Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Christoph Berg writes: > as reported by Debian's OpenSSL maintainers, PostgreSQL is failing to > build against a snapshot of the upcoming 1.1.0 version. The errors you report make it sound like they broke API compatibility wholesale. Was that really their intent? If so, where

Re: [HACKERS] Non-text EXPLAIN output for partial aggregation

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I noticed that the EXPLAIN code is set up so that in non-text output > modes, you get output like this for partial-aggregate plans: > >"Node Type": "Aggregate", + >"Strategy": "Plain",

Re: [HACKERS] Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
David Rowley writes: > I can't help wonder how plan to allow future expansions of > non-serialized partial aggregates giving that in setrefs.c you're > making a hard assumption that mark_partial_aggref() should always > receive the SERIAL versions of the aggsplit.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallelized polymorphic aggs, and aggtype vs aggoutputtype

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch writes: > What, if anything, is yet required to close this 9.6 open item? The original complaint about polymorphic aggs is fixed to my satisfaction. The business about how non-text-format EXPLAIN reports parallel plans (<16002.1466972...@sss.pgh.pa.us>) remains, but

[HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Christoph Berg
Hi, as reported by Debian's OpenSSL maintainers, PostgreSQL is failing to build against a snapshot of the upcoming 1.1.0 version. The report was for 9.5.3, but I can reproduce it in HEAD as well: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=828510 > OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released.

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford >> wrote: >>> To me, 2016-02-30 is an invalid date that should generate an error. > >> I don't

Re: [HACKERS] How to kill a Background worker and Its metadata

2016-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Akash Agrawal wrote: > I've created a background worker and I am using Postgresql-9.4. This > bgworker handles the job queue dynamically and goes to sleep if there is no > job to process within the next 1 hour. > > Now, I want to have a

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > Yes, we could do that, but I do not think we should check for the existence > of a backwards compatibility macro. Actually I think we may want to skip > much of the OpenSSL initialization code when compiling against

Re: [HACKERS] fixing subplan/subquery confusion

2016-06-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016

Re: [HACKERS] How to kill a Background worker and Its metadata

2016-06-27 Thread Craig Ringer
On 28 June 2016 at 02:27, Akash Agrawal wrote: > Hi, > > I've created a background worker and I am using Postgresql-9.4. This > bgworker handles the job queue dynamically and goes to sleep if there is no > job to process within the next 1 hour. > > Now, I want to have a

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

2016-06-27 Thread Julien Rouhaud
On 27/06/2016 07:18, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> I think as the parallel_terminate_count is only modified by postmaster >> and read by other processes, such an operation will be considered >> atomic. We don't need to

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Andreas Karlsson
On 06/27/2016 05:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Christoph Berg writes: as reported by Debian's OpenSSL maintainers, PostgreSQL is failing to build against a snapshot of the upcoming 1.1.0 version. The errors you report make it sound like they broke API compatibility wholesale. Was

Re: [HACKERS] parallel workers and client encoding

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Modulo that last point, here is a patch that shows how I think this could > work, in combination with the patch I posted previously that sets the > "client encoding" in the parallel worker to the server

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> >> In an outer join we have to

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

2016-06-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 27/06/2016 07:18, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >>> >>> I think as the parallel_terminate_count is only modified by postmaster >>> and

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2016/06/27 18:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: I found another bug in error handling of whole-row references in join pushdown; conversion_error_callback fails to take

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/06/27 18:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Etsuro Fujita >> > wrote: >> > > I found another bug in error

[HACKERS] ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist

2016-06-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Hi, Consider the below testcase: CREATE TABLE tab( c1 INT NOT NULL, c2 INT NOT NULL ); INSERT INTO tab VALUES (1, 2); INSERT INTO tab VALUES (2, 1); INSERT INTO tab VALUES (1, 2); case 1: SELECT c.c1, c.c2 from tab C WHERE c.c2 = ANY ( SELECT 1 FROM tab A WHERE a.c2 IN ( SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] Broken handling of lwlocknames.h

2016-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Tom Lane 2016-06-27 <31398.1467036...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> Bjorn Munch reported off-list that this sequence: >> >> unpack tarball, cd into it >> ./configure ... >> cd src/test/regress >> make >> >> no longer works in

Re: [HACKERS] A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code

2016-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Piotr Stefaniak > wrote: >>> while investigating the shm_mq code and its testing module I made some >>> cosmetic improvements there. You can see them in the

Re: [HACKERS] fixing subplan/subquery confusion

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila writes: > I had couple of questions [1] related to that patch. See if you find > those as relevant? I do not think those cases are directly relevant: you're talking about appendrels not single, unflattened RTE_SUBQUERY rels. In the subquery case, my view of

Re: [HACKERS] Broken handling of lwlocknames.h

2016-06-27 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Tom Lane 2016-06-27 <31398.1467036...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Bjorn Munch reported off-list that this sequence: > > unpack tarball, cd into it > ./configure ... > cd src/test/regress > make > > no longer works in 9.6beta2, where it did work in previous releases. > I have confirmed both statements.

[HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:27:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> One problem that I've realized that is related to this is that the way >> that the consider_parallel flag is being set for upper rels is almost >> totally

Re: [HACKERS] MinMaxAggPath vs. parallel-safety

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item ("consider >> whether MinMaxAggPath might fail to be parallel-safe"). > Currently, MinMaxAggPath is never

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I'm not sure how to proceed here. I have asked Tom several times to > look at the WIP patch and offer comments, but he so far has not done > so. Oh, I thought you were still actively working on it. What patch do you want me to review?

[HACKERS] fixing subplan/subquery confusion

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >> > In practice, we don't yet have the ability for >> > parallel-safe paths from subqueries to affect planning at

[HACKERS] MinMaxAggPath vs. parallel-safety

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> I looked into this and found that the costs are considered fuzzily the >> same, and then add_path prefers the slightly-worse path on the grounds >> that it is marked parallel_safe while the MinMaxAgg path is not. It seems

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Andreas Karlsson
On 06/27/2016 08:12 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: Re: Andreas Karlsson 2016-06-27 <8a0a5959-0b83-3dc8-d9e7-66ce8c1c5...@proxel.se> The errors you report make it sound like they broke API compatibility wholesale. Was that really their intent? If so, where are the changes documented? I do not see

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

2016-06-27 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Andreas Karlsson 2016-06-27 <8a0a5959-0b83-3dc8-d9e7-66ce8c1c5...@proxel.se> > > The errors you report make it sound like they broke API compatibility > > wholesale. Was that really their intent? If so, where are the changes > > documented? > > I do not see that they have documented the

Re: [HACKERS] fixing subplan/subquery confusion

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The above-described topic is currently a

[HACKERS] How to kill a Background worker and Its metadata

2016-06-27 Thread Akash Agrawal
Hi, I've created a background worker and I am using Postgresql-9.4. This bgworker handles the job queue dynamically and goes to sleep if there is no job to process within the next 1 hour. Now, I want to have a mechanism to wake the bgworker up in case if someone adds a new job while the bgworker

Re: [HACKERS] MinMaxAggPath vs. parallel-safety

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item ("consider >>> whether MinMaxAggPath

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I'm not sure how to proceed here. I have asked Tom several times to >> look at the WIP patch and offer comments, but he so far has not done >> so. > > Oh, I thought you were

Re: [HACKERS] fixing subplan/subquery confusion

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item ("fix >> possible confusion between subqueries and

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Oh, I thought you were still actively working on it. What patch do >> you want me to review? > I'm looking for an opinion on the WIP patch attached to: >

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2016-06-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:00:49PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Ok. I'm having trouble seeing this justified as a bug fix - the docs > > clearly state our behavior is intentional. Improved behavior, yes, but > > that's a feature and we're in beta2. Please be specific if you believe I've > >

Re: [HACKERS] [HITB-Announce] HITB2016AMS Videos & GSEC Singapore Voting

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Hafez Kamal wrote: > Videos from the 7th annual HITB Security Conference are being released > this week! > > HITBSecConf Youtube channel: http://youtube.com/hitbsecconf > > Talks from the #HITB2016AMS CommSec track have already been

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> * Not following what you did to apply_projection_to_path, and the comment >> therein isn't helping. > Gee, I wonder why not? :-) > The basic problem here is that applying a

Re: [HACKERS] [HITB-Announce] HITB2016AMS Videos & GSEC Singapore Voting

2016-06-27 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Hafez Kamal wrote: > > See you in Singapore! > > This seems totally off-topic. Shouldn't a post like this result in a ban? It is off-topic. Sorry that it got through. We get dozens of these every week, and the

Re: [HACKERS] parallel workers and client encoding

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Modulo that last point, here is a patch that shows how I think this could >> work, in combination with the patch I posted

Re: [HACKERS] Improving executor performance

2016-06-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:25:27PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > As a motivation, here's a somewhat juicy example of the benefits that > > can be gained (disabled parallelism, results vary too much): > > SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Oh, I thought you were still actively working on it. What patch do >>> you want me to review? > >> I'm

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code

2016-06-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing > > it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities. > > It's not

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> * Not following what you did to apply_projection_to_path, and the comment >>> therein isn't helping. > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> In an outer join we have to differentiate between a row being null > (because > >> there was no joining row on nullable side)

Re: [HACKERS] [HITB-Announce] HITB2016AMS Videos & GSEC Singapore Voting

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Hafez Kamal wrote: >> > See you in Singapore! >> >> This seems totally off-topic. Shouldn't a post like this result in a ban? > > It

Re: [HACKERS] A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: >> while investigating the shm_mq code and its testing module I made some >> cosmetic improvements there. You can see them in the attached diff file. > > Revised patch attached. The first hunk of this corrects

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation fixes for pg_visibility

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> While looking at the module I

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation fixes for pg_visibility

2016-06-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation fixes for pg_visibility

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs: >> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input

Re: [HACKERS] fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Seems to me that it should generally be the case that consider_parallel >> would already be clear on the parent rel if the tlist isn't parallel safe, >> and if it isn't we

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation fixes for pg_visibility

2016-06-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one page of a relation? > > What I'd like to be able to do is to stop scanning the relation once > one defective tuple has been found: if there is at least

[HACKERS] Broken handling of lwlocknames.h

2016-06-27 Thread Tom Lane
Bjorn Munch reported off-list that this sequence: unpack tarball, cd into it ./configure ... cd src/test/regress make no longer works in 9.6beta2, where it did work in previous releases. I have confirmed both statements. The failure looks like gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/06/25 4:14, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Committed that way. >> > > Thanks for taking care of this! > > I found another bug in error handling of whole-row references in join > pushdown;

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference

2016-06-27 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2016/06/25 4:14, Robert Haas wrote: Committed that way. Thanks for taking care of this! I found another bug in error handling of whole-row references in join pushdown; conversion_error_callback fails to take into account that get_relid_attribute_name(Oid relid, AttrNumber attnum) can't

Re: [HACKERS] Cleanup in contrib/postgres_fdw/deparse.c

2016-06-27 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On 2016/06/25 3:39, Robert Haas wrote: Seems like a good cleanup. Committed. Thanks for committing the patch! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: