Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in publicationcmd.c

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi all, > > Attached fixes a typo in publicationcmd.c file. > > s/om/on/ > Applied, thanks. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> (I'm personally not that much in love with PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY, >> because it tends to confuse pgindent.) > > I would be incline to just

Re: [HACKERS] Undefined psql variables

Hello Corey, \if defined varname \if sql boolean expression to send to server \if compare value operator value I'm still thinking:-) Independently of the my aethetical complaint against having a pretty unusual keyword prefix syntax, how would you envision a \set

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 7 April 2017 at 15:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/07/2017 10:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Not sure if it would be doable in the code, but we could also have: >> host all all example.com scram method=sha256plus,sha256 >> >> or something like that. Which would fit

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/07/2017 10:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> So here's a wild idea. What if we just call it "sha256"? Does the user >> actually care about it being scram, or is scram just an implementation >> detail for them?

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

If I understand correctly, the patch is moved because of the unrelated issue that variables cannot be utf8 in pgbench, and it is a condition to consider this patch that existing pgbench variables (set with \set) can be utf8? I'm not sure if it is "unrelated" because the new feature relies on

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

Hello Tatsuo, Ok, I will move the patch to the next cf. Done. If I understand correctly, the patch is moved because of the unrelated issue that variables cannot be utf8 in pgbench, and it is a condition to consider this patch that existing pgbench variables (set with \set) can be utf8?

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

> If I understand correctly, the patch is moved because of the unrelated > issue that variables cannot be utf8 in pgbench, and it is a condition > to consider this patch that existing pgbench variables (set with \set) > can be utf8? I'm not sure if it is "unrelated" because the new feature relies

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/06/2017 11:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: or it can just ignore the list and send what it wants anyway, probably leading to client disconnect. It would need to follow one of the requested protocols, but mark the request as doomed. Otherwise we'd be revealing information. That's what SCRAM does

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 7 April 2017 at 16:33, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > That list of supported authentication methods would need to be included in > the startup message. Unfortunately, there is no way to add options to the > startup message, without breaking compatibility with old servers. If

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

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-13 18:45:00 +0530, Mithun Cy wrote: >> I have implemented a similar logic now. The prewarm bgworker will >> launch a sub-worker per database in the dump file. And, each >> sub-worker will load its database block

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 04/07/2017 10:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: So here's a wild idea. What if we just call it "sha256"? Does the user actually care about it being scram, or is scram just an implementation detail for them? That way when the next one shows up, it'll be sha512 or whatever. It happens to use scram

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (I'm personally not that much in love with

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/07/2017 11:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 7 April 2017 at 16:33, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: That list of supported authentication methods would need to be included in the startup message. Unfortunately, there is no way to add options to the startup message, without

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andres Freund > > As I asked before, why can't we delete all privs and add the explicitly > > needed

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 04/07/2017 05:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/06/2017 08:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: There is for example this portion in the new tables: +static const Codepoint prohibited_output_chars[] = +{ + 0xD800,

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 04/07/2017 08:21 AM, Noah Misch wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:46:29PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/06/2017 08:36 AM, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:36:13PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I didn't include the last-minute changes to the way you specify this in

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

Jumping late into this one, apologies if these opinions have already been up and discarded. On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/07/2017 08:21 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:46:29PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >>> On

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/06/2017 11:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Perhaps we could turn this around: have the client send (in the connection request packet) a list of auth protocols it thinks it is able to handle. (I'm envisioning this as being more or less fixed for any one version of any one client, since it would

[HACKERS] pg_export_snapshot doc

pg_export_snapshot() cannot be used during recovery (i.e. on standby servers), but it's not documented. IMO this is a bug and should be fixed. Patch attached. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp diff

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 07/04/17 11:05, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: On 04/07/2017 10:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: So here's a wild idea. What if we just call it "sha256"? Does the user

[HACKERS] ExecPrepareExprList and per-query context

As of b8d7f053c5c, ExecPrepareExprList is (must be?) used instead of ExecPrepareExpr when the caller wants to initialize expressions in a list, for example, FormIndexDatum. ExecPrepareExpr doesn't require the caller to have switched to per-query context, because it itself will. Same is not

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2016/12/14 16:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/12/09 19:46, Maksim Milyutin wrote: I would like to work on two tasks: - insert (and eventually update) tuple routing for foreign partition. - the ability to create an index on the parent and have all of the children inherit it; The first one

[HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

Hello, We currently use psotgres 9.3 in our products. Recently we upgraded to postgres 9.6. But with 9.6 we have seen a drastic reduction in throughput. After analyzing carefully I found that "planner time" in 9.6 is very high. Below are the details: Scenario: 1 Create a table with 10 rows.

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 07.04.2017 13:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/12/14 16:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/12/09 19:46, Maksim Milyutin wrote: I would like to work on two tasks: - insert (and eventually update) tuple routing for foreign partition. - the ability to create an index on the parent and have all

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-07 13:07:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Still, it's not very clear why we need to

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Document the order of changing certain settings when using hot-standby servers

The attached patch updates the hot-standby documentation (in the high availability section) so it explicitly mentions that certain settings need to be applied to servers in a particular order. For example, it states that if you increase a certain setting (e.g. max_connections) you need to do so on

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Document the order of changing certain settings when using hot-standby servers

Hi Yorick, > The attached patch updates the hot-standby documentation (in the high > availability section) so it explicitly mentions that certain settings > need to be applied to servers in a particular order. For example, it > states that if you increase a certain setting (e.g. max_connections)

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/07/2017 05:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I am really wondering if this should not reflect the real range >> reported by the RFC. I understand that you have grouped things to save >> a couple of bytes, but that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Document the order of changing certain settings when using hot-standby servers

Aleksander, Yorick, * Aleksander Alekseev (a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru) wrote: > > The attached patch updates the hot-standby documentation (in the high > > availability section) so it explicitly mentions that certain settings > > need to be applied to servers in a particular order. For example, it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Document the order of changing certain settings when using hot-standby servers

Ha! It seems I indeed had it the other way around. I suppose that's what happens when writing a patch late at night. Somewhat ironically I did have the other correct in my Git commit message. Attached is an updated version of the patch that corrects the order in the documentation. Yorick diff

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

On 04/07/2017 02:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. For win32.mak, the key question is whether there is still anybody who'd have an insurmountable problem with building the whole distro via src/tools/msvc/ rather than just

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> I think the "SCRAM" part is more important than "SHA-256", so -1 on that. > > I agree. The point here isn't that we're using a better hashing

Re: [HACKERS] monitoring.sgml missing tag

On 4/7/17 16:50, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-07 22:47:55 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> monitoring.sgml has one tag missing > > Is that actually an issue? SGML allows skipping certain close tags, and > IIRC row is one them. The issue is a weird one. For some reason, older tool chains

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve 64bit atomics support.

Andres Freund wrote: > Improve 64bit atomics support. > > When adding atomics back in b64d92f1a, I added 64bit support as > optional; there wasn't yet a direct user in sight. That turned out to > be a bit short-sighted, it'd already have been useful a number of times. Seems like this killed an

Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker

On 4/7/17 01:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > It's not critical but it could be problem. So I thought we should fix > it before the PostgreSQL 10 release. If it's not appropriate as an > open item I'll remove it. You wrote that you "sent" a patch, but I don't see a patch anywhere. I think a

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > The attached patch is quiiiccck-and-dirty-hack of Michael's patch > just as a PoC of my proposal quoted above. This also passes the > 006 test. The major changes are the following. > > - Moved sync_above and truncted_to into RelationData. Interesting. I wonder if

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve 64bit atomics support.

On 2017-04-07 16:36:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-07 19:55:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > Improve 64bit atomics support. > > > > > > When adding atomics back in b64d92f1a, I added 64bit support as > > > optional; there wasn't yet a direct user in

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> I think the "SCRAM" part is more important than

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

On 4/6/17 14:32, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I like to see any proposals about syntax or implementation. > > Using PRAGMA is one variant - introduced by PLpgSQL origin - Ada > language. The PRAGMA syntax can be used for PRAGMA autonomous with well > known syntax. It scales well - it supports

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2017-04-07 19:43:39 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've *not* read the history of this thread. So I really might

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/02/22 19:57, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> Marked this as Ready for Committer. > > I noticed that this item in the CF app was incorrectly marked as Committed. > This patch isn't committed, so I returned it to

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) >> > - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10. > >

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

Hi, I've *not* read the history of this thread. So I really might be missing some context. > From e37d29c26210a0f23cd2e9fe18a264312fecd383 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Claudio Freire > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:36:42 -0300 > Subject: [PATCH] Vacuum: allow using

Re: [HACKERS] monitoring.sgml missing tag

On 2017-04-07 22:50, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-04-07 22:47:55 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: monitoring.sgml has one tag missing Is that actually an issue? SGML allows skipping certain close tags, and IIRC row is one them. We'll probably move to xml at some point not too far away, but I

[HACKERS] mvstats triggers 32bit warnings

Hi, compiling on linux 32 bit I get a lot of warnings due to printf format. I suspect most of them should just be cured by using %zd or %zu instead of %ld. /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/statistics/mvdistinct.c: In function ‘statext_ndistinct_deserialize’:

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> >> + if (seg->num_dead_tuples >= seg->max_dead_tuples) >>> >> + { >>> >> + /* >>> >> + * The segment is overflowing, so we must allocate >>> >> a

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now before the feature freeze and follow up >>with the regression test patch when ready in a couple of days >> 2) hold off on both patches until ready

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors around dsa.c

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> newly added tests exercise parallel bitmap scans. And they trigger >> valgrind errors: >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: > >> It occurred to me that it would make sense to allow these settings >> to be attached to a database or table (though *not* a role). I'll >> look at that when I get

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > 2. Did I understand correctly that it is safe to scan the list of > SERIALIZABLEXACTs and access the possibleUnsafeConflicts list while > holding only SerializableXactHashLock, Yes. > and that 'inLink' is the

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> When I started writing this, there were the following reamining CF >> items, minus bugfix ones which aren't bound by the code

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

David Rowley writes: [ unique_joins_2017-04-07b.patch ] It turned out that this patch wasn't as close to committable as I'd thought, but after a full day of whacking at it, I got to a place where I thought it was OK. So, pushed. [ and that's a wrap for v10 feature

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > When I started writing this, there were the following reamining CF > items, minus bugfix ones which aren't bound by the code freeze. > > I think it makes sense to go through those and see whether it's > realistic

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Thomas Munro writes: > Here is an attempt at option 2 from the menu I posted above. Questions: > 1. Does anyone object to this extension of pg_blocking_pids()'s > remit? If so, I could make it a separate function (that was option > 3). It seems an entirely

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On 2017-04-07 16:28:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > > - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't > > > allow that. Doesn't strike me as a useful restriction. > > > > I agree that that CF app restriction makes little sense. > > What the

Re: [HACKERS] Undefined psql variables

2017-04-07 21:04 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > I wish I could have an explanation about why the :?varname (or some other >>> variant) syntax I suggested has a "namespace" issue. >>> >>> The advantage that I see is that although it is obviously ugly, it is >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == >> DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) >> + { >> + /* No point in checking null selectivity, DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL >> implies we have no stats */ >> + s2 =

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I've *not* read the history of this thread. So I really might be > missing some context. > > >> From e37d29c26210a0f23cd2e9fe18a264312fecd383 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Claudio Freire

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> + * Lookup in that structure proceeds sequentially in the list of segments, >>> + * and with a binary search within each segment. Since segment's size grows >>> + * exponentially, this retains O(N log N) lookup

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

I have claimed this patch as committer FWIW. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any > operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the > relation. But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is > completely stable, does it? If we can get proof of that, then

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

Keith Fiske writes: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Joe Conway writes: >>> Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal >>> acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior? >>

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

Hi, On 2017-04-07 19:43:39 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've *not* read the history of this thread. So I really might be > > missing some context. > > > > > >> From

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Small issue in online devel documentation build

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:01:46AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > >I think the fix belongs into the web site CSS, so there is nothing to > >commit into PostgreSQL here. > > Indeed, the changes were only for the "remove nesting" solution. > > >I will close the commit fest

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve 64bit atomics support.

On 2017-04-07 19:55:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > Improve 64bit atomics support. > > > > When adding atomics back in b64d92f1a, I added 64bit support as > > optional; there wasn't yet a direct user in sight. That turned out to > > be a bit short-sighted, it'd already

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Interesting. I wonder if it's possible that a relcache invalidation > would cause these values to get lost for some reason, because that would > be dangerous. > I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any > operation that

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

On 2017-04-07 22:06:13 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On 2017-04-07 19:43:39 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > >

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Keith Fiske writes: > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Joe Conway writes: > >>> Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table

Re: [HACKERS] mvstats triggers 32bit warnings

Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > compiling on linux 32 bit I get a lot of warnings due to printf format. > I suspect most of them should just be cured by using %zd or %zu instead > of %ld. You're right, they are. Confirmed, and pushed fix using %zd. I suppose %zu would be "more correct", but

Re: [HACKERS] monitoring.sgml missing tag

On 4/7/17 16:47, Erik Rijkers wrote: > monitoring.sgml has one tag missing fixed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: > > Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal > > acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior? > > Yes, this matches normal inheritance

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/07/2017 11:37 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached. Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll have those by end of

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

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-07 22:06:13 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > On 2017-04-07 19:43:39 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: >> >> On Fri,

[HACKERS] shift_sjis_2004 related autority files are remaining

Hi, I happned to notice that backend/utils/mb/Unicode directory contains two encoding authority files, which I believe are not to be there. euc-jis-2004-std.txt sjis-0213-2004-std.txt And what is more astonishing, make distclean didn't its work. | $ make distclean | rm -f The Makefile there

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 6 April 2017 at 07:33, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-05 14:52:38 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> This is what the earlier versions of my patch had done : just add up >> per-subplan parallel_workers (1 for non-partial subplan and >> subpath->parallel_workers for partial

[HACKERS] Duplicate assignment in Unicode/convutils.pm

Hi, I found that convutils.pl contains a harmless duplicate assignemnt. > my $out = {f => $fname, l => $., >code => hex($1), >ucs => hex($2), >comment => $4, >direction => BOTH, >f => $fname, >l =>

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

I ran tests and following are the details: Machine details: Architecture: ppc64le Byte Order:Little Endian CPU(s):192 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-191 Thread(s) per core:8 Core(s) per socket:1 Socket(s): 24 NUMA node(s): 4 Model:

[HACKERS] Comment typo in publicationcmd.c

Hi all, Attached fixes a typo in publicationcmd.c file. s/om/on/ Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center fix_typo_in_publicationcmds_c.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 2017-04-07 13:55:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > Marked as ready for committer. > > Andres seems to have changed the status of this patch to "Needs > review" and then, 30 seconds later, to "Waiting on

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'd rather fix the issue, than remove the tests entirely. Seems quite > possible to handle blocking on Safesnapshot in a similar manner as > pg_blocking_pids? I'll see what I can figure out. -- Kevin Grittner --

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Andres Freund wrote: >>> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) >>> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10. > >> I'm going over this one now with Pavan,

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

Tomas Vondra writes: > On 04/07/2017 06:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> I think your math is off. Looking at your attachments, planning time >> is 0.056ms, not 0.56ms. This is in no way relevant to performance on >> the order of your measured TPS. How are you

Re: [HACKERS] Undefined psql variables

Hello Pavel, I wish I could have an explanation about why the :?varname (or some other variant) syntax I suggested has a "namespace" issue. The advantage that I see is that although it is obviously ugly, it is ugly in the continuity of the various :["'?]varname syntaxes already offered and it

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Warn users about duplicate configuration parameters

Hi. Recently I've discovered that if there are multiple values of the same parameter in postgresql.conf PostgreSQL will silently use the last one. It looks like not the best approach to me. For instance, user can find the first value in the config file and expect that it will be used, etc. I

[HACKERS] pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly

--progress-timestamp is supposed to make -P report a Unix Epoch time stamp, for easy correlation with the entries in other log files (like the postgres server log file using %n). But that broke in this commit: commit 1d63f7d2d180c8708bc12710254eb7b45823440f Author: Tom Lane

[HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Hi, There's two machines that recently report changes in deadlock detector output: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hyrax=2017-04-05%2018%3A58%3A04 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=friarbird=2017-04-07%2004%3A20%3A01 both just failed twice in a row:

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Vinayak Pokale >> wrote: >>> The following review has been

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Warn users about duplicate configuration parameters

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Aleksander Alekseev < a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Andres, Tatsuo, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > > > -1 - I frequently just override earlier parameters by adding an > > include at the end of the file. Also, with postgresql.auto.conf it's > >

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I think the "SCRAM" part is more important than "SHA-256", so -1 on that. I agree. The point here isn't that we're using a better hashing method, even if a lot of people *think* that's the point. The point is we're

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On 04/07/2017 12:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > There's two machines that recently report changes in deadlock detector > output: > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hyrax=2017-04-05%2018%3A58%3A04 >

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 04/07/2017 12:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I don't think any recent changes are supposed to affect deadlock >> detector behaviour? > Both these machines have CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS set. And on both machines > recent changes have made

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi Robert, > >> Hmm. I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems >> we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and >> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

Andres Freund wrote: > Unique Joins > - Tom's discussing things with David, not sure. This one was already included-and-removed from 9.6, Tom had said he'd give it priority during the current cycle as I recall. It seems unfair that it's still waiting for review on the last day of pg10's last

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) > - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10. > - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't > allow that. Doesn't strike me as a

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

Joe Conway writes: > Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal > acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior? Yes, this matches normal inheritance behavior. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Andres Freund wrote: >> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) >> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10. > I'm going over this one now with Pavan, with the intent of getting it in > committable shape. I have to agree with

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

On 04/07/2017 06:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Prakash Itnal wrote: Hello, We currently use psotgres 9.3 in our products. Recently we upgraded to postgres 9.6. But with 9.6 we have seen a drastic reduction in throughput. After analyzing

Re: [HACKERS] parallel bitmapscan isn't exercised in regression tests

On 2017-04-06 13:43:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-06 10:00:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > > Sure I can do that, In attached patch, I only fixed the problem of not > > > executing the bitmap test. Now, I

  1   2   >