useful, but having two versions of a feature slows things down. Since he is new to development here, I have made those comments so he understands, not so you would pick up on that. I have a bad tendency of replying to

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: On 2/17/15 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: I agree that it's not the auditing job to stop or control access to data, but it's not so simple to audit the superuser completely. The issue is that even if you have a hard-coded bit in the binary which

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Jim, * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: We may need to bite the bullet and allow changing the user that the postgres process runs under so it doesn't match who owns the files. Maybe there's a way to allow that other than having the process start as root. That's an interesting

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/17/15 12:50 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: Jim, * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: We may need to bite the bullet and allow changing the user that the postgres process runs under so it doesn't match who owns the files. Maybe there's a way to allow that other than having the process

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: On 2/17/15 12:50 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: We may need to bite the bullet and allow changing the user that the postgres process runs under so it doesn't match who owns the files. Maybe there's a way to

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Stephen Frost
Neil, * Neil Tiffin (ne...@neiltiffin.com) wrote: On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:40 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote: Auditing superuser access means auditing beyond the running database. The superuser can dump a table, and pipe this data everywhere outside of the auditing domain. I

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread David Steele
On 2/17/15 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: I vote to include pgaudit in 9.5, albeit with any changes. In particular, David may have some changes to recommend, but I haven't seen a spec or a patch, just a new version of code (which isn't how we do things...). I submitted the new patch in my name

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

2015-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/16/15 9:43 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Hello, I had a look on gram.y and found other syntaxes using WITH option clause. At Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:34:17 -0600, Jim Nasbyjim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote in54dbbcc9.1020...@bluetreble.com I suspect at least some of this stems from how command

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time

2015-02-17 Thread Corey Huinker
What is required to get the New Patch superpower? I'm also in need of it. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: I couldn't find operation to add new entry on the current CF.

Re: [HACKERS] GiST kNN search queue (Re: KNN-GiST with recheck)

2015-02-17 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 02/17/2015 02:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hi! On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: Ok, thanks for the review! I have committed this, with some cleanup and more comments added. ISTM that checks in pairingheap_GISTSearchItem_cmp is

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup -x/X doesn't play well with archive_mode wal_keep_segments

2015-02-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-17 12:18:41 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Somewhat uckily it's 9.2 only (9.3, 9.4 and master look correct, earlier releases don't have pg_receivexlog) Are you planning to back-patch the fix to 9.2? Yes,

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2015-02-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: sending new version that is updated along the lines of what we discussed at FOSDEM, which means: - back to single bytea amdata column (no custom columns) Why? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup may fail to send feedbacks.

2015-02-17 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Thank you for the comment. Three new patches are attached. I forgot to give a revision number on the previous patch, but I think this is the 2nd version. 1. walrcv_reply_fix_94_v2.patch Walreceiver patch applyable on master/REL9_4_STBLE/REL9_3_STABLE 2. walrcv_reply_fix_92_v2.patch

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

2015-02-17 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
Hi All, Here are the steps and infrastructure for achieving atomic commits across multiple foreign servers. I have tried to address most of the concerns raised in this mail thread before. Let me know, if I have left something. Attached is a WIP patch implementing the same for postgres_fdw. I have

Re: [HACKERS] Table-level log_autovacuum_min_duration

2015-02-17 Thread Naoya Anzai
Hi, Michael I found that definition of VERBOSE and log_autovacuum is not pretty match. For example, VERBOSE can output logs of scanning indices and scanning detail of analyze, but log_autovacuum can't output them. Please see following sequences. 1. execute these queries. DROP TABLE t1;

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

2015-02-17 Thread Yeb Havinga
Hi list, On 20/01/15 23:03, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/20/15 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sena...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So when I'm trying to decide what to audit, I have to: (a) check if the current user is mentioned in .roles; if so, audit.

Re: [HACKERS] restrict global access to be readonly

2015-02-17 Thread happy times
?6?9Jim Nasby writes: On 2/14/15 3:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Although I like the idea, it's not clear to me how to implement it. Throw an error in AssignTransactionId/GetNewTransactionId? A whole lot depends on what you choose to mean by read only. If it ?6?9means the same thing as all

Re: [HACKERS] How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

2015-02-17 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello, thank you for the comment. The current patch lacks change in documentation and dependency stuff. Current framework doesn't consider changing pg_shdepend from column default expressions so the possible measures are the followings, I think. 1. Make pg_shdepend to have refobjsubid and add

[HACKERS] postgres_fdw foreign keys with default sequence

2015-02-17 Thread Tim Kane
Hi all, Not sure if this has been reported already, it seems to be a variation on this thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130515151059.go4...@tamriel.snowman.net One minor difference is, in my scenario - my source table field is defined as BIGINT (not serial) - though it does have

Re: [HACKERS] GiST kNN search queue (Re: KNN-GiST with recheck)

2015-02-17 Thread Alexander Korotkov
Hi! On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: Ok, thanks for the review! I have committed this, with some cleanup and more comments added. ISTM that checks in pairingheap_GISTSearchItem_cmp is incorrect. This function should perform inverse