Re: GSOC 2018 Proposal review

Hi Mark, Thanks a lot for your feedback towards improving my proposal. I have updated timeline as per changes suggested by you. Can you please review it again? Below is the link to shared google docs. *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W2N8zRXvylj5cxW8aKHvPDKFgj0Qk59UIJr9SPwFsa8/edit#

Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:03 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:43:27AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> > Patch attached with the above behavior along with

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> For me, it is equivalent to the master. The average of ten runs on >> the master is 20664.3683 and with all the patches applied it is >>

Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables

On 2018/03/26 23:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pushed now. Thank you! > Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2018/03/24 9:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> To fix this, I had to completely rework the "get partition parent root" >>> stuff into "get list of ancestors of this partition". >> >> I wondered if a

Re: idea - custom menu

2018-03-27 2:44 GMT+02:00 Nikolay Samokhvalov : > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> Hi >> > > Hi Pavel, I don't know how I missed this email, but finally I found it :-) > > >> I am looking on project

Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:43:27AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Patch attached with the above behavior along with other comments from > > upthread. > > Thanks for the updated version. > > The function changes look

Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> Rebased again, now with a commit message. That assertion has since >> been removed (commit ec99dd5a) so the attached test script can once >> again be used to see the

Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:43:27AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Patch attached with the above behavior along with other comments from > upthread. Thanks for the updated version. The function changes look logically good to me. + + The PQhost function returns NULL when the +

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > I've just flipped patch to WoA. But if above issues will be fixed I think > that patch is ready for committer. Attached is v7, which has the small tweaks that you suggested. Thank you for the review. I hope that

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

On 03/26/18 12:34, Tom Lane wrote: > If that's the argument, why is the WALInsertLockUpdateInsertingAt(CurrPos) > call still there? GetXLogBuffer() would do that too. "Because I hadn't noticed that," he said, sheepishly. > In any case, the new comment ... fails to > explain what's going on, and

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 13:45, David Rowley wrote: > On 27 March 2018 at 12:49, Tom Lane wrote: >> Oh, I thought of another thing that would need to get done, if we decide >> to commit this. array_agg_serialize/deserialize only work if the array >>

Re: [PATCH] Add missing type conversion functions for PL/Python

Thanks Nikita! On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > On 26.03.2018 17:19, David Steele wrote: > > On 2/20/18 10:14 AM, Haozhou Wang wrote: >> >>> Thank you very much for your review! >>> >>> I attached a new patch with typo fixed. >>> >> I think it's

Fix for pg_stat_activity putting client hostaddr into appname field

I noticed when querying pg_stat_activity (in 10.1): $ SELECT pid, application_name, client_hostname, backend_type FROM pg_stat_activity; pid | application_name |client_hostname| backend_type

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I hacked something up in Python # otool -tvV | \ In case anyone is interested in trying that, it should be "otool -tvV [path to postgres executable compiled with -O0]" (meaning disassemble it). I was

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Querying for other functions marked 'r' leaves me with some other related > doubts: > > 1. Why are the various flavors of pg_get_viewdef() marked 'r'? Surely > reading the catalogs is a thing parallel children are allowed to

Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:09:37AM +1030, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> I am in discussions with Mark, he's going to disable the animals from > >> building 9.3. (by setting

Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:12:09PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Yeah, neither 2 or 3 really appeals to me. Option 1 does touch a number > of places but in a pretty straight-forward way- and if there's a typo > there, the compiler is likely to complain, so it seems like the risk is > relatively

Re: GSOC 2018 Proposal review

Hi Garima, On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:36:05PM +0530, Garima Natani wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking forward to working with PostgreSQL organization In GSoC 2018. Glad to see you're interested in this project! > I have created Proposal for "Develop Performance Farm Database and Website" >

Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:32:41AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > +1. It's better for us to focus on the code change of the fillter on pg_rewind > rather than such "refactoring". (filter takes one 'l', not two) Okay. I had my mind mostly focused on how to shape the exclusion list and get it shared

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 12:49, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> The main thing that remains undone is to get some test coverage --- >> AFAICS, none of these new functions get exercised in the standard >> regression tests. > > Oh, I thought of another thing that would need to get

Re: idea - custom menu

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > Hi Pavel, I don't know how I missed this email, but finally I found it :-) > I am looking on project https://github.com/NikolayS/postgres_dba > > Nice idea, and perfect publicity of typical PostgreSQL

Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:39:51PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > And if we are not going to change the above, then PQhost() function > > returns 3 values, > > - NULL when the conn==NULL > > - Actual host or

Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I am in discussions with Mark, he's going to disable the animals from >> building 9.3. (by setting branches_to_build to 'HEAD_PLUS_LATEST4' >> instead of 'ALL'). > > So once we desupport

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 13:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Rowley wrote: > >> Anyway, the options are not zero for anyone who is strongly affected >> with no other workaround. They just need to disable parallel query, >> which to me seems fairly similar to the 8.4 release

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

Hi Dean, Here is an updated patch (hopefully) fixing the bugs you've reported so far. In particular, it fixes this: 1) mostly harmless memset bug in UpdateStatisticsForTypeChange 2) passing the right list (stat_clauses) to mcv_clauselist_selectivity 3) corrections to a couple of outdated

Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I am in discussions with Mark, he's going to disable the animals from > building 9.3. (by setting branches_to_build to 'HEAD_PLUS_LATEST4' > instead of 'ALL'). So once we desupport 9.3, they'll stop building 9.4? :-) -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

David Rowley wrote: > Anyway, the options are not zero for anyone who is strongly affected > with no other workaround. They just need to disable parallel query, > which to me seems fairly similar to the 8.4 release note's "the > previous behavior can be restored by disabling enable_hashagg"

Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 08:01:53PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> I'm inclined to just ask them to stop running the animals on that >>>

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 11:28, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> This very much reminds me of something that exists in the 8.4 release notes: >>> SELECT DISTINCT and UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT no longer always produce sorted >>> output (Tom) > >

Re: CALL optional in PL/pgSQL

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: >> 2018-03-01 5:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut >> This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw >>> it out here for

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

On 26 March 2018 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote: > Damir Simunic writes: > >> On 26 Mar 2018, at 11:06, Vladimir Sitnikov < > sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> If anyone finds the idea of Postgres speaking http2 appealing > > TBH, this sounds

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Greetings, * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 26 March 2018 at 21:05, Damir Simunic > wrote: > > The same goes for the ‘authorization’ header. Postgres does not support > > Bearer token authorization today. But maybe you’ll be able to define a > >

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

I wrote: > The main thing that remains undone is to get some test coverage --- > AFAICS, none of these new functions get exercised in the standard > regression tests. Oh, I thought of another thing that would need to get done, if we decide to commit this. array_agg_serialize/deserialize only

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

Thomas Munro writes: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder whether we shouldn't mark *all* of these parallel-unsafe. >> I'm not exactly convinced that 'restricted' is sufficient for the >> others, and even if it is,

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > # select proname, proparallel from pg_proc where proname like 'binary_upg%'; > proname | proparallel > +- >

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

... BTW: # select proname, proparallel from pg_proc where proname like 'binary_upg%'; proname | proparallel +- binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension | r binary_upgrade_set_next_array_pg_type_oid |

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

Thomas Munro writes: > Here's a single character patch to mark > that function PARALLEL UNSAFE. Ugh. Clearly a bug. > Obviously that'll affect only newly > initdb'd clusters after this patch, but that's what people have in a > pg_upgrade scenario. We're a bit

Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

Hi, My colleague Richard Yen came across this situation: pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: cannot assign XIDs during a parallel operation Command was: -- For binary upgrade, create an empty extension and insert objects into it DROP EXTENSION IF EXISTS "btree_gin";

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Damir Simunic wrote: > Would it be the only protocol supported? What if I wanted JSON or CSV > returned, or just plain old Postgres v3 binary format, since I already have > the parser written for it? Wouldn’t you need to first solve

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

David Rowley writes: > On 27 March 2018 at 09:27, Tom Lane wrote: >> I do not think it is accidental that these aggregates are exactly the ones >> that do not have parallelism support today. Rather, that's because you >> just about always have

Re: Backend memory dump analysis

Vladimir Sitnikov writes: > It takes just a single pass to compute "total" (and it takes no memory), so > it would be much better if "TopMemoryContext: ..." was replaced with > "Total memory used by all contexts is XXX bytes" > Current TopMemoryContext row is

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> As far as I >> know, the proposed MERGE patch has that issue an existing DML commands >> don't; but someone else may have better information. > > I will look deeper and report back. It's quite clear that the problem

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 09:27, Tom Lane wrote: > I spent a fair amount of time hacking on this with intent to commit, > but just as I was getting to code that I liked, I started to have second > thoughts about whether this is a good idea at all. I quote from the fine > manual: >

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

Hi, On 2018-03-23 17:01:54 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Attached patch which fixes that. Thanks, will push. For the future, I'd be more likely to notice if you CC me ;) > However, I am not sure whether it is expected to have stable regression run > with installcheck having local settings. >

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 27 March 2018 at 10:20, Stephen Frost wrote: > In the end, I do tend to agree that we probably should add parallel > support to these aggregates, but it'd also be nice to hear from those > who had worked to add parallelism to the various aggregates as to if > there was some

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

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > For me, it is equivalent to the master. The average of ten runs on > the master is 20664.3683 and with all the patches applied it is > 20590.4734. I think there is some run-to-run variation, but more or > less there

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

> Currently it is implemented via different v3 messages (parse, bind, execute, > row description, data row, etc etc). > > The claim is *any* implementation "on top of HTTP/2" would basically require > to implement those "parse, bind, execute, row data, etc" *messages*. Why? Wouldn’t you be

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

Stephen Frost writes: > Yeah, there certainly seems like a lot of opportunity for the ordering > to end up being volatile already and queries depending on it not > changing really shouldn't be making that assumption. I do think it was > probably a bad move on our part to say

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

Tomas Vondra writes: > On 03/26/2018 10:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I fear that what will happen, if we commit this, is that something like >> 0.01% of the users of array_agg and string_agg will be pleased, another >> maybe 20% will be unaffected because they wrote

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 03/26/2018 10:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I fear that what will happen, if we commit this, is that something like > > 0.01% of the users of array_agg and string_agg will be pleased, another > > maybe 20% will be unaffected

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

On 26/03/18 21:57, Damir Simunic wrote: On 26 Mar 2018, at 15:42, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote: On 26/03/18 13:11, Damir Simunic wrote: On 26 Mar 2018, at 11:13, Vladimir Sitnikov >

Re: Index scan prefetch?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> But now effective_io_concurrency parameter is applicable only for bitmap > ... >> Will it be useful to support it also for index scan? >> Or there are some other ways to address this problem? > > Does your case perform

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

On 26 March 2018 at 20:17, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/26/2018 09:01 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> Also, just above that, in statext_clauselist_selectivity(), it >> computes the list stat_clauses, then doesn't appear to use it >> anywhere. I think that would have been

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

On 03/26/2018 10:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> [ combinefn_for_string_and_array_aggs_v7.patch ] > > I spent a fair amount of time hacking on this with intent to commit, > but just as I was getting to code that I liked, I started to have second >

Re: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays

On 3/7/18 5:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I searched for the new GIN operator so that I > could brush it up for commit ahead of the rest -- only to find out that > it was eviscerated from the patch between v5 and v5.1. > > The latest version of the patch which contained the new GIN operator is

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Hi Andres, > > At least I do *NOT* want many protocols in core. We've a hard enough > time to keep up with integrating patches and maintenance to not just > willy nilly integrate multiple new features with unclear lifetimes. Admire your effort in applying all these patches—this commitfest thing

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Damir>Wouldn’t that be protocol semantics? Framing is already taken care of by the wire protocol. Apparently I'm using the wrong word. I do mean protocol semantics. Damir>But can you pull off grpc.. Would it be the only protocol supported? Of course there will be lots of "older clients" For

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

David Rowley writes: > [ combinefn_for_string_and_array_aggs_v7.patch ] I spent a fair amount of time hacking on this with intent to commit, but just as I was getting to code that I liked, I started to have second thoughts about whether this is a good idea at all.

Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?

On 2018-03-26 11:31:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-26 11:14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I don't think it really changes the need, but it's worthwhile to note > > > that gcc-8 warns about this now: >

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, I see enable_data_checksums() does this: if (cost_limit <= 0) ereport(ERROR, (errmsg("cost limit must be a positive value"))); Is there a reason not to allow -1 (no limit), just like for vacuum_cost? regards -- Tomas Vondra

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 18:09, Vladimir Sitnikov > wrote: > > Damir>Postgres doesn’t know about grpc, s > > I'm afraid you are missing the point. > I would say PostgreSQL doesn't know about HTTP/2. > It is the same as "PostgreSQL doesn't know about grpc". > > Here's

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12.2

Hi, On 2018-03-25 00:07:11 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > I spotted a couple of typos and some very minor coding details -- see > please see attached. Thanks, applying 0001 in a bit. > From 648e303072c77e781eca2bb06f488f6be9ccac84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Thomas Munro

Re: Index scan prefetch?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:43:02PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Hi, hackers. > > I was faced with the following bad performance use case with Postgres: there > is a huge append-only table with serial key (ID) > which is permanently appended using multithreaded pgloader. I think this could

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > So, as I get you're proposing to introduce INDEX_ALT_TID_MASK flag > which would indicate that we're storing something special in the t_tid > offset. And that should help us not only for covering indexes, but

Re: Re: csv format for psql

2018-03-26 20:26 GMT+02:00 Daniel Verite : > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > b) the list of pset options is bloating - every possible new format can > > introduce fieldsep_X option > > What new format? > The usefulness of fieldsep does not extend outside of xSV, and

Re: committing inside cursor loop

On 3/19/18 20:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/14/18 08:05, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: >>> The ROLLBACK call in the first loop iteration undoes the UPDATE >>> command that drives the loop. Is it then sensible to continue the >>> loop? >>> >> I think that in the first place ROLLBACK was

Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-02-06 15:43:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> void* isn't necessarily compatible with function pointers --- there are >> platforms where they're physically different widths, though possibly >> you'd never get PG to run on such hardware anyway. >

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

On 03/26/2018 09:01 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 23:57, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Attached is an updated version of the patch series, addressing issues >> pointed out by Alvaro. > > I've just been reading the new code in >

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On 26 March 2018 at 17:52, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 26 March 2018 at 16:09, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Simon Riggs

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

On 03/26/2018 06:21 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 26 March 2018 at 14:08, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 03/26/2018 12:31 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: >>> A wider concern I have is that I think this function is trying to be >>> too clever by only resetting selected stats. IMO

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Hi, On 2018-03-26 20:36:09 +0200, Damir Simunic wrote: > If so, I’m not suggesting we get rid of FEBE, but leave it as is and > complement it with a widely understood and supported protocol, that in fact > takes compatibility way more seriously than FEBE. Just leave v3 frozen. Seems > like

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

On 18 March 2018 at 23:57, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Attached is an updated version of the patch series, addressing issues > pointed out by Alvaro. I've just been reading the new code in statext_clauselist_selectivity() and mcv_clauselist_selectivity(), and I'm having a

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 15:42, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > > > > On 26/03/18 13:11, Damir Simunic wrote: >>> On 26 Mar 2018, at 11:13, Vladimir Sitnikov >> > wrote: >>> >>> Damir> * What are the criteria for

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 18:19, Vladimir Sitnikov > wrote: > > Tom>But starting from the assumption that HTTP2 solves our problems seems to > me to be "Here's a hammer. > > Agree. Funny you agree with that—for someone having the experience of writing a driver and

Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?

Hi, On 2018-02-06 15:43:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > void* isn't necessarily compatible with function pointers --- there are > platforms where they're physically different widths, though possibly > you'd never get PG to run on such hardware anyway. Btw, given that we store function pointers in

Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?

On 2018-03-26 11:14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I don't think it really changes the need, but it's worthwhile to note > > that gcc-8 warns about this now: > >

Re: Re: csv format for psql

Pavel Stehule wrote: > b) the list of pset options is bloating - every possible new format can > introduce fieldsep_X option What new format? The usefulness of fieldsep does not extend outside of xSV, and it's no suprise that there have been no other use for a fieldsep-like variable

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Claudio Freire > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Claudio Freire writes:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Claudio Freire writes: >>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I hadn't paid

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

On 26/03/18 13:11, Damir Simunic wrote: On 26 Mar 2018, at 11:13, Vladimir Sitnikov > wrote: Damir> * What are the criteria for getting this into the core? Craig>Mine would be: +1 There's a relevant list as well:

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote > Layout of .dat files seems generally reasonable, but I don't understand > the proposed make rule: > > +reformat-dat-files: > +$(PERL) -I $(catalogdir) $< catalog/rewrite_dat.pl -o catalog > catalog/pg_*.dat > > This

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

On 3/26/18 1:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Teodor Sigaev (teo...@sigaev.ru) wrote: >> Will autovacuum (or something else) complain about absense of relfile during >> orphan table deleting? I mean, you get a base backup without temp tables, >> then you try to run postgres on it and will it

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

Greetings, * Teodor Sigaev (teo...@sigaev.ru) wrote: > Will autovacuum (or something else) complain about absense of relfile during > orphan table deleting? I mean, you get a base backup without temp tables, > then you try to run postgres on it and will it complain about existing > record in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound

Thomas Munro writes: > Rebased again, now with a commit message. That assertion has since > been removed (commit ec99dd5a) so the attached test script can once > again be used to see the contents of pg_serial as the xid goes all the > way around, if you build with

Re: new function for tsquery creartion

Patch 03 (the documentation) needed some proof-reading. I've attached a new version of that patch with some small suggested improvements. Thanks, I'm definitely going to use this. Is there anything to_tsquery() can do that websearch_to_tsquery() can't? Currently, no. Would it be OK to

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

Chapman Flack writes: > On 03/25/18 23:27, Stephen Frost wrote: >> AdvanceXLInsertBuffer() does quite a bit, so I'm a bit surprised to see >> this simply removing that call, you're confident there's nothing done >> which still needs doing..? > My belief from looking at the

Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:14:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Stephen Frost writes: >>> I don't completely buy off on the argument that having these #define's >>> would make it easier for forks

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

On 26 March 2018 at 14:08, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/26/2018 12:31 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> A wider concern I have is that I think this function is trying to be >> too clever by only resetting selected stats. IMO it should just reset >> all stats unconditionally

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Tom>But starting from the assumption that HTTP2 solves our problems seems to me to be "Here's a hammer. Agree. Just a side note: if v4 is ever invented I wish client language support is considered. It does take resources to implement message framing, and data parsing (e.g. int, timestamp,

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On 26 March 2018 at 16:09, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Since we now have MVCC catalog scans, all the name lookups are >> performed using the same snapshot so in the above scenario the newly >> created

Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

Damir>Postgres doesn’t know about grpc, s I'm afraid you are missing the point. I would say PostgreSQL doesn't know about HTTP/2. It is the same as "PostgreSQL doesn't know about grpc". Here's a quote from your pg_h2 repo: >What we need is to really build a request object and correctly extract >

Re: [PATCH] Add missing type conversion functions for PL/Python

On 26.03.2018 17:19, David Steele wrote: On 2/20/18 10:14 AM, Haozhou Wang wrote: Thank you very much for your review! I attached a new patch with typo fixed. I think it's a bit premature to mark this Ready for Committer after a review consisting of a few typos. Anthony only said that he

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On 26 March 2018 at 15:39, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > reviewer 1. In ExecMergeMatched() we have a line of code that does this... if (TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(hufd.xmax)) then errcode(ERRCODE_CARDINALITY_VIOLATION) I notice this is correct, but too strong. It

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello Marina, Many thanks to both of you! I'm working on a patch in this direction.. I think that the best approach for now is simply to reset (command zero, random generator) and start over the whole script, without attempting to be more intelligent. The limitations should be clearly

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

Hi! Will autovacuum (or something else) complain about absense of relfile during orphan table deleting? I mean, you get a base backup without temp tables, then you try to run postgres on it and will it complain about existing record in pg_class and absence of corresponding relfile? David

Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

John Naylor writes: > With the attachments this time. Layout of .dat files seems generally reasonable, but I don't understand the proposed make rule: +reformat-dat-files: + $(PERL) -I $(catalogdir) $< catalog/rewrite_dat.pl -o catalog catalog/pg_*.dat This rule has

Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

Arthur Zakirov writes: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:18:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> My thought was (a) the ROLLBACK case is ok, because the next use of >> the dictionary will reload it, and (b) the reload-concurrently-with- >> DROP case is annoying, because indeed it

Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think it really changes the need, but it's worthwhile to note > that gcc-8 warns about this now: > /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c: In function > ‘LookupBackgroundWorkerFunction’: >

Re: Direct converting numeric types to bool

n.zhuch...@postgrespro.ru writes: > Yes, in postgres already exists int::boolean casting and in case: > select 10::bigint::int::boolean; > it will perfectly work. But if you want to cast more significant number: > select (2^32)::bigint::int::boolean; > you receive the boundary value error. Right.

Re: bugfifx: a minor mistake in brin_inclusion.c comment

Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > while looking at brin_inclusion.c, I've noticed that the comment about > INCLUSION_UNMERGEABLE and INCLUSION_CONTAINS_EMPTY uses incorrect values > (1 instead of 2). Attached is a simple fix. Uh, yeah, this is wrong. > But perhaps it would be better to use the

  1   2   >