Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-01-02 16:55 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello, > > In my proposal was support for transaction scope - ON COMMIT RESET clause should be ok >>> >>> Could you update the wiki, both the proposal and the use-case >>> implementation, to reflect this point? >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-01-02 Thread amul sul
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/16/16 10:38 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: >> 2016-12-16 20:17 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut >> : And one more thing... Can we have BackgroundSessionExecute()

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

2017-01-02 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >>> >>> Well, flushing the meta-data of pg_twophase is really going to be far >>> cheaper than the many pages done until

Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.

2017-01-02 Thread Mithun Cy
Thanks Amit for detailed review, and pointing out various issues in the patch. I have tried to fix all of your comments as below. On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > 1. > usage "into to .." in above comment seems to be wrong.usage "into to .." in >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.

2017-01-02 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/11/30 17:53, Amit Langote wrote: >> >> On 2016/11/30 17:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> >>> Done. I modified the patch so that any inval in pg_foreign_server also >>> blows the whole plan cache. > > >> I

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

2017-01-02 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > There is a common coding pattern that goes like this: > > RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc); > Assert(IsA(rinfo, RestrictInfo)); > I propose a macro castNode() that combines the assertion and the cast, > so

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

2017-01-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > Yeah, it seems that if you want to know whether you are using SSL, then > > we already have that. I don't see the need for this new read-only > setting. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Craig, What if setup_user() succeeds as a function but the transaction it belongs to fails for some reason (eg deferred constraints, other operation related to setting user up but outside of this function fails, there is replication issue... whatever, a transaction may fail by

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-01-02 10:31:28 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > We must listen to feedback, not just try to blast through it. Not agreeing with your priorities isn't "blasting through feedback". -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Replication slot xmin is not reset if HS feedback is turned off while standby is shut down

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 21 December 2016 at 13:23, Simon Riggs wrote: > Fix it up and I'll commit. Thanks for the report. I was hoping for some more effort from Ants to correct this. I'll commit Craig's new tests for hs feedback before this, so it can go in with a Tap test, so I imagine

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-01-02 11:48 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > In my proposal was support for transaction scope - ON COMMIT RESET clause >> should be ok >> > > Could you update the wiki, both the proposal and the use-case > implementation, to reflect this point? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 January 2017 at 10:13, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-02 11:05:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> My claim here is that a lot *fewer* people have come to expect this >> performance optimization, than would (quite reasonably) expect that backups >> should work on a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgresNode.pm enhancements, pg_lsn helper, and some more recovery tests

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 14 November 2016 at 07:01, Craig Ringer wrote: > Every test I write with the TAP framework for recovery seems to need > to wait for one node to catch up to another or examine replication > slot state. So: attached is a patch to add helper methods for these > tasks. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Please do submit a patch for it. The way this is supposed to go is someone submits a patch and they receive feedback, then act on that feedback. If I was able to get away with deflecting all review comments with a simple

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-01-02 11:05:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > My claim here is that a lot *fewer* people have come to expect this > performance optimization, than would (quite reasonably) expect that backups > should work on a system without taking it down for restart to reconfigure > it to support that.

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > The conclusion has been that our defaults should really allow people to take > backups of their systems, and they currently don't. > > Making things run faster is tuning, and people should expect to do that if > they need

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 January 2017 at 09:48, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm willing to assist in a project to allow changing wal_level online > in this release. Please let's follow that path. wal_level looks like one of the easier ones to change without a server restart There are actions to

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2017-01-02 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 02/01/17 05:23, Steve Singer wrote: > On 12/30/2016 05:53 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I rebased this for the changes made to inheritance and merged in the >> fixes that I previously sent separately. >> >> >> > > > I'm not sure if the following is expected or not > > I have 1

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-01-02 10:39 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Craig, > > What if setup_user() succeeds as a function but the transaction it belongs >>> to fails for some reason (eg deferred constraints, other operation related >>> to setting user up but outside of this function fails,

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 January 2017 at 09:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > >> > >> On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Please do submit a patch for it. > > The way this is supposed to go is someone submits a patch and they > receive feedback, then act on that

Re: [HACKERS] Replication slot xmin is not reset if HS feedback is turned off while standby is shut down

2017-01-02 Thread Craig Ringer
On 2 Jan. 2017 20:20, "Simon Riggs" wrote: On 21 December 2016 at 13:23, Simon Riggs wrote: > Fix it up and I'll commit. Thanks for the report. I was hoping for some more effort from Ants to correct this. I'll commit Craig's new tests for hs

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the beginning of a CF. > > Here's an actual patch to change: > > > max_wal_senders=10 > max_replication_slots=20 +1 If that doesn't fly, it seems easy enough to

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 January 2017 at 09:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Pavel, In my proposal was support for transaction scope - ON COMMIT RESET clause should be ok Could you update the wiki, both the proposal and the use-case implementation, to reflect this point? Moreover, is there any actual use-case for non-transactional secure half-persistent

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Yep, the variable value must be rolled back, I think. Attention! rollback is significantly expensive than RESET. I'm quite unclear about the difference... Transactional for an unshared only-in-memory session object is probably easy to implement, no WAL is needed... So I do not see the

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-01-02 20:16 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/2/17 12:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> SELECT (polymorphiccomposite).* INTO c1, c2; -- take first two columns >> >> SELECT xx FROM tab ORDER BY yy INTO target -- more rows not a issue >> >> I understand plpgsql_extra_errors

Re: [HACKERS] Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > But that doesn't really detract from my point, which is that it's > totally silly for us to imagine that char and word-wide atomic ops are > interchangeable on all platforms and we can flip a coin to decide which > to use as long as the configure probes don't fail outright. Even given

[HACKERS] Shrink volume of default make output

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
The recent thread about compiler warnings got me thinking about how it's essentially impossible to notice warnings with default make output. Perhaps everyone just uses make -s by default, though that's a bit annoying since you get no output unless something does warn (and then you don't know

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Joe Conway
On 01/02/2017 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> If there is agreement on fixing these warnings, other than the bison >> generated warning, I would be happy to do it. I'd also be happy to look >> for a fix the bison warning as well if desired, but that should be

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

2017-01-02 Thread Greg Stark
On 25 December 2016 at 09:40, Lewis, Ian (Microstar Laboratories) wrote: > So, the current behavior already breaks many tools unless one accepts > that all symbols on the server are lower case. At root, based on reading > the threads you provided, this probably indicates

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway writes: > On 01/02/2017 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The bison issue is discussed in >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1WpjkB-0003zA-N4%40gemulon.postgresql.org > Ah, thanks. I vaguely remember that thread now. > Looks like there was some consensus

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested General comments: There was some discussion about the impact of this on

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

2017-01-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the beginning of a CF. > > > > Here's an actual patch to change: > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-01-02 18:36 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/1/17 12:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I wrote some initial patch >> >> Do you think so has sense to continue in this topic? >> > > Perhaps I'm not understanding what plpgsql_extra_errors does, but I don't > think either of

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > Shouldn't this be back-patched? The plancache warning goes back through > 9.2 (at least) and the lwlocks warning through 9.5 (or maybe it was 9.4). Warnings are going to be different for each individual developer, but I am

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Joe Conway
On 01/02/2017 10:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> Shouldn't this be back-patched? The plancache warning goes back through >> 9.2 (at least) and the lwlocks warning through 9.5 (or maybe it was 9.4). > > Warnings are going to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote: On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/2/17 12:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: SELECT (polymorphiccomposite).* INTO c1, c2; -- take first two columns SELECT xx FROM tab ORDER BY yy INTO target -- more rows not a issue I understand plpgsql_extra_errors as feature that can be enabled on developer, test, or preprod environments and

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Perhaps we should split the difference and do what we did for XML: >>> provide a contrib module with alias functions

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

2017-01-02 Thread David Steele
On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are >>> almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the directory >>> change, >> >> Some

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait

2017-01-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 12/23/16 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Is there still a use case for --no-wait in the real world? >> >> Sure. Most system startup scripts aren't going to want to

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

2017-01-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Lewis, Ian (Microstar Laboratories) wrote: > I assume you are talking about general purpose tools that attempt to > interact with any database in any configuration. Obviously, a purpose > built tool, such as our own internal database

Re: [HACKERS] Make pg_basebackup -x stream the default

2017-01-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 31 December 2016 at 23:47, Michael Paquier wrote: > Other than that the patch looks good to me. Tests pass. +1 -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/2/17 12:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: But, I can easily imagine a good number of people deciding they want mixed case on the server, and so quoting their identifiers. And, then deciding PostgreSQL is defective, rather than deciding their favorite administration or query tool is defective.

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait

2017-01-02 Thread Ryan Murphy
> Making --wait the default may or may not be sensible -- I'm not sure > -- but removing --no-wait is clearly a bad idea, and we shouldn't do > it. The fact that the problems created by removing it might be > solvable doesn't mean that it's a good idea to create them in the > first place. > > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway writes: > If there is agreement on fixing these warnings, other than the bison > generated warning, I would be happy to do it. I'd also be happy to look > for a fix the bison warning as well if desired, but that should be > handled separately I would think. The

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Attention! rollback is significantly expensive than RESET. I'm quite unclear about the difference... Transactional for an unshared only-in-memory session object is probably easy to implement, no WAL is needed... So I do not see the difference you have to store previous value This does

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello, In my proposal was support for transaction scope - ON COMMIT RESET clause should be ok Could you update the wiki, both the proposal and the use-case implementation, to reflect this point? Moreover, is there any actual use-case for non-transactional secure half-persistent session

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behavior with PG_TRY

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/2/17 1:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: In the attached patch (snippet below), I'm seeing something strange with args->in.r.atts[]. Prior to entering the PG_TRY block, I can inspect things in lldb just fine: (lldb) call

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing pgbench's logging of transaction timestamps

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > BTW, why is it that the --aggregate-interval option is unsupported on > Windows? Is that an artifact of the same disease of assuming too much > about how instr_time is represented? I don't see any very good reason > for it other than the weird decision to store the result of >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the directory change, Some *xlog* functions are commonly used to measure replay

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/1/17 12:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I wrote some initial patch Do you think so has sense to continue in this topic? Perhaps I'm not understanding what plpgsql_extra_errors does, but I don't think either of these should depend on that being true. IMO these two checks should be default

Re: [HACKERS] Shrink volume of default make output

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > The recent thread about compiler warnings got me thinking about how it's > essentially impossible to notice warnings with default make output. > Perhaps everyone just uses make -s by default, though that's a bit > annoying since you get no output

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN .. ERROR: attribute .. has wrong type

2017-01-02 Thread Justin Pryzby
I originally sent to psql-general some months ago, but it appears it was never delivered (perhaps I wasn't properly subscribed?). Failed to alter table eric_umts_rnc_utrancell_metrics: ERROR: attribute 361 has wrong type DETAIL: Table has type integer, but query expects smallint. We've seen

Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag

2017-01-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> I agree that the capability to measure

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warnings

2017-01-02 Thread Joe Conway
On 01/02/2017 10:55 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On the 9.2 and 9.3 branches I see two warnings: > This one once: > --- > plancache.c:1197:9: warning: ‘plan’ may be used uninitialized in this > function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > > And this one once per bison file: > --- >

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

2017-01-02 Thread Lewis, Ian (Microstar Laboratories)
gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark wrote: > But the problem with configurable quoting rules is a bit different. > Imagine your application later decides to depend on PostGIS. So you load the PostGIS extension and perhaps also some useful functions you found on

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN .. ERROR: attribute .. has wrong type

2017-01-02 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:25:05AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > I don't have a clear recollection how I solved this in July; possibly by > > restoring the (historic, partition) table from backup. > > > > Last week again again just now (both under 9.6), a colleague found that he > > was > >

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

2017-01-02 Thread Lewis, Ian (Microstar Laboratories)
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] wrote: > I'm not sure there's any way to split the baby here: tool authors will obviously prefer that PostgreSQL's behavior in this area be invariable, while people trying to develop portable database applications will prefer configurability. > As

Re: [HACKERS] What is "index returned tuples in wrong order" for recheck supposed to guard against?

2017-01-02 Thread Regina Obe
>> If things are out of order, why isn't just going to was_exact = false >> good enough? >> >> I'm not sure if the mistake is in our PostGIS code or something in >> PostgreSQL recheck logic. >> If I change the elog(ERROR ...) to a elog(NOTICE, the answers are >> correct and sort order is

[HACKERS] Causal reads take II

2017-01-02 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi hackers, Here is a new version of my "causal reads" patch (see the earlier thread from the 9.6 development cycle[1]), which provides a way to avoid stale reads when load balancing with streaming replication. To try it out: Set up a primary and some standbys, and put "causal_reads_timeout =

Re: [HACKERS] What is "index returned tuples in wrong order" for recheck supposed to guard against?

2017-01-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Regina Obe wrote: > I've been trying to troubleshoot the cause of this PostGIS recheck bug we > have reported by two people so far. The last test was a nice simple > repeatable one that triggered the issue: > >

Re: [HACKERS] PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan [take-2]

2017-01-02 Thread Kohei KaiGai
Oops, I oversight this patch was marked as "returned with feedback", not "moved to the next CF". Its status has not been changed since the last update. (Code was revised according to the last comment by Jeevan, but CF-Nov was time up at that time.) How do I handle the patch? 2016-12-05 16:49

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behavior with PG_TRY

2017-01-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/2/17 1:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jim Nasby >> wrote: >> >> Looks strange, what is the value of 'i'? Did you get the same result >> if you try to

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behavior with PG_TRY

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > In the attached patch (snippet below), I'm seeing something strange with > args->in.r.atts[]. Did you try comparing the apparent values of "args" before and after entering PG_TRY? > I saw the comment on PG_TRY about marking things as volatile, but

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

2017-01-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > Yeah, it seems that if you want to know whether you are using SSL, then > we already have that. I don't see the need for this new read-only setting. I concur --- there might be use for more reporting about SSL status, but that patch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgresNode.pm enhancements, pg_lsn helper, and some more recovery tests

2017-01-02 Thread Craig Ringer
On 2 January 2017 at 20:17, Simon Riggs wrote: > Bit confused... can't see a caller for wait_for_slot_catchup() and the > slot tests don't call it AFAICS. The recovery tests for decoding on standby will use it. I can delay adding it until then. > Also can't see anywhere

Re: [HACKERS] Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

2017-01-02 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
The patch has white space error git apply /mnt/hgfs/tmp/comment_on_current_database_v1.patch /mnt/hgfs/tmp/comment_on_current_database_v1.patch:52: trailing whitespace. * schema-qualified or catalog-qualified. warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors. The patch compiles clean, regression is

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

2017-01-02 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> There is a common coding pattern that goes like this: >> >> RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc); >> Assert(IsA(rinfo, RestrictInfo));