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

At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:07:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw

On 2017/01/30 21:05, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2017/01/27 21:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Sorry, I started thinking we went in the wrong direction. I added to deparseSelectStmtForRel build_subquery_tlists, which

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote: > 31 янв. 2017 г., в 9:50, Michael Paquier > написал(а): > >> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback. > > Michael, sorry, but why? Because I have been through many patches today. >

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

On 2017/01/31 18:24, Abbas Butt wrote: Postgres_fdw optimizes remote queries by pushing down the where clause. This feature does not work consistently when the query is executed from within a pl/pgsql function. The optimization works when the function executes the query for the first 5 times,

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > To start > with let us see the plan of TPC-H query (Q-22) and understand how it > can be improved. > > Limit >InitPlan 1 (returns $0) > -> Finalize Aggregate >-> Gather >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Thanks for the update. I have some comments > Thanks for the review. > > 0002-hash-support-alloc-free-v14.patch: > > > + if (tb->alloc) > + { > > The memory for tb->alloc is allocated always, is the if check still

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 31 Jan. 2017 19:29, "Michael Paquier" wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Now, if it's simpler to just xlog the gid at COMMIT PREPARED time when > wal_level >= logical I don't think that's the end of the world. But >

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 31.01.2017 09:29, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Now, if it's simpler to just xlog the gid at COMMIT PREPARED time when wal_level >= logical I don't think that's the end of the world. But since we already have almost

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

Hello, thank you for the revised patch. The only comment from me is about comments on the new over*2D funnctions. At Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:12:31 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote in <4450e7a6-01e7-0fb2-a01e-98fb5405d...@postgrespro.ru> > On 30.01.2017 12:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI

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

2017-01-31 11:10 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:07:55 +0900, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in 8v0X6A4gKQb2Uc=mc+...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Pavel Stehule >

[HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

Hi, Postgres_fdw optimizes remote queries by pushing down the where clause. This feature does not work consistently when the query is executed from within a pl/pgsql function. The optimization works when the function executes the query for the first 5 times, and fails afterwards. Example: Step 1:

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:25:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Hello, this is the revised version of

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

2017-01-24 21:38 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > * SELECT (xmltable(..)).* + regress tests > > * compilation and regress tests without --with-libxml > > Thanks. I just realized that this is doing more work than necessary -- > I think it would be

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/01/31 18:24, Abbas Butt wrote: > >> Postgres_fdw optimizes remote queries by pushing down the where clause. >> This feature does not work consistently when the query is executed from >> within a pl/pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >>> During debugging I found that subplan created for below

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

On 2017/01/31 19:53, Abbas Butt wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: On 2017/01/31 18:24, Abbas Butt wrote: Postgres_fdw optimizes remote queries by pushing down the where clause.

Re: [HACKERS] sequence data type

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > And here is a rebased patch for the original feature. I think this > addresses all raised concerns and suggestions now. Thanks for the new version. That looks good to me after an extra lookup. --

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Sorry, I attached wrong version patch of pg_fdw_xact_resovler. Please > use attached patch. This patch has been moved to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Patch received feedback at the end of commitfest. > Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "moved to next CF". > Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch. And the thread has died as well

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Jesper Pedersen > wrote: >> On 12/27/2016 01:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> After recent commit's 7819ba1e and 25216c98, this patch requires a >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Rebased series attached, on top of current master (which includes > logical replicaiton). > > I'm inclined to think I should split out a few of the changes from > 0005, roughly along the lines of the bullet points in

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> Attached is V7 of the patch. >> >> I am doing some

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Other changes: > > * Also modified CreateLocalJoinPath so that we pass outer/inner paths, not > outer/inner rels, because it would be more flexible for the FDW to build the > local-join path from paths it chose.

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I noticed that this patch is conflicting with 665d1fa (Logical > replication) so I rebased this. Only executor/Makefile > conflicted. The patches still apply, moved to CF 2017-03. Be aware of that: $

Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Mithun Cy wrote: >> HashMetaPage _hash_getcachedmetap(Relation rel, Buffer *metabuf, bool >> force_refresh); >> >> If the cache is initialized and force_refresh is not true, then this >> just returns the cached data, and the metabuf

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Okay, here is v3 with some small fixes and rebased on top of rename. > Also it's rebased without the > 0005-Add-separate-synchronous-commit-control-for-logical--v18.patch as I > don't expect that one to go

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > That's where you've misunderstood - it isn't committed yet. The point or > this change is to allow us to do logical decoding at the PREPARE TRANSACTION > point. The xact is not yet committed or rolled back. Yes, I got

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com] >> I think it is better to document in some way if we decide to go-ahead with >> the patch. > > Sure, I added these sentences. Patch has been moved to

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Thanks for the review. > Let's wait for the committer's opinion. I have moved this patch to CF 2017-03 to wait for this to happen. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Forbid use of LF and CR characters in database and role names

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Patch moved to CF 2017-01. > > And nothing has happened since, the patch rotting a bit because of a > conflict in pg_dump's

Re: [HACKERS] Forbid use of LF and CR characters in database and role names

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi >> wrote: >>> I applied your fixed patch

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I propose that we should finish the job by inventing CatalogTupleDelete(), >> which for the moment would be a trivial wrapper around >> simple_heap_delete(), maybe just a macro for it. >> >> If there's no

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Other changes: > * I went back to make_outerrel_subquery and make_innerrel_subquery, which > are flags to indicate whether to deparse the input relations as subqueries. > is_subquery_rel would work well for

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-02-01 6:05 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > There is no code yet. Code review and testing is where things get firmer. > > > > My personal stance right now is that I'd like to see

Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> +/* >> + * Leave if no masking functions defined, this is possible in the case >> + * resource managers generating just

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

At Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:13:04 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170201.121304.267734380.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > > I tried a committed Logical Replication environment. I found > > > that replication between databases of

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, the reason I think it's good cleanup is that it's something that my > colleagues at Salesforce also had to do as part of putting PG on top of a > different storage engine that had different ideas about index handling. > Essentially it's providing a bit of abstraction as to

Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> I've attached the patch with the modified changes. PFA. Thanks Robert for taking your time for the review. I'll update the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Rushabh Lathia > wrote: >> > The patch needs a rebase after the commit 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec4. Is an update going to be provided? I have moved this

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > If we want to save the 4 bytes per xmin advance (probably not worth > caring) we can instead skip setting it on the standby, in which case > it'll be potentially wrong until the next checkpoint. I'd rather make > sure

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

> >> However, ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches() may change the >> number of buckets; the patch does not seem to account for spaceUsed changes >> because of that. > > That's what this hunk is intended to do: > > @@ -795,6 +808,12 @@ ExecHashIncreaseNumBuckets(HashJoinTable hashtable) >

Re: [HACKERS] Reporting planning time with EXPLAIN

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Here are patches for following Those patches have received no code-level reviews, so moved to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The latest patch available still applies, one person has added his > name (John G) in October though there have been no reviews. There have > been a couple of arguments against this patch, and the thread has had

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Moser wrote: > [reviews and discussions] The patch proposed has rotten. Please provide a rebase. By the way, I am having a hard time applying your patches with patch or any other methods... I am moving it to CF 2017-03 because of the

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Thank you. At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:11:58 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hello, > >>Agreed, that it makes sense to consider only the number of pages to >>scan for computation of parallel workers. I think for index scan we >>should consider both index and heap pages that need to be scanned

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > [ in the service of closing out this thread... ] > > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel >> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory. > > Um, I

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

At Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:05:40 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170201.120540.183393194.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, > > At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:46:18 +, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" > wrote in >

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Okay, this version looks good to me, marked as RfC. The patches still apply, moved to CF 2017-03 with same status: RfC. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Indirect indexes

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Attached is v4, which fixes a couple of relatively minor bugs. There > are still things to tackle before this is committable, but coding review > of the new executor node would be welcome. Moved to CF 2017-03

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. Same, this time to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > There is no code yet. Code review and testing is where things get firmer. > > My personal stance right now is that I'd like to see catalog-decared typed > variables. I would prefer them to be transactional and would at

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I'll mark this patch as ready for commiter Moved to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Amit, > > On 2016/12/23 14:21, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> Currently an Append plan node does not execute its subplans in >> parallel. There is no distribution of workers across its subplans. The >> second

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Attached is the new version of the patch. I also addressed other comments > from you: moved rewriting the fdw_scan_tlist to postgres_fdw.c, > added/revised comments, and added regression tests for the case where

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Review comments: >> 1. >> + bool is_partial); >> + >> >> Seems additional new line is not required. > Fixed This patch has a patch, no new

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: > Updated and rebased v7 attached. Moved to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: recursive json_populate_record()

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Nikita Glukhov writes: >> On 25.01.2017 23:58, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think you need to take a second look at the code you're producing >>> and realize that it's not so clean either. This extract from

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index-only scan

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Rafia Sabih wrote: > Please find the attached file rebased patch of parallel index-only > scan on the latest Parallel index-scan patch [1]. Moved to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

Hello, At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:46:18 +, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" wrote in > I tried a committed Logical Replication environment. I found > that replication between databases of

Re: [HACKERS] Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Six new syscaches in 665d1fa was conflicted and 3-way merge > worked correctly. The new syscaches don't seem to be targets of > this patch. To be honest, I am not completely sure what to think about this

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > okay. Thanks. I have done changes on top of this patch. Moved to CF 2017-03 as there is a new patch, no reviews. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Ok. I see that there is a new compelling reason to move the ring > buffer to the sender side: then I think lag tracking will work > automatically for the new logical replication that just landed on > master.

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >>> I have reviewed the latest patch and I don't have any

Re: [HACKERS] Microvacuum support for Hash Index

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >>> >>> Don't you think we should try to identify the reason of the deadlock >>> error reported by you up thread [1]? I know that you

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/15/17 5:53 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> the regress test fails >> >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> 0x007bbc2b in pattern_char_isalpha (locale_is_c=0 '\000', >>

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > +#define HeapTupleHeaderGetNextTid(tup, next_ctid) \ > > > +do { \ > > > + AssertMacro(!((tup)->t_infomask2 & HEAP_LATEST_TUPLE)); \ > > > + ItemPointerCopy(&(tup)->t_ctid, (next_ctid)); \ > > > +}

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension)

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Any Comments on the approach? I have moved this patch to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring of replication commands using printsimple

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Sorry, I have a little more nitpicking. Thanks for the input. > How about having > printsimple() use pq_sendcountedtext() instead of pq_sendint() > followed by pq_sendbytes(), as it does for TEXTOID? > > Other than

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, the question even for that case is whether it really costs > anything. My bet is that it is nearly free when it doesn't help, but > that could be wrong. My experience running pgbench tests is that > prewarming all

Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> I've attached the patch with the modified changes. PFA. > > Can this patch check contrib/bloom? Only full pages are applied at redo

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > Hello, > > I've reviewed the patch[1]. > Noting to add from my side as well. -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: [HACKERS] Steps inside ExecEndGather)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. There has not been much interest in this patch, moved again, this time to CF 2017-03. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

Hello, thank you for moving this to the next CF. At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:09:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > 2. All participants: parallel sequential scan, sort, spool to disk; > barrier; leader: merge spooled tuples and build btree. > > This patch is doing the 2nd thing. My understanding is that some > systems

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:38:39 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote in <1622dc9f-cecf-cee3-b71e-b2bf34649...@postgrespro.ru> > On 31.01.2017 13:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > The following comment, > > > >> /* Can any range from range_box to be overlower than this argument? */ >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

Hello, I'll add the rebased version to the next CF. At Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:07:29 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170120.110729.107284864.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > > > - Delaying recycling a segment until the last partial

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

Hello Robert, >I am a bit mystified about how this manages to work with array keys. >_bt_parallel_done() won't set btps_pageStatus to BTPARALLEL_DONE >unless so->arrayKeyCount >= btscan->btps_arrayKeyCount, but >_bt_parallel_advance_scan() won't do anything unless btps_pageStatus >is already

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/01/31 19:53, Abbas Butt wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> > wrote: >> On 2017/01/31 18:24, Abbas Butt

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

On 30.01.2017 19:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 01/24/2017 04:47 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Interesting.. What should happen here is that for the backend's own insertion slot, the "insertingat" value should be greater than the requested flush point ('upto' variable). That's because

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > The simple_heap_update + CatalogUpdateIndexes pattern is getting > > obnoxious. How about creating something like catalog_heap_update which > > does both things at once, and stop

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

Hello, >Agreed, that it makes sense to consider only the number of pages to >scan for computation of parallel workers. I think for index scan we >should consider both index and heap pages that need to be scanned >(costing of index scan consider both index and heap pages). I thin >where

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2017-01-24 21:38 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > > I think it would be good to have a more complex test case in regress -- > > let's say there is a table with some simple XML values, then we use > > XMLFOREST (or maybe one of the table_to_xml

[HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

Hi hackers, I tried a committed Logical Replication environment. I found that replication between databases of different encodings did not convert encodings in character type columns. Is this behavior correct? I expected that the character 0xe6bca2 (UTF-8) would be converted to the same

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

> > 0003-hj-refactor-memory-accounting-v4.patch: > > Modify the existing hash join code to work in terms of chunks when > estimating and later tracking memory usage. This is probably more > accurate than the current tuple-based approach, because it tries to > take into account the space used by

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring of replication commands using printsimple

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This is a follow up of the refactoring that has been discussed in the > thread to increase the default size of WAL segments: >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

On 31.01.2017 13:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: The following comment, /* Can any range from range_box to be overlower than this argument? */ This might be better to be using the same wording to its users, for example the comment for overLeft4D is the following. | /* Can any rectangle from

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > CatalogUpdateIndexes was just added as a convenience function on top of > > a very common pattern. If we now have a reason to create a second one > > because there are now two very

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

Sorry for the confusion. ANALYZE works for the foreign table 'foreign_numbers'. test=# analyze foreign_numbers; ANALYZE test=# On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Abbas Butt >

Re: [HACKERS] Improvements in psql hooks for variables

Tom Lane wrote: > Moreover, the committed patch is inconsistent in that it forbids > only one of the above. Why is it okay to treat unset as "off", > but not okay to treat the default empty-string value as "on"? Treating unset (NULL in the value) as "off" comes from the fact that

Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \G

Stephen Frost wrote: > That's not how '\dx' works, as I pointed out, so I don't see having the > second character being 'x' to imply "\x mode" makes sense. \gx means "like \g but output with expanded display" It turns out that it's semantically close to "\g with \x" so I refered to it

[HACKERS] [Bug fix] PQsendQuery occurs error when target_session_attrs is set to read-write

Hello, This this is my first posting to the mailing list. I am interested in multiple hosts of libpq [1], then I found the bug in this feature. When I set "target_session_attrs" to "any" and call PQsendQuery, my application is succeeded. However, when I set "target_session_attrs" to

Re: [HACKERS] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 1/27/17, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Updated patches are attached. > > > Hello, > > I'm almost ready to mark it as Ready for committer. > The final round. Thanks for the review. >

Re: [HACKERS] An issue in remote query optimization

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Abbas Butt wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> >> On 2017/01/31 19:53, Abbas Butt wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera < > alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > The simple_heap_update + CatalogUpdateIndexes pattern is getting > > > obnoxious. How

Re: [HACKERS] sequence data type

And here is a rebased patch for the original feature. I think this addresses all raised concerns and suggestions now. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >From ce2680ef072a9a4dc2cb879a70610d71ad24

Re: [HACKERS] Floating point comparison inconsistencies of the geometric types

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > Though, I know the community is against behaviour changing GUCs. I > will not spend more time on this, before I get positive feedback from > others. As if on cue, let me say that a behavior-changing GUC sounds like a

Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > I've attached the patch with the modified changes. PFA. Can this patch check contrib/bloom? +/* + * Mask some line pointer bits, particularly those marked as + * used on a master and

Re: [HACKERS] Improvements in psql hooks for variables

"Daniel Verite" writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> One possible compromise that would address your concern about display >> is to modify the hook API some more so that variable hooks could actually >> substitute new values. Then for example the bool-variable hooks could

  1   2   >