Re: 2018-03 CFM

> 7 марта 2018 г., в 12:00, Michael Paquier написал(а): > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:56:01AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> Actually, as for now, it is impossible to register patch at CF >> 2018-09. At least I do not see the "new patch" button. May be CF >> should be

Some message fixes

Hello. While translating message catalogs, I found that some messages listing object names are missing partitioned tables/indices. And GUC comment for autovacuum_work_mem has a typo. 1. some messages are missing partitioned table/index The first attached. I'm not sure how the orering ought to

RE: Speed up the removal of WAL files

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz] > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:55:43AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > So, what about, as another approach, making the checkpointer instead > > of the startup process call RemoveNonParentXlogFiles() when > > end-of-recovery checkpoint is executed?

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

> 7 марта 2018 г., в 3:25, Tels написал(а): > > It could be named "SkipTuples" (e.g. this is the number of tuples we need > to skip, not the number we have skipped), and the other one then > "iss_SkipTuplesRemaining" so they are consistent with each other. I

Missing break statement after transformCallStmt in transformStmt

HI, Commit 76b6aa41f41db66004b1c430f17a546d4102fbe7 a new case for CallStmt in transformStmt but forgot to add a break statement at the end of the case. This doesn't create any problems since the default case to which it continues without break doesn't change the result. But this is going to cause

Re: Comment on top of RangeVarGetRelidExtended in namespace.c mentioning RangeVarGetRelid

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:37:15PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Thanks, fix pushed. Thanks, Stephen. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: BUG #14941: Vacuum crashes

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 09:55:13PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 3/3/18, 6:13 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: >> I was working on committing 0002 and 0003, when I noticed that the >> second patch doesn't actually fully works. NOWAIT does what it says on >> the tin iff the

Re: Comment on top of RangeVarGetRelidExtended in namespace.c mentioning RangeVarGetRelid

Greetings Michael, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > While reviewing the NOWAIT patch for VACUUM (well, SKIP_LOCKED per these > day's trends), I bumped into $subject. > > Attached is a one-liner. Thanks, fix pushed. Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > > Changes look good to me and refactoring will be useful for partitionwise > patches. > > However, will it be good if we add agg_costs into the GroupPathExtraData > too? > Also can we pass this to the

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:34 PM, David Rowley wrote: > One thing I've learned in my time working with PostgreSQL is that, if > there's a known hole, someone's probably going to fall down it > eventually. I like working with PostgreSQL because we're pretty > careful

Re: GSOC 2018 ideas

2018-03-05 1:42 GMT-08:00 Aleksander Alekseev : > Hello Charles, > > >Went through the documents listed by you, and they are helpful! > > It seems the main purpose of extension pg_protobuf is to parse > > a protobuf struct and return the decoded field. May I ask how

Re: Server won't start with fallback setting by initdb.

Greetings Tom Peter, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 3/4/18 15:31, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Then, seeing that the factory defaults are ReservedBackends = 3 and > >> max_wal_senders = 10, something's got to give; there's

Comment on top of RangeVarGetRelidExtended in namespace.c mentioning RangeVarGetRelid

Hi all, While reviewing the NOWAIT patch for VACUUM (well, SKIP_LOCKED per these day's trends), I bumped into $subject. Attached is a one-liner. Thanks, -- Michael diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c b/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c index 65e271a8d1..52dd400b96 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

Greetings Robert, Ashutosh, Arthur, Etsuro, all, * Arthur Zakirov (a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru) wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:09:50PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comment in > > combination with changes to the FDW docs in the

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:32:49PM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 3/5/18 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Ah, I see what you mean now. Fixed using follow_fast. This variant > claims to be faster and it doesn't matter if files are occasionally > checked twice. Fine for me. I can see this

Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

On 3/2/18 05:01, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: >> David Steele wrote: >>> Does this look right to you? >> >> Yes, this is what I meant. The patch applies cleanly and the code compiles >> well. >> >>> If so, can

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > [more commits] +* OSX prefixes all object level symbols with an underscore. But neither "macOS" (see commit da6c4f6c and all mentions since). make check at today's HEAD of your jit branch crashes on my FreeBSD

Re: [doc fix] Correct calculation of vm.nr_hugepages

On 2/26/18 08:25, Vasundhar Boddapati wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: not tested > Implements feature: not tested > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation:tested, passed > > It works. Can

Re: public schema default ACL

Greetings Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> I propose, for v11, switching to "GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA > >> public TO PUBLIC" (omit CREATE). Concerns? An

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

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:24:24PM +0300, Ivan Kartyshov wrote: > Hello, I now is preparing the patch over syntax that Simon offered. And in > few day I will update the patch. > Thank you for your interest in thread. It has been more than one month since a patch update has been requested, and

Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:55:43AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > So, what about, as another approach, making the checkpointer instead of > the startup process call RemoveNonParentXlogFiles() when end-of-recovery > checkpoint is executed? ISTM that a recovery doesn't need to wait for >

Re: check error messages in SSL tests

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:54:16PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This contains a slight problem: The tests contain two different > branches, depending on whether tls-server-end-point is supported. But > these branches run a different number of tests, so the test count of the > top of the test

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 7 March 2018 at 10:15, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:32 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> It appears to me, for your method to work we'd need to try every >> combination of the clauses matching each partition key, which in this

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

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:56:41PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > But this patch was quite useful while debugging some of the other > ongoing SSL work. So if it were revived at some point in the future, it > would be welcome. +1! -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Index-only scan returns incorrect results when using a composite GIST index with a gist_trgm_ops column.

At Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:39:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in <22609.1519936...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: > > At Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:13:51 +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote > > in <348951516742...@web54j.yandex.ru> > >>

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM, David Steele wrote: > 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

Re: TAP test module - PostgresClient

At Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:46:11 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote in <7f1e5f2f-4902-2c29-de82-381de8cc6...@2ndquadrant.com> > On 3/1/18 23:39, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > >> If I understand correctly

Re: line_perp() (?-|) is broken.

Hello, I'm returning to here sonn. I regard Emre's work is aiming to refactor (not improve its functionality of) the code, on the other hand thins one is a separate bug fix which also should be backpatched. But, honestrly I'm not sure such small fix would improve the current situnation of the

Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound

Robert Haas writes: > This is really two separate changes: > 1. Teach backends to remove any leftover pg_temp_%d schema on startup. > 2. Teach autovacuum to remove any leftover tables in a pg_temp_%d > schema if the backend is active but in some other database (rather >

Re: Server won't start with fallback setting by initdb.

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/4/18 15:31, Tom Lane wrote: >> Then, seeing that the factory defaults are ReservedBackends = 3 and >> max_wal_senders = 10, something's got to give; there's no way that >> max_connections = 10 can work with those. But what I would

Re: Server won't start with fallback setting by initdb.

I wrote: > Therefore, the condition that actually ought to be getting enforced here > is either "ReservedBackends + max_wal_senders < MaxConnections", or > "ReservedBackends + max_wal_senders <= MaxConnections", depending on > whether you think it's appropriate to require at least one

Re: Server won't start with fallback setting by initdb.

On 3/4/18 15:31, Tom Lane wrote: > Then, seeing that the factory defaults are ReservedBackends = 3 and > max_wal_senders = 10, something's got to give; there's no way that > max_connections = 10 can work with those. But what I would argue is that > of those three choices, the least defensible one

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

Hello Michail, On Tue, March 6, 2018 4:03 pm, Michail Nikolaev wrote: > Hello, Andrey. > > Thanks for review. > > I have updated comments according your review also renamed some fields for > consistency. > Additional some notes added to documentation. > > Updated patch in attach, github updated

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

> On 06 Mar 2018, at 22:08, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we >>> are in the cycle, I don’t think any

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

Craig Ringer wrote: > Revised patch attached. > > I have _not_ rewritten to use sscanf yet. I'll do that next, so you can > choose the fewer-changes patch for backpatching if desired. Pushed, with a further change: it seems more sensible to centralize the whole operation of building the path,

Re: public schema default ACL

Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> I propose, for v11, switching to "GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMA >> public TO PUBLIC" (omit CREATE). Concerns? An alternative is to change the >> default search_path to "$user"; that

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

Andres Freund writes: > I'm not too worried about that scenario. If, for a cheap plan, the > planner ends up with a seqscan despite it being disabled, you're pretty > close to randomly choosing plans already, as the pruning doesn't work > well anymore (as the %1 percent fuzz

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:32 PM, David Rowley wrote: > Let's look at the following perhaps unlikely case. (I picked an > extreme case to demonstrate why this may be an inferior method) > > Given the table abc (...) partition by range (a,b,c), with the query: > >

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

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/4/18 16:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> If you want to do this soon I can put out a Buildfarm Client release >> fairly quickly. > I think the dependency is mostly the other way around. How quickly > would build farm owners install

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

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we >> are in the cycle, I don’t think any new TLS implementation going in is >> realistic at this point since none of

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

Hello, Andrey. Thanks for review. I have updated comments according your review also renamed some fields for consistency. Additional some notes added to documentation. Updated patch in attach, github updated too. offset_index_only_v3.patch Description: Binary data

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

On 2018-03-06 12:16:01 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > I ran some performance assessments: > > > > merge base (0b1d1a038babff4aadf0862c28e7b667f1b12a30) > > > > make installcheck 3.14s user 3.34s system 17% cpu 37.954 total > > > > jit branch default settings > > > > make installcheck 3.17s user

Re: public schema default ACL

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > Commit 5770172 ("Document security implications of search_path and the public > schema.") is largely a workaround for the fact that the boot_val of > search_path contains "public" while template0 gets "GRANT CREATE, USAGE ON >

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

Hi, On 2018-03-06 10:29:47 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I think taking the total cost as the triggering threshold is probably > good enough for a start. The cost modeling can be refined over time. Cool. > We should document that both jit_optimize_above_cost and > jit_inline_above_cost

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > This is in-lined with enable_hashagg GUC. Do you think > enable_partitionwise_aggregate seems better? But it will be not consistent > with other GUC names like enable_hashagg then. Well, if I had my way,

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

On 3/4/18 16:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> AFAICT, this still has the same problem as the previous take, namely >>> that adding a TAP test suite to the pg_upgrade subdirectory will end up >>> with the build farm client running the pg_upgrade tests twice. What we >>> likely need here is an update

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

On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we > are in the cycle, I don’t think any new TLS implementation going in is > realistic at this point since none of the proposed ones have had enough tyre > kicking done. That

Re: check error messages in SSL tests

On 2/24/18 10:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/24/18 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:57:44PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Oh. I actually had that file as 0600 in my checked-out tree, probably >>> from earlier experiments. Fixed that. And I also changed it to

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add much-more-extensive TAP tests for pgbench.

On 3/2/18 20:19, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 9/8/17 09:32, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Add much-more-extensive TAP tests for pgbench. > >> The use of done_testing() raises the requirement of Test::More from 0.82 >> to 0.87. That seems OK, but we

Re: constraint exclusion and nulls in IN (..) clause

Amit Langote writes: > [ v4-0001-Disregard-nulls-in-SAOP-rightarg-array-list-durin.patch ] This patch seems pretty wrong to me. The proposed proof rule is wrong for !useOr expressions (that is, "scalar op ALL (array)"); you can't just ignore null items in that

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Hello > Do you actually need test output proving that this code path was taken > rather than the default one? Seems like looking at the code coverage > report might be enough. I not known. In v4 i use DEBUG1 message and do not check code path in tests at all: by full table scan or by

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Sergei Kornilov writes: >> ISTM that depending on DEBUG messages is bad because debugging lines >> added elsewhere will make your tests fail; > I agree and this is reason why i not used DEBUG message in tests as was > proposed. I found INFO messages in tests and decided that this

Re: All Taxi Services need Index Clustered Heap Append

> On Mar 6, 2018, at 04:57, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 3 March 2018 at 00:30, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski > wrote: > > I gave this all some thought and it looks like it all could have not happened > if Postgres was able

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/5/18 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:07:20PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:52:32PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >>> I don't quite understand here. I have no objection into extending >>>

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Hello > You should be able to use an event trigger that raises a message when > table_rewrite is hit, to notify the test driver that a rewrite happens. Here is no table rewrite, only verify. So here EventTriggerTableRewrite is not called. Or i missed something? > ISTM that depending on DEBUG

Re: User defined data types in Logical Replication

Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Therefore, I'm inclined to make this function raise a warning, then > > return a substitute value (something like "unrecognized type XYZ"). > > [...] > > I agree with you about not

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

David Gould writes: > On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:49:20 -0500 > Tom Lane wrote: >> The sticking point in my mind right now is, if we do that, what to do with >> VACUUM's estimates. > For what it's worth, I think the current estimate formula for VACUUM is > pretty

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Sergei Kornilov wrote: > Hello, Ildar > Thanks. I looked ATTACH PARTITION tests and found such checks. If no one is > against i will just use in my patch INFO level instead DEBUG1, similarly > ATTACH PARTITION code. Updated patch attached. > > Or i can rewrite tests to use DEBUG1 level. You

Re: Rewrite of pg_dump TAP tests

Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > > Attached is a patch (which applies cleaning against a2a2205, but not so > > much anymore, obviously, but I will fix after the releases) which > > greatly improves the big pg_dump TAP tests. There's probably

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

On 3/6/18 7:04 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> I agree with Teodor (upthread, not quoted here) that the documentation >> could use some editing. >> >> I started to do it myself, but quickly realized I have no knowledge of >> the content.  I'm afraid I would destroy the meaning while updating the >>

Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions

On 6 March 2018 at 08:51, John Naylor wrote: > On 3/5/18, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> Attached is an updated patch. > Nice. The results look good. Thanks for the review. > I agree it should be in a separate function. As for that large > comment, I

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #1)

Hello, Please check your numbers before criticising someone unduly. I did. I filtered emails by threads, and counted the number of messages. I do not see how this is related to the number of patch submissions or the number of reviews posted, but it is certainly counting something. The

Re: Kerberos test suite

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/5/18 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote: > > +my $kdc_port = int(rand() * 16384) + 49152; > > That may not be worth worrying as that's an ephemeral port range but it > > can make the test a bit unstable... > > This is what we've been using in the other tests as well.

Re: Prefix operator for text and spgist support

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 05:19:15PM +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > At brief look at this place seems better to move this block into > pattern_fixed_prefix function. But there is also `vartype` variable > which used to in prefix construction, and it would require pass this > variable too. And

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Alvaro Herrera writes: > David Steele wrote: >> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have >> marked this patch Rejected. > I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the > status of this in detail. I'm fine with

Re: Kerberos test suite

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/5/18 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Perhaps the tests should be skipped on Windows or just produce an error? >> Like LDAP tests, libraries are supported on Windows but the hardcoded >> paths make things harder to handle there.

Re: pgsql: Clone extended stats in CREATE TABLE (LIKE INCLUDING ALL)

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thomas Munro wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Clone extended stats in CREATE TABLE (LIKE INCLUDING ALL) > > > > Is this commit responsible for this valgrind error? > > > >

Re: STATISTICS retained in CREATE TABLE ... LIKE (INCLUDING ALL)?

David Rowley wrote: > On 6 March 2018 at 11:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > 4. See elsewhere in the thread about list_copy vs. list_concat :-) > > I saw that. Thanks for fixing. The only weird thing I see in the > changes is that the comment here claims it makes a copy,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:28:29PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > Here is rebased version of the patch due to changes into dict_ispell.c. > The patch itself wasn't changed. Here is rebased version of the patch due to changes within pg_proc.h. I haven't implemented a mmap prototype yet, though.

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

David Gould writes: > On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 07:49:46 -0800 > Jeff Janes wrote: >> I don't see how it could have caused the problem in the first place. In >> your demonstration case, you had to turn off autovac in order to get it to >> happen, and then when

Re: Kerberos test suite

On 3/5/18 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote: > +my $kdc_port = int(rand() * 16384) + 49152; > That may not be worth worrying as that's an ephemeral port range but it > can make the test a bit unstable... This is what we've been using in the other tests as well. It's clearly not optimal, but making it

Re: Kerberos test suite

On 3/5/18 16:34, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> New patch attached. > > Passes here. LGTM. committed > Only complaint is your assumption that 'darwin' implies HomeBrew > installation paths, but you already

Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz] > It seems to me that you would reintroduce partially the problems that >> 1d4a0ab1 has fixed. In short, if a crash happens in the code paths calling

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

Hello, Ildar Thanks. I looked ATTACH PARTITION tests and found such checks. If no one is against i will just use in my patch INFO level instead DEBUG1, similarly ATTACH PARTITION code. Updated patch attached. Or i can rewrite tests to use DEBUG1 level. regards, Sergeidiff --git

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Álvaro, On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: > >> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, >>> it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. >>> The argument for using the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size

Thanks for taking a look. On 3/3/18, 12:22 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" wrote: > On 2/7/18 13:34, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> Here is a patch to allow users to change the WAL segment size of a cluster >> with >> pg_resetwal. Like the '--wal-segize' option in initdb,

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

With the build issues in check, I'm looking at the configuration settings. I think taking the total cost as the triggering threshold is probably good enough for a start. The cost modeling can be refined over time. We should document that both jit_optimize_above_cost and jit_inline_above_cost

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

David Steele wrote: > On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > > The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated, > > but I don't see

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

On 3/2/18 9:26 AM, David Steele wrote: > 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

Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hi Marina, On 3/6/18 4:45 AM, Marina Polyakova wrote: > On 05-03-2018 18:21, David Steele wrote: >> Hello Marina, > > Hello, David! > >> On 1/12/18 12:01 PM, Marina Polyakova wrote: > ... >> >> This patch was marked Waiting on Author on Jan 8 and no new patch was >> submitted before this

Re: Add default role 'pg_access_server_files'

Magnus, all, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Suggestions on a name for this..? pg_server_copy_program? > > Presumably it would also be used in postgres_fdw, so that seems like a bad > name. Maybe

Re: BUG #14941: Vacuum crashes

On 3/5/18, 7:58 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: > I've pushed the first one now. There seems to be no reason to wait with > it, even it takes a bit till we can get the second part right. Thanks! Nathan

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

On 3/2/18 1:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-02-10 20:45:40 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> I've contacted Postgres Professional. Marina Polyakova had kindly provided >> their patch. >> The patch allows to use libc locale with ICU collation as default for >> cluster or database. >> >> It

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

Hi Matheus, On 3/3/18 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/20/18 10:10, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: >> Besides that, there is a another change in this patch on current ALTER >> CONSTRAINT about deferrability options. Previously, if the user did >> ALTER CONSTRAINT without specifying an option

Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi Amit, On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Peter Eisentraut writes: There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to treat

Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL

On 06.03.2018 16:12, Sergei Kornilov wrote: Hello thank you for review! Adding check constraint will also force the full table scan. So I think it would be better to rephrased it as follows: Agree. I updated docs in new attached patch slightly different Regarding regression tests it may

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

Hi Nikita, On 3/2/18 1:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-03-01 00:58:42 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: >> Attached 3rd version of kNN for SP-GiST. > > Given that this was submitted to the last v11 CF, after not being > developed for a year, I think it's unfortunately too late for v11. As we

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

Hello I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never completed: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20130124215715.GE4528%40alvh.no-ip.org In that thread I posted a patch to implement a prioritisation

Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > >> diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c >> b/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c >> index 7961b4be6a..b07b7092de 100644 >> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c >> +++

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Jing, On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jing Wang writes: >> [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.7.patch ] > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > The argument for

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi Jeevan, > I am back reviewing this. Here are some comments. > > @@ -1415,7 +1413,8 @@ add_paths_to_append_rel(PlannerInfo *root, > RelOptInfo *rel, > * the unparameterized Append path we are

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

Hi Masahiko, On 1/30/18 5:00 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 1/24/18 02:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> Thank you for notification. Since it seems to me that no one is >>> interested in this patch, it

Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 3/6/18 9:06 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM, David Steele > > wrote: > > > > On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

On 3/6/18 9:06 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM, David Steele > wrote: > > On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Unlinking it first seems dangerous, as pointed out by Andres. > > >

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

On 3/6/18 04:39, Andres Freund wrote: > I did, and reproduced. Turned out I just missed the error in the above > test. > > The bug was caused by one ifdef in get_LifetimeEnd() being wrong > (function is is overloaded starting in 5 rather than 4). The comment > above it even had it right... OK,

Re: Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

Hi, David! On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017

Re: Contention preventing locking

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > On 03.03.2018 16:44, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik >> wrote: >>> >>> On 28.02.2018 16:32, Amit Kapila wrote: On Mon, Feb

Re: Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows

Hi Alexander, On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Korotkov >

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:09:50PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comment in > combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help FDW authors > understand why that is needed. Please find attached an updated version of >

Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench

Hello Teodor, Thank you for reviewing this patch. On 06.03.2018 15:53, Teodor Sigaev wrote: Patch applies, compiles, pgbench & global "make check" ok, doc built ok. Agree. If I understand upthread correctly, implementation of Murmur hash algorithm based on Austin Appleby work

  1   2   >