Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/09/2017 04:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >>> I turned on the buildfarm "keep" setting and looked at the diffs. The >>> issue is that in there are a few places that do "SELECT ... FROM >>> pg_seclabels ... ORDER BY ..." and when manually testing I get

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: >> I turned on the buildfarm "keep" setting and looked at the diffs. The >> issue is that in there are a few places that do "SELECT ... FROM >> pg_seclabels ... ORDER BY ..." and when manually testing I get default >> database encoding "UTF8" but with the

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/09/2017 03:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/09/2017 02:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-04-09 14:28:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: >>> Interesting -- rhino is now failing. I tested a minute ago manually on >>> the same buildfarm animal and it passed. I'm on it. >> >> The module for

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/09/2017 02:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-09 14:28:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: >> Interesting -- rhino is now failing. I tested a minute ago manually on >> the same buildfarm animal and it passed. I'm on it. > > The module for segpsql really needs to be improved so it logs >

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-04-09 14:28:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > Interesting -- rhino is now failing. I tested a minute ago manually on > the same buildfarm animal and it passed. I'm on it. The module for segpsql really needs to be improved so it logs regression.diffs - iirc several other modules do.

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/09/2017 02:04 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/08/2017 07:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: >>> On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/08/2017 07:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: >> On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now before the feature freeze and follow up >> >>with

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe, * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: > On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now before the feature freeze and follow up > >>with the regression test patch when ready in a

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now before the feature freeze and follow up >>with the regression test patch when ready in a couple of days >> 2) hold off on both patches until ready

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/07/2017 11:37 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached. Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll have those by end of

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/07/2017 11:37 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >>> I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached. >>> Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll >>> have those by end of today and be able to commit the rest tomorrow. >> >> Attached are the

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Joe Conway writes: >>> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm >>> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm >> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense >> to do. > > I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: > Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm > thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense > to do. I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really an ABI violation:

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/06/2017 08:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any >> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes >> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and >>

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: > I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any > additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes > in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and > comment wording for 0001a. Looks generally

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/05/2017 02:29 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > I'm going to hold the partition table regression changes for a > separate patch and include some ORDER BY fixes. Will post tomorrow > > In the meantime, attached are the latest and greatest patches. I'm going to push the attached in a few hours

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> On 4/5/17 12:04, Tom Lane wrote: Conclusion: Fedora's gcc is playing

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 4/5/17 12:04, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Conclusion: Fedora's gcc is playing fast and loose somehow with the >>> command "#include "; that does not include the file >>>

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 4/5/17 12:04, Tom Lane wrote: >> Conclusion: Fedora's gcc is playing fast and loose somehow with the >> command "#include "; that does not include the file >> you'd think it does, it does something magic inside the compiler. >> The

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 4/5/17 12:04, Tom Lane wrote: > Conclusion: Fedora's gcc is playing fast and loose somehow with the > command "#include "; that does not include the file > you'd think it does, it does something magic inside the compiler. > The magic evidently includes not complaining about duplicate macro >

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > GCC generally doesn't warn about macro redefinitions, if both > definitions are equivalent. But they're *not* equivalent. c.h has #define true((bool) 1) whereas so far as I can see the definition is just #define true1 And if you put those

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 4/5/17 01:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> $ cat test.c >> typedef char bool; >> typedef char bool; >> $ gcc -c test.c >> test.c:2: error: redefinition of typedef 'bool' >> test.c:1: note: previous declaration of 'bool' was here > But the

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On April 5, 2017 9:04:00 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Joe Conway writes: >> On 04/04/2017 09:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about >>> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would >>>

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: > On 04/04/2017 09:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about >> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would >> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. > I have not been able to

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 4/5/17 01:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> The complaint about bool is also just a warning. > > Really? > > $ cat test.c > typedef char bool; > typedef char bool; > $ gcc -c test.c > test.c:2: error: redefinition of typedef 'bool' > test.c:1: note: previous declaration of 'bool' was here > > This is

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/04/2017 09:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a > typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool, > because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing > so again. It'd make sense to me to do > > + #ifdef

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-05 10:45:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> I wonder if there's any compiler that has _Bool/stdbool.h where it's not >>> 1 byte sized. It's definitely not guaranteed by the standard. >> Hm. I'd

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-05 10:48:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd really rather not. It might be safe here, because this code >> only works on Linux anyway, but it's still a dangerous precedent. > Well, what's the alternative for v10? There's already precedent

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-04-05 10:48:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-03-31 20:23:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> 0001 has the problem that we have a firm rule against putting any > >> #includes whatsoever before "postgres.h". This stdbool issue has come > >> up

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-04-05 10:45:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-05 09:43:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The core problem though is that > >> we need the "bool" fields in the system catalog structs (or anyplace > >>

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-03-31 20:23:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> 0001 has the problem that we have a firm rule against putting any >> #includes whatsoever before "postgres.h". This stdbool issue has come >> up before, though, and I fear we're going to need to do

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-05 09:43:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The core problem though is that >> we need the "bool" fields in the system catalog structs (or anyplace >> else that it represents an on-disk bool datum) to be

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-03-31 20:23:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: > > Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of > > 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets > > rid

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-04-05 09:43:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because > > it's only going to get more common. We already do so in a way for c++ > > compilers... > > Yeah, I was just thinking about

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> Any objections? > >> I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a >> is the

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Andres Freund writes: > I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because > it's only going to get more common. We already do so in a way for c++ > compilers... Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The core problem though is that we need the "bool"

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 2017-04-05 00:58:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > >> Any objections? > > > I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a > > is the right way to address

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 4/5/17 00:58, Tom Lane wrote: >> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about >> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would >> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. > The complaint

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 4/5/17 00:58, Tom Lane wrote: > Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about > redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would > likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors. The complaint about bool is also just a warning. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> Any objections? > I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a > is the right way to address the stdbool issue, I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >>> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches. >>> Please see attached for further review. >> >> Thanks --

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches. >> Please see attached for further review. > > Thanks -- will have another look and test on a machine with selinux > setup. Robert,

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 04/04/2017 06:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > 0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 04/04/2017 06:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote: 0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder if we could get one of the people on this

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/04/2017 06:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> 0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder if we could get one >>> of the people on this list who knows about sepgsql to have a look? >>> (Stephen Frost, Joe Conway,

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> 0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder if we could get one >> of the people on this list who knows about sepgsql to have a look? >> (Stephen Frost, Joe Conway, KaiGai Kohei...) > > Will have a look later today.

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 03/31/2017 05:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of >> 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets >> rid of some

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of >> 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of > 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets > rid of some pesky compiler warnings and the second implements

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> Note that sepgsql hasn't

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Note that sepgsql hasn't been updated to work with RLS yet, either, >> but we didn't regard that as an open item for RLS,

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> While going over the contrib modules, I noticed

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not >> updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not > updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's > not possible to define labels on partitioned tables. It works for me:

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Mike, * Mike Palmiotto (mike.palmio...@crunchydata.com) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not > > updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's > > not

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not > updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's > not possible to define labels on partitioned tables. As I

[HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Greetings, While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's not possible to define labels on partitioned tables. As I recall, accessing the parent of a table will, similar to the GRANT system, not perform