Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Do we still have licensing issues if we ship Postgres and OpenSSL > together? See https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150801151410.GA28344%40awork2.anarazel.de -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Well, you'd have to use MacPorts' version of the openssl libraries, > > too, since there'd be no certainty that their headers match the > > Apple-provided libraries (in fact, I'd bet a lot that they don't). > > This would be a pain

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Hmm. I read Peter's message as agreeing with Andres rather than with > you. And I have to say I agree with Andres as well. I think it's > weird to back a commit out only to put a bunch of very similar stuff > back in.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Multixact slru doesn't don't force WAL flushes in SlruPhysicalWritePage()

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:22:47PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:40:07PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> > /* >> > * Optional array of WAL flush LSNs associated with entries in the SLRU >> >

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On 11/27/15 8:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> > So, what's going on? The problem is that while the rename() is atomic, it's >> > not guaranteed to be durable without an explicit fsync on the parent >> >

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

Attached is v2 of the patch, that (a) adds explicit fsync on the parent directory after all the rename() calls in timeline.c, xlog.c, xlogarchive.c and pgarch.c (b) adds START/END_CRIT_SECTION around the new fsync_fname calls (except for those in timeline.c, as the

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:44:45AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> >> I'm not following along right now - in order to make cleanups the plan is >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> "David E. Wheeler" writes: > >>> I don’t suppose anyone has looked at what it

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 06:40:09PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Do we still have licensing issues if we ship Postgres and OpenSSL > > together? > > See > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150801151410.GA28344%40awork2.anarazel.de True, but the current license

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> "David E. Wheeler" writes: I don’t suppose anyone has looked at what it would

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On 12/01/2015 10:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 11/27/15 8:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: So, what's going on? The problem is that while the rename() is atomic, it's not guaranteed to be durable without an

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" writes: >> Looks like Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan has remove the OpenSSL header files. >> They recommend building your own or using native OS X SDKs, like Secure >> Transport: >>

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> "David E. Wheeler" writes: >>> I don’t suppose anyone has looked at what it would take to get PostgreSQL >>> use Secure Transport, right? >> This is

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Michael Paquier wrote: > OK... I have merged TestLib and PostgresNode of the previous patch > into PostgresNode into the way suggested by Noah. TestBase has been > renamed back to TestLib, and includes as well the base test functions > like command_ok. Great, thanks. Here's one more version,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Trigonometric functions in degrees

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 1 December 2015 at 12:59, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Dean, are you planning to continue working on this patch? If yes, are >> you fine to move it to next CF? It seems that the current

Re: [HACKERS] Issue on C function that reads int2[] (using "int2vector")

2015-11-30 0:39 GMT-02:00 Tom Lane: > Rodrigo Hjort writes: > > I created a custom C function with this signature: > > > CREATE FUNCTION calculate_hash(numbers int2[]) > > RETURNS int8 > > AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'pg_calculate_hash' > > LANGUAGE C > > IMMUTABLE STRICT; > > > And here is the

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Further tweaking of print_aligned_vertical().

On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's > harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it seems risky: > conversion of NaN to an integer isn't well defined. Am I going to have to fire up the emulator

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-12-01 17:52 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob : >> One maybe slightly surprising behaviour is that -f - can be specified >> multiple times and only the first one has an effect since the others >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Thank you for picking this up. At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:33:02 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < > horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > == TODO

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Further tweaking of print_aligned_vertical().

Greg Stark writes: > On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote: >> In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's >> harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it seems risky: >> conversion of NaN to an integer isn't well defined. > Am

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hello, thank you for taking time for this. At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:56:54 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > This patch is not

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Sorry, I made a mistake. At Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:29:17 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20151202.102917.50152198.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, thank you for editing. > > At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:56:54 -0500, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > - I discovered that not setting PGPORT was causing some of the tests > that fail (using command_fails) to fail to test what was being tested. > The problem is that the command was failing with "could not connect

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > - It would be nice to have command_ok and command_fails in PostgresNode > > too; that would remove the need for setting $ENV{PGPORT} but it's > > possible to run commands outside a

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Thank you, committed. Youhou, thanks! I still think that we should have a test case for this patch close to the script I sent on this thread. I'll get into it once the infrastructure patch for recovery regression tests

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/12/02 1:41, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: The attached patch adds: Path *fdw_outerpath field to ForeignPath node. FDW driver can set arbitrary but one path-node here. After that, this path-node shall be transformed

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Plan *plan = >scan.plan; > @@ -3755,7 +3763,7 @@ make_foreignscan(List *qptlist, > /* cost will be filled in by create_foreignscan_plan */ > plan->targetlist = qptlist; >

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >> Sorry, I don't understand this. In my understanding, fdw_recheck_quals >> can be defined for a foreign join, regardless of the join type, >> > Yes, "can be defined", but will not be workable if either side of > joined

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> One option to avoid that >> is to set the fdw_outerplan in ExecInitForeignScan as in my patch [1], or >> BeginForeignScan as you proposed. That breaks the equivalence that the Plan >> tree and the

Re: [HACKERS] gincostestimate and hypothetical indexes

Julien Rouhaud writes: > On 01/12/2015 00:37, Tom Lane wrote: >> Maybe we could do something along the lines of pretending that 90% of the >> index size given by the plugin is entry pages? Don't know what a good >> ratio would be exactly, but we could probably come up

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Attached is a patch implementing those suggestions. This simplifies > the code without changing its usefulness. If you are fine with those > changes I will switch this patch as ready for committer. I tested the

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Any news on this item from 2013, worked on again 2014? > Sorry, I didn't look at it since. At the time I was using Xi Wang's software to find the overflow checks that need to be redone. He published a paper on it and it's

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

2015-12-01 13:53 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > 2015-11-30 15:17 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : > >> Removing some items from the list of potential actions and

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Trigonometric functions in degrees

On 1 December 2015 at 12:59, Michael Paquier wrote: > Dean, are you planning to continue working on this patch? If yes, are > you fine to move it to next CF? It seems that the current consensus is > to split this effort into two patches: Yes, I still plan to work on

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

2015-12-01 17:52 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob : > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > Attached is a patch implementing those suggestions. This simplifies > > the code without changing its usefulness. If you are fine with

Re: [HACKERS] More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics

"Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: > This post summarizes a few weeks of research of ANALYZE statistics > distribution on one of our bigger production databases with some real-world > data and proposes a patch to rectify some of the oddities observed. Please add this to

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Attached is v2 of the patch, that >> >> (a) adds explicit fsync on the parent directory after all the rename() >> calls

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Attached is v2 of the patch, that > > (a) adds explicit fsync on the parent directory after all the rename() > calls in timeline.c, xlog.c, xlogarchive.c and pgarch.c > > (b) adds START/END_CRIT_SECTION around

Re: [HACKERS] psql: add \pset true/false

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> Plus we already have \pset numericlocale as a similar feature in psql. >> >> But \pset numericlocale

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Steve Singer wrote: > On 10/15/2015 05:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> >> All other issues raised by Álvaro and Steve have been addressed, except >> for this one, which I will argue against: > > > I've been looking through the updated patch > >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > Isn't it better to destroy the memory for

Re: [HACKERS] Tab completion for ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Jeff Janes

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to >>> change the catalog structure and then

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

On 2015/12/02 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote: > It seems that the consensus is to rework a bit more this patch. > Returned with feedback then? Yes, as far as this commitfest is concerned. Or "moved to the next commitfest"? Not sure exactly which makes sense. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2015/12/02 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote: >> It seems that the consensus is to rework a bit more this patch. >> Returned with feedback then? > > Yes, as far as this commitfest is concerned. Or "moved to the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> wrote: >> >>> > - It

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:11:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Finally, I ran perltidy on all the files, which strangely changed stuff > that I didn't expect it to change. I wonder if this is related to the > perltidy version. The last pgindent run (commit 807b9e0) used perltidy v20090616,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: > >> > - It would be nice to have command_ok and command_fails in PostgresNode >> > too; that would

Re: [HACKERS] Freeze avoidance of very large table.

Hello, > You're right, it's not necessary. > Attached latest v29 patch which removes the mention in pg_upgrade > documentation. The changes looks to be correct but I haven't tested. And I have some additional random comments. visibilitymap.c: In visibilitymap_set, the followint lines.

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

Hi > Yeah, I don't think that's a big issue either to be honest. The code > is kept consistent a maximum with what is there previously. > > Patch is switched to ready for committer. > perfect Thank you very much to all Regards Pavel > -- > Michael >

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > The attached patch adds: Path *fdw_outerpath field to ForeignPath node. > > FDW driver can set arbitrary but one path-node here. > > After that, this path-node shall be transformed to plan-node by > > createplan.c,

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> On 2015/12/02 1:41, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita > > wrote: > >>> The attached patch adds: Path *fdw_outerpath field to ForeignPath node. > >>> FDW driver can set arbitrary but one path-node here. > >>> After that, this

[HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

Hackers, Looks like Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan has remove the OpenSSL header files. They recommend building your own or using native OS X SDKs, like Secure Transport: http://lists.apple.com/archives/macnetworkprog/2015/Jun/msg00025.html I don’t suppose anyone has looked at what it would take

Re: [HACKERS] Freeze avoidance of very large table.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada

Re: [HACKERS] Another little thing about psql wrapped expanded output

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:20:53AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > regression=# \pset format wrapped > Output format is wrapped. > regression=# \x > Expanded display is on. > regression=# select * from int8_tbl; > -[ RECORD 1 > ]--- > q1 |

Re: [HACKERS] El Capitan Removes OpenSSL Headers

"David E. Wheeler" writes: > Looks like Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan has remove the OpenSSL header files. > They recommend building your own or using native OS X SDKs, like Secure > Transport: > http://lists.apple.com/archives/macnetworkprog/2015/Jun/msg00025.html That's

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > The attached patch adds: Path *fdw_outerpath field to ForeignPath node. > FDW driver can set arbitrary but one path-node here. > After that, this path-node shall be transformed to plan-node by > createplan.c, then

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 30 November 2015 at 22:27, Julien Rouhaud > wrote: > > >> I registered as reviewer on this, but after reading the whole thread for >> the second time, it's still not clear to me if the

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

Hello, The meaning of "be orange" (I couldn't find it) interests me but putting it aside.. I have some random comments. At Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:30:18 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote in > Hi > > > > 2.

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

2015-12-01 11:02 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > Hello, The meaning of "be orange" (I couldn't find it) interests > me but putting it aside.. > > I have some random comments. > > At Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:30:18 +0100, Pavel Stehule > wrote

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

On 2015/12/01 16:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:10:44 -0700 (MST), Vinayak wrote >> Thanks for the v7. >> Please check the comment below. >> -Table name in the vacuum progress >> >> + snprintf(progress_message[0], PROGRESS_MESSAGE_LENGTH, "%s.%s", >>

[HACKERS] Help on creating C function that reads int2[] (using "int2vector")

Hello PG Hackers, I created a custom C function with this signature: CREATE FUNCTION calculate_hash(numbers int2[]) RETURNS int8 AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'pg_calculate_hash' LANGUAGE C IMMUTABLE STRICT; And here is the function source code (inspired in codes I found in

[HACKERS] More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics

Hi Hackers! This post summarizes a few weeks of research of ANALYZE statistics distribution on one of our bigger production databases with some real-world data and proposes a patch to rectify some of the oddities observed. Introduction We have observed that for certain data sets

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

Thank you, committed. Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Teodor Sigaev > wrote: > Seems, patch

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual > > Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? Unfortunately, no. That commit allows FDWs to do proper EPQ handling for plain table scans, but it proves to be inadequate

Re: [HACKERS] Regarding recovery configuration

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > 2. Add them to the GUC, perhaps with a special context. > > Both approaches would allow us to create, for example, a dedicated view for > the 'recovery.conf' file using a drastically simplified procedure written in >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: SCRAM authentication

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Reviving an old thread for a patch still registered in this commit > fest to make the arguing move on. > > Supporting multiple verifiers for a single role has IMO clear advantages: > - help transition to new protocols and decommission of

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I'll add that to the next CF, perhaps this will interest somebody. And nobody got interested into that, marking as returned with feedback. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:30:47 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > As I understand, update should fail with any array, so, first update should > fail too. Am I right? You right. Done. New patch in attach. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Trigonometric functions in degrees

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Instinctively, it

Re: [HACKERS] parallel joins, and better parallel explain

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Attached find a patch that does (mostly) two things. > I have started looking into this and would like to share few findings with you: - + /* + * Primitive parallel cost model. Assume the leader will do half as much

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Friday 27 November 2015 17:23:35 Teodor Sigaev wrote: 1 Documentation isn't very informative Added example with different results. Perfect 2 Seems, error messages are too inconsistent. If you forbid omitting bound in assigment then if all cases error message should be the same or close.

Re: [HACKERS] Removing Functionally Dependent GROUP BY Columns

On 1 December 2015 at 17:09, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 2015-12-01 05:00, David Rowley wrote: > >> We already allow a SELECT's target list to contain non-aggregated columns >> in a GROUP BY query in cases where the non-aggregated column is >> functionally dependent on the GROUP BY

Re: [HACKERS] Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Perhaps you did not look at the last patch I sent on this thread, but > I changed it so as a schedule is used with a call to pg_regress. > That's a more scalable approach as you were concerned about as we can > plug in more easily new

[HACKERS] Regarding recovery configuration

Hi hackers, I'd like to share some thoughts on 'recovery.conf'-related variables. Introduction The 'recovery.conf' file is used to set up the recovery configuration of a PostgreSQL server. Its structure closely resembles that of the 'postgresql.conf' file whose settings are

Re: [HACKERS] parallel joins, and better parallel explain

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > Attached find a patch that does (mostly) two things. > > > > I have started looking into this and would like to share few findings >

Re: [HACKERS]WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Finally, completed patch "covering_unique_3.0.patch" is here. It includes the functionality discussed above in the thread, regression tests and docs update. I think it's quite ready for review. _Future work:_ Besides that, I'd like to get feedback about attached patch

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-11-30 15:17 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : >> Removing some items from the list of potential actions and creating a >> new sublist listing action types is a bit weird. Why not grouping

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Monday 30 November 2015 08:58:49 you wrote: >> +1 IMO this line of thinking is a dead end. Better handled via >> functions, not syntax > > Maybe then add array_pyslice(start, end) when start is 0 and with

Re: [HACKERS] New gist vacuum.

Thank you, Jeff.I reworking patch now. All // warning will be deleted.About memory consumption new version will control size of stack and will operate with map of little size because i want delete old style vacuum(now if maintenance_work_mem less than needed to build info map we use old-style

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:43:47 you wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:30:47 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > As I understand, update should fail with any array, so, first update > > should > > fail too. Am I right? > > You right. Done. New patch in attach. Found error when omitted lower

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:38:21 you wrote: > it (zero > based indexing support) doesn't meet the standard of necessity for > adding to the core API and as stated it's much to magical. We do not touch the arrays, we simply create a function to access them with a comfortable behavior.

Re: [HACKERS] Cube extension kNN support

Patch looks good, but there ara some review notices: 1 gmake installcheck fails: *** /.../pgsql/contrib/cube/expected/cube_1.out 2015-12-01 17:49:01.768764000 +0300 --- /.../pgsql/contrib/cube/results/cube.out 2015-12-01 17:49:12.190818000 +0300 *** *** 1382,1388 (1

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > == TODO or random thoughts, not restricted on this patch. > > - This patch doesn't contain planner part, it must be aware of > async execution in order that this can be in effective. > How

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support

On 16.11.2015 15:51, Artur Zakirov wrote: On 10.11.2015 13:23, Artur Zakirov wrote: Link to patch in commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/420/ Link to regression tests: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15423817/HunspellDictTest.tar.gz I have done some changes in documentation

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > At this time, the number of round trips needed particularly for READ > > COMMITTED transactions that need a new snapshot for each query was > > really a performance killer. We used DBT-1 (TPC-W) which is less > > OLTP-like than DBT-2

Re: [HACKERS] Error with index on unlogged table

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:53:35 +0900, Michael Paquier > wrote in > >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM,

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

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > Seems, patch is ready to commit. But it needs some documentation. > > Of what kind? The documentation of pg_rewind is rather explicit

[HACKERS] Another little thing about psql wrapped expanded output

regression=# \pset format wrapped Output format is wrapped. regression=# \x Expanded display is on. regression=# select * from int8_tbl; -[ RECORD 1 ]--- q1 | 123 q2 | 456 -[ RECORD 2

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

2015-12-01 11:12 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-12-01 11:02 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < > horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > >> Hello, The meaning of "be orange" (I couldn't find it) interests >> me but putting it aside.. >> >> I have some random comments. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> The attached patch adds: Path *fdw_outerpath field to ForeignPath node. >> FDW driver can set arbitrary but one path-node here. >> After that, this path-node shall be transformed to plan-node by >> createplan.c,