Re: [HACKERS] PgFDW connection invalidation by ALTER SERVER/ALTER USER MAPPING

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:15:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in > <18927.1500588...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> This seems like overkill. We can test it reasonably easily within the >> existing

Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification

At Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:00:03 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in <15aa9936-9bd8-c9e3-7ca1-394861073...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > On 2017/07/21 3:24, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think that's reasonable. This should be committed and back-patched > > to 9.6, right? > > Yeah, because

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

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Thomas Munro > > wrote: > >> Isn't this the same as the issue

Re: [HACKERS] [TRAP: FailedAssertion] causing server to crash

At Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:39:38 +0530, Neha Sharma wrote in > Here is the back trace from the core dump attached. > > (gdb) bt > #0 0x7f4a71424495 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > #1

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

On 2017-07-20 20:59, Robert Haas wrote: If you want something changed, it's your job to do that testing. I've been testing for two weeks before I wrote to pgsql-hackers. And I wrote some highlevel results in first letter. I haven't noticed transactions slowdown from increased vacuum ring

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

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Rafia Sabih wrote: > So, does this > also mean that a partitioned table will not join with an unpartitioned > table without append of partitions? > Yes. When you join an unpartitioned table with a partitioned table, the planner will

Re: [HACKERS] Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > I think the addition of checks everywhere for NULL return is worse. >> > Let's add a missing_ok

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

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > On 2017/07/20 15:05, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Rafia Sabih > >>

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise

On 2017-07-21 06:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/19/2017 07:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Geoghegan writes: My argument for the importance of index bloat to the more general bloat problem is simple: any bloat that accumulates, that cannot be cleaned up, will probably accumulate

Re: [HACKERS] [TRAP: FailedAssertion] causing server to crash

Here is the back trace from the core dump attached. (gdb) bt #0 0x7f4a71424495 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x7f4a71425c75 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x009dc18a in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0xa905d0 "!(TransactionIdPrecedesOrEquals(oldestXact,

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

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Rafia Sabih wrote: > > Following the discussion at [1], with the patch Thomas posted there, now Q21 > completes in some 160 seconds. Your earlier reports mentioned unpartitioned case taking 300 seconds, partitioned case without

Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I was initially surprised that your testing managed to pass, but then > I noticed that this sanity test is using && where it should really be > using ||; it will only fail if ALL of the data types are wrong. Oops. Oh,

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench

Hmmm. On second thought, maybe one or the other is enough, either restrict the parameter to values where the approximation is good, or put out a clear documentation about when the approximation is not very good, but it may be still useful even if not precise.So I would be in favor of expanding the

[HACKERS] Locale dependency in new postgres_fdw test

So 8bf58c0d9 immediately blew up in the buildfarm, with eg this on jaguarundi: *** *** 130,136 ALTER SERVER loopback OPTIONS (SET dbname 'no such database'); SELECT c3, c4 FROM ft1 ORDER BY c3, c1 LIMIT 1; -- should fail ERROR: could not connect to server "loopback" !

[HACKERS] possible effective_io_concurrency performance regression

-hackers, While updating my Postgres performance curriculum I was doing some testing with effective_io_concurrency and I may have found a regression. I am aware that the parameter only works under certain conditions. However, what I appear to have found is that if it is set to anything but

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a Gather executor node.

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I think those top-of-file lists are just annoying, and would prefer to >> rip them out entirely rather than spend time maintaining them. > +1 To the extent that they're just lists of function names, +1. Some of them have

Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table

On 17 July 2017 at 17:37, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 17 July 2017 at 16:34, Robert Haas wrote: >> Do you want to own this open item, then? >> > OK. > > I need to give the patch another read-through, and then I'll aim to > push it sometime in the

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

On 2017-07-21 19:32, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Sokolov Yura wrote: Probably with increased ring buffer there is no need in raising vacuum_cost_limit. Will you admit it? No, I definitely won't admit that. With default settings

Re: [HACKERS] More optimization effort?

Robert Haas writes: > Another very similar (but possibly easier) case is: > select * from pgbench_accounts where aid = 1.0; > This will use a sequential scan rather than an index scan, because the > query optimizer doesn't know that the only integer for which =(int4, >

Re: [HACKERS] PgFDW connection invalidation by ALTER SERVER/ALTER USER MAPPING

Ashutosh Bapat writes: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> The attached patch differs only in this point. > +1. The patch looks good to me. Pushed with a couple additional changes: we'd all missed

Re: [HACKERS] Locale dependency in new postgres_fdw test

I wrote: > I had not realized (or forgot) that postgres_fdw allows the remote > end to run in whatever lc_messages locale is default for the remote > installation. It's a bit surprising that none of the existing test > cases expose any remote-side messages directly, but evidently not. > We could

Re: [HACKERS] More optimization effort?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > But the bigger picture is that doing something that helps to any > useful extent would require a really substantial amount of new, > datatype- and operator-specific knowledge that doesn't exist in the > system today. And as

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise

On 07/20/2017 08:58 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/19/2017 07:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Geoghegan writes: Test 1: 55G/srv/main TPS:955 Test 2: 112G/srv/main TPS:531 (Not sure what happened here, long checkpoint?) Test 3: 109G/srv/main TPS:868

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello < fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:31:57 -0300 > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul

Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

On 2017-07-18 16:53:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > ... If we were to go this route we'd have to probably move > > the callback assignment into the ExecInit* routines, and possibly > > replace the switch in ExecInitNode() with another callback, assigned

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Make sure all statistics is sent after a few DML are performed

Hi, (please don't top-reply on this list) On 2017-07-19 14:04:39 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:10:49 -0400 > Tom Lane wrote: > > Thank you for your comments. I understand the problem of my proposal > patch. Does that mean you're trying to rewrite it in

Re: [HACKERS] xlogfilename

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:11:05 +0800 Craig Ringer wrote: > On 20 July 2017 at 21:33, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:02:25 +0200 > > Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:58 AM, DEV_OPS

Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification

On 2017/07/21 17:18, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:00:03 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in <15aa9936-9bd8-c9e3-7ca1-394861073...@lab.ntt.co.jp> Attached is the second version which updated docs in postgres-fdw.sgml as well. !no local joins for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Make sure all statistics is sent after a few DML are performed

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:58:47 -0700 Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > (please don't top-reply on this list) > > On 2017-07-19 14:04:39 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:10:49 -0400 > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Thank you for your comments.

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables

On 2017/07/20 11:21, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2017/07/19 23:36, Tom Lane wrote: Please put the responsibility of doing const-expression simplification in these cases somewhere closer to where the problem is being created. It would be reasonable that it's the FDW's responsibility to do that

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench

Hello! I realized that I was sending emails as HTML and latest patch is not visible in the archive now. That’s why I am attaching it again. I am sorry for that. pgbench-zipf-05v.patch Description: Binary data — Thanks and Regards, Alik Khilazhev Postgres Professional:

[HACKERS] Buildfarm failure and dubious coding in predicate.c

Buildfarm member culicidae just showed a transient failure in the 9.4 branch: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=culicidae=2017-07-21%2017%3A49%3A37 It's an assert trap, for which the buildfarm helpfully captured a stack trace: #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Sokolov Yura wrote: > > My friend noticed, that I didn't said why I bother with autovacuum. > Our customers suffers from table bloating. I've made synthetic > bloating test, and started experiments with modifying micro- and >

Re: [HACKERS] Syncing sql extension versions with shared library versions

On 07/21/2017 04:17 PM, Mat Arye wrote: > Hi All, > > I am developing the TimescaleDB extension for postgres > (https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb) and have some questions > about versioning. First of all, I have to say that the versioning > system on the sql side is wonderful. It's really

[HACKERS] Syncing sql extension versions with shared library versions

Hi All, I am developing the TimescaleDB extension for postgres ( https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb) and have some questions about versioning. First of all, I have to say that the versioning system on the sql side is wonderful. It's really simple to write migrations etc. However when

Re: [HACKERS] Locale dependency in new postgres_fdw test

Tom Lane wrote: > We could stabilize this test result by forcing lc_messages = C in > the foreign server options. However, that would lose regression > coverage of situations where the remote locale is different, which > doesn't seem like a terribly good thing. I don't understand what is the

Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

On 21/07/2017 13:40, Andres Freund wrote: > Attached is a > patch that converts just ExecProcNode. The big change in comparison to > the earlier patch is that the assignment of the callback is now done in > the respective ExecInit* routines. As a consequence the ExecProcNode > callbacks now are

Re: [HACKERS] Locale dependency in new postgres_fdw test

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> We could stabilize this test result by forcing lc_messages = C in >> the foreign server options. However, that would lose regression >> coverage of situations where the remote locale is different, which >> doesn't seem like a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

Masahiko, all, * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Masahiko, Michael, > > > > * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > This is beginning to shape. > >> > >> Sorry, I missed lots of typo in

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise

On 07/20/2017 11:54 PM, Sokolov Yura wrote: On 2017-07-21 06:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/19/2017 07:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Geoghegan writes: -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc PostgreSQL Centered full stack support,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Make ExplainBeginGroup()/ExplainEndGroup() public.

Title should have been "Make ExplainOpenGroup()/ExplainCloseGroup() public.". Sorry for the misspell.

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Precalculate stable functions, infrastructure v1

Like for the previous patches it seems that there is no obvious performance degradation too on regular queries (according to pgbench). pgbench probably isn't a very good test for this sort of thing - it only issues very short-running queries where the cost of evaluating expressions is a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Pageinspect - add functions on GIN and GiST indexes from gevel

Hi, Alexey! On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexey Chernyshov < a.chernys...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > the following patch transfers functionality from gevel module > (http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/Gevel) which provides functions for > analyzing GIN and GiST indexes to pageinspect. Gevel

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'm not entirely sure what's the best way to deal with the polymorphic > problem, but on the other hand as Robert says downthread maybe we > shouldn't be solving it at this stage anyway. So let's step back a

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a Gather executor node.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-30 23:29:30 +, Robert Haas wrote: >> Add a Gather executor node. >> ... >> src/backend/executor/execProcnode.c | 46 > > I just noticed that this added a new execProcnode dispatch routine,

Re: [HACKERS] More optimization effort?

Tatsuo Ishii writes: > Currently following query does not use an index: > test=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where aid*100 < 1; > While following one does use the index. > test=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where aid < 1/100; > Is it worth to

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy

On 20 July 2017 at 14:19, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark writes: > >> Would it be useful to keep in one of the memory checking assertion builds? > > Why? Code that expects to continue accessing a relcache entry's tupdesc > after closing the relcache entry is

Re: [HACKERS] Adding -E switch to pg_dumpall

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Ok for me. I switched the status to "Ready for committers". Thanks for the review, Fabien. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:53:19 +0800 > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > On 21 July 2017 at 08:42, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Fabrízio de Royes

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:31:57 -0300 Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:53:19 +0800 > > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > > > On 21 July 2017 at 08:42,

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Make ExplainBeginGroup()/ExplainEndGroup() public.

Hello, The attached patch moves declarations of ExplainBeginGroup()/ExplainEndGroup() from explain.c to explain.h. This can be useful for extensions that need explain groups in their custom-scan explain output. For example, Citus uses groups in its custom explain outputs [1]. But it achieves it

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] [B-Tree] Keep indexes sorted by heap physical location

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > The attached patch tries to maintain the initial status of B-Tree > indexes, which are created with equal-key runs in physical order, > during the whole life of the B-Tree, and make key-tid pairs > efficiently

Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-07-18 16:53:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, I don't see why you really need to mess with anything except >> ExecProcNode? Surely the other cases such as MultiExecProcNode are >> not called often enough to justify changing them away from the

Re: [HACKERS] More race conditions in logical replication

I'm back at looking into this again, after a rather exhausting week. I think I have a better grasp of what is going on in this code now, and it appears to me that we should change the locking so that active_pid is protected by ReplicationSlotControlLock instead of the slot's spinlock; but I

Re: [HACKERS] More optimization effort?

On 21 July 2017 at 20:00, Tom Lane wrote: >> I have, however, decided not to volunteer to be the one who works on >> that project. > > Me either. Any one of these things would require a *lot* of work in > order to have a coherent feature that provided useful behavior across

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

> > > Can a user do anything remotely interesting or useful without hitting > either > > ExecutorStart_hook or ProcessUtility_hook? They can parse queries I guess > > but you could just set your hook up in the parser instead. If you hook > the > > parser all they can do is open an idle session and

Re: [HACKERS] Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Still, it can't be worse than the status quo, where instead of int64 >> we're using int and int32, so maybe we ought to back-patch it

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a Gather executor node.

On July 21, 2017 5:34:32 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Robert Haas wrote: > >> I think those top-of-file lists are just annoying, and would prefer >to >> rip them out entirely rather than spend time maintaining them. > >+1 I'm quite sympathetic to that view.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Don't we have that timestamp already? > > What practical use cases are there for acting post-auth but that can't wait > until the user tries to do something? Have, yes; record, no. > Can a user do anything remotely

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On 21 Jul. 2017 21:58, "Yugo Nagata" wrote: On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:31:57 -0300 Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:53:19 +0800 > > Craig Ringer

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello again! Here is the third version of the patch for pgbench thanks to Fabien Coelho comments. As in the previous one, transactions with serialization and deadlock failures are rolled back and retried until they end successfully or their number of tries reaches maximum. Differences from

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Sokolov Yura wrote: > You are one of leadership. I know it is not your job to test every tiny > change a school boy proposed. But here is a lot of people, who waits for > your word. Instead of cooling rush and closing discussions, you

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:31:57 -0300 > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:53:19

Re: [HACKERS] Increase Vacuum ring buffer.

On 2017-07-20 22:51, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: I think that's a valid point. There are also other concerns here - e.g. whether instead of adopting the patch as proposed we ought to (a) use some smaller size, or (b) keep the size as-is but reduce the maximum

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On 2017-05-17 17:46, Sokolov Yura wrote: Alvaro Herrera писал 2017-05-15 20:13: As I understand, these patches are logically separate, so putting them together in a single file isn't such a great idea. If you don't edit the patches further, then you're all set because we already have the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:53:19 +0800 Craig Ringer wrote: > On 21 July 2017 at 08:42, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > wrote: > > > I'm not sure your real needs but doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a Gather executor node.

Robert Haas wrote: > I think those top-of-file lists are just annoying, and would prefer to > rip them out entirely rather than spend time maintaining them. +1 -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services