Re: [HACKERS] utility commands benefiting from parallel plan

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > Thanks for the review. > > I committed this patch with some cosmetic changes. I think the fact > that several people have asked for

Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress help output

Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: > > I have been annoyed at least twice now by the lack of pg_regress command > > line help output for the "--bindir=" option. In passing I noted > > that there was no output for "--help" or "--version" options either. > > > Any objections

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On 10/09/2017 03:26 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have reverted the check in the attached patch. I have applied this patch against PG HEAD and run sqlsmith and analyzed results . didn't find any specific failures against this patch. -- regards,tushar EnterpriseDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: [HACKERS] show precise repos version for dev builds?

On 11 October 2017 at 11:44, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> configure --with-extra-version=whateveryouwant > > I see that this build option has been around since 9.4; is anyone > using it to mark

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-10-03 13:58:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Makes sense? > > > > Yes. > > Here's an updated version of this patchset. Maybe it'd be a good idea to push 0001 with some user

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 9 October 2017 at 16:03, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 08:49, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> Okay, but why not cheapest partial path? >> >> I gave

Re: [HACKERS] Slow synchronous logical replication

On 9 October 2017 at 15:37, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Thank you for explanations. > > On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions, >> test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are /

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

Hi, Attached is a patch to enable views to be locked. PostgreSQL has supported automatically updatable views since 9.3, so we can udpate simply defined views like regular tables. However, currently, table-level locks on views are not supported. We can not execute LOCK TABLE for views, while we

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm actually inclined not to, and keep this as a undocumented debugging > option. Limiting the use of this option to people willing to read the > code seems like a good idea to me. -1. I use the documentation to find

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

Hi Thomas, I was testing this feature with v20 patch, and I got a crash while doing large joins with small work_mem, and lots of workers as below. -- Machine Configuration: (d1.xlarge) CUPs : 8 , RAM : 16GB , SIze : 640GB -- postgres.conf setting as below: work_mem = *64kB*

Re: [HACKERS] Windows warnings from VS 2017

Andres Freund writes: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> I presume if you can make that assertion you already have something >> along those lines? > Not really. I just replaced memset with MemSetAligned in a bunch of > places in the code and looked

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I'm actually inclined not to, and keep this as a undocumented debugging >> option. Limiting the use of this option to people willing to read

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

> Hi, > > Attached is a patch to enable views to be locked. Nice. > PostgreSQL has supported automatically updatable views since 9.3, so we can > udpate simply defined views like regular tables. However, currently, > table-level locks on views are not supported. We can not execute LOCK TABLE >

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > v4 looks correct to me. Testing it through (pgbench and some custom > queries) I have not spotted issues. If the final decision is to use > 64-bit query IDs, then this patch could be pushed. Cool. Committed,

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in execReplication.c

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached a patch for $subject. ISTM these are mistakes of copy-and-paste. > > Committed, but isn't the code itself wrong as well in

[HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType

It seems to me that having ACL_OBJECT_* symbols alongside OBJECT_* symbols is not useful and leads to duplication. Digging around in the past suggests that we used to have a lot of these command-specific symbols but got rid of them over time, except that the ACL stuff was never touched. The

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit queryId?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> v4 looks correct to me. Testing it through (pgbench and some custom >> queries) I have not spotted issues. If the final decision is

Re: [HACKERS] show precise repos version for dev builds?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > We started using it for BDR, but unfortunately too much software > explodes spectacularly when you use it, due to simplistic/buggy > version parsing. Since 10.0 will break most of that software anyway, maybe this is a

Re: [HACKERS] Omission in GRANT documentation

Laurenz Albe writes: > grant.sgml says that >the default privileges granted to PUBLIC are as follows: CONNECT and >CREATE TEMP TABLE for databases; EXECUTE privilege for functions; >and USAGE privilege for languages. > But types also have the USAGE privilege

Re: [HACKERS] Windows warnings from VS 2017

> On 09/21/2017 09:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-09-21 09:30:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andrew Dunstan writes: > >>> The speed of memset is hardly going to be the dominating factor in a > >>> 'CREATE DATABASE' command, so we could certainly afford to

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> For me, it's crucial point that pluggable storages should be able to have >> different MVCC implementation, and correspondingly

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14821: idle_in_transaction_session_timeout sometimes gets ignored when statement timeout is pending

Hi, On 2017-09-20 20:27:05 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote: > As per the bug report at > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170921010956.17345.61461%40wrigleys.postgresql.org > it seems that the query cancellation holdoff logic in ProcessInterrupts is > a bit overly aggressive in keeping other

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

On 2017-10-11 08:54:10 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-10-11 10:53:56 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Maybe it'd be a good idea to push 0001 with some user of restrict ahead > > of the rest, just to see how older msvc reacts. > > Can do. Not quite sure which older user yet, but I'm sure I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14821: idle_in_transaction_session_timeout sometimes gets ignored when statement timeout is pending

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:11 PM Andres Freund wrote: > I've pushed this. Thanks for the report & fix! > Excellent, thanks! Best, Lukas -- Lukas Fittl

Re: [HACKERS] show precise repos version for dev builds?

On 10/11/17 04:19, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 11 October 2017 at 11:44, Jeremy Schneider > wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> configure --with-extra-version=whateveryouwant >> >> I see that this build option has been

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

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Nico Williams wrote: >> If global temporary tables should be effective, then you have not have >> modify system catalogue after creating. But lot of processes requires it - >> ANALYZE, query planning. > > But the nice thing about them is that

Re: [HACKERS] Predicate Locks for writes?

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > PredicateLockTuple() specifically avoids adding an SIRead lock if the > tuple already has a write lock on it, so surely it must also be > correct to skip the SIRead lock if we are just about to update the > row? I wonder

Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress help output

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, why is the patch apparently changing whitespace in all the help >> lines? Seems like that will create a lot of make-work for translators. > I think we don't have translations for pg_regress. Good point --- objection

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

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Committed. I hope that makes things less red rather than more, >> because I'm going to be AFK for a few hours anyway. > > Here's

Re: [HACKERS] On markers of changed data

On 10 October 2017 at 23:50, Stephen Frost wrote: > Yeah, it sounds interesting, but I was just chatting w/ David about it > and we were thinking about how checkpoints are really rather often done, > so you end up with quite a few of these lists being out there. > > Now, if

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

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Committed. I hope that makes things less red

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul wrote: > How about the attached patch(0003)? > Also, the dim variable is renamed to natts. I'm not sure I believe this comment: +/* + * We arrange the partitions in the ascending order of their modulus + * and

Re: [HACKERS] Slow synchronous logical replication

On 12 October 2017 at 00:57, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > The reason of such behavior is obvious: wal sender has to decode huge > transaction generate by insert although it has no relation to this > publication. It does. Though I wouldn't expect anywhere near the kind

Re: [HACKERS] show precise repos version for dev builds?

Craig Ringer writes: > On 12 October 2017 at 06:46, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> I've been using >> --with-extra-version=+git`date +%Y%m%d`"~"`git rev-parse --short HEAD` >> for my local builds for some time, and I've not experienced any

[HACKERS] Continuous integration on Windows?

Hi hackers, I don't use Windows myself, but I'd rather avoid submitting patches that fail to build, build with horrible warnings or blow up on that fine operating system. I think it would be neat to be able to have experimental branches of PostgreSQL built and tested on Windows automatically

Re: [HACKERS] show precise repos version for dev builds?

On 12 October 2017 at 06:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I've been using > > --with-extra-version=+git`date +%Y%m%d`"~"`git rev-parse --short HEAD` > > for my local builds for some time, and I've not experienced any such > problems. Interesting. I've seen issues

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 2017/09/30 1:53, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I looked into how satisfies_hash_partition() works and came up with an >> idea that I think will make constraint exclusion work. What if we emitted >> the hash

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

>> test=# CREATE VIEW v3 AS SELECT count(*) FROM v1; >> CREATE VIEW >> test=# BEGIN; >> BEGIN >> test=# LOCK TABLE v3; >> ERROR: cannot lock view "v3" >> DETAIL: Views that return aggregate functions are not automatically >> updatable. > > It would be nice if the message would be something

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Improve bitmap costing for lossy pages

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov >> wrote: >>> Analysis: The estimated value of the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add configure infrastructure to detect support for C99's restric

On 2017-10-11 21:59:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > That fixed that problem I think. But unfortunately since then another > problem has been reported by some other animals, all with older msvc > versions afaict (thrips - vs 2012, bowerbird - vs 2012). Correction, thrips is vs 2010, not 2012.

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add configure infrastructure to detect support for C99's restric

On 2017-10-11 17:13:20 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-10-11 23:11:15 +, Andres Freund wrote: > > Add configure infrastructure to detect support for C99's restrict. > > > > Will be used in later commits improving performance for a few key > > routines where information about

Re: [HACKERS] Slow synchronous logical replication

On 11.10.2017 10:07, Craig Ringer wrote: On 9 October 2017 at 15:37, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Thank you for explanations. On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote: I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions, test programs, etc, making it

Re: [HACKERS] Discussion on missing optimizations

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 9. Unneeded Self JOIN > >> Can't remember discussions of this. > > I can't get very excited about that one either. My memories of being a PostgreSQL user rather than a developer are getting a bit distant by now, but I

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

On 2017-10-11 10:53:56 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2017-10-03 13:58:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > Makes sense? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Here's an updated version of

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > How about always returning false for PARAM_EXTERN? Yeah, I think that's what we should do. Let's do that first as a separate patch, which we might even want to back-patch, then return to this. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-10-11 10:53:56 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I wonder if it'd be a good idea to nag external users about pq_sendint > > usage (is a #warning possible?). > > Think we'd need some separate infrastructure, i.e. for gcc ending up > with __attribute__((deprecated)).

Re: [HACKERS] Predicate Locks for writes?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm inclined to believe Robert's hypothesis that there is some race > condition there. > > The question is whether that still constitutes a serializability > problem since we haven't done anything with the data, just

Re: [HACKERS] Slow synchronous logical replication

Hi, On 2017-10-09 10:37:01 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > So we have implement sharding - splitting data between several remote tables > using pg_pathman and postgres_fdw. > It means that insert or update of parent table cause insert or update of > some derived partitions which is forwarded

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add port/strnlen support to libpq and ecpg Makefiles.

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-10-11 11:58:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I agree the PITA factor of the current approach keeps increasing. >> It sounds a bit silly to build libpgport three ways, but maybe >> we should just do that. > We already kinda are, just by copying

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > This looks good to me. I think it should be a separate, yet very small patch. +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Predicate Locks for writes?

On 11 October 2017 at 15:33, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> PredicateLockTuple() specifically avoids adding an SIRead lock if the >> tuple already has a write lock on it, so surely it must also be >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

FYI, I've added my patch to the commitfest. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1319/ -- 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] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

Hi, On 2017-10-11 18:05:32 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Well, my concern is to ensure that extension authors take advantage of > the optimized implementation. If we never let them know that we've > rewritten things, most are not going to realize they can make their > extensions faster with a

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hmm ... yeah, ATTACH and DETACH sound acceptable to me. On DETACH, the > abstract index should be marked indisvalid=false unless a substitute > index already exists; and on ATTACH when indisvalid=false we verify

Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> If do nothing, it's unlikely we'd ever get rid of the compat function. > > I think that's ok. Yeah. I mean, it seems similar to what happened with heap_formtuple: the last in-tree users of that function went away in

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in execReplication.c

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached a patch for $subject. ISTM these are mistakes of copy-and-paste. Committed, but isn't the code itself wrong as well in the DELETE case? /* BEFORE ROW DELETE Triggers */ if

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > For me, it's crucial point that pluggable storages should be able to have > different MVCC implementation, and correspondingly have full control over > its interactions with indexes. > Thus, it would be good

Re: [HACKERS] Slow synchronous logical replication

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Thank you for explanations. > > On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions, >> test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are /

Re: [HACKERS] How does postgres store the join predicate for a relation in a given query

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Gourav Kumar wrote: > Hi all, > > When you fire a query in postgresql, it will first parse the query and > create the data structures for storing various aspects of the query and > executing the query. (Like RangeTblEntry, PlannerInfo,