On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2020, at 10:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> + /* TODO is nreferenced a reasonable allocation of slots? */
>> + slot = palloc(sizeof(TupleTableSlot *) * nreferenced);
>> It seems to me that we could just apply the same
> > If there is no such way to know the cache sizes and other info such as
> > statistics, number of entries, cache misses, hits etc. can the
> > approach discussed here be applied?
> I think it's partially yes.
>
> > If the user knows the cache statistics and other information, may be
> > we can
On 2020/06/29 12:01, torikoshia wrote:
On 2020-06-20 03:11, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:56 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> As a first step, to deal with (3) I'd like to add
> pg_stat_get_backend_memory_context() which target is limited to the
> local backend process.
+1
+1 from
> As that shows, there's already a round of lowercasing done by the parser.
> The only way that strcasecmp in copy.c would be useful is if you wanted to
> accept things like
> copy foo from stdin (format "CSV");
> I don't find that to be a terribly good idea. The normal implication
> of qu
Hi Hackers,
For Copy From Binary files, there exists below information for each
tuple/row.
1. field count(number of columns)
2. for every field, field size(column data length)
3. field data of field size(actual column data)
Currently, all the above data required at each step is read directly from
Hi Tomas,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:10 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> One of the issues I'm fairly regularly reminded by users/customers is
> that inserting into tables sharded using FDWs are rather slow. We do
> even get it reported on pgsql-bugs from time to time [1].
>
> Some of the slown
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:35, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:39 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:48 PM Tomas Von
Hi,
I found the bug about archive_timeout parameter.
There is the case archive_timeout parameter is ignored after recovery works.
[Problem]
When the value of archive_timeout is smaller than that of checkpoint_timeout
and recovery works, archive_timeout is ignored in the first WAL archiving.
Once
Hi Jonah,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:35 PM Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
> Somewhere, I recall seeing an open-source OpenSSL compatibility wrapper for
> WolfSSL. Assuming that still exists, this patch seems entirely unnecessary.
The patch uses the OpenSSL compatibility layer.
Kind regards
Felix Lec
Hi Tom,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The configure
> script could add -I/usr/include/wolfssl (or wherever those files
> are) to CPPFLAGS instead of touching all those #includes.
That does not work well when OpenSSL's development files are
installed. I did not think a segm
Hi Tom,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> However, judging from the caveats mentioned in the initial message,
> my inclination would be to wait awhile for wolfSSL to mature.
Please have a closer look. The library has been around since 2004 and
is popular in embedded systems. (I
Hi Greg,
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 6:40 AM Greg Stark wrote:
>
> I'm more interested in a library like Amazon's
Does S2N support TLS 1.3?
https://github.com/awslabs/s2n/issues/388
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 2:03 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-27 13:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > BTW, in which
> > format the path needs to be specified for unix_socket_directories? I
> > tried with '/c/tmp', 'c:/tmp', 'tmp' but nothing seems to be working,
> > it gives me errors like: "co
If I use the attached sql file to set up the database with loop-back
postgres_fdw, and then turn on use_remote_estimate for this query:
distinct on (id) id, z from fgn.priority order by id, priority desc,z
It issues two queries for the foreign estimate, one with a sort and one
without:
EXPLAIN S
On 2020-06-20 03:11, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:56 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> As a first step, to deal with (3) I'd like to add
> pg_stat_get_backend_memory_context() which target is limited to the
> local backend process.
+1
+1 from me, too.
Attached a patch that adds a fu
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:41 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Well, there are multiple ideas discussed in this (sub)thread, one of
> them being a per-query memory limit. That requires decisions how much
> memory should different nodes get, which I think would need to be
> cost-based.
A design like that p
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 00:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> 2. ExecCheckRTPerms(): checks permissions of *all* partitions before
> executing the plan tree, but maybe it's okay to check only the ones
> that will be accessed
I don't think it needs to be quite as complex as that.
expand_single_inheritance_c
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:18:12AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We have added support for allegedly-OpenSSL compatible libraries such as
> LibreSSL before, so some tweaks for wolfSSL would seem acceptable. However,
> I doubt we are going to backpatch them, so unless you want to take
> responsib
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:36 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> I would like to discuss a refactoring patch that builds on top of the
> patches at [1] to address $subject.
I've added this to the next CF: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/28/2621/
--
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think the advantage of delaying it is that we
> might see some real problems (like where hash aggregate is not a good
> choice) which can be fixed via the costing model.
I think any problem that might come up with the costing is best
thought
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 08:04:35AM +0800, Andy Fan wrote:
> Thanks for the volunteering!
+1.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:50 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> > In a few days, the first commitfest of the 14 cycle - 2020-07 - will
>> start.
>> > Unless anyone has already spoken up that I've missed, I'm happy to
>>
Joe Conway writes:
> All good stuff -- I believe the attached checks all the boxes.
Looks okay to me, except I think you want
! if (bytes_to_read > 0)
to be
! if (bytes_to_read >= 0)
As it stands, a zero request will be treated like -1 (read all the
rest of the file) while ISTM it
In connection with the discussion at [1], I realized that we could unwind
the hacks we've introduced --- mostly in commit 54cd4f045 --- to avoid
depending on the behavior of %.*s format in printf. Now that we always
use our own snprintf.c code, we know that it measures field widths in
bytes not ch
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > In a few days, the first commitfest of the 14 cycle - 2020-07 - will
> start.
> > Unless anyone has already spoken up that I've missed, I'm happy to
> volunteer to
> > run CFM for this one.
>
> No one has volunteered
> On Jun 28, 2020, at 9:05 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Some more comments on v9_0001.
> 1.
> + LWLockAcquire(XidGenLock, LW_SHARED);
> + nextFullXid = ShmemVariableCache->nextFullXid;
> + ctx.oldestValidXid = ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid;
> + LWLockRelease(XidGenLock);
> + ctx.nextKnownValidXi
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, judging from the caveats mentioned in the initial message,
>> my inclination would be to wait awhile for wolfSSL to mature.
> Please have a closer look. The library has been around since 2004 and
> is popular in
I wrote:
> Even granting the premise, the proposed patch seems like a significant
> decrease in user-friendliness for typical cases. I'd rather see us
> make an effort to print one valid-per-the-DB-encoding character.
> Now that we can rely on snprintf to count %s restrictions in bytes,
> I think
On 6/27/20 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> The attached patch fixes this for me. I think it ought to be backpatched
>> through
>> pg11.
>
>> Comments?
>
> 1. Doesn't seem to be accounting for the possibility of an error in fread().
>
> 2. Don't we want to remove the stat() cal
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 8:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:44 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 21, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I have looked into 0001 patch and I have a few comments.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > +
> > > + /* Skip over unused/de
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:44 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have looked into 0001 patch and I have a few comments.
> >
> > 1.
> > +
> > + /* Skip over unused/dead/redirected line pointers */
> > + if (!ItemIdIsUsed(ctx.itemid) ||
> > + It
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:11 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Review comments on various patches.
> > >
> > > poc_shared_fileset_cleanup_on_procexit
> > > ===
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
The patch works perfectly.
The new status of this patch is: Ready fo
Hi,
One of the issues I'm fairly regularly reminded by users/customers is
that inserting into tables sharded using FDWs are rather slow. We do
even get it reported on pgsql-bugs from time to time [1].
Some of the slowness / overhead is expected, doe to the latency between
machines in the sharded
Seems like I'm not getting any traction in convincing people that
back-patching this change is wise. To get this closed out before
the CF starts, I'm just going to put it into HEAD/v13 and call it
a day.
I remain of the opinion that we'll probably regret not doing
anything in the back branches, s
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> In a few days, the first commitfest of the 14 cycle - 2020-07 - will start.
> Unless anyone has already spoken up that I've missed, I'm happy to volunteer
> to
> run CFM for this one.
No one has volunteered that I recall, so the baton is yours.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:18:12AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-06-27 14:50, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Peter Eisentraut
> > > What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
> >
> > Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
>
> We have added support for
Personally I'm more interested in a library like Amazon's which is
trying to do less rather than more. I would rather a simpler, better
tested, easier to audit code-base than one with more features and more
complications.
https://github.com/awslabs/s2n
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:00 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > https://postgr.es/m/20130621000900.GA12425%40alap2.anarazel.de is a
> > thread with more information / patches further along.
> >
> > I confused this patch with the approach in
> > http
As I mentioned in [1], checking (struct Port)->ssl for NULL to determine
whether TLS is used for connection is a bit of a leaky abstraction, as that's
an OpenSSL specific struct member. This sets the requirement that all TLS
implementations use a pointer named SSL, and that the pointer is set to N
In a few days, the first commitfest of the 14 cycle - 2020-07 - will start.
Unless anyone has already spoken up that I've missed, I'm happy to volunteer to
run CFM for this one.
cheers ./daniel
> On 27 Jun 2020, at 21:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> WolfSSL, will provide a commercial license for PostgreSQL?
>> Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
>
> Seems it might be.
That's not really an apples/apples comparison as the pro
On 2020-06-27 13:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
Fair enough, but what should be the behavior in the Windows versions
(<10) where Unix-domain sockets are not supported?
You get an error about an unsupported address family, similar to trying
to use IPv6 on a system that doesn't support it.
BTW, in wh
On 2020-06-27 14:50, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
We have added support for allegedly-OpenSSL compatible libraries such as
LibreSSL before, so some tweaks for
44 matches
Mail list logo
