Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:07:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Sep-14, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I haven't looked at 0003 yet. Thanks for the review. I have pushed 0002 for now. I had one doubt about 0001 though. So as to avoid redesigning the APIs for FDWs and servers again in the

Re: Multiple primary key on partition table?

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:06 PM amul sul wrote: > > Nice catch Rajkumar. > > In index_check_primary_key(), relationHasPrimaryKey() called only for the an > alter command but I think we need to call in this case as well, like this: > > diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/index.c

Difference in TO_TIMESTAMP results.

Hi All, I have found below difference in TO_TIMESTAMP results. postgres[114552]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-1984 23:30:32','dd-mm- hh24:mi:ss'); to_timestamp --- 1984-07-15 23:30:32+05:30 (1 row) postgres[114552]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-84

Re: Getting ERROR: could not open file "base/13164/t3_16388" with partition table with ON COMMIT

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/09/13 23:13, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Langote writes: > >> On 2018/09/13 1:14, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> That seems excessively restrictive. Anything that has storage (e.g. > >>> matviews) ought to be truncatable, no? > > > >> Not by

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

On 18 September 2018 at 03:20, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Khandekar writes: > I think we better show per-worker jit info also. > > Just to throw a contrarian opinion into this: I find the current EXPLAIN > output for JIT to be insanely verbose already. One option is to make the jit info

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

On 14 September 2018 at 16:48, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 11 September 2018 at 14:50, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 10 September 2018 at 21:39, Andres Freund wrote: /* + * Add up the workers' JIT instrumentation from dynamic shared memory. + */ +static void

Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP

Hello. At Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:38:50 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20180918.113850.164570138.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:37:28 -0700, Michael Paquier > wrote in <20180906233728.gr2...@paquier.xyz> > > I am finally coming back to this

Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11)

po 17. 9. 2018 v 23:15 odesílatel Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> napsal: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:36 PM Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > po 17. 9. 2018 v 2:05 odesílatel Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> napsal: > >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:26 AM Andrew Dunstan > >>

Re: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:20:03AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > +1, and we need a means to see the actual value, in > pg_stat_replication? Well, being able to see what another session is using as settings is not a trivial problem, perhaps not worth solving, and orthogonal to what's discussed

Re: pgsql: Allow concurrent-safe open() and fopen() in frontend code for Wi

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:11:43AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > What I think I broke is that CreateFile ignores what _fmode uses, which > has caused the breakage, while calling directly open() or fopen() does > the work. There are also other things assuming that binary mode is > used, you can

Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP

At Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:37:28 -0700, Michael Paquier wrote in <20180906233728.gr2...@paquier.xyz> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 07:34:36PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Thanks for prompting. The difference is in a comment and I'm fine > > with the change. > > /* > * Properly accept or ignore

Re: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby

At Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:22:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:14:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > >> Some customer wants to change the setting per standby, i.e., a shorter > >> timeout for a

Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:15 AM Chris Travers wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:59 PM Oleksii Kliukin wrote: >> With the patch applied, the posix_fallocate loop terminated right away >> (because >> of QueryCancelPending flag set to true) and the backend went through the >> cleanup, showing an

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 09/18/2018 12:01 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 09/17/2018 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> But the trick is that if the read sees the effect of the write somewhere >

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 09/18/2018 12:01 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 09/17/2018 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 13:20 Tomas Vondra >> > wrote: >>> Doesn't the checkpoint fsync

Re: pgsql: Allow concurrent-safe open() and fopen() in frontend code for Wi

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 07:38:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > So we seem to be out of the woods in terms of 0ba06e0bf breaking the > regression tests, but I'm not very happy about the whole thing, because > that patch wasn't supposed to change the behavior of open/fopen in any > way other than

Re: pgsql: Allow concurrent-safe open() and fopen() in frontend code for Wi

So we seem to be out of the woods in terms of 0ba06e0bf breaking the regression tests, but I'm not very happy about the whole thing, because that patch wasn't supposed to change the behavior of open/fopen in any way other than allowing concurrent file access. Obviously, it did. After looking at

Re: infinite loop in parallel hash joins / DSA / get_best_segment

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:12 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:42 AM Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Tomas Vondra > > wrote: > > > While performing some benchmarks on REL_11_STABLE (at 55c2d9), I've > > > repeatedly hit an apparent infinite loop

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 09/17/2018 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 13:20 Tomas Vondra > > wrote: > > Doesn't the checkpoint fsync pretty much guarantee this can't happen? > > > >

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

Amit Khandekar writes: > On 11 September 2018 at 14:50, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 10 September 2018 at 21:39, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2018-09-10 15:42:55 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote: I think we better show per-worker jit info also. Just to throw a contrarian opinion into this: I

Re: Strange OSX make check-world failure

Thomas Munro writes: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:14 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> "make check" generally won't work on OSX unless you've disabled SIP: >> https://www.howtogeek.com/230424/how-to-disable-system-integrity-protection-on-a-mac-and-why-you-shouldnt/ > Aha! It looks like it was important to

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 09/17/2018 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 13:20 Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > On 09/17/2018 07:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com >

Re: Strange OSX make check-world failure

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:14 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Chris Travers writes: > > Logs are below. This happens on master, and on 10. I suspect it is an > > issue with something regarding ecpg. Wondering what I am doing wrong. > > "make check" generally won't work on OSX unless you've disabled SIP:

Re: Collation versioning

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:02 AM Stephen Frost wrote: > * Thomas Munro (thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:13 AM Douglas Doole wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:20 AM Thomas Munro > > > wrote: > > >> 3. Fix the tracking of when reindexes need to be

Re: Collation versioning

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM Greg Stark wrote: > This seems like a terrible idea in the open source world. Surely collation > versioning means new ICU libraries can still provide the old collation > rules so even if you update the library you can request the old version? We > shouldn't need

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

GIN LET fx = 20; ROLLBACK; SELECT fx; Regards Pavel > Regards > > Pavel > > >> Regards >> >> Pavel >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Dean >>> >> schema-variables-20180917-01.patch.gz Description: application/gzip

Re: Collation versioning

On Mon 17 Sep 2018, 13:02 Douglas Doole, wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:14 PM Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> We have to start somewhere and indexes are the first thing that people >> notice, and are much likely to actually be a problem (personally I've >>

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

po 17. 9. 2018 v 18:24 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > Just to chime in real quick: from the perspective of the RMT we did not > > look at these as a series of "right/wrong" options but what would make > > the most sense for the v11 release so the community could

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 13:38 Michael Banck wrote: > so, trying some intermediate summary here, sorry for (also) top-posting: > > 1. the basebackup checksum verification logic only checks pages not > changed since the checkpoint, which makes sense for the basebackup. Right. I’m

Re: Online verification of checksums

Hi, so, trying some intermediate summary here, sorry for (also) top-posting: 1. the basebackup checksum verification logic only checks pages not changed since the checkpoint, which makes sense for the basebackup.  2. However, it would be desirable to go further for pg_verify_checksums and

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 13:20 Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 09/17/2018 07:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 09/17/2018 06:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>> Ok, good, though I'm not sure what you mean by

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/17/2018 10:39 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake > wrote: ... >> My feedback is that those two sentences provide an overarching authority >> that .Org does not have the right to enforce ... > Fascinating that this would, on its face, not apply to a

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 09/17/2018 07:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 09/17/2018 06:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Ok, good, though I'm not sure what you mean by 'eliminates the >>> consistency guarantees provided by the checkpoint'. The point

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 09/17/2018 06:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Ok, good, though I'm not sure what you mean by 'eliminates the > > consistency guarantees provided by the checkpoint'. The point is that > > the page will be in the WAL and the WAL

Re: Collation versioning

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:14 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > We have to start somewhere and indexes are the first thing that people > notice, and are much likely to actually be a problem (personally I've > encountered many cases of index corruption due to collation changes in > the wild, but never a

Re: Online verification of checksums

Hi, On 09/17/2018 06:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 09/17/2018 04:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 09/17/2018 04:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>> Obviously, pg_verify_checksums can't do that easily

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 09/17/2018 04:04 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> The patch is mostly copying the verification / retry logic from >> basebackup.c, but I think it omitted a rather important detail that >> makes it incorrect in the presence

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > Just to chime in real quick: from the perspective of the RMT we did not > look at these as a series of "right/wrong" options but what would make > the most sense for the v11 release so the community could continue to > improve support for stored procedures and make it

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:45 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > Hi, > > On 9/2/18 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> Reading this from the (JDBC) drivers perspective, which is probably a > >> fairly > >> popular one, > >> We now have a standard

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 09/17/2018 04:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> Obviously, pg_verify_checksums can't do that easily because it's >>> supposed to run from outside the database

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

On 9/17/18 11:47 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: > Merlin>The workaround is to simply not do that and you can get > Merlin>precise control of behavior > > You are absolutely right. > On top of that, the whole concept of DB-drivers and libpq is useless. > Users should just simply exchange wire

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

Merlin>The workaround is to simply not do that and you can get Merlin>precise control of behavior You are absolutely right. On top of that, the whole concept of DB-drivers and libpq is useless. Users should just simply exchange wire messages for precise control of behavior. Vladimir

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 + > Martin Mueller > wrote: > > > ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. > "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS

Re: Multiple primary key on partition table?

Nice catch Rajkumar. In index_check_primary_key(), relationHasPrimaryKey() called only for the an alter command but I think we need to call in this case as well, like this: diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/index.c b/src/backend/catalog/index.c index 7eb3e35166..c8714395fe 100644 ---

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote: On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 + Martin Mueller wrote: ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context. Moderated mailing lists ain't been

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 + Martin Mueller wrote: > ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. > "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this > context. Moderated mailing lists ain't been broken all these years, therefore they

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Obviously, pg_verify_checksums can't do that easily because it's > > supposed to run from outside the database instance. > > It reads pg_control anyway, so couldn't

Re: Strange OSX make check-world failure

Chris Travers writes: > Logs are below. This happens on master, and on 10. I suspect it is an > issue with something regarding ecpg. Wondering what I am doing wrong. "make check" generally won't work on OSX unless you've disabled SIP:

Re: Online verification of checksums

Hi, On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > The patch is mostly copying the verification / retry logic from > basebackup.c, but I think it omitted a rather important detail that > makes it incorrect in the presence of concurrent writes. > > The very first thing basebackup

Strange OSX make check-world failure

Logs are below. This happens on master, and on 10. I suspect it is an issue with something regarding ecpg. Wondering what I am doing wrong. == creating temporary instance== == initializing database system == ==

Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:59 PM Oleksii Kliukin wrote: > > > > On 7. Sep 2018, at 17:57, Chris Travers > wrote: > > > > Hi; > > > > Attached is the patch we are fully testing at Adjust. There are a few > non-obvious aspects of the code around where the patch hits.I have run > make check on

SSL tests failing with "ee key too small" error on Debian SID

Hi all, On a rather freshly-updated Debian SID server, I am able to see failures for the SSL TAP tests: 2018-09-17 22:00:27.389 JST [13072] LOG: database system is shut down 2018-09-17 22:00:27.506 JST [13082] FATAL: could not load server certificate file "server-cn-only.crt": ee key too small

Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan

First, I have attached a cleaned-up revision (pg_indent, removing a dangling comment etc) On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:16 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:57 AM Chris Travers > wrote: > > Attached is the patch we are fully testing at Adjust. > > Thanks! > > > I have run make

Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan

> On 7. Sep 2018, at 17:57, Chris Travers wrote: > > Hi; > > Attached is the patch we are fully testing at Adjust. There are a few > non-obvious aspects of the code around where the patch hits.I have run > make check on Linux and MacOS, and make check-world on Linux (check-world >

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

Hi, On 9/2/18 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >> Reading this from the (JDBC) drivers perspective, which is probably a fairly >> popular one, >> We now have a standard that we can't really support. Either the driver will >> have to support >> the

Re: XMLNAMESPACES (was Re: Clarification of nodeToString() use cases)

On 09/16/2018 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 09/16/2018 02:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The change the attached patch makes is to represent a DEFAULT namespace as a NULL list entry, rather than a T_String Value node containing a null. Seems related to this CF item that's

Re: Connection slots reserved for replication

Hi, 2018-09-14 12:23 GMT+02:00 Masahiko Sawada : >> 2. If we know that this is neither superuser nor replication connection, we >> should check that there are at least (superuser_reserved_connections + >> NumWalSenders() - max_wal_senders) connection slots are available. > > You wanted to mean

Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:35:54PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Sep-13, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound runs >> >> A log message was being generated when log_min_duration is reached for >> autovacuum on a given relation to indicate

Re: Tid scan improvements

On 15 August 2018 at 11:11, Edmund Horner wrote: > So we'd extend that to: > - Include in the OR-list "range" subquals of the form (ctid > ? AND > ctid < ?) (either side could be optional, and we have to deal with >= > and <= and having ctid on the rhs, etc.). > - Cost the range subquals by

Multiple primary key on partition table?

Hi, I am able to create multiple primary key on partition table by executing below statement. [edb@localhost bin]$ ./psql postgres psql (11beta3) Type "help" for help. postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1 (a int PRIMARY KEY,b int) PARTITION BY RANGE (a); CREATE TABLE postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1_p1

Re: More deficiencies in outfuncs/readfuncs processing

Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Patch 0002 addresses several more-or-less-independent issues that are > exposed by running the regression tests with patch 0001 activated: > > * Query.withCheckOptions fails to propagate through write+read, because > it's intentionally ignored

Re: Collation versioning

Greetings, * Thomas Munro (thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > I'd like to propose the 3 more humble goals I mentioned a few messages > back as earlier steps. OS collation changes aren't really like Monty > Python's Spanish Inquisition: they usually hit you when you're doing > major

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

Hi! > 17 сент. 2018 г., в 2:03, Alexander Korotkov > написал(а): > > Also, it appears to me that it's OK to be a single patch +1, ISTM that these 6 patches represent atomic unit of work. Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 08:23, Ashutosh Bapat < > ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> I won't be working on this

Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables

On 23 August 2018 at 00:30, David Rowley wrote: > I've attached a v8. The only change from your v7 is in the "go making" > comment. > v9 patch attached. Fixes conflict with 6b78231d. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training

Re: infinite loop in parallel hash joins / DSA / get_best_segment

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:42 AM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > While performing some benchmarks on REL_11_STABLE (at 55c2d9), I've > > repeatedly hit an apparent infinite loop on TPC-H query 4. I don't know > > what exactly are the

Re: XMLNAMESPACES (was Re: Clarification of nodeToString() use cases)

16.09.2018 23:05, Tom Lane writes: Andrey Lepikhov writes: The reason is: parse tree node for XMLNAMESPACES clause has null pointer in the case of DEFAULT namespace (the pointer will be initialized at executor on the first call). My immediate reaction is that somebody made a bad decision

View to get all the extension control file details

Hi Hackers, Currently PostgreSQL provides following views to get the extension specific details pg_available_extensions - Name, default_version, installed_version, comment pg_available_extension_versions - Name, version, installed, superuser, relocatable, schema, requires, comment But these