Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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...

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
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

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

2017-03-14 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
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

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Stephen Frost
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

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

2017-03-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
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

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Mark Kirkwood
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.

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
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,

Re: [HACKERS] WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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. > >

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

2017-03-14 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Stephen Frost
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"

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

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

2017-03-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier

2017-03-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Microvacuum support for Hash Index

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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] - >

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-03-14 Thread 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 to be hard to arrange, and I think it isn't necessary. If the leader wants

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier

2017-03-14 Thread Jeff Janes
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

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

2017-03-14 Thread Jeff Janes
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

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

2017-03-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

2017-03-14 Thread Jeff Janes
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

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-03-14 Thread Pavel Stehule
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

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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. > >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Douglas Doole
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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

2017-03-14 Thread Kevin Grittner
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

2017-03-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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

Re: [HACKERS] Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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 ---

Re: [HACKERS] Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

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

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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

[HACKERS] improve comments of snapbuild.c

2017-03-14 Thread Erik Rijkers
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

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Douglas Doole
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, >

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

2017-03-14 Thread David Fetter
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?"

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

2017-03-14 Thread Stephen Frost
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Suppress Clang 3.9 warnings

2017-03-14 Thread Noah Misch
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 > +/* > + *

Re: [HACKERS] New procedural language

2017-03-14 Thread Amit Langote
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

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

2017-03-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label

2017-03-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

2017-03-14 Thread Haribabu Kommi
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; > +

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

2017-03-14 Thread David Rowley
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

[HACKERS] New procedural language

2017-03-14 Thread Massimo Fidanza
Hello, what it means to add a new procedural language such as Go or Rust? Thanks Massimo

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

2017-03-14 Thread Andreas Karlsson
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

[HACKERS] Remove obsolete text from hash/README

2017-03-14 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC - TOAST'ing in slices

2017-03-14 Thread George Papadrosou
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

Re: [HACKERS] New procedural language

2017-03-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag

2017-03-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] improve comments of snapbuild.c

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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:

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

2017-03-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use asynchronous connect API in libpqwalreceiver

2017-03-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] allow referring to functions without arguments when unique

2017-03-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

2017-03-14 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
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,

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions

2017-03-14 Thread Dilip Kumar
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

2017-03-14 Thread Rafia Sabih
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

Re: [HACKERS] WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

2017-03-14 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
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

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

2017-03-14 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
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

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

2017-03-14 Thread Amit Kapila
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

2017-03-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

2017-03-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Use $ parameters as replacement characters for pg_stat_statements

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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 >>>

[HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

2017-03-14 Thread Mengxing Liu
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type

2017-03-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-14 Thread Rushabh Lathia
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, > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

2017-03-14 Thread DEV_OPS
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

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

2017-03-14 Thread David Rowley
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

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

2017-03-14 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
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

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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

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

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
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   2   >