Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Sure. I attached two patches. But notice that pg_trgm.limit should be used with this command: SHOW "pg_trgm.limit"; If you will use this command: SHOW pg_trgm.limit; you will get the error: ERROR: syntax error at or near "limit" LINE 1: SHOW pg_trgm.limit; ^ This is

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Artur Zakirov
On 29.01.2016 17:15, Teodor Sigaev wrote: The behavior of this function is surprising to me. select substring_similarity('dog' , 'hotdogpound') ; substring_similarity -- 0.25 Substring search was desined to search similar word in string:

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

2016-01-29 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/01/29 1:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> Here's an updated version of the previous patches, broken up like before >> > > 2. pg_fdw_join_v3.patch: changes to postgres_fdw - more description below >> > >

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

2016-01-29 Thread Anastasia Lubennikova
28.01.2016 20:03, Thom Brown: On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Anastasia Lubennikova > wrote: 28.01.2016 18:12, Thom Brown: On 28 January 2016 at 14:06, Anastasia Lubennikova

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

2016-01-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Alvaro, Thanks for the progress! I pushed this, along with a few more tweaks, mostly adding comments and moving functions so that related things are together. I hope I didn't break anything. Looks ok. Here is a rebase of the 3 remaining parts: - 15-c: per script stats - 15-d:

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

2016-01-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
Also, a comment is needed to explain why such a bizarre condition is used/needed for just the INT64_MIN case. The last patch I sent has this bit: + /* + * Some machines throw a floating-point exception + * for INT64_MIN % -1, the correct answer being +

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

2016-01-29 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Stephen Frost > wrote: > >> > Personally, I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 29 January 2016 at 14:48, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> I would guess that the DDL boilterplate should come from Alexander >> Korotkov's patch, right? I think a first easy step may be to combine >> parts both patches so that we get

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > > > > > In terms of this project overall, NumLWLocks() now knows about only > > four categories of stuff: fixed lwlocks, backend

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I would guess that the DDL boilterplate should come from Alexander > Korotkov's patch, right? I think a first easy step may be to combine > parts both patches so that we get the "amkind" column from this patch > and the DDL support from

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Teodor Sigaev
The behavior of this function is surprising to me. select substring_similarity('dog' , 'hotdogpound') ; substring_similarity -- 0.25 Substring search was desined to search similar word in string: contrib_regression=# select substring_similarity('dog' ,

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

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Apart from these, as suggested in [1] , finer grained reporting from index > vacuuming phase can provide better insight. Currently we report number of > blocks processed once at the end of vacuuming of each index. >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

2016-01-29 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > 2. pg_fdw_join_v3.patch: changes to postgres_fdw - more description below > > This patch no longer quite applies because of

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-01-29 04:42:08 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:30:58PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I have no prejudice in this area, other than one in favor of any > > rules being fairly precise. As for nuances, I guess they can be > > specified in the commit message. The one

Re: [HACKERS] Mac OS: invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8"

2016-01-29 Thread Artur Zakirov
On 28.01.2016 17:42, Artur Zakirov wrote: On 27.01.2016 15:28, Artur Zakirov wrote: On 27.01.2016 14:14, Stas Kelvich wrote: Hi. I tried that and confirm strange behaviour. It seems that problem with small cyrillic letter ‘х’. (simplest obscene language filter? =) That can be reproduced with

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > That idea won't work as we need to separately register tranche for > each process. The other wayout could be to do it in CreateSharedProcArray() > which will be quite similar to what we do for other tranches and > it

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> FWIW, I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that we need to make the commit >> messages automated-tool-friendly. What tools are there that would need >> to extract this info, and

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 28 January 2016 15:57:15 CET, Robert Haas wrote: >On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tomas Vondra >>> wrote: Why

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Needs rework after the commit of https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/336/ > > Here is version that applies to current master. There is some work to > do (mostly cleanup) and the DDL is missing, but

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

2016-01-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > (instead of < in my previous suggestion, if some processors return 0 on > -INT64_MIN). Also, a comment is needed to explain why such a bizarre > condition is used/needed for just the INT64_MIN case. The last patch I

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Mithun Cy
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Mithun Cy wrote > > > > >I just ran some tests on above patch. Mainly to compare > >how "longer sort keys" would behave with new(Qsort) and old Algo(RS) for > sorting. > >I have 8GB of ram and ssd storage. > > > *Key length 520* > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > If we do that way, then user of API needs to maintain the interlock > > guarantee that the requested number of locks is same as

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

2016-01-29 Thread Rahila Syed
>Okay, I agree that reporting just the current blkno is simple and good >enough. How about numbers of what we're going to report as the "Vacuuming >Index and Heap" phase? I guess we can still keep the scanned_index_pages >and index_scan_count So we have: >+CREATE VIEW pg_stat_vacuum_progress AS >+

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> So far as I can tell, there are three patches in flight here: >> >> * replication slot IO lwlocks >> * ability of

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Mithun Cy
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >Attached is a revision that significantly overhauls the memory patch, >with several smaller changes. I just ran some tests on above patch. Mainly to compare how "longer sort keys" would behave with new(Qsort) and old

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Oleg Bartunov
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Artur Zakirov wrote: > > > What status of this patch? In commitfest it is "Needs review". > > "Needs review" means it needs a reviewer to go over it and, uh, review > it. Did I send an email to you prodding you

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So far as I can tell, there are three patches in flight here: > > * replication slot IO lwlocks > * ability of extensions to request tranches dynamically > * PGPROC > > The first one hasn't been reviewed at all,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Fabien COELHO wrote: > The answer is essentially yes, the field is needed for the "aggregated" mode > where this specific behavior is used. OK, thanks, that looks better to me. Can you now appreciate why I asked for split patches? If I had to go over the big patch I probably wouldn't have been

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

2016-01-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-28 16:40:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> OK, so as a first step and after thinking about the whole for a while, >> I have finished with the patch attached. This patch is aimed at >> avoiding unnecessary

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Artur Zakirov
On 21.01.2016 00:25, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Artur Zakirov wrote: I don't quite understand why aren't we using a custom GUC variable here. These already have SHOW and SET support ... Added GUC variables: - pg_trgm.limit - pg_trgm.substring_limit I added this variables to the documentation.

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical_output - a general purpose logical decoding output plugin

2016-01-29 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, so, I'm reviewing the output of: > git diff $(git merge-base upstream/master > 2ndq/dev/pglogical-output)..2ndq/dev/pglogical-output > diff --git a/contrib/Makefile b/contrib/Makefile > index bd251f6..028fd9a 100644 > --- a/contrib/Makefile > +++ b/contrib/Makefile > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

2016-01-29 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2016/01/29 1:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Here's an updated version of the previous patches, broken up like before 2. pg_fdw_join_v3.patch: changes to postgres_fdw - more description below Here is the summary of changes from the last set of patches 2. Included fix for EvalPlanQual in

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:30:58PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I have no prejudice in this area, other than one in favor of any > rules being fairly precise. As for nuances, I guess they can be > specified in the commit message. The one thing I do find annoying > from time to time is the limit

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:16:18PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > OK, but keep in mind whatever script committers user should remove tags > > that are empty after exiting the editor. I can provide the grep regex > > in git somewhere too: > > > > egrep -v > >

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > That's not that hard to change. And neither git nor kernel people use 50 > char limits. I'm *strongly* opposed to making 50 chars the limit for the > first line. Ditto. It's hard enough to fit a useful headline in 75 characters. I personally will

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

2016-01-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hi Michaël, I think it is overkill, but do as you feel. Perhaps we could have Robert decide on this one first? That's a bug after all that had better be backpatched. Fine with me. [modulo...] Right, forgot this one, we just need to check if rval is -1 here, and return 0 as result. I am

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Artur Zakirov wrote: > What status of this patch? In commitfest it is "Needs review". "Needs review" means it needs a reviewer to go over it and, uh, review it. Did I send an email to you prodding you to review patches? I sent such an email to several people from PostgresPro, but I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

2016-01-29 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-01-28 16:40:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK, so as a first step and after thinking about the whole for a while, > I have finished with the patch attached. This patch is aimed at > avoiding unnecessary checkpoints on idle systems when wal_level >= > hot_standby by centralizing the

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 29 January 2016 at 14:48, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Uh, what? Surely we would provide a bespoke command for each possible > > sort of handler. As an example, CREATE INDEX ACCESS METHOD ought to check >

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: >> On 29 January 2016 at 14:48, Tom Lane wrote: > Uh, what? Surely we would provide a bespoke command for each possible > sort of handler. As an example, CREATE INDEX ACCESS METHOD ought to check > that the provided function

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Artur Zakirov
On 29.01.2016 18:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Teodor Sigaev wrote: The behavior of this function is surprising to me. select substring_similarity('dog' , 'hotdogpound') ; substring_similarity -- 0.25 Substring search was desined to search similar word

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/29/2016 02:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Well, I think what people are asking for is precisely a fixed format, and I do think there is value in that. It's nice to capture the nuance, but the nuance is going to get flattened out anyway when the release notes are created. If we all

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

2016-01-29 Thread Anastasia Lubennikova
29.01.2016 19:01, Thom Brown: On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The only problem I could find is that INSERT works considerably slower after applying a patch. Beside that

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Teodor Sigaev wrote: > >The behavior of this function is surprising to me. > > > >select substring_similarity('dog' , 'hotdogpound') ; > > > > substring_similarity > >-- > > 0.25 > > > Substring search was desined to search similar word in string: >

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

2016-01-29 Thread Thom Brown
On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The > only problem I could find is that INSERT works considerably slower after > applying a patch. Beside that everything looks fine - no crashes,

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > I just ran some tests on above patch. Mainly to compare > how "longer sort keys" would behave with new(Qsort) and old Algo(RS) for > sorting. > I have 8GB of ram and ssd storage. > > Settings and Results. >

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

2016-01-29 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The only problem I could find is that INSERT works considerably slower after applying a patch. Beside that everything looks fine - no crashes, tests pass, memory doesn't seem to leak, etc. > Okay, now for some badness. I've

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

2016-01-29 Thread Catalin Iacob
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I removed from previous patch all OOP related changes. New patch contains > raise_ functions only. This interface is new generation of previous > functions: info, notice, warning, error with keyword parameters

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the only outstanding issue > with all patches posted here so far is the "quicksort with spillover" > cost model. Hopefully this can be cleared up soon. As I've said, I am > very

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I feel like this could be data driven. I mean, the cost model is > based mainly on the tuple width and the size of the SortTuple array. > So, it should be possible to tests of both algorithms on 32, 64, 96, > 128, ...

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

2016-01-29 Thread Thom Brown
On 29 January 2016 at 16:50, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > 29.01.2016 19:01, Thom Brown: >> >> On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, Aleksander Alekseev >> wrote: >>> >>> I tested this patch on x64 and ARM servers for a few hours today. The >>>

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

2016-01-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Michael, > > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I feel like this could be data driven. I mean, the cost model is >> based mainly on the tuple width and the size of the SortTuple array. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or something >> like that. > I would prefer "CREATE {INDEX | SEQUENCE | ... } ACCESS METHOD

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or something >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

2016-01-29 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/22/16 12:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-01-22 08:40:28 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: Ideally reviewers shouldn't be doing any testing, because the tests that are part of the patch should answer every question they would have, but I don't see that happening until we have a separate

Re: [HACKERS] Optimizer questions

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Attached please find improved version of the optimizer patch for LIMIT > clause. > Now I try to apply this optimization only for non-trivial columns > requiring evaluation. > May be it will be better to

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE

2016-01-29 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:12:15AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm honestly failing to understand why we should change anything at > all. I don't believe that doing something more severe than marking > the portal failed actually improves anything. I suppose if I had to > pick between what you

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Greg Stark
On 29 Jan 2016 11:58 pm, "Robert Haas" wrote: > It > seems pretty easy to construct cases where this technique regresses, > and a large percentage of those cases are precisely those where > replacement selection would have produced a single run, avoiding the > merge step

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Greg Stark
On 30 Jan 2016 8:27 am, "Greg Stark" wrote: > > > On 29 Jan 2016 11:58 pm, "Robert Haas" wrote: > > It > > seems pretty easy to construct cases where this technique regresses, > > and a large percentage of those cases are precisely those where > >

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

2016-01-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't quite know what you mean by these numbers. Add a generic, > conservative threshold to what? I meant use "quicksort with spillover" simply because an estimated 90%+ of all tuples have already been consumed.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > If we do that way, then user of API needs

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Also couple of minor comments from me. > > I think this > > + StrNCpy(LWLockTrancheRequestArray[LWLockTrancheRequestsCount].tranche_name, >> tranche_name, strlen(tranche_name) + 1); > > > should be > > +

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

2016-01-29 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera < alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > >> So far as I can tell, there are

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

2016-01-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I think the best question to ask is: > > "What is the problem we are trying to solve?" The problem is alluring more patch reviewers, beta testers and bug reporters. One of the offers is to credit them (I'm not exactly clear on what is the group to benefit from this,

Re: [HACKERS] Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

2016-01-29 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Hi, Dilip! > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> >>> > Test3: >>> >

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
Hi, Petr! On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > here is updated version of this patch, calling the messages logical > (decoding) messages consistently everywhere and removing any connection to > standby messages. Moving this to it's own module gave me

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Petr Jelinek wrote: > > On 29 January 2016 at 14:48, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > > Uh, what? Surely we would provide a bespoke command for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] better systemd integration

2016-01-29 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi > > > > > You sent only rebased code of previous version. I didn't find additional > > checks. > > Oops. Here is the actual new code. > > New test is working as expected I did lot of tests - and this code works perfect in single server mode, and with slave hot-standby mode. It doesn't work

Re: [HACKERS] Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

2016-01-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
Hi, Dilip! On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Test3: >> > pgbench -i -s 100 postgres >> > pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres >> > >> > Client