Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for adding more details. It is easy to understand. >> >> I marked the patch as ready for committer in the commitfest.

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi All, Enclosed please find the patch only for the pg_dump using the 'comment on current_database' statement. This patch should be working with the previous patch which is comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v3.patch Regards, Jing Wang Fujitsu Australia

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION?

Sorry for the cross posting on this one, but I think it's important both groups are aware. >> I think this thread covers most of the issues. >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html >> My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE >>

[HACKERS] generated columns

Here is another attempt to implement generated columns. This is a well-known SQL-standard feature, also available for instance in DB2, MySQL, Oracle. A quick example: CREATE TABLE t1 ( ..., height_cm numeric, height_in numeric GENERATED ALWAYS AS (height_cm * 2.54) ); (This is

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Make the optimiser aware of partitions ordering

On 3/20/17 11:03, Ronan Dunklau wrote: >> Great idea. This is too late for v10 at this point, but please add it >> to the next CommitFest so we don't forget about it. > I know it is too late, and thought that it was too early to add it to the > commitfest properly since so many design decisions

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:44:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > Today's run has finished with the same failure: > >

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Ashutosh, Thanks for the comments and sorry that it took me a while to reply here. On 2017/08/23 20:16, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I've been working on implementing a way to perform plan-time >>

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 02:32:49AM +, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:09:00PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > On 24/08/17 19:54, Tom Lane wrote: > > > sungazer just failed with > > > > > > pg_recvlogical exited with code '256', stdout '' and stderr > > > 'pg_recvlogical: could

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:31:01AM -0700, Emrul wrote: > Hi hackers, > > This question came up again on Reddit: > https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/6kyyev/i_have_hit_the_table_name_length_limit_a_number/ > and I thought I'd echo it here. > > I totally am on board with short,

[HACKERS] code cleanup empty string initializations

In initdb, many global string variables are initialized as empty strings ("") and then checked later with strcmp(), instead of just using NULL. I think this is probably left over from the shell script conversion. The style has also spread to pg_basebackup. So here is a patch to clean that up, and

Re: [HACKERS] Back-branch release notes up for review

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 03:31:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > + > + > + > + Show foreign tables > + in information_schema.table_privileges > + view (Peter Eisentraut) > + > + > + > + All other relevant information_schema views include > + foreign tables,

[HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

A lot of semi-internal code just prints out numeric SPI error codes, which is not very helpful. We already have an API function SPI_result_code_string() to convert the codes to a string, so here is a patch to make more use of that and also document it for external use. Also included are two

[HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor

Hi, Following is a proposal for reporting the progress of CLUSTER command: It seems that the following could be the phases of CLUSTER processing: 1. scanning heap 2. sort tuples 3. writing new heap 4. scan heap and write new heap 5. swapping relation files 6. rebuild index 7.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello, > >>> Hmmm. The existing "is_no_vacuum" variable is typed *both* as int (in >>> "main") and as bool (in "init"), called by main (yuk!). I see no reason >>> to >>> choose the bad one for the global:-) >> >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Wow. Just to be clear, I am looking for the BEST case for replacement > selection, not the worst case. But I would have expected that case to > be a win for replacement selection, and it clearly isn't. I can >

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> That may all be true, but my point is that if it wins in some cases, >> we should keep it -- and proving it no longer wins in those cases will >>

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> >>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >>> than I was

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > This is significantly faster, in a way that's clearly reproducible and > consistent, despite the fact that we need about 10 merge passes > without replacement selection, and only have enough memory for 7 > tapes. I think that

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:35 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > Inspired by the syntax documentation for EXPLAIN: > > VACUUM [ ( option [, ...] ) ] [ table_def [, ...] ] > > where option can be one of: > FULL > FREEZE > VERBOSE > DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> So, perhaps it would be better to fix that before the next point release? > > Sure, I'll get it done on Friday, or tomorrow if I can manage it. Thanks, Álvaro. -- Michael -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > >> I don't like breaking the abstraction of pg_log() with the existing > >> flags with some kind of pg_debug() layer. The set of APIs present

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 8/30/17, 5:37 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > > Yeah... Each approach has its cost and its advantages. It may be > > better to wait for more opinions, no many people have complained yet >

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On 8/30/17, 5:37 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > Yeah... Each approach has its cost and its advantages. It may be > better to wait for more opinions, no many people have complained yet > that for example a list of columns using twice the same one fails. Sounds good to

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 8/28/17, 11:26 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: >> About the de-duplication patch, I have to admit that I am still not a >> fan of doing such a thing. Another road that we could take is to >>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> I don't like breaking the abstraction of pg_log() with the existing >> flags with some kind of pg_debug() layer. The set of APIs present now >> in pg_rewind for logging

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > That may all be true, but my point is that if it wins in some cases, > we should keep it -- and proving it no longer wins in those cases will > require running tests. That's not hard. On my laptop: $ pgbench -i -s 100

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION?

"Regina Obe" writes: > I think this thread covers most of the issues. > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html > My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE > EXENSION if asked? We intentionally *don't* do that; pg_dump

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> With the additional enhancements made to Postgres 10, I doubt that >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> In this case, >> I'll blame the fact that we allow a role to be dropped while there are >> users connected using that role. > Actually, my first comment when Pavan mentioned this on IM was that we > should look into fixing

[HACKERS] pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION?

I'm not too familiar with the innards of pg_upgrade, but we've been discussing it a lot for past couple of days and how it's causing issues for PostGIS upgrades. I think this thread covers most of the issues. https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html My thought was

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Robert Haas wrote: > In this case, > I'll blame the fact that we allow a role to be dropped while there are > users connected using that role. That's about as sensible as allowing > a table to be dropped while there are users reading from it, or a > database to be dropped while there are users

Re: [HACKERS] Polyphase merge is obsolete

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > These are separate topics. They should each be discussed on their own > thread. Please don't hijack this thread to talk about something else. I don't think that that is a fair summary. Heikki has done a number of

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> With the additional enhancements made to Postgres 10, I doubt that >> there are any remaining cases where it wins. > > The thing to do about that

Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > With the additional enhancements made to Postgres 10, I doubt that > there are any remaining cases where it wins. The thing to do about that would be to come up with some cases where someone might plausibly think it would

Re: [HACKERS] Polyphase merge is obsolete

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I noticed that this is in the upcoming CF 1 for v11. I'm signed up to review. > > I'd like to point out that replacement selection is also obsolete, > which is something I brought up recently [1]. I don't actually have > any

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > +1. I think we should just pull out the OIDs from partition descriptor. Like this? The first patch refactors the expansion of a single child out into a separate function, and the second patch implements

Re: [HACKERS] Polyphase merge is obsolete

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Since we have an awful lot of stuff in the last CF, and this patch > doesn't seem particularly strategic, I've marked it "Returned with > Feedback". I noticed that this is in the upcoming CF 1 for v11. I'm signed up to

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Amit Kapila writes: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> If no objections, I'll do the additional legwork and push. > No objections. Done. Out of curiosity, I pushed just the rescan-param patch to the buildfarm to start with, to

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> On 25 August 2017 at 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: >>> That just leaves indexes. In a world where keystate,

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Eh, if you want to optimize it for the case where debug output is not > enabled, make sure to use ereport() not elog(). ereport() > short-circuits evaluation of arguments, whereas elog() does not. I should do

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 25 August 2017 at 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: >> That just leaves indexes. In a world where keystate, tupslot, and >> tupmap are removed from the PartitionDispatchData, you must need >>

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Amit's patches seem to be addressing the third point here. But the >> expansion is not happening in breadth-first manner. We

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

On 2017-08-30 16:24, Tom Lane wrote: Alexander Korotkov writes: It doesn't seems to make sense to consider this patch unless we get access to suitable Power machine to reproduce benefits. This is why I'm going to mark this patch "Returned with feedback". Once we

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:43 AM, amul sul wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion, I have updated 0002-patch accordingly. > Using this I found some strange behaviours as follow: > > 1) standard and extended0 output for the jsonb_hash case is not same. > 2) standard and extended0

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

Hi, To make it clear: I don't have a strong opinion on these, I'm happy enough to commit the patch as is, minus one unrelated change. I just think it should be discussed. On 2017-08-30 07:01:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote: > > 1) Currently the default

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The problem here is exactly that we cannot transmit the leader's > state to the worker. You can't blame it on SET ROLE, because > I didn't do one. Hmm, that's a good reason for holding it blameless. In this case, I'll blame

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:14 AM, amul sul wrote: > > Attaching patch 0002 for the reviewer's testing. > > I think that this 0002 is not something we can think of committing > because there's no

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Amit's patches seem to be addressing the third point here. But the > expansion is not happening in breadth-first manner. We are expanding > all the partitioned partitions first and then leaf partitions. So >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I"m okay with a narrow solution if SET ROLE really is >> the only problem, but at this stage I'm not convinced of that. > I don't think the problem with role is that it's

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix drop replication slot blocking instead of returning error

And another patch to restore behavior to replication origin drop. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >From 66c1b1072feb95a08739d9a752f1d6fc73d1dc77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends >>> the various internal

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix drop replication slot blocking instead of returning error

Craig Ringer wrote: > > FWIW, I also don't think it's ok to just change the behaviour > > unconditionally and without a replacement for existing behaviour. > > Seems like it just needs a new argument nowait DEFAULT false I added a WAIT flag to DROP_REPLICATION_SLOT, preliminary patch attached.

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

Alexander Korotkov writes: > It doesn't seems to make sense to consider this patch unless we get access > to suitable Power machine to reproduce benefits. > This is why I'm going to mark this patch "Returned with feedback". > Once we would get access to the appropriate

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> I keep having the feeling that this is a big patch with a small patch >>> struggling to get out. Is it really necessary to

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends >> the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible >> strings. > That would probably

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends > the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible > strings. That would probably be better in the long run, but I'm not keen to do

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >>> On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700,

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER INDEX .. SET STATISTICS ... behaviour

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Alexander Korotkov

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

Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > > Attached is a draft patch to allow extension to write log messages to a > > separate file. > > Does it allow postgres core code to write log messages to multiple log >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

Hi Rafia, On 17 August 2017 at 14:12, Amit Khandekar wrote: > But for all of the cases here, partial > subplans seem possible, and so even on HEAD it executed Partial > Append. So between a Parallel Append having partial subplans and a > Partial Append having partial

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Amit Kapila writes: > I am able to reproduce this without involving session authorization > guc as well. One needs to drop the newly created role from another > session, then also we can see the same error. Hm. I suspect the basic shape of what's happening here is "an

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > Your patch brings us one step closer to that goal. (The book says > > that this approach is good far sparse bitsets, but your comment says > > that we expect something near 50%. That's irrelevant anyway since a > > future centralised popcount() implementation would do

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > I am able to reproduce this without involving session authorization > guc as well. One needs to drop the newly created role from another > session, then also we can see the same error. > > Yeah, that's how I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Poor cost estimate with interaction between table correlation and partial indexes

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Michael Malis wrote: > (Sorry David. I initially replied only to you) > > Ok. I've attached a patch of a proof-of-concept. I have a few > questions about tests. > > What is typical workflow to add tests for changes to the planner? Add

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

I wrote: > I can duplicate this in HEAD and v10, but not 9.6, so I've added it > as an open issue for v10. No idea what broke it. Oh, scratch that: the issue exists in 9.6, it's just that the particular test query you're using here does not generate a parallelized plan in 9.6, as shown by

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> ! /* Make sure any existing workers are gracefully shut down */ >> ExecShutdownGatherWorkers(node); >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: >> It's quite possible that I don't understand the differences in "role" and >> "session authorization", but it still looks like a bug

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Pavan Deolasee writes: > The last statement in this test fails with an error: > ERROR: role "testuser1" does not exist > CONTEXT: parallel worker I can duplicate this in HEAD and v10, but not 9.6, so I've added it as an open issue for v10. No idea what broke it.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel worker error

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > It's quite possible that I don't understand the differences in "role" and > "session authorization", but it still looks like a bug to me. May be > SerializeGUCState() should check if SetRoleIsActive is true and

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Amit Kapila writes: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > ! /* Make sure any existing workers are gracefully shut down */ > ExecShutdownGatherWorkers(node); > The above call doesn't ensure the shutdown. It just ensures that we >

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing! On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote: > 1) Currently the default for {min,max}_wal_size depends on the segment >size. Given that the segment size is about to be configurable, that >seems confusing. On the one hand, I agree that it seems confusing and unnecessary to vary this with the

[HACKERS] Parallel worker error

Hello, While investing an issue in Postgres-XL 10, I came across this rather surprisingly behaviour in PG master. See this test case: create role testuser1; set role to testuser1; show role; -- shows testuser1 -- reset back to default role reset session authorization ; show role; -- shows none

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> There's already ExecParallelReinitialize, which could be made to walk >>> the nodes in addition

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 25 August 2017 at 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: > > That just leaves indexes. In a world where keystate, tupslot, and > tupmap are removed from the PartitionDispatchData, you must need > indexes or there would be no point in constructing a > PartitionDispatchData object in

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 2017/08/30 12:03, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> I keep having the feeling that this is a big patch with a small patch >>> struggling to get out. Is it really necessary to change >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Tuple-routing for certain partitioned tables not working as expected

On 2017/08/30 9:13, Amit Langote wrote: On 2017/08/29 20:18, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree that just ripping the

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I have updated the patch to support wait events and moved it to upcoming CF. > > This patch doesn't apply any more, but I made it apply

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

Hello, Hmmm. The existing "is_no_vacuum" variable is typed *both* as int (in "main") and as bool (in "init"), called by main (yuk!). I see no reason to choose the bad one for the global:-) Yeah, I think this might be a good timing to re-consider int-for-bool habits in pgbench. If we decided

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: > > >> So the