Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015/12/11 1:18, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Thank you for committing the patch! Sorry, I overlooked a typo in docs: s/more that one/more than one/ Please find attached a patch. Committed, thanks. Thanks! Best

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > Still, I'll get a patch worked up for it and then we can discuss the > >> > merits of

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Stephen Frost wrote: >> > Still, I'll get a patch worked up for it and then we can discuss the >> > merits of that patch going in to 9.5 now versus just into HEAD. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Thank you for committing the patch! > > Sorry, I overlooked a typo in docs: s/more that one/more than one/ Please > find attached a patch. Committed, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB:

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual >> > >> > Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not,

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015/12/09 2:56, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual Is this

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 1 December 2015 at 17:05, Robert Haas wrote: > do we want to > back-patch those changes to 9.5 at this late date? > Surely the whole point of a release process is to fix issues in the release. If we don't ever dare put something in the release, we may as well have

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Simon Riggs writes: > On 1 December 2015 at 17:05, Robert Haas wrote: >> do we want to >> back-patch those changes to 9.5 at this late date? > Surely the whole point of a release process is to fix issues in the > release. If we don't ever dare put

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 4 December 2015 at 16:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On 1 December 2015 at 17:05, Robert Haas wrote: > >> do we want to > >> back-patch those changes to 9.5 at this late date? > > > Surely the whole point of a

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > > > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either > > > > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well,

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 4 December 2015 at 15:50, Simon Riggs wrote: > Do we think they ever launched a Saturn V that didn't have some marginal > flashing lights somewhere? > ​Almost certainly. They had triple-redundant systems that were certified for correctness. You don't knowingly send

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > Still, I'll get a patch worked up for it and then we can discuss the > > merits of that patch going in to 9.5 now versus just into HEAD. > > Cool. While working on the DROP OWNED BY patch, and part of what took me a

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Stephen Frost writes: > I noticed in passing that the role removal documentation should really > also discuss shared objects (as the DROP OWNED BY reference page does). If you're speaking of section 20.4, that text is all my fault ... but I'm not clear on what you think needs

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > I noticed in passing that the role removal documentation should really > > also discuss shared objects (as the DROP OWNED BY reference page does). > > If you're speaking of section 20.4, that text is all my

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> If you're speaking of section 20.4, that text is all my fault ... but >> I'm not clear on what you think needs to be added? The first DROP OWNED >> BY will take care of any privileges on shared objects, so I

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015/12/04 11:51, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? Unfortunately, no.

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual > > > > Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? > > Unfortunately, no. That commit allows FDWs to do

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> These are mainly just documentation improvements which I'm working on, >> though the docs were recently updated and I need to incorporate Peter's >> changes which I wasn't exactly anticipating. > > So, when do you

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015-12-02 08:25:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > A feature does not exist without documentation. Uh, you do realize there's actually documentation about RLS? The issues mentioned here are some small adjustments, not entirely new docs. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 12/02/2015 05:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress towards pushing out 9.5.0. I see the following items on

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 12/02/2015 08:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-12-02 08:25:13 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: A feature does not exist without documentation. Uh, you do realize there's actually documentation about RLS? The issues mentioned here are some small adjustments, not entirely new docs. No I

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015-12-02 12:25:37 +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > The significant changes are in 9.5. > > Will multixact truncations be WAL logged in 9.5? Yes. C.f. the release notes: * Rework truncation of the multixact commit

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > * Finish multixact truncation rework > > We're not seriously going to push something this large into 9.5 at this > point, are we? I don't know all the details here, so my apologies if any of this is

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015-12-02 12:14:42 +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > * Finish multixact truncation rework > > > > We're not seriously going to push something this large into 9.5 at this > > point, are we? > > I don't know all the details

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > The significant changes are in 9.5. Will multixact truncations be WAL logged in 9.5? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-12-02 12:25:37 +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > The significant changes are in 9.5. > > > > Will multixact truncations be WAL

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress >> towards pushing out 9.5.0. I see the following items on >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual > > Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? Unfortunately, no. That commit allows FDWs to do proper EPQ handling for plain table scans, but it proves to be inadequate

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either > > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's > > the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress > towards pushing out 9.5.0. I see the following items on > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items > > * Open Row-Level Security Issues > > Seems like what's

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Stephen Frost wrote: > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's > the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or update the > documentation to reflect that they don't. I had been

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015-11-30 14:43:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > * pg_rewind exiting with error code 1 when source and target are on the same > timeline > > Is this a new-in-9.5 bug, or a pre-existing problem? If the latter, > I'm not sure it's a release blocker. pg_rewind was only introduced in 9.5, no? > *

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Tom Lane wrote: > * DDL deparsing testing module should have detected that transforms were not > supported, but it failed to notice that > > Is this really a release blocker? As a testing matter, it seems like any > fix would go into HEAD only. Not a blocker as far as I'm concerned. > *

[HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress towards pushing out 9.5.0. I see the following items on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items * Open Row-Level Security Issues Seems like what's left here is only documentation fixes, but they still

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > * pg_rewind exiting with error code 1 when source and target are on the same > timeline > > Is this a new-in-9.5 bug, or a pre-existing problem? If the latter, > I'm not sure it's a release blocker. pg_rewind has been

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

Stephen Frost wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either > > > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's > > > the last one, in which case the