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

Hi, At Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:22:45 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote in <56cee405.30...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> Attached is a v6 of the patch, which is actually the version > >> submitted by Kyotaro-san on 2015/10/8 rebased to current master and > >> with two additional

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

Hi, Thanks for your feedback. On 2016/02/26 0:43, Jean-Pierre Pelletier wrote: > Why not based it on "Exclusion Constraint" ? > > Most discussions as of late seems to focus on Range overlaps which appeal > (I would think) is that it supports both "equality" and "overlaps", two > popular

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, On 02/26/2016 04:32 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: ... The culprit here is that the two columns are not independent, but are (rather strongly) correlated due to the way you've generated the data. Yes, that was

Re: [HACKERS] psql completion for ids in multibyte string

Hello, this is the second patch plitted out. This allows multibyte names to be completed in psql. At Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:47:17 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20151106.114717.170526268.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Thu, 5 Nov

[HACKERS] Fixing wrong comment on PQmblen and PQdsplen.

Hello, I divided the last patch into one typo-fix patch and one improvement patch. This is the former one. At Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:47:17 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20151106.114717.170526268.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > Just

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 26 February 2016 at 10:58, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Here is a rebased set after the conflicts created by e640093, with the >> following changes: > > Thanks for rebasing on top of that.

Re: [HACKERS] insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/29/16 1:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to >>> > include the table name, so it might look like: >>> > >>> > 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a

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

I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to add me as the *second* author. But the CF app forces certain msyterious order for listed names. Is there any means to arrange the author names in desired order? At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:06:37 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect formula for SysV IPC parameters

Thank you for pushing this. At Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:07:32 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

On 2016/02/23 22:51, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Some might think that writing potentially the same PARTITION BY clause 100 >> times for 100 level-1 partitions could be cumbersome. That is what >> SUBPARTITION BY notation may be good as a shorthand

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

Hello, thank you for the comments. At Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:57 +0300, Artur Zakirov wrote in <56c1c80d.7020...@postgrespro.ru> > On 05.02.2016 11:09, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I considered how to make tab-completion robust for syntactical > > noises,

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

2016-02-25 7:06 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob : > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > It looks like good idea. Last version are not breaking compatibility - > and > > I think so it can works. > > > > I wrote the code, that works

Re: [HACKERS] FDW handling count(*) through AnalyzeForeignTable or other constant time push-down

"Gabe F. Rudy" writes: > Is there any way to convince Postgres FDW to leverage the analyze row counts > or even the "double* totalRowCount" returned from the AcquireSampleRows > callback from my AnalyzeForeignTable function so that it does not do a > full-table scan for a

Re: [HACKERS] insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not >> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human >> consumption, not strictly part

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

Hello, this is the new version of this patch. At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:17:26 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20160226.131726.54224488.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, thank you for the comments. > > At Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:57

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v5] GSSAPI encryption support

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> We need to be careful here, backward-compatibility is critical for >> both the client and the server, or to put it in other words, an >> uptables client should

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi, Michael 23.02.2016 10:17, Michael Paquier пишет: Attached is a set of patches implementing a couple of things that have been discussed, so let's roll in. Those 4 patches are aimed at putting in-core basics for the concept I call password protocol aging, which is a way to allow multiple

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0

On 24 February 2016 at 23:26, Amit Kapila wrote: > From past few weeks, we were facing some performance degradation in the > read-only performance bench marks in high-end machines. My colleague > Mithun, has tried by reverting commit ac1d794 which seems to degrade the >

Re: [HACKERS] GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel

Hi, On 02/25/2016 05:32 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: Well, turns out there's a quite significant difference, actually. The index sizes I get (quite stable after multiple runs): 9.5 : 2428 MB 9.6 + alone cleanup : 730 MB 9.6 + pending lock : 488 MB In attach modified alone_cleanup

Re: [HACKERS] GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel

Well, turns out there's a quite significant difference, actually. The index sizes I get (quite stable after multiple runs): 9.5 : 2428 MB 9.6 + alone cleanup : 730 MB 9.6 + pending lock : 488 MB In attach modified alone_cleanup patch which doesn't break cleanup process as it does

[HACKERS] FDW handling count(*) through AnalyzeForeignTable or other constant time push-down

Hey all, I'm building a FDW around a column-store backend (similar to CStore but for genomic data!). I have tables in the billions of rows, and have a common query pattern of asking for the table size (i.e. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM big_fdw_table; ). This is a read-optimized system in which I know

Re: [HACKERS] Request for Code Review: BPGSQL

W dniu 11.02.2016 o 14:26, Jacek Wielemborek pisze: > W dniu 11.02.2016 o 14:06, Rich Jones pisze: >> Hello, team! >> >> I am writing on behalf of the BPGSQL Project [1] to request a code audit >> from a core PGSQL team member. >> >> The current maintainer is worried about the security of the

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

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > 02.02.2016 15:50, Anastasia Lubennikova: > > As promised, here's the new version of the patch "including_columns_4.0". > I fixed all issues except some points mentioned below. Thanks for the update

Re: [HACKERS] GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Thank you for remembering this problem, at least for me. > >>> Well, turns out there's a quite significant difference, actually. The >>> index sizes I get (quite stable after multiple runs): >>> >>> 9.5 : 2428 MB >>>

[HACKERS] create opclass documentation outdated

Hello, I just saw that the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS documentation doesn't mention that BRIN indexes also support the STORAGE parameter. Patch attached. Regards -- Julien Rouhaud http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_opclass.sgml

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v5] GSSAPI encryption support

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> David Steele writes: >>> On 2/10/16 4:06 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: Hello friends, For your consideration, here is a new

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Valery Popov wrote: > Hi, Michael > > > 23.02.2016 10:17, Michael Paquier пишет: >> >> Attached is a set of patches implementing a couple of things that have >> been discussed, so let's roll in. >> >> Those 4 patches are aimed at putting

Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

> Added to the commitfest 2016-03. [CF] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/ -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> The behavior of this function is surprising to me. >> >> select substring_similarity('dog' , 'hotdogpound') ; >> >> substring_similarity >> -- >> 0.25 >> > Substring search was

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:53:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Well, as far as I know XC doesn't support data redistribution between > > nodes and I saw good benchmarks of that, as well as XL. > > XC does support that in 1.2 with a very basic approach (coded that > years ago), though it

Re: [HACKERS] get current log file

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Euler Taveira >> wrote: >>> To pass last_syslogger_file_time, we have 2 solutions: 1, add a >>> global variable to record last_syslogger_file_time which shared by >>> backends and syslogger, so

Re: [HACKERS] create opclass documentation outdated

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/02/2016 23:12, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 02/25/2016 09:13 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I just saw that the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS documentation doesn't >> mention that BRIN indexes also support the STORAGE parameter. > > Good catch!

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached latest patch includes document patch. > >> When I changed s_s_names to 'hoge*' and reloaded the configuration file, >> the server crashed unexpectedly with the following error message. >> This is obviously a

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > > > So much better. Clearly, there are cases where this will over-estimate the > cardinality - for example when the values are somehow correlated. > I applied your patch, which caused a few regression

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:01:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

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

Hello, Tomas. my cerebral cortext gets squeezed by jumping from parser to planner. At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:13:22 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote in <56ccf5a2.5040...@2ndquadrant.com> > Hi, > > On 12/06/2015 11:48 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >/* > > * Frequently,

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

Hi, On 02/25/2016 11:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Hello, Tomas. my cerebral cortext gets squeezed by jumping from parser to planner. LOL At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:13:22 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote in <56ccf5a2.5040...@2ndquadrant.com> Hi, On 12/06/2015 11:48

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v5] GSSAPI encryption support

On 2/25/16 2:08 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Not that I can immediately see. As long as the client and server are >> both patched, everything should work. My process is the same as with >> previous versions of

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

On 26 February 2016 at 10:58, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Here is a rebased set after the conflicts created by e640093, with the > following changes: > Thanks for rebasing on top of that. Not totally fair when your patch came first, but I guess it was simpler to merge

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

Hello, This is a (maybe) committer-ready patch of a Tomas Vondra's project. This patch applies on the current master and passes make check. This is to exclude some base-estrict clauses that are implied by index predicates on index scans on partial indexes. First, this patch adds a new member

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

On 26 February 2016 at 13:43, Michael Paquier wrote: > > my $caughtup_query = "SELECT '$current_lsn'::pg_lsn <= > > pg_last_xlog_replay_location()"; > > use > > my $caughtup_query = "SELECT pg_xlog_location_diff('$current_lsn', > > pg_last_xlog_replay_location()) <=

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 24 February 2016 at 23:26, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> From past few weeks, we were facing some performance degradation in the >> read-only performance bench marks in high-end machines. My

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

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks for your enthusiasm. Now, to do an auto-critic of my patch: >> + if ($params{allows_streaming}) >> + { >> + print $conf

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > Hi, > > On 02/26/2016 12:16 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: >> >> It is not hard to write test cases where your patched version overestimates >> the number of rows by a very similar factor as the old code

Re: [HACKERS] create opclass documentation outdated

On 02/25/2016 09:13 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Hello, > > I just saw that the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS documentation doesn't mention > that BRIN indexes also support the STORAGE parameter. Good catch! > Patch attached. I think this is the wrong approach; that parenthetical list now represents a

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, Thanks for the new patch. At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:54 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:38:22 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20160226.103822.12680005.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, Thanks for the new patch. > > > At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:54 +0900, Masahiko Sawada

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > >> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: >> >> >> >> So much better. Clearly, there are cases where this will over-estimate the >> cardinality - for example when the

Re: [HACKERS] insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

On 1/29/16 1:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to >> > include the table name, so it might look like: >> > >> > 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename >> > >> > Comments? > +1. I noticed that this limitation is present for

Re: [HACKERS] Writing new unit tests with PostgresNode

Thanks, pushed. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, On 02/26/2016 12:16 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: It is not hard to write test cases where your patched version overestimates the number of rows by a very similar factor as the old code underestimates them. My very first test, which was not specifically designed to demonstrate this, happens to

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

Why not based it on "Exclusion Constraint" ? Most discussions as of late seems to focus on Range overlaps which appeal (I would think) is that it supports both "equality" and "overlaps", two popular partitioning schemes. "Equality" as in "value1 = value2" can be implemented with "range overlaps"

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

Why not based it on "Exclusion Constraint" ? Most discussions as of late seems to focus on Range overlaps which appeal (I would think) is that it supports both "equality" and "overlaps", two popular partitioning schemes. "Equality" as in "value1 = value2" can be implemented with "range overlaps"

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Attached latest patch includes document patch. > When I changed s_s_names to 'hoge*' and reloaded the configuration file, > the server crashed unexpectedly with the following error message. > This is obviously a bug. Fixed. > - allows any byte except a double quote in double-quoted >