Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 01:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 09/30/2015 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: If people are hell-bent on every tool being separate then fine, but I get the distinct impression that everyone is discarding GitLab out of hand based on completely bogus information. Right, we need to

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Frankly, an insistence on moving to some integrated solution is likely to result in the adoption of nothing. And your "educating hackers who don't understand" is more than a little patronizing. What makes you think your experience in software

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 02:16 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 09/30/2015 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Frankly, an insistence on moving to some integrated solution is likely to result in the adoption of nothing. And your "educating hackers who don't understand" is more than a little patronizing. What

Re: [HACKERS] SESSION SESSION - bug or intentional?

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > I was looking at something in gram.y when I noticed that the following > production works: > > > SET SESSION SESSION CHARACTERISTICS AS TRANSACTION READ ONLY; > > > "SESSION SESSION" seems fairly odd -- is it intentional? >

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: If people are hell-bent on every tool being separate then fine, but I get the distinct impression that everyone is discarding GitLab out of hand based on completely bogus information. Right, we need to stop thinking that every task is not interrelated.

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 07:44 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > I'm not trolling in any way. I'm just challenging you to back up your > blanket assertions with evidence. For example, you're assertion that > mailing lists are insufficient is simply stated and expected to be > taken on faith: *How* is it

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 11:23 AM, Christopher Browne wrote: It's well and nice to think that an issue tracker resolves all of this, and, if we had tiny numbers of issues, we could doubtless construct a repository indicating so. (Seems to me that the bit of "fan service" for GitHub's bug tracker fits

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 11:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Who exactly is "some guy sitting in a den pushing out code"? And if that's not a patronizing put down I don't know what is. If you're referring to me you couldn't be more wrong. I have been a development director managing a couple of substantial

[HACKERS] SESSION SESSION - bug or intentional?

I was looking at something in gram.y when I noticed that the following production works: SET SESSION SESSION CHARACTERISTICS AS TRANSACTION READ ONLY; "SESSION SESSION" seems fairly odd -- is it intentional? Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

On 9/29/15 4:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Joe Conway wrote: On 09/29/2015 01:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I remember it, but I'm not sure it would have helped you. As I recall, your trouble was that after a reboot the init script decided to initdb the mount point -- postmaster wouldn't have

[HACKERS] Standby server crashes in master and REL9_5_STABLE branches

Hi, Today, I found that standby server crashes with latest code of master branch and REL9_5_STABLE branch. This happens not always but sometimes after doing pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup for master server. The below error messages were shown in standby server log: FATAL: could not

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BRIN Scan: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap'

On 28 September 2015 at 15:47, zhangjinyu wrote: > Sorry, I forgot attaching patch. But I have send path in another thread. > Please see this thread "Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function > 'bringetbitmap' ". > Please don't submit a patch on a separate thread.

Re: [HACKERS] Doubt in pgbench TPS number

Hello Tatsuo, So on second thought the formula should rather be: ... / (is_connect? nclients: nthreads) I don't think this is quite correct. If is_connect is false, then following loop is executed in threadRun(): /* make connections to the database */

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 9/29/15 3:36 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: ...What we're not fine with is depending on a proprietary system, no matter what type of license, as infrastructure... Exactly. Which is why I was warning about latching onto features only available in

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 9/29/15 12:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2015-09-29 13:40:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I think you missed my point: gitlab would then believe it's in charge of, eg, granting write access to that repo. We could perhaps whack it over the head till it only

Re: [HACKERS] Standby server crashes in master and REL9_5_STABLE branches

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, wrote: > FATAL: could not access status of transaction 9009 > DETAIL: Could not read from file "pg_commit_ts/" at offset 90112: > Success. > CONTEXT: xlog redo Transaction/COMMIT: 2015-09-30 15:52:41.924141+09 > LOG: startup

Re: [HACKERS] Standby server crashes in master and REL9_5_STABLE branches

No, I do not have a backtrace. I 'm sorry about using misleading word ‘crash’. The standby server did not cause process crash. It exited abnormally. Regards, == Takashi Ohnishi oonish...@nttdata.co.jp From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> The refactoring of getTimelineHistory as you propose looks like a good >> idea to me, I tried to remove by myself the difference between source >> and target in copy_fetch.c and

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

Hello, it looks fine. > >> cost_index() seems to need to be fixed. It would count excluded > >> clauses in estimate. > > > > Hmm, good point. The problem is that extract_nonindex_conditions uses > > baserel->baserestrictinfo again, i.e. it does not skip the implied > > clauses. So we may either

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > I wish people would at least consider this as an option because it > integrates a ton of different features together. It has *the potential* > to eliminate our need to keep maintaining CommitFest and buildfarm and > could also replace mediawiki. > > If

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On September 30, 2015 at 7:06:58 AM, Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Paul Ramsey writes:  > Hm. Wouldn't it be just fine if only the server is able to define a   > list of extensions then? It seems to me that all the use-cases of this   > feature require to have a

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN denial of service with aborted transaction

> > > After further thought, I wonder whether instead of having an incoming > > listener initialize its "pos" to QUEUE_TAIL, we couldn't have it > > initialize to the maximum "pos" among existing listeners (with a floor of > > QUEUE_TAIL of course). If any other listener has advanced over a

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/09/29 21:38, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: Also note that EvalPlanQualFetchRowMarks() will raise an error if RefetchForeignRow callback returned NULL tuple. Is it right or expected behavior? IIUC, I think that that behavior is reasonable. It looks to me this callback is designed to pull out

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

Hello! On 09/30/2015 10:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: By the way your comment for indexrinfos is as following, * 'indexrinfos' is a list of RestrictInfo nodes from the query's WHERE * or JOIN conditions, excluding those implied by the index predicate * (if the index is not partial, the

Re: [HACKERS] Additional role attributes && superuser review

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > I agree with Robert's earlier point that this needs to be split into > multiple patches, which can then be reviewed and discussed > separately. Pending that, I'm going to mark this as "Waiting on > author" in the commitfest. Attached is an initial

Re: [HACKERS] Standby server crashes in master and REL9_5_STABLE branches

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, wrote: > > > FATAL: could not access status of transaction 9009 > > DETAIL: Could not read from file "pg_commit_ts/" at offset 90112: > > Success. > > CONTEXT: xlog redo Transaction/COMMIT: 2015-09-30

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > That's a very good point. I think Github and other sites are already > > blocked in countries like India and Cuba. > > Github is not blocked in India and was never as far as I know.

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/09/30 6:55, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I thought the same thing [1]. While I thought it was relatively easy to make changes to RefetchForeignRow that way for the foreign table case (scanrelid>0), I was not

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:08:56PM +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > Linux kernel project uses bugzilla (https://bugzilla.kernel.org) AIUI this is not mandatory for kernel hackers, and more opt-in from a some/many/a few(?) subsystem maintainers. Some parts use it more, some less or not at all. > and

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 09/29/2015 03:08 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> I've read this email about three times now and it's not clear at all >> to me what a issue/bug tracker brings to the table. > > Here are the problems I'd like to solve: > > 1.

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

On 09/30/2015 01:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Josh Berkus writes: Give me source with the change, and I'll put it on a cheap, low-bandwith AWS instance and hammer the heck out of it. That

Re: [HACKERS] SESSION SESSION - bug or intentional?

"David G. Johnston" writes: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> I was looking at something in gram.y when I noticed that the following >> production works: >> SET SESSION SESSION CHARACTERISTICS AS TRANSACTION READ ONLY; >>

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 03:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: >> On 09/30/2015 03:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'd be feeling a lot more positive about this whole thread if any people >>> had stepped up and said "yes, *I* will put in a lot of grunt-work to make >>> something

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

Josh Berkus writes: > On 09/30/2015 03:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd be feeling a lot more positive about this whole thread if any people >> had stepped up and said "yes, *I* will put in a lot of grunt-work to make >> something happen here". The lack of any volunteers suggests

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 03:28 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 09/30/2015 03:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus writes: On 09/30/2015 03:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I'd be feeling a lot more positive about this whole thread if any people had stepped up and said "yes, *I* will put in a lot of

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 30 September 2015 at 14:31, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 09/30/2015 11:23 AM, Christopher Browne wrote: > >> It's well and nice to think that an issue tracker resolves all of this, >> and, if we >> had tiny numbers of issues, we could doubtless construct a repository

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

On 09/30/2015 12:55 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hello! On 09/30/2015 10:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: By the way your comment for indexrinfos is as following, * 'indexrinfos' is a list of RestrictInfo nodes from the query's WHERE * or JOIN conditions, excluding those implied by the index

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:44 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> I'm not trolling in any way. I'm just challenging you to back up your >> blanket assertions with evidence. For example, you're assertion that >> mailing lists are

Re: [HACKERS] SESSION SESSION - bug or intentional?

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "David G. Johnston" writes: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > >> I was looking at something in gram.y when I noticed that the following > >> production

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

Christopher Browne writes: > It may very well be *worse* than that; it seems quite likely to me that if > an issue tracker is not being continually curated by substantially ALL of > its users, then you don't get any of those things. That *is* a lot more > pessimistic, and

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 03:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd be feeling a lot more positive about this whole thread if any people > had stepped up and said "yes, *I* will put in a lot of grunt-work to make > something happen here". The lack of any volunteers suggests strongly > that this thread is a waste of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > > > On September 30, 2015 at 7:06:58 AM, Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > I wrote: > > Hm. Wouldn't it be just fine if only the server is able to define a > > list of extensions then? It seems to me that all

Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby

oonish...@nttdata.co.jp wrote: > The below error messages were shown in standby server log: > > FATAL: could not access status of transaction 9009 > DETAIL: Could not read from file "pg_commit_ts/" at offset 90112: > Success. > CONTEXT: xlog redo Transaction/COMMIT: 2015-09-30

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

Josh Berkus wrote: > Well, it's hard for anyone to volunteer when we don't know what the > actual volunteer tasks are. I certainly intend to do *something* to > support the bug tracker system, but I don't know yet what that something is. I volunteer to do something too, as long as I don't have

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

 On September 30, 2015 at 3:32:21 PM, Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: OK. Once you can get a new patch done with a reworked extractExtensionList, I'll get a new look at it in a timely fashion and then let's move it to a committer's hands. Done and thanks! P -- 

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 03:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: Well, it's hard for anyone to volunteer when we don't know what the actual volunteer tasks are. I certainly intend to do *something* to support the bug tracker system, but I don't know yet what that something is. I volunteer

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> - I don't believe that shm_toc *toc has any business being part of a >> generic PlanState node. At most, it should be part of an individual >> type of PlanState, like a GatherState or PartialSeqScanState. But >>

Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby

> Here's a patch. Thank you! With this patch, the standby server down disappears in my environment. Regards, Takashi Ohnishi oonish...@nttdata.co.jp -Original Message- From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 7:48 AM To: Fujii

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

So, testing: 1. I tested running an AWS instance (Ubuntu 14.04) into 100% IOWAIT, and the shutdown didn't kick in even when storage went full "d" state. It's possible that other kinds of remote storage failures would cause a shutdown, but don't we want them to? 2. I tested deleting /pgdata/*

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:55 AM > To: Etsuro Fujita > Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); PostgreSQL-development; 花田茂 > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > On September 30, 2015 at 3:32:21 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > OK. Once you can get a new patch done with a reworked > extractExtensionList, I'll get a new look at it in a timely fashion > and then let's move it to a committer's hands. So, I

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN denial of service with aborted transaction

Matt Newell writes: > Patch attached works great. I added the dboid to the QueueBackendStatus > struct but that might not be needed if there is an easy and fast way to get a > db oid from a backend pid. Not particularly; I agree with adding it to this data structure. One

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Browne writes: >> It may very well be *worse* than that; it seems quite likely to me that if >> an issue tracker is not being continually curated by substantially ALL of >> its users, then you

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 9/30/15 4:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 09/30/2015 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: I wish people would at least consider this as an option because it integrates a ton of different features together. It has *the potential* to eliminate our need to keep maintaining CommitFest and buildfarm and could

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 30 September 2015 at 12:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 09/30/2015 07:44 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> I'm not trolling in any way. I'm just challenging you to back up your >> blanket assertions with evidence. For example, you're assertion that >> mailing lists are

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

Jim Nasby writes: > Ouch. So it sounds like there's value to seeing if pg_control isn't what > we expect it to be. > Instead of looking at the inode (portability problem), what if > pg_control contained a random number that was created at initdb time? On > startup

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

Paul Ramsey writes: > Hm. Wouldn't it be just fine if only the server is able to define a  > list of extensions then? It seems to me that all the use-cases of this  > feature require to have a list of extensions defined per server, and  > not per fdw type. This would

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On September 30, 2015 at 12:54:44 AM, Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> +extern bool extractExtensionList(char *extensionString,  >> + List **extensionOids);  >> What's the point of the boolean status in this new routine? The return  >> value of extractExtensionList is

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Table partition + join pushdown

> > * Suppose we focus on only HashJoin in the first version? > > This patch also add support on NestLoop and MergeJoin, however, NestLoop > > has no valuable scenario without parallel execution capability, and the > > most valuable scenario on MergeJoin is reduction of rows prior to Sort. > >

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Kam Lasater wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 09/29/2015 03:08 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> I've read this email about three times now and it's not clear at all >>> to me what a issue/bug

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/30/2015 07:44 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: I'm not trolling in any way. I'm just challenging you to back up your blanket assertions with evidence. For example, you're assertion that mailing lists are insufficient is simply stated and expected to be taken on faith: *How* is it insufficient

Re: [HACKERS] Removing max_connection requirement on hot_standby

On 09/30/2015 04:31 AM, Chris Winslett wrote: I'm orchestrating Postgres to behave as a leader-follower cluster. I've run into issues when I am scaling down a connection count for a cluster (scaling up is fine -- scaling down results in fatal errors). I use an open source tool I've written to

Re: [HACKERS] Removing max_connection requirement on hot_standby

On 2015-09-30 19:36:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09/30/2015 04:31 AM, Chris Winslett wrote: > >I'm orchestrating Postgres to behave as a leader-follower cluster. I've run > >into issues when I am scaling down a connection count for a cluster > >(scaling up is fine -- scaling down

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Attached patch is a rebased patch based on latest commit (d1b7c1ff) > > for Gather node. > > > > - I have to reorganize the defines in