Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Magnus, On 3/5/18 4:55 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I would like to get a list of submitter patches totals vs the total > number of patches they are reviewing.  In the past I have done this by > eyeball. > > I think that's pretty much the part that's available under "reports"

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

Hi Michael, On 3/5/18 6:36 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: > >> So I guess this would have to be sent back via the replication protocol, >> but I don't see an off-hand way to do this easily? > > The final ordinary result set could be extended to

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/1/18 11:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Based on my recent lookup at code level for this feature, the patch for > pg_resetwal (which could have been discussed on its own thread as well), > would be fine for commit. The thing could be extended a bit more but > there is nothing opposing

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:52:32PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/30/18 3:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> +command_ok( >>> + ['chmod', "-R", 'g+rX', "$pgdata"], >>> + 'add group per

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

Hi Maksim, On 3/5/18 11:24 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > Hello David, > > > On 05.03.2018 18:50, David Steele wrote: >> Hello Maksim, >> >> On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: >> >>> Is there actual need in UnregisterCustomProcSignal()

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

Hi, On 3/1/18 11:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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() d

Re: Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

Hello Maksim, On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:34:58PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > > The patch is applied and build. > >> +/* >> + * UnregisterCustomProcSignal >> + * Release slot of specific custom signal. >> + * >> + * This function have to be

Re: Re: BUGFIX: standby disconnect can corrupt serialized reorder buffers

Hi Craig, On 1/21/18 5:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 January 2018 at 08:28, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think this should use ReadDirExtended with an elevel less than ERROR, > and do nothing. > > Why have strcmp(.) and

Re: Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello Marina, On 1/12/18 12:01 PM, Marina Polyakova wrote: >> >> Yep. I'm trying to suggest an incremental path with simple but yet >> quite useful things first. > > This question ("if there's a failure what savepoint we should rollback > to and start the execution again? ...") mostly concerns

Re: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means

Hi Tomas, On 1/8/18 3:28 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 01/08/2018 08:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Tomas Vondra writes: >>> As I already mentioned, Tom's updated patch is better than what I >>> posted initially, and I agree with his approach to the remaining >>>

Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Aleksander, On 3/2/18 7:18 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > >> You do realize we have the actual source database available, I hope? Since >> it's our own system... There is no need to scrape the data back out -- if >> we can just define what kind of reports we want, we can trivially run it on

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

On 3/5/18 1:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:41:57PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/2/18 1:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>>> We would talk about two

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

On 3/2/18 8:54 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/03/2018 02:37 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>>> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version wa

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

On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version was >> submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on 2018-01-31, i.e. >> right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the

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

Hi, On 3/2/18 1:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> We would talk about two backups running >> simultaneously on a standby, which would overlap with each other to >> generate a file aimed only at being helpful for

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

On 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Ah, apologies - that's due to moving the patch from the last CF (it was >> marked as RWF so I had to reopen it before moving it). I'll submit a new >> version of the

Re: autovacuum: change priority of the vacuumed tables

On 3/2/18 4:07 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:39:34 -0800 > Andres Freund wrote: > >> 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

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

On 3/2/18 2:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Let's do this. Hell, this CF is large. Yeah it is. > I'll have a glass of wine at some point of this. Hope you did! I've gone through all your notes and will follow up on your recommendations where you have not already done so. Thanks, -- -David

Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code

Hi Amit, On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > > Attached updated version. This patch no longer applies and the conflicts do not appear to be trivial. I'm a bit confused about your comment in [1]: > I gave up on rebasing this patch yesterday as I couldn't finish it in > 5 minutes, but

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

Hi Konstantin, On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > > On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost >> wrote: >>> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote: Updated version of the patch is

Re: ALTER TABLE does not check for column existence before starting operations

Hi Pierre, On 3/2/18 6:36 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > While working on a big table recently, I noticed that ALTER TABLE does not > check for column existence in operations like SET NOT NULL before starting > working on the table, for instance adding a primary key. > It is thus possible, if

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: 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: 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 enough

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: 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 <da...@pgmasters.net <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: I agree with Teodor (upthread, not quoted here) that the documentation could use some editing. I s

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: 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

Hi, On 3/1/18 4:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-01 16:27:11 +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> Very, very useful. I really do hope this patch survives the >> late-arrival-cull. > > FWIW, I don't think it'd be fair or prudent. There's definitely some > issues (see e.g. Craig's reply), and I

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 3/1/18 3:50 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> >> Any objections to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it >> to the next CF as is. > > I think that Returned with Feedbac

Re: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

Hi Pavel, On 1/7/18 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > There, now it's in the correct Waiting for Author state. :) > > thank you for comments. All should be fixed in attached patch This patch no longer applies (and the conflicts do not look trivial). Can you provide a rebased patch? $ git

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

Hi Alexander, On 1/4/18 4:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > I just found that patch apply is failed according to > commitfest.cputube.org .  I think it's > because I sent only second patch from patchset in last message. > Anyway I resend both patches rebased to

Re: Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

Hi Antonin, On 12/22/17 6:13 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: >> try_partial_hashjoin_path() passes constant true to for the parallel_hash >> argument of initial_cost_hashjoin(). Shouldn't it instead pass the >> parallel_hash

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

Hi David, On 12/17/17 9:30 AM, David Rowley wrote: > > I'm going to add this to PG11's final commitfest rather than the > January 'fest as it seems more like a final commitfest type of patch. This patch applies but no longer builds: $ make -C /home/vagrant/test/build <...> cd

Re: "failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple" error as an ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION ereport()

On 3/1/18 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:15 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> On 12/15/17 5:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> Commit d70cf811, from 2014, promoted an Assert() within >>> IndexBuildHeapScan() to a &quo

Re: "failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple" error as an ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION ereport()

On 12/15/17 5:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Commit d70cf811, from 2014, promoted an Assert() within > IndexBuildHeapScan() to a "can't happen" elog() error, in order to > detect when a parent tuple cannot be found for some heap-only tuple -- > if this happens, then it indicates corruption. I

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

Hi Thomas, [Also pulling in Michael for Windows knowledge] On 3/1/18 12:27 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:24 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> These tests were originally included in the exclude unlogged tables >> patch [1

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

On 3/1/18 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > The remaining 45 are, ordered by time created: OK, here's my break down after a brief review of all the patches in the list. Many of the patches were trivial/small, bug fixes, had history, or related to builds, tests, or docs. There are still 13

Re: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Hi Nikita, On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > >> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters. >> >> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru: >>

Re: Reduce amount of WAL generated by CREATE INDEX for gist, gin and sp-gist

Hi Anastasia, On 2/28/18 11:03 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > I want to propose a bunch of patches which allow to reduce WAL traffic > generated by CREATE INDEX for GiST, GIN and SP-GiST. Similarly to b-tree > and RUM, we can now log index pages of other access methods only once > in the end

Re: Re: Cast jsonb to numeric, int, float, bool

On 2/28/18 7:12 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > On 01.03.2018 00:43, Darafei Praliaskouski wrote: >> >> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Attached new version of the patch in which I removed duplicated code > using new subroutine JsonbExtractScalar(). I am not sure what is

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

On 3/1/18 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > I think that we should summarily bounce to the September 'fest anything > submitted in the last two days; certainly anything that's

2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

Hackers! I'll be starting the Commitfest at midnight AoE (07:00 ET, 13:00 CET) so please get your patches in before then. Please remember that if you drop a new and large (or invasive patch) into this CF it may be moved to the next CF. This last CF for PG11 should generally be restricted to

PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

These tests were originally included in the exclude unlogged tables patch [1] to provide coverage for the refactoring of reinit.c. After review we found a simpler implementation that did not require the reinit.c refactor so I dropped the tests from that patch. I did not include the refactor here

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

On 2/28/18 1:08 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > > The attached small patch verifies checksums (in case they are enabled) > during a basebackup. The rationale is that we are reading every block in > this case anyway, so this is a good opportunity to check them as well. > Other and complementary ways of

PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

This is a follow-up patch from the exclude unlogged relations discussion [1]. The patch excludes temporary relations during a base backup using the existing looks_like_temp_rel_name() function for identification. It shares code to identify database directories from [1], so for now that has been

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 8:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Adam Brightwell >> >> If it is agreed that the temp file exclusion should be submitted as a >> separate patch, then I will mark 'ready for committer'. > > Agreed, please mark this patch as "Ready for Committer".

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, Thanks for having a look at the patches. On 1/30/18 3:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:29:08PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> >> Adds a *very* basic test suite for pg_resetwal. I was able to make this >> utility core dump (floating

2018-03 CFM

Hackers, 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. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: New gist vacuum.

Hi Andrey, On 2/7/18 10:46 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> 7 февр. 2018 г., в 18:39, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> написал(а): >> >> Hi Andrey, >> >> On 1/21/18 5:34 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >>> Hello, Alexander! >>>> 16 янв. 2018 г.,

Re: Re: New gist vacuum.

Hi Andrey, On 1/21/18 5:34 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Hello, Alexander! >> 16 янв. 2018 г., в 21:42, Andrey Borodin написал(а): >> Please find README patch attached. > > Here's v2 version. Same code, but x2 comments. Also fixed important typo in > readme BFS->DFS. Feel

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression

Hi Oleg, On 1/22/18 4:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Oleg, > > I'm not really sure why this is still in Needs Review as a review was > posted and I don't see any follow-up. I've changed this to be Waiting > for Author. > > * Antonin Houska (a...@cybertec.at) wrote: >> Oleg Ivanov

Re: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Separate log file for extension

Hi Antonin, On 1/10/18 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Antonin Houska writes: >> After having read the thread on your patch I think that the reason you were >> asked to evaluate performance was that your patch can possibly make syslogger >> a bottleneck. In contrast, my patch does

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 8:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Adam Brightwell > <adam.brightw...@crunchydata.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:17 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Whoops, my bad. Temp

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/19/18 4:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/19/18 14:07, David Steele wrote: >> I have yet to add tests for pg_rewindwal and pg_upgrade. pg_rewindwal >> doesn't *have* any tests as far as I can tell and pg_upgrade has tests >> in a shell script -- it's not cle

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/29/18 9:13 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/29/18 5:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> But I >> have a question; can we exclude temp tables as well? The pg_basebackup >> includes even temp tables. But I don't think that it's necessary for >> backups > Tha

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 1/25/18 12:31 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:25 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Here is the first review comments. >>> >>> + unloggedDelim = strrchr(path, '/'); >>> >&g

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Masahiko, Thanks for the review! On 1/22/18 3:14 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> We would also have a problem if the missing file caused something in >> recovery to croak on the grounds that the file was expected

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/23/18 9:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:18:51AM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/20/18 5:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Making this possible would require first some >>> refactoring of PostgresNode.pm so as a node is aware of t

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/23/18 9:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> Unless I read it wrong the buildfarm is not doing cross-version >> upgrades, but a developer/user can do so manually using the same script? > > The buildfarm isn't doing that *by defaul

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/20/18 5:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:54:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> If the only problem is that buildfarm would run tests twice, then I >> think we should just press forward with this regardless of that: it >> seems a

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/19/18 4:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/19/18 14:07, David Steele wrote: >> I have yet to add tests for pg_rewindwal and pg_upgrade. pg_rewindwal >> doesn't *have* any tests as far as I can tell and pg_upgrade has tests >> in a shell script -- it's not cle

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 1/8/18 8:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/3/18 08:11, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>>>> I think MakeDirectory() is a good wrapper, but isn't >>>> MakeDirectoryPerm() sort of silly

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Robert, Thanks for looking at the patches. On 12/31/17 1:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: Attached is a new patch set that should address various concerns raised in this thread. 1) group-access-v3-01-mkdir

Re: Basebackups reported as idle

On 12/29/17 6:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Could you update the patch? >> >> I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment

Re: Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/21/17 2:02 PM, David Steele wrote: On 3/18/17 3:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I think Tom's concerns about people doing insecure stuff are excessive.  People can do insecure stuff no matter what we do, and trying to prevent them often leads to them doing even-more-insecure stuff.  That having

Re: MemoryContextCreate change in PG 11 how should contexts be created

On 12/19/17 10:11 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Paul Ramsey writes: > > If I'm reading right, using MemoryContextRegisterResetCallback on a > AllocSetContext created under our PortalContext should do

Re: Basebackups reported as idle

Hi Magnus, On 12/19/17 4:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always > reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to have been an > oversight in the "include walsender backends in pg_stat_activity" in 10, > which does include it for

Re: That mode-700 check on DATADIR again

On 12/11/17 9:41 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: I have, more or less, this classic question: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4667C403.1070807%40t3go.de However, when you stat a file with a POSIX ACL, you get shown the ACL's 'mask' entry (essentially the ceiling of all the 'extra' ACL

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/13/17 10:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Just to be clear- the new base backup code doesn't actually *do* the non-init fork removal, it simply doesn't include the non-init fork in the backup when there is an init fork, right? It does *not* do the unlogged non-init fork removal. The code I

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 8:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> On 2017-12-12 18:04:44 -0500, David Steele wrote: >>> If the forks are written out of order (i.e. main before init), which is >>> definitely possible, then

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 6:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 18:30:47 -0500, David Steele wrote: If we had a way to prevent relfilenode reuse across multiple checkpoints this'd be easier, although ALTER TABLE SET UNLOGGED still'd complicate. Or error the backup if there is wraparound

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 12/12/17 6:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 18:18:09 -0500, David Steele wrote: On 12/12/17 6:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote: It's quite different - in the recovery case there's no other write activity going on. But on a normally running cluster the persistence of existing tables can

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Michael, On 12/12/17 6:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: If the forks are written out of order (i.e. main before init), which is definitely possible, then I think worst case is some files will be backed up that don't need to be. The main fork is unlikely to be very large at that point so it

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi Andres, On 12/12/17 5:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-12-12 17:49:54 -0500, David Steele wrote: Including unlogged relations in base backups takes up space and is wasteful since they are truncated during backup recovery. The attached patches exclude unlogged relations from base backups

PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Including unlogged relations in base backups takes up space and is wasteful since they are truncated during backup recovery. The attached patches exclude unlogged relations from base backups except for the init fork, which is required to recreate the main fork during recovery. *

Re: Error generating coverage report

Hi Peter, On 12/12/17 3:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: make: Entering directory `/home/vagrant/test/build/src/bin/pg_basebackup' /usr/bin/lcov --gcov-tool /usr/bin/gcov -q --no-external -c -i -d . -d /postgres/src/bin/pg_basebackup -o lcov_base.info geninfo: ERROR: no .gcno files found in

Error generating coverage report

I'm working on improving coverage and would like to generate some reports (other than the text versions) to help me find uncovered code. However, my source path and build path are not the same and I'm running into problems. This works fine and produces gcov output: $ make -C

Re: Is it OK to ignore directory open failure in ResetUnloggedRelations?

Hi Tom, On 12/4/17 3:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > While working through Michael Paquier's patch to clean up inconsistent > usage of AllocateDir(), I noticed that ResetUnloggedRelations and its > subroutines are not consistent about whether a directory open failure > results in erroring out or just

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs

On 11/29/17 12:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > > Please note that I am still -1 for using a methodology different than > what is used for base backups with an inclusive method, and would much > prefer an exclusive

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On 11/27/17 7:11 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:06 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: read_backup_label() is a static function in the backend code. With #2 I do not imply to change the order of the elements w

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

Hi Michael, On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order >> dependency is attractive but there may be other progra

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On 11/15/17 6:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: Find my review below. On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have added as well a STOP TIMELINE

Re: [HACKERS] pg audit requirements

On 11/13/17 1:43 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2017-11-13 19:19 GMT+01:00 David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net > Thanks for the input!  I'm not sure this is the best forum for comments, however, since pgAudit is not part of Postgres. Issues can be opened at the github site:

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

Hi Michael, Find my review below. On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have > added as well a STOP TIMELINE field in the backup history file. Note > that START TIMELINE gets automatically into the backup history file. >

<    4   5   6   7   8   9