Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> I don't think so -- the "committed" and "invalid" meanings are >> effectively canceled when the "frozen" mask is present. >> >> I mean, "committed" and "invalid" contradict each other... > > FWIW I agree with

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Andres Freund writes: > I don't see any relevant uses of sockets in older branches, did I miss > something? No, I think we don't need to go back further than v10. Even if it turns out we do, I'd just as soon let this get a bit of field testing first.

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

Re: Thomas Munro 2017-08-10

Re: [HACKERS] What users can do with custom ICU collations in Postgres 10

On 8/14/17 12:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Given that we cannot reasonably preload all these new variants that you > demonstrated, I think it would make sense to drop all the keyword > variants from the preloaded set. After playing with this a bit, I'm having some doubts. While the "k" keys

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On August 15, 2017 7:04:59 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this >>> issue resolved. > >> Would you like to commit your

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

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Attached patches with the comments addressed. I have committed 0001-0003 as 480f1f4329f1bf8bfbbcda8ed233851e1b110ad4 and e139f1953f29db245f60a7acb72fccb1e05d2442. 0004 doesn't apply any more, probably due

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On August 15, 2017 8:07:43 AM PDT, Andres Freund wrote: > > >On August 15, 2017 7:04:59 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >>Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: I think we could commit

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> P.S. While I haven't reviewed 0002 in detail, I think the concept of >> minimizing what needs to be built in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo >> is a very good idea. > > I put this patch ahead in the list and

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

Tom Lane writes: > Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions. > ... > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0dd4f539f3 The buildfarm members that are running force_parallel_mode = regress are not happy with this. Apparently, even a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On 08/15/2017 07:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: I don't think so -- the "committed" and "invalid" meanings are effectively canceled when the "frozen" mask is present. I mean, "committed" and "invalid" contradict

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tom Lane writes: >> Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions. >> ... >> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0dd4f539f3 > > The buildfarm members that are running

Re: [HACKERS] A suspicious code in pgoutput_startup().

On 7/27/17 20:52, Yugo Nagata wrote: > 175 /* Check if we support requested protocol */ > 176 if (data->protocol_version != LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM) > 177 ereport(ERROR, > 178 (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), > 179

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 14 August 2017 at 03:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> It is my understanding that much of the benefit of unit testing comes >> from maintainability. It's something that goes well with design by >>

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > +1 for 0001 and 0002 in general, but I can't help noticing that they > lead to a noticeable worsening of the error messages in the regression > tests. As the access restriction gets handled by GRANT in this patch,

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication message type 'Y' is missing in docs

On 8/9/17 20:22, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > There is a type of logical replication message 'Y' for data types, but > it's not documented in section 52.9. Logical Replication Message > Formats. Attached patch fixes this. I think it can be PG10 item. Committed with some tweaking. -- Peter

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I assume (haven't looked) that I could hack the plpgsql code to prevent >> generating a parallel plan when it's decided the command is a simple >> SELECT. But I wonder whether

Re: [HACKERS] PDF content lemma subdivision

On 7/8/17 10:24, Erik Rijkers wrote: > The PDF-version of the documentation has content-'frame' displayed on > the left-hand side (I'm viewing with okular; I assmume it will be > similar in most viewers). > > That content displays a treeview down to the main entries/lemmata, like > 'CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] A little improvementof ApplyLauncherMain loop code

On 8/1/17 02:28, Yugo Nagata wrote: > When reading the logical replication code, I found that the following > part could be improved a bit. In the foreach, LWLockAcquire and > logicalrep_worker_find are called for each loop, but they are needed > only when sub->enabled is true. Fixed, thanks! --

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > What I think we should not do is interpret the bitmasks (omitting some of > the information) assuming all the bits were set correctly. I'm still confused. HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMIN_ABORTED ==

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On 08/15/2017 09:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: What I think we should not do is interpret the bitmasks (omitting some of the information) assuming all the bits were set correctly. I'm still confused.

Re: [HACKERS] What users can do with custom ICU collations in Postgres 10

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/14/17 12:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Given that we cannot reasonably preload all these new variants that you >> demonstrated, I think it would make sense to drop all the keyword >> variants from

Re: [HACKERS] What users can do with custom ICU collations in Postgres 10

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/9/17 18:49, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I'd like to give a demo on what is already possible, but not currently >> documented. I didn't see anyone else comment on this, including Peter >> E (maybe I

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

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > [ new patch ] I spent some time going over this patch. I initially thought it only needed minor cosmetic tweaking but the more I poked at it the more things I found that seemed like they should be changed, so the

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 24.03.2017, 19:32 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

I wrote: > I like your plan (2). It's not much code and it lends itself to having a > run-time check, rather than just an Assert, that we found a Result node. > That seems like a good idea now that we've found the assumption isn't > bulletproof. However, do we need to worry about the planner

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On 2017-08-15 17:44:55 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > > @@ -99,12 +72,9 @@ CreateTemplateTupleDesc(int natts, bool hasoid) > > > > /* > > * CreateTupleDesc > > - * This function allocates a new TupleDesc pointing to a given > > + * This function allocates a new TupleDesc

Re: [HACKERS] What users can do with custom ICU collations in Postgres 10

On 8/9/17 18:49, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I'd like to give a demo on what is already possible, but not currently > documented. I didn't see anyone else comment on this, including Peter > E (maybe I missed that?). We should improve the documentation in this > area, to get this into the hands of

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hi, Personally I find the split between 03 and 04 and their naming a bit confusing. I'd rather just merge them. These patches need a rebase, they don't apply anymore. On 2017-07-06 12:04:12 +0530, Beena Emerson wrote: > @@ -4813,6 +4836,18 @@ XLOGShmemSize(void) > { > char

Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \gx

I've tested the new \gx against 10beta and current git HEAD. Actually one of my favourite features of PostgreSQL 10! However in my environment it was behaving strangely. After some debugging I found that \gx does not work if you have \set FETCH_COUNT n before. Please find attached a patch that

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> But architecturally I'm still not sure I quite like the a bit ad-hoc >> manner session state is defined here. I think we much more

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The idea of the existing > code seems to be "let's exercise what happens if the executor does > EnterParallelMode/ExitParallelMode around any plan whatsoever, even a > parallel-unsafe one"; which seems to me to be bogus as

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The idea of the existing >> code seems to be "let's exercise what happens if the executor does >> EnterParallelMode/ExitParallelMode around any plan whatsoever, even a >>

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: psql: check env variable PSQL_PAGER

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > here is a patch - it is trivial The feature makes sense, follows an existing example (PSQL_EDITOR), and works nicely. is platform-dependent. Use of the pager can be disabled by setting PAGER to

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

Thanks for the review. On 2017/08/16 2:27, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> P.S. While I haven't reviewed 0002 in detail, I think the concept of >>> minimizing what needs to be built in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo

Re: [HACKERS] tab complete for psql pset pager values

On 7/26/17 11:02, Pavel Stehule wrote: > attached trivial patch for missing tab complete for \pset pager setting committed (back to 9.6) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication message type 'Y' is missing in docs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/9/17 20:22, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> There is a type of logical replication message 'Y' for data types, but >> it's not documented in section 52.9. Logical Replication Message >> Formats. Attached

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

On 7/9/17 22:08, Michael Paquier wrote: > While the version on my laptop does that: > if (time_to_abort) > { > - fprintf(stderr, _("%s: received interrupt signal, exiting\n"), > - progname); > + if (verbose) > +

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello, > >> I think we can use it like --custom-initialize="create_table, vacuum" >> which is similar to what we specify a connection option to psql for >> example. > > > Even if it is allowed, do not advertise it. Or

Re: [HACKERS] Fixup some misusage of appendStringInfo and friends

On 16 August 2017 at 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > committed Thanks! -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Christoph Berg wrote: >> Re: Thomas Munro 2017-08-10 >>

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On 2017-08-15 20:30:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Interesting. I was apparently thinking slightly differently. I'd have > > thought we'd have Session struct in statically allocated shared > > memory. Which'd then have

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

I wrote: > As I said, I think this code is based on fuzzy thinking. ... or, more charitably, it may just date from before standard_planner's plaster-a-Gather-on-top logic worked the way it does today. But in any case I think it's wrong now. regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > No. The case that I'm concerned about is where the initial estimate > of "parallelModeOK" is true, but the planner nevertheless selects > a parallel-unsafe plan --- unsafe for some other reason than that it > already has a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On 16 August 2017 at 03:42, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 08/15/2017 07:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: >> >>> I don't think so -- the "committed" and "invalid" meanings are

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Thomas Munro 2017-08-10 >

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Interesting. I was apparently thinking slightly differently. I'd have > thought we'd have Session struct in statically allocated shared > memory. Which'd then have dsa_handle, dshash_table_handle, ... members. Sounds an

Re: [HACKERS] Fixup some misusage of appendStringInfo and friends

On 4/26/17 20:14, David Rowley wrote: > On 27 April 2017 at 06:41, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 4/19/17 08:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> I reviewed the patch. It compiles clean, make check-world passes. I do >>> not see any issue with it. >> >> Looks

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

Will respond to the actionable code review points separately with a new patch set, but first: On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-15 17:44:55 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> > @@ -99,12 +72,9 @@ CreateTemplateTupleDesc(int natts, bool hasoid) >>

Re: [HACKERS] replication_slot_catalog_xmin not explicitly initialized when creating procArray

On 7/9/17 21:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Wong, Yi Wen wrote: >> replication_slot_catalog_xmin is not explictly initialized to >> InvalidTransactionId. > Thank you for the patch. This change makes sense to me. Committed and backpatched --

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 2017/08/10 18:52, Beena Emerson wrote: > Hi Amit, > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2017/08/05 2:25, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Concretely, my proposal is: >>> >>> P.S. While I haven't reviewed 0002 in detail, I think the concept of

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign tables privileges not shown in information_schema.table_privileges

On 8/10/17 09:00, Nicolas Thauvin wrote: > The information_schema.table_privileges view filters on regular tables > and views. Foreign tables are not shown in this view but they are in > other views of the information_schema like tables or column_privileges. > > Is it intentional? A patch is

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

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have committed that version. I think the exit message can be useful, > because pg_receivewal will usually run as some kind of background > process where the exit status might be not be visible.

Re: [HACKERS] The error message "sorry, too many clients already" is imprecise

On 8/8/17 06:39, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: > I've made a hack for myself (attached diff against 9.4) which adds a > DETAIL-level message telling me which proc list was saturated. It's not > committable in its current form because of a C99 feature and perhaps for > other reasons. There are other

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

I checked for code related to infomask. (add flag state -- HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED, HEAP_XMIN_INVALID, HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN) first i'm still beginner level about postgresql, so my opinion may be wrong. if the "HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED" flag is added, check the function of "HeapTupleHeaderXminInvalid" if the

[HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting

First I'll describe my setup just to give you some context. If anyone would like to discuss my ideas or propose their own ideas for discussion, let's do so on -ADMIN or -GENERAL. I have multiple production database clusters which I want to make backups of. Restoring from plain dumps takes too

Re: [HACKERS] shared memory based stat collector (was: Sharing record typmods between backends)

Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > I really, really strongly encourage you to rip the use of DSA out here > > entirely. It is reducing the reliability of a critical part of the > > system for no actual benefit other than speculation that this is going > > to be

Re: [HACKERS] Orphaned files in base/[oid]

There's another side to this and that I am not sure it is a backend crash. Here is what I did to reproduce: 2 virtual disk images: 100mb for main data, 40 MB for WAL. work_mem set to 256MB. The idea is to test different out of space conditions. Create table as ...; drop table; select

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

Hi, On 2017-06-13 11:50:27 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Here I attached WIP patches to support pluggable storage. The patch series > are may not work individually. Still so many things are under development. > These patches are just to share the approach of the current development. Making a

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Peter, On 5/24/17 03:14, Fabien COELHO wrote: I've improved it in attached v11: - add a link to the CASE full documentation - add an example expression with CASE ... This patch needs (at least) a rebase for the upcoming commit fest. Here is a rebase. It still passes my tests.

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I’ve rebased this patch with master to create v7, which is attached. Thanks for the rebased patch. I am switching into review mode actively now, so I'll look at it soon. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > > Attached is a patch for $SUBJECT. It might still be a bit rough around > the > > edges and probably light on docs and testing, but I thought I'd post

[HACKERS] Generate wait event list and docs from text file

Hi all, As $subject has been touched on two threads recently (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTbHLcHFn6m11tfpwAdgz8BmnBza2jjN9AK=sdx_kb...@mail.gmail.com and https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170808213537.wkmmagf2a6i3hjyi@alvherre.pgsql), the list of wait event and their

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a rebase. Argh, sorry, missing attachement... Here it is really. -- Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml index 03e1212..520daae 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml @@ -825,14 +825,31 @@ pgbench

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >> > Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log >> > message INFO:

[HACKERS] Stats for triggers on partitioned tables not shown in EXPLAIN ANALYZE

Hi hackers, I noticed that runtime stats for BEFORE ROW INSERT triggers on leaf partitions of partitioned tables aren't reported in EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Here is an example: postgres=# create table trigger_test (a int, b text) partition by list (a); CREATE TABLE postgres=# create table

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:59:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" >> writes: >> > ERROR: XX000: unrecognized node type: 90 >> > LOCATION: ExecReScan,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > The bits are set, those macros just test to exclude the special meaning of > both bits being set at once to mean "frozen". > > I was reluctant to filter out HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED and HEAP_XMIN_INVALID > when we detect

Re: [HACKERS] scan on inheritance parent with no children in current session

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I have modified the comments that way. Committed with some cleanup. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > I have rebased the patches on the latest commit. This needs another rebase. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] shared memory based stat collector (was: Sharing record typmods between backends)

Robert Haas writes: > I really, really strongly encourage you to rip the use of DSA out here > entirely. It is reducing the reliability of a critical part of the > system for no actual benefit other than speculation that this is going > to be better in the future, and it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On 08/15/2017 03:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: The bits are set, those macros just test to exclude the special meaning of both bits being set at once to mean "frozen". I was reluctant to filter out HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: > I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this > issue resolved. Would you like to commit your patch then? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: [HACKERS] Orphaned files in base/[oid]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Chris Travers writes: > > I wonder about a different solution. Would it be possible to special > case > > vacuum to check for and remove (or just move to where they can be > removed) > > files when

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this >> issue resolved. > Would you like to commit your patch then? It's really Andres' patch, but I can push it.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 08/15/2017 03:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Craig Ringer >> wrote: >>> >>> The bits are set, those macros just test to exclude the special

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:59:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" >>>

Re: [HACKERS] shared memory based stat collector (was: Sharing record typmods between backends)

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Yeah, and the other question -- which Thomas asked before you >> originally committed originally, and which I just now asked again is >> "Why in the world are you using DSA for this at all?". There are >> serious

Re: [HACKERS] Orphaned files in base/[oid]

Chris Travers writes: > I wonder about a different solution. Would it be possible to special case > vacuum to check for and remove (or just move to where they can be removed) > files when vacuuming pg_class? At the point we are vacuuming pg_class, we > ought to be able

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Recent commit 8d98819 has added a missing permissoin check to lo_put() > to make sure that the write permissions of the object are properly set > before writing to a large object. When studying the problem, we

Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think skipping a generation of gather paths for scan node or top > level join node generated via standard_join_search seems straight > forward, but skipping for paths generated via geqo seems to be tricky > (See use

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Attached patch fixes the issue for me. I have locally verified that >> the gather merge gets executed in rescan path. I haven't added a test >> case for the same as