Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Simon Riggs >> wrote: >> > On 25 September 2017 at 22:34,

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #4)

Hi, On 2018-03-01 20:34:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-01 14:45:15 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Second round. > > And last round. [ work ]. Scratch that. There'll be one more after this > ;) Let's do this. Hell, this CF is large. I'll have a glass of wine at some point of this.

Re: Changing the autovacuum launcher scheduling; oldest table first algorithm

Hi, On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling. > The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I > summarize it here. This is a new patch submitted to CF 2018-03. As that's the last CF for v11, and

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Horiguchi-san, On 2018/02/05 18:17, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:21:54 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >> Partition bound literals as captured gram.y don't have any type >> information attached. They're carried over in a A_Const to >> transformPartitionBoundValue() and coerced to

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 2018-03-01 16:18:48 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2018-03-01 12:56:35 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: > > > I've tried to rebase this patch to 10 and, despite minor rebase issues > > (oids, bgw_type, changes to

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 2018-03-02 10:31:34 +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Right, we divided it to manageable pieces as Andrew suggested. Please close the corresponding CF entry next time, if you do so. It's a bit painful having to reconstruct such things out of numerous large threads. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: autovacuum: change priority of the vacuumed tables

Hi, On 2018-02-19 17:00:34 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I have a hard time understanding how adding yet another autovacuum > table-level knob makes the DBA's life any easier. Especially when the > behavior is so unreliable and does not really guarantee when the > high-priority table will be

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 2 Mar 2018 09:44, "Andres Freund" wrote: Hi, This patchset currently has multiple CF entries: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1063/ and then subordinate ones like https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1471/ https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1472/

Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup

On 2018-01-15 12:12:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Parallel pg_dump is based on synchronized transactions though and we > > have a bunch of checks in ImportSnapshot() because a pg_dump parallel > > worker also can't

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to >>> treat partition bounds as a general expression in the grammar and

Re: [HACKERS] log_destination=file

Hi, On 2018-01-20 14:51:12 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Finally found myself back at this one, because I still think this is a > problem we definitely need to adress (whether with this file or not). This has an open CF entry for CF 2018-03. Given that there's still a lot of uncertainty what

Re: chained transactions

Hi, On 2018-02-28 22:35:52 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This feature is meant to help manage transaction isolation in > procedures. This is a major new feature, submitted the evening before the last CF for v11 starts. Therefore I think it should just be moved to the next fest, it doesn't

Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT

Hi, On 2018-02-20 12:10:22 -0300, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: > I attached a patch to add support for changing ON UPDATE/DELETE actions of > a constraint using ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT. This patch has been submitted to the last commitfest for v11 and is not a trivial patch. As we don't

Re: pg_dump outputs invalid syntax for partitions with bool partkeys in pg10

Hi David. On 2018/03/02 12:41, David Rowley wrote: > Quite simply: > > d1=# create table bp (b bool) partition by list(b); > CREATE TABLE > d1=# create table bp_f partition of bp for values in('f'); > CREATE TABLE > d1=# \q > $ createdb d2 > $ pg_dump d1 | psql d2 > > ... > > ERROR: syntax

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to > > treat partition bounds as a general expression in the grammar and then > > check in post-parse analysis that it's

psql tab completion for ALTER INDEX SET

Hi, I found that tab completion for ALTER INDEX SET [tab] doesn't support the reloptions of brin and gist. Attached patch adds "buffering", "pages_per_range" and "autosummarize" options. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

Hi, This patchset currently has multiple CF entries: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1063/ and then subordinate ones like https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1471/ https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1472/ https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1473/ Thus I'm marking this entry as returned

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

Hi, On 2018-03-01 00:58:42 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > Attached 3rd version of kNN for SP-GiST. Given that this was submitted to the last v11 CF, after not being developed for a year, I think it's unfortunately too late for v11. As we should be concentrating on getting things into v11, I

Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)

This appears to be a duplicate of https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1466/ - as the other one is older, I'm closing this one.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Nepali Snowball dictionary

Hi, On 2018-02-28 11:16:24 +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > I've created the commitfest entry https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1569/ What is that entry for, if I may ask? We need to wait for them to merge it, then sync the snowball code, including the nepali dictionary. This doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2018/03/01 21:56, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:33 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attached an updated version in which I incorporated some of the revisions >> that David Rowley suggested to OR clauses handling (in partprune.c) that >> he posted as

Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order?

Hi, On 2018-02-10 20:45:40 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: > I've contacted Postgres Professional. Marina Polyakova had kindly provided > their patch. > The patch allows to use libc locale with ICU collation as default for cluster > or database. > > It seems that this patch brings important

Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two

Hi, On 2018-01-26 17:00:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Another topic that I would like to discuss is how this interface is fit > for the buildfarm code. After hacking my stuff, I have looked at the > buildfarm code to notice that things like TestUpgradeXversion.pm do > *not* make use of

Re: [WIP PATCH] Index scan offset optimisation using visibility map

Hi, Michail! Here are points that we need to address before advancing the patch. > 20 февр. 2018 г., в 11:45, Andrey Borodin написал(а): > > Minor spots: > There are some trailing whitespaces at line ends >> Offset cannot be optimized because parallel execution > I'd

Re: New gist vacuum.

> 1 марта 2018 г., в 22:44, Tom Lane написал(а): > > Michail Nikolaev writes: >> I have added small change to patch to allow it be compiled using msvc >> (uint64_t -> uint64). >> Everything seems to work, check-world is passing. > >> Actually

Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence

Thank you the comment. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> While reading the code, I realized that the requesting an autovacuum >> work-item could fail in silence if work-item array is full. So the >> users cannot realize

Re: change in behaviour for format_type() call

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I don't see anything in the commit message or linked discussion to > > indicate that any visible behavior change was intended, so I think > > you're right, this is a bug. Will check and push your patch. > >

Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

<20180301103641.tudam4mavba3g...@alap3.anarazel.de> Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:36:41 -0800Andres Freund wrote : Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory >On 2018-02-05 09:59:25 +0900, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi wrote: >> I added my patches to the CommitFest

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > But your point is well-taken. No symlinks are used in this test so it > *should* work. > > Michael, what do you think? Perl's symlink() does not work on Windows. It does not fly higher than that, and that's the reason why a good

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #3)

Hi Andres. On 2018/03/02 13:34, Andres Freund wrote: > - reorganize partitioning code > > NR. Created recently, but split off an older patch. > > Seems like a generally reasonable idea. Wonder if it conflicts with > some other partition related patches? It actually does. There are at

Re: TAP test module - PostgresClient

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and > there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree > upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned > with

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #3)

On 2018-03-01 14:45:15 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Second round. And last round. [ work ]. Scratch that. There'll be one more after this ;) - Subscription code improvements WOA. This is some minor cleanup stuff afaics. Don't think it's terribly release bound. - Bootstrap data

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:28:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-02-01 09:04:57 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I've been testing this a bit further and during a test setup with 4-byte >> bools I still got regression test failures related to GIN, so it doesn't >> seem quite ready. I'll

Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

Hi, On 2018-02-07 19:28:29 +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > + { > + {"max_shared_dictionaries_size", PGC_POSTMASTER, RESOURCES_MEM, > + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum size of all text search > dictionaries loaded into shared memory."), > +

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

Hi Andres and Craig, >> In the future you should number them. Right now they appear to be out of >> order in your email. I suggest using git format-patch, that does all >> the necessary work for you. >> > Yep, specially git format-patch with a -v argument, so the whole patchset is > visibly

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:32:58PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 3/1/18 9:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I'd suggest just using git format-patch -v to format series. > > Sure, I've been meaning to switch over to this format and just haven't > gotten around to it yet. I do recognize the value,

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On 3/1/18 11:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> + * write a backup history file with the same name. >> >> So more than one backup history files with the same name >> but the diffferent content can be created and archived. >> Isn't this

Re: RFC: Add 'taint' field to pg_control.

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:12:18AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 1 March 2018 at 06:28, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > The more fine grained these are the more useful they can be: > > > > Running with fsync=off is common advice while loading, so reporting that > > "fsync=off at

Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback

Hi, On 2018-01-09 08:21:33 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Simon Riggs [mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com] > > When will the next version be posted? > > I'm very sorry I haven't submitted anything. I'd like to address this during > this CF. Thanks for remembering this. Given that no new

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:26:09PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-02 02:29:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> + * write a backup history file with the same name. >> >> So more than one backup history files with the same name >> but the diffferent content can be created and archived. >>

Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-02-25 01:30:47 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Note: Currently, this only works with float8-based data types. >> Supporting additional data types is not a big issue, but will >> require extending the opclass with "subtract" operator (used to >>

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > + * write a backup history file with the same name. > > So more than one backup history files with the same name > but the diffferent content can be created and archived. > Isn't this problematic because the backup history file that >

Re: change in behaviour for format_type() call

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:54:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Actually, this patch still wasn't quite right: although it fixed >> one aspect of the behavior, it still produced identical results >> for typemod NULL and typemod -1, which as the function's comment >> explains

Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL

On 02/03/18 16:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think it was impolite to post this on the very same day the commitfest started. We have enough patches as it is ... To be fair - he did say things like "wanting feedback..." and "shows an example of using pluggable storage.." and for PG 12. If he

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Based on this sub-thread this patch's status of 'needs review' doesn't > quite seem accurate and 'waiting on author' and then 'returned with > feedback' would be more fitting? I personally think this patch is really close

Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes

Hi, On 2018-02-25 01:30:47 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Note: Currently, this only works with float8-based data types. > Supporting additional data types is not a big issue, but will > require extending the opclass with "subtract" operator (used to > compute distance between values when merging

Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL

I think it was impolite to post this on the very same day the commitfest started. We have enough patches as it is ... -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pg_dump outputs invalid syntax for partitions with bool partkeys in pg10

Quite simply: d1=# create table bp (b bool) partition by list(b); CREATE TABLE d1=# create table bp_f partition of bp for values in('f'); CREATE TABLE d1=# \q $ createdb d2 $ pg_dump d1 | psql d2 ... ERROR: syntax error at or near "false" LINE 2: FOR VALUES IN (false); ^

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

Hi, On 2018-02-24 23:01:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Sadly, this patch series does not seem to move forward very much, and > I'm not sure how to change that :-/ What's your estimate about the patchset's maturity? Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

Hi! On 2018-03-02 02:29:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:47:26AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> The patch basically looks good to me. Here are some small comments. > >> > >> > >>

Re: new function for tsquery creartion

On 2017-11-29 17:56:30 +0300, Victor Drobny wrote: > Thank you for review. I have tried to fix all of your comments. > However i want to mention that the absence of comments for functions > in to_tsany.c is justified by the absence of comments for other > similar functions. That's not

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

Hi, Based on this sub-thread this patch's status of 'needs review' doesn't quite seem accurate and 'waiting on author' and then 'returned with feedback' would be more fitting? Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

Hi, On 2018-02-07 16:46:38 +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > I am incorporating the fix you have posted to the other thread to this patch. You've not posted a version fixing the issues in the surrounding thread, do I see that right? I'm a bit confused how this patch has gone through several

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2018-03-02 3:38 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund : > On 2018-03-02 03:13:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2018-03-01 23:10 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund : > > > > > On 2018-01-23 17:08:56 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2018-01-22 23:15 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost

Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:42 AM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> Preliminary performance results >> --- >> >> *We’ve shown the performance

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

Hi Tomas. On 3/1/18 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/02/2018 02:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-02-01 23:51:55 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 02/01/2018 03:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: To close out this commit fest, I'm setting both of these patches as returned with feedback, as there

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

On 2018-03-02 03:13:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2018-03-01 23:10 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund : > > > On 2018-01-23 17:08:56 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2018-01-22 23:15 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost : > > > > This really could use a new thread, imv. This

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On 03/02/2018 02:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-02-01 23:51:55 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 02/01/2018 03:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> To close out this commit fest, I'm setting both of these patches as >>> returned with feedback, as there are apparently significant issues to be

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Andres, On 3/1/18 9:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-02-27 15:52:32 -0500, David Steele wrote: Thanks for having a look at the patches. I'd personally appreciate if you'd add commit messages to the individual patches in a series. A brief explanation why something is done is good

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2 March 2018 at 08:13, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't like the comments at the top of partprune.c very much. It > seems strange to document individual functions here; those functions > can (and should) be documented in their individual header comments. > What we should

Re: [HACKERS] Support for Secure Transport SSL library on macOS as OpenSSL alternative

Hi, On 2018-01-26 23:30:08 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > And another rebase and update after the refactoring in c1869542b3a4da4b12ca. > Also fixed some typos in comments. The other patches originally posted in > this > patchset are either committed or made redundant. Could you provide a

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi, On 2018-02-27 15:52:32 -0500, David Steele wrote: > Thanks for having a look at the patches. I'd personally appreciate if you'd add commit messages to the individual patches in a series. A brief explanation why something is done is good enough. E.g. here it's far from obvious why something

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #2)

> > > - new plpgsql extra_checks > > WOA, but recently set to that status. Patch essentially from > 2017-01-11. > > I'm not really sure there's agreement we want this. > > This patch is simple and has benefit for users with basic plpgsql skills, and some for all. In more complex cases,

Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Alexander, On 2/27/18 5:05 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: Hello David, Just a few days left until the last Commitfest for the PG11 release begins! I'm planning to fill the CFM role, unless there are objections. Thank you for volunteering! I would like to be CFM assistant, if you need

Re: [HACKERS] [Patch] Log SSL certificate verification errors

On 2018-01-17 09:03:51 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Graham, will you be able to respond to my questions or provide an > updated patch within the next week or so? Given that nothing has happend since, I've marked this as returned with feedback. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 2 March 2018 at 07:17, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > A small typo in 0001: > > + * leftmost_ons_pos[x] gives the bit number (0-7) of the leftmost one bit > in a > > ..."_one_"... Oops. I'll fix that. > 0004 fails "make check-world" due to > > pg_restore: [archiver

Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files

On 2018-02-02 11:37:34 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > > 3. pg_upgrade isn't considered. This patch should provide upgrading SLRUs > > to adopt changed useful size of page. That seems to be hardest patch of > > this patch to be written. > > +1 > > I think we'd want pg_upgrade tests showing an

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 2 March 2018 at 08:53, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-02-28 21:12:42 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > > Attached are 5 patches split up from the original patch that I had > > submitted earlier. > > In the future you should number them. Right now they appear to be

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On 2018-02-01 23:51:55 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 02/01/2018 03:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > To close out this commit fest, I'm setting both of these patches as > > returned with feedback, as there are apparently significant issues to be > > addressed. Feel free to move them to the

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:36:23PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-01-10 15:09:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> There are not enough patches for ARM. > > Nah, not needing arch specific patches is good ;) You know already that I am always impressed by your skills in normalizing things

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

Hi, On 2018-02-28 21:12:42 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > Attached are 5 patches split up from the original patch that I had > submitted earlier. In the future you should number them. Right now they appear to be out of order in your email. I suggest using git format-patch, that does all the

Re: Documenting PROVE_TESTS in section of TAP tests

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:52:09AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Pushed, after replacing "a subset" with "the specified subset". Thanks, Andres. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 2018-03-02 13:48:00 +1300, David Rowley wrote: > On 2 March 2018 at 10:26, Andres Freund wrote: > > FWIW, I've heard numerous people yearn for json*agg > > I guess it'll need to be PG12 for now. I'd imagine string_agg and > array_agg are more important ones to tick off for

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 2 March 2018 at 10:26, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-12-18 03:30:55 +1300, David Rowley wrote: >> Just a handful of aggregates now don't support partial aggregation; >> >> postgres=# select aggfnoid from pg_aggregate where aggcombinefn=0 and >> aggkind='n'; >>

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On 2018-02-02 19:41:37 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 February 2018 at 18:46, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> In PG11, I propose the following command, sticking mostly to Ants' > >> syntax, and

Re: [HACKERS] Fix warnings and typo in dshash

On 2018-02-12 09:23:43 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Munro > > wrote: > >> I think it should be (size_t) 1, not UINT64CONST(1). See attached. > >

Re: Removing shm_mq.c's volatile qualifiers

Hi, On 2018-02-12 12:52:32 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > From e584628bb846be11a137b5216e955284dfd646a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Thomas Munro > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:50:32 +1300 > Subject: [PATCH] Remove volatile qualifiers from shm_mq.c. > > Since commit

Re: Rewrite of pg_dump TAP tests

Hi, On 2018-02-26 13:15:04 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Attached is a patch (which applies cleaning against a2a2205, but not so > much anymore, obviously, but I will fix after the releases) which > greatly improves the big pg_dump TAP tests. There's probably more which > can be done, but I

Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binary reloptions representation for each relation kind instead

Hi, On 2018-02-22 19:48:46 +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > This is part or my bigger patch > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/2146419.veIEZdk4E4@x200m#2146419.veIEZdk4E4@x200m > we've decided to > commit by smaller parts. I've not read that thread. Is this supposed to be a first

Re: Fwd: [BUGS] pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug

Hi Alexander, On 3/1/18 4:26 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:05 PM, David Steele > wrote: I agree with Teodor (upthread, not quoted here) that the documentation could use some editing. I started to do it

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On 3/1/18 6:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/02/2018 12:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On March 1, 2018 3:22:44 PM PST, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: So I've decided to

Re: Better Upgrades

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 06 Feb 2018, at 01:09, David Fetter wrote: > > > - pg_upgrade is very much a blocker for on-disk format changes. > > I wouldn’t call it a blocker, but pg_upgrade across an on-disk format change > would

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

> On 18 February 2018 at 18:49, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 February 2018 at 10:02, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:23:53PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > > > > > SELECT to_timestamp('2000 + JUN', ' /') FROM dual > > >

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On 03/02/2018 12:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On March 1, 2018 3:22:44 PM PST, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> >> >> On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: So I've decided to revive the old

Re: [patch] BUG #15005: ANALYZE can make pg_class.reltuples inaccurate.

Alexander Kuzmenkov writes: > On 01.03.2018 18:09, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ideally, at least, the estimate would remain on-target. > The test shows that under this particular scenario the estimated number > of tuples grows after each ANALYZE. I tried to explain how this

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On March 1, 2018 3:22:44 PM PST, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > >On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> So I've decided to revive the old patch, rebase it to current >master, >>> and see if we can

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> So I've decided to revive the old patch, rebase it to current master, >> and see if we can resolve the issues that killed it in 2016. > > There seems to be some good discussion in the

Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I also have my > doubts about unique index enforcement remaining correct with the patch > when there are many physical duplicates, to the extent that more than > a single leaf page is needed for a single value. given... +

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #2)

() On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > - "failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple" error as an > ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION ereport() > > NR. Should probably just get applied. Can't quite make myself care > enough to interrupt right now. Tom just

Re: row filtering for logical replication

On 3/1/18 6:00 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: 2018-03-01 18:27 GMT-03:00 Andres Freund : FWIW, I don't think it'd be fair or prudent. There's definitely some issues (see e.g. Craig's reply), and I don't see why this patch'd deserve an exemption from the "nontrivial patches

Re: row filtering for logical replication

2018-02-28 21:54 GMT-03:00 Craig Ringer : > Good idea. I haven't read this yet, but one thing to make sure you've > handled is limiting the clause to referencing only the current tuple and the > catalogs. user-catalog tables are OK, too, anything that is >

Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On 2018-03-02 01:56:00 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2018-03-02 01:48:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > Also, the last commitfest is already too late for such big changes. > > > So, I'm marking this

Re: row filtering for logical replication

2018-03-01 18:25 GMT-03:00 Erik Rijkers : > Attached is 'logrep_rowfilter.sh', a demonstration of above-described bug. > Thanks for testing. I will figure out what is happening. There are some leaks around. I'll post another version when I fix some of those bugs. -- Euler

Re: row filtering for logical replication

2018-03-01 18:27 GMT-03:00 Andres Freund : > FWIW, I don't think it'd be fair or prudent. There's definitely some > issues (see e.g. Craig's reply), and I don't see why this patch'd > deserve an exemption from the "nontrivial patches shouldn't be submitted > to the last CF"

Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-02 01:48:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > Also, the last commitfest is already too late for such big changes. > > So, I'm marking this RWF. > > Agreed. Perhaps extract the 64bit GUC patch and track that

Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On 2018-03-02 01:48:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Also, the last commitfest is already too late for such big changes. > So, I'm marking this RWF. Agreed. Perhaps extract the 64bit GUC patch and track that separately? Seems like something we should just do... Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

Hi! On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-01-11 01:02:52 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > As I get from cputube, patchset doesn't compiles again. Please find > > revised version attached. > > It'd be good if you could maintain the patches as

pgstat_report_activity() and parallel CREATE INDEX (was: Parallel index creation & pg_stat_activity)

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Looks like we're not doing a pgstat_report_activity() in the workers? > Any argument for not doing so? No. Just an oversight. Looks like _bt_parallel_build_main() should call pgstat_report_activity(), just like

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #2)

On 2018-03-01 03:03:44 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Going through all non bugfix CF entries. Here's the summary for the > entries I could stomach tonight: > > RFC: ready for committer > NR: needs review > WOA: waiting on author. Second round. - Sample values for pg_stat_statements NR.

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On 2018-03-02 11:37:52 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > So... that stuff probably needs either a configure check for the > getauxval function and/or those headers, or an OS check? It'd probably be better to not rely on os specific headers, and instead directly access the capabilities. > While I'm

  1   2   3   >