On 2017-03-14 08:44:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Patch 0003 is huge.
I suspect you mean 0004? If so - yes :(. I unfortunately don't think
there's a useful way to split it in smaller chunks - I originally moved
ops over one-by-one, but that required a lot of duplicated structs and
such...
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Agreed, so I have rebased your patch and passed heap_pages as -1 for
> index_only scans as discussed. Also, Rafia has tested with attached
> patch that parallel index and parallel index only scans are picked for
>
On 10/03/17 20:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/27/17 22:10, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> On 2/18/17 18:06, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm not convinced that it really makes sense to have PUBLICATION of a
table be
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> > @@ -234,6 +236,21 @@ index_beginscan(Relation heapRelation,
> > scan->heapRelation = heapRelation;
> > scan->xs_snapshot = snapshot;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If the index supports recheck, make
Robert Haas writes:
> Great! I've committed the latest version of the patch, with some
> cosmetic changes.
Woo hoo! That's been a bee in the bonnet for, um, decades.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas writes:
> It's become pretty clear to me that there are a bunch of other things
> about hash indexes which are not exactly great, the worst of which is
> the way they grow by DOUBLING IN SIZE.
Uh, what? Growth should happen one bucket-split at a time.
> Other
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> It's become pretty clear to me that there are a bunch of other things
>>> about hash indexes which are not exactly great, the worst
Hi,
On 2017-03-14 20:28:51 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 07:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-03-14 16:58:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > * How tight are we on space in the ExprEvalStep union? Currently, the
> > > jump-threading preparation replaces the opcodes
On 14/03/17 19:49, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 14/03/17 19:47, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> My understanding of what Shephen is proposing is, you have "ownerA" of
>>> tableA and "ownerB" of tableB, then you want role
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> However, what I'm not clear about is whether this is a situation
> that's likely to come up much in practice. I would have thought that
> publications and subscriptions would typically be configured by roles
> with quite high levels of
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I have already commented about the executor involvement in btrecheck();
> > that doesn't seem good. I previously suggested to pass the EState down
> > from caller, but that's not a
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> It's true that as soon as we need another overflow page, that's going to
> >> get dropped beyond the 2^{N+1}-1 point, and the *apparent* size of the
> >> index will
On 14/03/17 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> Note that I am not necessarily saying it's better though, just trying to
>> explain. It definitely has drawbacks, as in order to grant publish on
>> one table you might
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> I do have extended localBackendStatusTable with slots for non-backend
> processes. But, I've renamed it as localProcStatusTable since it
> includes all processes. I'll keep the variable name as
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-14 08:44:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It would be good to have someone at least read it before pushing, but
>> I don't think anyone other than you has done so.
> I'd love for somebody else
> to look through it, I tried asking multiple
On 15/03/17 06:29, Robert Haas wrote:
Great! I've committed the latest version of the patch, with some
cosmetic changes.
It would be astonishing if there weren't a bug or two left, but I
think overall this is very solid work, and I think it's time to put
this out there and see how things go.
On 14/03/17 19:47, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> My understanding of what Shephen is proposing is, you have "ownerA" of
>> tableA and "ownerB" of tableB, then you want role "publishe"r to be able
>> to publish those,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Couple of review comments,,
>
> You may also need to update the documentation as now we are also going
> to support wal consistency check for hash index. The current
> documentation does not include hash index.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> > BTW I wanted to share some more numbers from a recent performance test. I
> > thought it's important because the latest patch has fully functional
> chain
> > conversion code as well as
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 14/03/17 20:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> Note that I am not necessarily saying it's better though, just trying to
>>>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> My understanding of what Shephen is proposing is, you have "ownerA" of
> tableA and "ownerB" of tableB, then you want role "publishe"r to be able
> to publish those, so you simply grant it the "ownerA" and
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas writes:
> >>> It's become pretty clear to me that there are a bunch of other things
> >>> about
Greetings,
* Petr Jelinek (petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 14/03/17 19:47, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Jelinek
> > wrote:
> >> My understanding of what Shephen is proposing is, you have "ownerA" of
> >> tableA and "ownerB"
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> It's true that as soon as we need another overflow page, that's going to
>> get dropped beyond the 2^{N+1}-1 point, and the *apparent* size of the
>> index will grow quite a lot. But any modern filesystem
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> BTW I wanted to share some more numbers from a recent performance test. I
> thought it's important because the latest patch has fully functional chain
> conversion code as well as all WAL-logging related pieces are in place
> too. I ran these tests on a box borrowed from
On 03/14/2017 09:02 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
It is somewhat disconcerting that the client will send a plain-text
password to a mis-configured (or mal-configured) server, but I don't
think there is anything this patch series can reasonably do about
that.
Yeah. That's one pretty glaring hole with
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Attached is the v6 patch for microvacuum in hash index rebased on top
> of 'v10 patch for WAL in hash index - [1]' and 'v1 patch for WAL
> consistency check for hash index - [2]'.
>
> [1] -
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> Note that I am not necessarily saying it's better though, just trying to
> explain. It definitely has drawbacks, as in order to grant publish on
> one table you might be granting lots of privileges on various
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Great! I've committed the latest version of the patch, with some
>> cosmetic changes.
>
> Woo hoo! That's been a bee in the bonnet for, um, decades.
Yeah. I'm pretty happy to
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Very often strategy can be recheck of parent process in some waiting
> cycles. It should not to impact performance.
I think that's going to be hard to arrange, and I think it isn't
necessary. If the leader wants
On 03/14/2017 07:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-03-14 16:58:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
* How tight are we on space in the ExprEvalStep union? Currently, the
jump-threading preparation replaces the opcodes with the goto labels, but it
would be really nice to keep the original
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> It's become pretty clear to me that there are a bunch of other things
>> about hash indexes which are not exactly great, the worst of which is
>> the way they grow by DOUBLING IN
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't include the authentication TAP tests that Michael wrote in the
> main SCRAM commit last week. The main issue was that the new test was
> tacked on the src/test/recovery test suite, for lack of a better
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 04:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>
>>> I'm not talking about changing the default, just having it be possible
>>> to use \password with the new system as it was
I tried patch 0002 today and again there are conflicts, so I rebased and
fixed the merge problems. I also changed a number of minor things, all
AFAICS cosmetic in nature:
* moved src/backend/statistics/common.h to
src/include/statistics/common.h, as previously commented. I also took
out
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I see a possible problem here: This design only allows one subscripting
> function. But what you'd really want in this case is at least two: one
> taking an integer type for selecting by array index, and one taking text
> for
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> The previous proposal was for expand_inherited_rtentry to not create RT
> entries and AppendRelInfo's for the non-leaf tables, but I think that
> doesn't work, as I tried to explain above. We need RTEs because
Hi,
On 2017-03-14 22:03:45 +, Douglas Doole wrote:
> I do have one observation based on my experiments with your first version
> of the code. In my tests, I found that expression init becomes a lot more
> expensive in this new model. (That's neither a surprise, nor a
> concern.)
I suspect
On 2017-03-13 14:09:39 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-13 15:45:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but the most obvious explanation for this failure is
> > that autovacuum had a lock on the table or index when we looked.
> > Even if that isn't why axolotl failed in
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>
> > I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> > fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> > if we want \password to enforce
2017-03-14 19:08 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas :
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > Very often strategy can be recheck of parent process in some waiting
> > cycles. It should not to impact performance.
>
> I think that's going
On 3/14/17 12:12, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> Committing this in chunks makes sense anyway.
>>
>> I've attached a slightly version that makes pg_recvlogical skip slot
>> export. The second patch is unchanged, use the copy from the
>> immediately prior mail.
>>
>
> Okay, I merged your changes in.
>
>
Andres, sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this great stuff you've
been doing. I've wanted to get to it, but work keeps getting in the way. ;-)
I do have one observation based on my experiments with your first version
of the code. In my tests, I found that expression init becomes a lot more
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:00 AM, DEV_OPS wrote:
> On 3/14/17 17:34, Mengxing Liu wrote:
> The worst problems have been
> seen with 32 or more cores on 4 or more sockets with a large number
> of active connections. I don't know whether you have access to a
>
Jeff Janes writes:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"? I should think that "scram
>> only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
>> insecure, but I do not see the point
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I tried patch 0002 today and again there are conflicts, so I rebased and
> fixed the merge problems.
... and attached the patch.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
diff --git
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that that's safe, but it is a little disappointing that it
> does not allow us to skip work in the case that you really had in mind
> when writing the patch. Better than nothing, though, and perhaps still
> a good
On 2017-03-13 00:35:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-03-11 22:14:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This looks generally sane to me, although I'm not very happy about folding
> >> the "$(MKDIR_P) output_iso" call into pg_isolation_regress_check ---
Pritam Baral writes:
> The topic has been previously discussed[0] on the -performance mailing list,
> about four years ago.
> In that thread, Tom suggested[0] the planner could be made to "expand
> "intcol <@
> 'x,y'::int4range" into "intcol between x and y", using
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Impressive results.
Agreed.
It seems like an important invariant for WARM is that any duplicate
index values ought to have different TIDs (actually, it's a bit
stricter than that, since btrecheck() cares about
Improvements (grammar/typos) in the comments in snapbuild.c
To be applied to master.
thanks,
Erik Rijkers
--- src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c.orig 2017-03-14 21:53:42.590196415 +0100
+++ src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c 2017-03-14 21:57:57.906539208 +0100
@@ -34,7 +34,7
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> pg_class.relfrozenxid is InvalidTransactionId for indexes because
>> indexes generally don't store XIDs. This is the one exception that I'm
>> aware of, presumably justified by the fact that it's only for
>>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:16 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. Right now ExprState's are allocated in several places - but we
> could easily move that to a central place. Have a bit of a hard time
> seing that that branch during *initialization* time is that expensive,
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:10:49PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I tried patch 0002 today and again there are conflicts, so I rebased and
> > fixed the merge problems.
>
> ... and attached the patch.
Is the plan to convert completely from "multivariate" to "extended?"
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Of course, that supposes that 0009 can manage to postpone creating
> non-sampled child joinrels until create_partition_join_plan(), which
> it currently doesn't. In fact, unless I'm missing something, 0009
> hasn't been
George,
* George Papadrosou (gpapadro...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I understand your efforts and I am willing to back down. This is not the only
> project that appeals to me :)
Thank you very much for your willingness to adapt. :)
> Mr. Frost, Mr. Munro, thank you for your suggestions. I am now
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:35:53PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> --- a/src/include/port.h
> +++ b/src/include/port.h
> @@ -395,11 +395,22 @@ extern double rint(double x);
> extern int inet_aton(const char *cp, struct in_addr * addr);
> #endif
>
> -#if !HAVE_DECL_STRLCAT
> +/*
> + *
Hi,
On 2017/03/15 11:08, Massimo Fidanza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what it means to add a new procedural language such as Go or Rust?
I think you're looking for how to write a "PL function call handler", most
likely in C. See for example how plpython_call_handler() is defined in
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> I do have extended localBackendStatusTable with slots for non-backend
>> processes. But, I've renamed it as localProcStatusTable
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:34 PM, David Steele wrote:
> This thread is stalled and it looks like the patch may not be workable,
> at least in the current form.
>
> I will mark this a "Returned with Feedback" on 2017-03-17 unless there
> are arguments to the contrary.
Or even
On 3/14/17 19:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> Any idea why we introduce __ stuff?
Because the symbols start with an underscore:
/* Define to 1 if your compiler understands _Static_assert. */
#undef HAVE__STATIC_ASSERT
There is apparently some inconsistency when symbols start with more than
one
On 2017-03-14 23:10:25 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/14/17 19:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Any idea why we introduce __ stuff?
>
> Because the symbols start with an underscore:
>
> /* Define to 1 if your compiler understands _Static_assert. */
> #undef HAVE__STATIC_ASSERT
Oh, I guess
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-14 19:34:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems bizarre that you chose to spell the new configure symbol as
>> HAVE__COMPUTED_GOTO rather than HAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO
> I went back-and-forth about this a number of times. We have a bunch of
>
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:46 PM, vinayak
wrote:
>
> + /* Report total number of heap blocks and collectinf sample row phase*/
> + initprog_val[0] = PROGRESS_ANALYZE_PHASE_COLLECT_HEAP_SAMPLE_ROWS;
> + initprog_val[1] = totalblocks;
> +
On 15 March 2017 at 12:18, David Fetter wrote:
>
> Is the plan to convert completely from "multivariate" to "extended?"
> I ask because I found a "multivariate" in there.
>
I get the idea that Tomas would like to keep the multivariate when it's
actually referencing
Hello,
what it means to add a new procedural language such as Go or Rust?
Thanks
Massimo
On 03/09/2017 10:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
- Naming of collations: Are we happy with the "de%icu" naming? I might
have come up with that while reviewing the IPv6 zone index patch. ;-)
An alternative might be "de$icu" for more Oracle vibe and avoiding the
need for double quotes in some
As pointed out by Tom [1], attached is a patch to remove obsolete text
from src/backend/access/hash/README
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5515.1489514099%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
fix_hash_index_readme_v1.patch
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> We didn't found any issue with the above testing.
>
> Great! I've committed the latest version of the patch, with some
> cosmetic
Hello!
Thank you for your message. I was just about to send this email when I got
yours.
> I don't recall seeing an email from you about this yet? My apologies if
> I missed it
My apologies for the inconvenience, I wish I could start earlier with this but
there was so much coursework
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Massimo Fidanza wrote:
> what it means to add a new procedural language such as Go or Rust?
If you are willing to allow functions defined in Postgres to be
written in such languages, you are likely looking some answers in the
documentation
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost writes:
>> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> >> It's true that as soon as we need another overflow page, that's going to
>> >> get
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>> I agree with that, but I propose the attached version instead. It
>>> seems cleaner to have the entire test for setting
Andres Freund writes:
> [ new patch versions ]
About to leave, but I had time to read 0003:
It seems bizarre that you chose to spell the new configure symbol as
HAVE__COMPUTED_GOTO rather than HAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO, especially so
when the comment for PGAC_C_COMPUTED_GOTO
On 2017-03-14 22:03:21 +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Improvements (grammar/typos) in the comments in snapbuild.c
>
> To be applied to master.
Thanks, pushed.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 2017-03-14 14:19:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-03-14 08:44:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> It would be good to have someone at least read it before pushing, but
> >> I don't think anyone other than you has done so.
>
> > I'd love for
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes:
> [ generic_type_subscription_v7.patch ]
I looked through this a bit.
I think that the basic design of having a type-specific parse analysis
function that returns a constructed SubscriptingRef node is fine.
I'm not totally excited about the naming
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> We already have BTPageOpaqueData.btpo, a union whose contained type
> varies based on the page being dead. We could just do the same with
> some other field in that struct, and then store epoch there. Clearly
> nobody really
Hi,
On 2017-03-14 19:34:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > [ new patch versions ]
>
> About to leave, but I had time to read 0003:
>
> It seems bizarre that you chose to spell the new configure symbol as
> HAVE__COMPUTED_GOTO rather than
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I don't understand. The only way you'd need a server restart is if a
>> background process wasn't responding to SIGTERM, and that's a bug
>> independent of anything this patch does. It would be cause by the
>>
On 03/03/2017 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 3/3/17 19:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
Use asynchronous connect API in libpqwalreceiver
>>> Buildfarm member bowerbird has been failing in the
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>> In 0001, you've removed a comment about how GEQO needs special
>> handling, but it doesn't look as if you've made any compensating
>> change elsewhere. That seems unlikely to be correct. If GEQO needs
>>
On 3/14/17 03:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This looks good to me, so switched as ready for committer.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> The previous proposal was for expand_inherited_rtentry to not create RT
>> entries and AppendRelInfo's for the non-leaf tables,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> Fixed. The attached patch is over execute_once.patch [1].
> I haven't addressed the issue regarding the confusion I raised upthread
> about incorrect value of !es->lazyeval that is restricting parallelism for
>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Bonjour Michaël,
>
> Attached are the patch, a test script for the feature, and various test
>>> scripts to trigger error cases.
>>>
>>
>> I have moved this patch to next CF
>>
>
> Ok.
>
> as the last status is a new
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>> Couple of review comments,,
>>
>> You may also need to update the documentation as now we are also going
>> to support wal
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David Steele
> Sure, but having the private key may allow them to get new data from the
> server as well as the data from the backup.
You are right. My rough intent was that the data is stolen
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I could see two possibilities to determine whether the plan (for which
> we are going to generate an initplan) contains a reference to a
> correlated var param node. One is to write a plan or path walker to
>
On 03/14/2017 04:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
I'm not talking about changing the default, just having it be possible
to use \password with the new system as it was with the old, whatever
exactly we think that means.
Seems to me the intended behavior of
Andres Freund wrote:
> EEO_SWITCH(op->opcode)
> {
> EEO_CASE(EEO_DONE):
> goto out;
Oh my.
> which is a bit annoying. (the EEO_CASE is either a jump label or a case
> statement, depending on computed goto availability).
>
> It seems we could either:
> 1) live with the damage
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> I'd be in favor of a change
>>> that makes it easier to copy and paste a query, to run EXPLAIN and so
>>>
I send this email to Tony, too. Because he promised to help me with testing and
benchmarking.
>
> >> The worst problems have been
> >> seen with 32 or more cores on 4 or more sockets with a large number
> >> of active connections. I don't know whether you have access to a
> >> machine capable
Looks straightforward at a quick read-through. I have just a couple of
questions. How much of the performance gain comes from avoiding the
FunctionCallInvoke overhead, by simply having SortSupport with a
comparison function, and how much comes from the "abbreviation"?
Also, is it worth the
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
> > Error coming from create_gather_merge_plan() from below condition:
> >
> > if (memcmp(sortColIdx, gm_plan->sortColIdx,
> >
Hi Mengxing
Please read my comments :
On 3/14/17 17:34, Mengxing Liu wrote:
> I send this email to Tony, too. Because he promised to help me with testing
> and benchmarking.
>
The worst problems have been
seen with 32 or more cores on 4 or more sockets with a large number
of
On 13 March 2017 at 23:00, David Rowley
wrote:
>
> 0003:
>
> No more time today. Will try and get to those soon.
>
0003:
I've now read this patch. My main aim here was to learn what it does and
how it works. I need to spend much longer understanding how your
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Here is a first pass on this patch.
Thanks Michael for the review.
>
> void
> -pgstat_bestart(void)
> +pgstat_procstart(void)
> I would not have thought that this patch justifies potentially
> breaking
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Thanks Robert for the patch and the explanation.
>
> I studied the patch and that look right to me. I performed manual testing,
> run the scripts which I created during the gather merge patch also run
> the tpch
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'll introduce a new LWLock, ClogTruncationLock, which will be held
> from when we advance the new clogOldestXid field through to when clog
> truncation completes.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo