[HACKERS] What does it mean by XLOG_BACKUP_RECORD?

Hi, While reading source codes I found the following comment in xlog.c. /* * Have we passed our safe starting point? Note that minRecoveryPoint is * known to be incorrectly set if ControlFile->backupEndRequired, until * the XLOG_BACKUP_RECORD arrives to advise us of the correct *

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Hi, On 2017/06/29 13:45, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you for looking this. > > At Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:23:54 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: >> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >> >>> The patch got conflicted. This is a new version just rebased to >>> the current

Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken

Commits pushed. Unless I broke the buildfarm again (which I'll check up on later), or some new issue arises with the fixes, this should close all 3 related items for transition tables. -- Andrew. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

Craig Ringer writes: > On 29 June 2017 at 03:01, Robert Haas wrote: >> It wouldn't be >> so bad if unrecognized parameters were just ignored; the client would >> know from the ServerProtocolVersion (or ParameterStatus) message that >> server had

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Thank you for looking this. At Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:23:54 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote in <4579.1498638234@localhost> > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > > The patch got conflicted. This is a new version just rebased to > > the current master.

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:17:47PM +0300, Sergey Burladyan wrote: > PS: > I successfully upgraded last night from 9.2 to 9.4 and find other issue :-) > > It is about hash index and promote: > 1. create master > 2. create standby from it > 3. create unlogged table and hash index like: > create

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On 29 June 2017 at 09:44, Craig Ringer wrote: > I > can't personally think of much right away that wouldn't work pretty > well in a follow-on message. Actually, I take that back, there's one thing that's bugged me for a while that wouldn't work well this way: determining

[HACKERS] "SELECT *" vs hidden columns and logical column order

Hi hackers, I am aware of at three potential projects that would change the meaning of "SELECT *": 1. Incremental MATERIALIZED VIEW maintenance probably needs to be able to use a hidden counter column which you can ask for by name but will otherwise not show up to users:

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On 29 June 2017 at 12:23, Craig Ringer wrote: > It does. But I don't see anywhere that extra round trips have been discussed. Ah, right, they're implied by having the server respond with some downversion message and ignore input until the client sends a new startup

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2017-06-27 14:59:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> However, it's certainly arguable that this is too much change for an >>> optional post-beta patch. > >> Yea, I think there's a

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 09:19:10AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I successfully upgraded last night from 9.2 to 9.4 and find other issue :-) > > > > It is about hash index and promote: > > 1. create master > > 2. create standby from it > > 3. create unlogged table and hash index like: > > create

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 09:24:21AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I was not clear. I was not saying there can be only one extra WAL file. > > I am saying the "Latest checkpoint location" should be one WAL file > > farther on the master. I think the big problem is that we need a full > > replay of

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

Hi Amit, On 2017/06/28 20:43, Amit Khandekar wrote: > In attached patch v12 The patch no longer applies and fails to compile after the following commit was made yesterday: commit 501ed02cf6f4f60c3357775eb07578aebc912d3a Author: Andrew Gierth Date: Wed Jun 28

[HACKERS] [GSOC][weekly report 4] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

In the last week: I added a tpcb benchmark and refactored the test code. It likes a framework now. We can add other benchmarks easily if necessary. https://github.com/liumx10/pg-bench Analyzed the code acquiring SerializableFinishedListLock and provided a new proposal to improve it. My

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On 29 June 2017 at 10:27, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 29 June 2017 at 03:01, Robert Haas wrote: >>> It wouldn't be >>> so bad if unrecognized parameters were just ignored; the client would >>> know from the

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On 29 June 2017 at 03:01, Robert Haas wrote: > One problem with that is that it means that the format of the > StartupMessage itself can never change, which I think is not a good > choice. The startup message could be immediately followed by another supplemental message,

Re: [HACKERS] What does it mean by XLOG_BACKUP_RECORD?

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > While reading source codes I found the following comment in xlog.c. > > /* > * Have we passed our safe starting point? Note that minRecoveryPoint is > * known to be incorrectly set if

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-28 13:31:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> While looking this over again, I got worried about the fact that pg_ctl >> is #including "miscadmin.h". That's a pretty low-level backend header >> and it wouldn't be surprising at all if somebody tried

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > So when I removed the miscadmin.h include, I found out that pg_ctl is > also relying on PG_BACKEND_VERSIONSTR from that file. > > There are at least three things we could do here: > > 1. Give this up as not worth this much trouble.

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > The patch got conflicted. This is a new version just rebased to > the current master. Furtuer amendment will be taken later. Just one idea that I had while reading the code. In ExecAsyncEventLoop you iterate estate->es_pending_async,

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Here's my proposal: > >> - If the server receives a StartupMessage for v3.x where x > the >> version it knows, instead of just slamming the connection shut, it >> responds by

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> So when I removed the miscadmin.h include, I found out that pg_ctl is >> also relying on PG_BACKEND_VERSIONSTR from that file. >> >> There are at least three things we could do here: >> >> 1. Give this up as not worth this

Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Commits pushed. Great news. Thanks for stepping up to get this committed. Thanks a lot also to Marko, Amit L, Kevin, Robert, Noah and Peter G for the problem reports, reviews and issue chasing. -- Thomas

Re: [HACKERS] Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think if you're going to fix it so that we take spinlocks on > > MyWalSnd in a bunch of places that we didn't take them before, it > > would make sense to fix all the places where we're

Re: [HACKERS] Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I take that you are referring to the two lookups in >> WalSndWaitForWal(), one in exec_replication_command(),

[HACKERS] proposal: Support Unicode host variable in ECPG

Hello, This is a new requirement comes from some customers hoping the ECPG can support Unicode host variable which can compatible with the same feature in Oracle Pro*C. https://docs.oracle.com/database/121/LNPCC/pc_05adv.htm#LNPCC3273 By using this Unicode data type, user can define Unicode

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

On 2017-06-28 19:07:50 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > I think this line is saying that it won't restart automatically: > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/590dce2d4934fb909b112cd80c80486362337744/mm/shmem.c#L2884 Indeed. > So I think we either need to mask signals with or put in an

Re: [HACKERS] Fast promotion not used when doing a recovery_target PITR restore?

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > You seem to completely argue besides my point that the replication path > is *more* robust by now? And there's plenty scenarios where a faster > startup is quite crucial for performance. The difference between an >

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> diff --git a/configure.in b/configure.in >> index 11eb9c8acfc..47452bbac43 100644 >> --- a/configure.in >> +++ b/configure.in >> @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ PGAC_FUNC_WCSTOMBS_L >> LIBS_including_readline="$LIBS" >>

[HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_reload_backend to signal SIGHUP to a specific backend

Hi, Attached is a patch of pg_reload_backend that is a function signaling SIGHUP to a specific backend. The original idea is from Michael Paquier[1]. The documatation isn't included in this patch yet. We can change some parameters of other backend using the function as bellow. postgres=# alter

Re: [HACKERS] pg_receivewal and messages printed in non-verbose mode

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 06:04, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 13 June 2017 at 14:33, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Those come from stop_streaming in pg_receivewal.c.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_reload_backend to signal SIGHUP to a specific backend

> On 28 June 2017 at 12:17, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > Hi, > > Attached is a patch of pg_reload_backend that is a function signaling > SIGHUP to a specific backend. The original idea is from Michael Paquier[1]. > The documatation isn't included in this patch yet. I have few

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> Similarly, >> if the page format is changed you need to consider all page scan API's >> like

[HACKERS] [PATCH] doc: Fix typo

--- doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml index becf868..809cacb 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ su -

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 26 June 2017 at 08:37, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 22 June 2017 at 01:41, Robert Haas wrote: Second, it will amount to a functional bug if you get a different answer than the planner did. >>> >>> Actually, the per-leaf WCOs are meant to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_reload_backend to signal SIGHUP to a specific backend

Hi Yugo, The patch looks fine. Installed and tested. But a similar function already exists for the Postmaster process. Datum pg_reload_conf(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) { if (kill(PostmasterPid, SIGHUP)) { ereport(WARNING, (errmsg("failed to

[HACKERS] building Postgresql-9.0.10 with patching MERGE keyword

Hello! I am a Junior Postgresql hacker.i was start from building and using it.please Help me to fixing this error. I am trying to build with Patching MERGE statement or keyword in Postgresql 9.0.10 on ubuntu OS and am getting a couple errors related to bootstrap libraries. These are occuring

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] \set AUTOROLLBACK ON

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:35 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > We already have SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY. But in my use-case I am OK with the query doing write operations, since sometimes you need to test something in prod (that cannot be tested easily locally) but you

[HACKERS] Typo in comment in postgres_fdw.c

Attached is a fix for a small typo I found. Yours, Laurenz Albe comment.patch Description: comment.patch -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] building Postgresql-9.0.10 with patching MERGE keyword

Lelisa Diriba writes: > I am trying to build with Patching MERGE statement or keyword in > Postgresql 9.0.10 on ubuntu OS and am getting a couple errors related to > bootstrap libraries. 9.0 is a bit old to be of any interest ... > In file included from

protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Now if we had a track record showing that we could tweak the protocol >> version without causing problems, it'd be fine with me to do it for this >> usage. But we don't, and this particular case doesn't seem like

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-27 14:59:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, it's certainly arguable that this is too much change for an >> optional post-beta patch. > Yea, I think there's a valid case to be made for that. I'm still > inclined to go along with this, it

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time

On 2017-06-28 13:31:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not hearing anyone speaking against doing this now, so I'm going > to go ahead with it. Cool. > While looking this over again, I got worried about the fact that pg_ctl > is #including "miscadmin.h". That's a pretty low-level backend header >

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 22 June 2017 at 01:57, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: Yep, it's more appropriate to use ModifyTableState->rootResultRelationInfo->ri_RelationDesc somehow. That is, if answer to the

Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: [HACKERS] Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

Robert Haas writes: > Here's my proposal: > - If the server receives a StartupMessage for v3.x where x > the > version it knows, instead of just slamming the connection shut, it > responds by sending some new message (let's say, > NegotiateProtocolVersion) specifying the

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

Hi Beena, I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5 patch does not apply cleanly on master? Thank you, Rahila Syed On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

Hello Pavel, + if (success) + { + char *ntuples = PQcmdTuples(results); + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ROW_COUNT", *ntuples ? ntuples : "0"); + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ERROR", "FALSE"); + } + else + { + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ROW_COUNT", "0"); + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ERROR", "TRUE"); + } +}

[HACKERS] Small comment fix in partition.c

Hi, Attached patch for $subject. A period is missing at the end of sentence. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center small_fix_partition.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > The patch got conflicted. This is a new version just rebased to > the current master. Furtuer amendment will be taken later. Can you please explain this part of make_append() ? /* Currently async on partitioned tables is not available

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

Hello Rahila, On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hi Beena, > > I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5 > patch does not apply cleanly on master? > Thanks for looking into this. The patch is to be applied on Jeevn's

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-06-27 17:30 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > We can introduce macro SetVariableBool(vars, varname, bool) instead >>> >>> SetVariable(pset.vars, "ERROR", "FALSE"); >>> >> >> I checked source code, and it requires little bit more harder refactoring >>

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

Hello Pavel, I agree that the existing "SetVariableBool" function is a misnommer, it should be "SetVariableOn" given what it does, and it is not what we need. switching default setting from ON to TRUE requires wider discussion - Yep. in this moment I like to have special function

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-06-28 9:25 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > I agree that the existing "SetVariableBool" function is a misnommer, it >>> should be "SetVariableOn" given what it does, and it is not what we need. >>> >> >> switching default setting from ON to TRUE requires

Re: [HACKERS] psql - add special variable to reflect the last query status

2017-06-28 10:04 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > + if (success) >> + { >> + char *ntuples = PQcmdTuples(results); >> + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ROW_COUNT", *ntuples ? ntuples : "0"); >> + SetVariable(pset.vars, "ERROR", "FALSE"); >> + } >> + else >> + { >> +

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hi Beena, > > I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5 > patch does not apply cleanly on master? > I am currently working on Dilip's comments, I will update the patch soon. -- Beena

[HACKERS] building Postgresql-9.0.10

Hello! I am a Junior Postgresql hacker.i was start from building and using it.please Help me to fixing this error. I am trying to build with Patching MERGE statement or keyword in Postgresql 9.0.10 on ubuntu OS and am getting a couple errors related to bootstrap libraries. These are occuring

Re: [HACKERS] Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Now, for bigger segment sizes, I think there actually could be a >> little bit of a noticeable performance hit here, because it's