Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench

Hello Ildar, Here is a new version of patch. I've splitted it into two parts. The first one is almost the same as v4 from [1] with some refactoring. The second part introduces random_seed variable as you proposed. Patch 1 applies. Compilations fails, there are two "hash_seed" declared in

Test-cases for exclusion constraints is missing in alter_table.sql file

Hi All, While working on exclusion constraints for one of our internal project, I noticed that there is no test-case for exclusion constraints in alter_table.sql file. However, for other constraints i could see lots of test-cases in alter_table.sql. There are hardly 1-2 test-cases for exclusion

Re: pgsql: Centralize json and jsonb handling of datetime types

On 2018-01-17 01:29, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Centralize json and jsonb handling of datetime types [...] https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cc4feded0a31d2b732d4ea68613115cb720e624e Modified Files -- src/backend/utils/adt/date.c | 6 +-- src/backend/utils/adt/json.c | 122

Re: TOAST table created for partitioned tables

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:38:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, pg_upgrade already has to cope with cases where the newer version > thinks a table needs a toast table when the older version didn't, or > vice versa. This looks like it ought to fall into that category. > Not that testing it

Re: TOAST table created for partitioned tables

Amit Langote writes: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Aargh. Will apply this patch break pg_upgrade from v10? > AFAICS, it doesn't. Partitioned tables that used to have a TOAST > table in v10 cluster will continue to have

Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:18:29PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So I was looking into how we can do it without OBJECT_RELATION. For the > first patch, that was obviously easy, because that's what my initial > proposal did. We just treat OBJECT_TABLE within the context of > GRANT/REVOKE as

Re: TOAST table created for partitioned tables

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends >> up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk. >> >>

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 16 January 2018 at 21:08, Amit Langote wrote: > Attached v20. Thanks again. Thanks for working on v20. I've had a look over part of it and I've written down the following: 1. The following comment is not correct /* * Equality look up key. Values in the

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 16 January 2018 at 21:08, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/01/12 12:30, David Rowley wrote: >> 8. The code in get_partitions_from_ne_clauses() does perform quite a >> few nested loops. I think a more simple way to would be to track the >> offsets you've seen in a

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 06:21, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:43AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Simon Riggs

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > FWIW, I think that that represents bad practice in those changes, > precisely because of the hazard it poses for uncommitted patches. > If you're changing a function signature, it's usually not that hard > to make sure that

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

Peter Geoghegan writes: > The parallel CREATE INDEX patch is something that I've worked on > (fairly inconsistently) for 2 years now. I remember two occasions in > which somebody else changed a function signature for functions that my > code called, and without that causing even a

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I've seen that before as well. > > I have also noticed people complaining about patches that apply "with > offsets", which also seems like needless nitpicking. If the offsets > are large and the patch has been sitting

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On 1/11/18 17:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Looking around where else they are used, the uses in numeric.c sure seem > like noops: > > #if SIZEOF_DATUM == 8 > #define NumericAbbrevGetDatum(X) ((Datum) SET_8_BYTES(X)) > #define DatumGetNumericAbbrev(X) ((int64) GET_8_BYTES(X)) > #define

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

On 17 January 2018 at 03:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 9. Error details claim that p2_a_idx is not a partition of p. >> Shouldn't it say table "p2" is not a partition of "p"? > > You missed the "on" in the DETAIL: > DETAIL: Index "p2_a_idx" is not on a partition of

Re: WIP Patch: Precalculate stable functions, infrastructure v1

Aleksander Alekseev writes: > I can confirm this code works. However, since this is quite a large patch, I > believe we better have a second reviewer or a very attentive committer. > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer This is indeed quite a large

Re: TOAST table created for partitioned tables

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends > up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk. > > create table p (a int[]) partition by list (a); > CREATE TABLE > > select

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

On 01/16/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/15/18 12:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> This confused me slightly: >> >> +    Transactions cannot be ended inside loops through query results >> or inside >> +    blocks with exception handlers. >> >> I suggest: "A transaction

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

David Fetter wrote: > I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it helpful when patch sets come with > a single-sentence summary of the patch set and a commit message for > each individual patch. > > Is git format-patch really too heavy a lift to ask of people? I think it's okay as general guideline,

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > I will make your suggested changes that is merge create_sort_agg_path() and > create_hash_agg_path(). Will name that function as > create_sort_and_hash_agg_paths(). I suggest add_paths_to_grouping_rel() and

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:56:55AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in > > <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > >> Robert Haas

Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit

Tom Lane wrote: > Also, I remain of the opinion that we needn't necessarily teach them the > minimum-keystrokes solution; it's better to teach something that will work > every time. Maybe ^C is close enough on that score, but I'm not sure. IMO in the spirit of keeping things simple, it's enough

Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > A quick PoC. > > I should say upfront that I've no axe to grind over this, if no-one > likes the idea I don't mind: I'm not sure I like it myself (it's quite > an aggressive stance to take, I think) - I just wanted to

Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Right, but if we're willing to look at the parse state, we don't need > to cram all possible knowledge into one 80-character string. I'm > thinking about just responding to the current situation, say > > You have begun a

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On 16 January 2018 at 06:21, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:43AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 9 January 2018 at 04:36, Masahiko Sawada

Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

On 16 January 2018 at 16:56, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in >> <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >>> Robert Haas

let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in > <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> Robert Haas writes: >> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

On 2018-01-16 16:12:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:26:50AM +, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:39:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> @@ -73,11 +73,19 @@ pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32_impl(volatile > >> pg_atomic_uint32 *ptr, > >> static

RE:[HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

Thanks Noah ! Hummm You have a big machine, more powerful than mine. However, it seems that you do not see the random failure I see. Cordialement, Tony Reix ATOS / Bull SAS ATOS Expert IBM Coop Architect & Technical Leader Office : +33 (0) 4 76 29 72 67 1 rue de Provence - 38432 Échirolles -

Re: New gist vacuum.

Hi! > 15 янв. 2018 г., в 23:42, Alexander Korotkov > написал(а): > > I'm very glad this patch isn't forgotten. I've assigned to review this patch. Cool, thanks! > My first note on this patchset is following. These patches touches sensitive > aspects or GiST and are

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

All, I have reviewed and tested these patches. The patches applied cleanly in order against master at (90947674fc). I ran the provided regression tests and a 'check-world'. All tests succeeded. Marking ready for committer. -Adam

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

On 1/15/18 12:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > This confused me slightly: > > +    Transactions cannot be ended inside loops through query results > or inside > +    blocks with exception handlers. > > I suggest: "A transaction cannot be ended inside a loop over query > results, nor

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

Hi. These patches enable to use Persistent Memory Development Kit(PMDK)[1] for reading/writing WAL logs on persistent memory(PMEM). PMEM is next generation storage and it has a number of nice features: fast, byte-addressable and non-volatile. Using pgbench which is a PostgreSQL general

jdbc targetServerType=slave with readonly connection

Hello, the slave replication server does not seem to be recognized correctly when using read-only jdbc connection and targetServerType=preferSlave. Sample conn str jdbc:postgresql://master,slave/up?user=***=***=require=***=preferSlave=true=true >From the docs I understands that since writes are

Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench

Hi Fabien, 13/01/2018 11:16, Fabien COELHO пишет: > > Hello Ildar, > >>> so that different instances of hash function within one script would >>> have different seeds. Yes, that is a good idea, I can do that. >>> >> Added this feature in attached patch. But on a second thought this could >> be

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

On 01/16/2018 08:50 AM, REIX, Tony wrote: > Hi Michael > > You said: > >> Setting up a buildfarm member with the combination of compiler and >> environment where you are seeing the failures would be the best answer >> in my opinion: >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Buildfarm_Howto

RE:[HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

Hi Michael You said: > Setting up a buildfarm member with the combination of compiler and > environment where you are seeing the failures would be the best answer > in my opinion: > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Buildfarm_Howto > > This does not require special knowledge of

Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default

On 01/16/2018 12:13 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 2 January 2018 at 05:01, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: >> New version of the patch that fills in the remaining piece in >> equalTupleDescs. > This no longer applies to current master. Can send an updated patch? > Yeah,

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:25:51AM +, REIX, Tony wrote: > My team and my company (ATOS/Bull) are involved in improving the > quality of PostgreSQL on AIX. Cool to hear that! > We have AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 Power8 systems, with several > logical/physical processors. And I plan to have a more

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

Hello, I'm still wandering on the way and confused. Sorry for inconsistent comments in advanceX-( At Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:20:57 +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote in

Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit

On 15 January 2018 at 17:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Geoff Winkless writes: >> At this point it depends quite how far down the rabbit-hole you want >> to go to stop people googling "how do I exit psql", I suppose :p > > Well, I concur with Robert's comment

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 16 January 2018 at 09:17, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 01:09, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Amit Khandekar >> wrote: >>> Even where partitions are present, in the usual case

Re: Setting BLCKSZ 4kB

Hi Sanyam, Interesting topic! 2018-01-16 7:50 GMT+01:00 sanyam jain : > Hi, > > I am trying to solve WAL flooding due to FPWs. > > > What are the cons of setting BLCKSZ as 4kB? > > > When saw the results published on http://blog.coelho.net/ >

TOAST table created for partitioned tables

Hi. I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk. create table p (a int[]) partition by list (a); CREATE TABLE select pg_table_size('p'); pg_table_size --- 8192 (1 row) select

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > > wrote: > > > Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

Hi all, I have been continue doing testing of parallel create index patch. So far I haven't came across any sort of issue or regression with the patches. Here are few performance number for the latest round of testing - which is perform on top of 6th Jan patch submitted by Peter. Testing is done

Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

I'm digressing... At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Robert Haas writes: > > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is totally > > harmless, I'm not sure why you should need to

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Jeevan Chalke > wrote: > > Attached new set of patches adding this. Only patch 0007 (main patch) > and > > 0008 (testcase patch) has changed. > > > >

RE:[HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX

Hi Michael, My team and my company (ATOS/Bull) are involved in improving the quality of PostgreSQL on AIX. We have AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 Power8 systems, with several logical/physical processors. And I plan to have a more powerful (more processors) machine for running PostgreSQL stress tests.