On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:40 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers!
>
> We've reviewed patch v3 and found it right. Completely agree that in case we
> attach/detach partition relcaches for all child relations (if they exist)
> need invalidation.
> Installcheck world succeeds after the patch. T
Hello!
When extension pg_stat_statsement is loaded into memory or compute_query_id=on
in postgesql.conf
many of installcheck tests give errors.
The thing is that in *.out files appear lines "queryid = x" where x -
some numeric value.
So 24 of 209 installcheck tests will fail.
It seems
Hi hackers,
> > Just to remind here, there was recently a proposal to handle this
> > problem another way - provide a list of columns to skip for "star
> > selection" aka "SELECT * EXCEPT col1...".
> >
> > https://postgrespro.com/list/id/d51371a2-f221-1cf3-4a7d-b2242d4da...@gmail.com
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> The lock taken on the parent is either ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or
> AccessExclusiveLock depending on whether CONCURRENTLY is specified or
> not. Maybe that should be considered also when locking the children.
>
> I've updated the patch that way. (Also, reintroduced the slightly
> longer comm
Le 15/10/2021 à 09:47, Aleksander Alekseev a écrit :
Just to remind here, there was recently a proposal to handle this
problem another way - provide a list of columns to skip for "star
selection" aka "SELECT * EXCEPT col1...".
https://postgrespro.com/list/id/d51371a2-f221-1cf3-4a7d-b2242d4da..
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:36 PM Мельников Антон Андреевич
wrote:
>
> When extension pg_stat_statsement is loaded into memory or
> compute_query_id=on in postgesql.conf
> many of installcheck tests give errors.
> [...]
> I think this is a problem because these fake errors can mask a real errors i
Hi Gilles,
> I can turn the column hidden and I will not have to modify my old very
good application.
I see your point. At the same time, I believe the statement above shows the
root reason why we have a different view on this feature. The application
should have never use SELECT * in the first p
Hi Rajkumar,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:36 PM Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patch, it applied cleanly and fixed the reported issue. I
> observed another case where
> In case of multi-col list partition on the same column query is not picking
> partition wise join. Is this expec
Dear Horiguchi-san,
> I'm not sure. All of it is a if-story. z/OS's isdigit is defined as
> "Test for a decimal digit, as defined in the digit locale source file
> and in the digit class of the LC_CTYPE category of the current
> locale.", which I read it as "it accepts multibyte strings" but of
>
2021-10-15 13:29 に Shinya Kato さんは書きました:
On 2021-10-14 14:30, katouknl wrote:
It is very good, but it seems to me that there are some
tab-completion
missing in COMMENT command.
For example,
- CONSTRAINT ... ON DOMAIN
- OPERATOR CLASS
- OPERATOR FAMILY
- POLICY ... ON
- [PROCEDURAL]
- RULE ... O
Le 15/10/2021 à 10:37, Aleksander Alekseev a écrit :
Hi Gilles,
> I can turn the column hidden and I will not have to modify my old
very good application.
I see your point. At the same time, I believe the statement above
shows the root reason why we have a different view on this feature.
Th
On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 13:16 +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Here is a proposal to implement HIDDEN columns feature in PostgreSQL.
>
> The user defined columns are always visible in the PostgreSQL. If user
> wants to hide some column(s) from a SELECT * returned values then the
> hidden columns featur
On 2021-10-15 15:17, torikoshia wrote:
I only took a quick look at pg_query_state, I have some questions.
pg_query_state seems using shm_mq to expose the plan information, but
there was a discussion that this kind of architecture would be tricky
to do properly [1].
Does pg_query_state handle dif
Hi,
In another logical replication related thread[1], my colleague Greg found that
if publish_via_partition_root is true, then the child table's data will be
copied twice when adding both child and parent table to the publication.
Example:
-
Pub:
create table tbl1 (a int) partition by range
> On 30 Jul 2021, at 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I took another look at this today, and propose to push the attached. The
>> pg_dump fix goes all the way back to 9.6 whereas the pg_basebackup fix is
>> from
>> 11 and onwards. The adjacent shadowed variable bug in p
Hi Robert,
> The loop is gone, but CHUNK_SIZE itself seems to have evaded the
executioner.
I am sorry, but I did not really get it. Or it is what you have pointed
in the following paragraphs?
> I think this is not the best way to accomplish the goal. Adding
> LZ4F_compressBound(0) to next_buf_le
> On 1 Oct 2021, at 09:02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 1 Oct 2021, at 08:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:31:31AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Correct. In my head, "rebuild" is when dealing with individually changed
>>> files
>>> and "recreate" means reb
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 7:54 AM Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> > The loop is gone, but CHUNK_SIZE itself seems to have evaded the
> > executioner.
>
> I am sorry, but I did not really get it. Or it is what you have pointed
> in the following paragraphs?
I mean #define CHUNK_SIZE is still in the patch.
>
Hi Gilles,
> But we have more and more application coming from others RDBMS with sometime
> no real possibility to modify the code or which requires lot of work.
Somehow I feel everyone here very well understood the real motivation
behind this
proposal from the beginning, considering the e-mail o
On master with the v55 patches applied the following script leads to crash:
initdb -D data
pg_ctl -w -t 5 -D data -l server.log start
psql -t -c "begin; create global temp table gtt_with_index(a int primary
key, b text); commit; select pg_sleep(5);" >psql1.log &
psql -t -c "select pg_sleep(1); cre
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:02 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> How do you feel about at least allowing the functions to execute (and
> if it's SECURITY INVOKER, possibly encountering a permissions failure
> during execution)?
I think we'd at least need to check that the view owner has execute
permission on
Hi.
One of the issues when we try to use sharding in PostgreSQL is absence
of partial aggregates pushdown.
I see several opportunities to alleviate this issue.
If we look at Citus, it implements aggregate, calculating internal state
of an arbitrary agregate function and exporting it as text.
Le 15/10/2021 à 14:24, Aleksander Alekseev a écrit :
Hi Gilles,
If we really want SELECT * to be reserved to DBA then why not removing the
star from PG unless you have the admin privilege?
Respectfully, I perceive this as a trolling (presumably, non-intentional one)
and not going to answer thi
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 09:29, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 15/10/2021 à 14:24, Aleksander Alekseev a écrit :
> > Hi Gilles,
> >
> >> If we really want SELECT * to be reserved to DBA then why not removing
> the
> >> star from PG unless you have the admin privilege?
> > Respectfully, I perceive this a
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> ... Note that you don't really need to enable
> pg_stat_statements, enabling compute_query_id is enough. The query
> identifier is only displayed for EXPLAIN (VERBOSE), so it's already a
> bit filtered. I don't see any simple way to entirely avoid the
> problem though.
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I propose to apply the attached all the way down (with the basebackup hunk
> from
> 11), or down to 10 if we want to be conservative with the final 9.6 re ancient
> bugs that haven't seen complaints.
LGTM. No objection to applying this in 9.6.
On 10/14/21 5:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Yes, that's been puzzling me too. I've just been staring at it again and
>> nothing jumps out. But maybe we can investigate that offline if this
>> test is deemed not worth keeping.
> As Mark says, it'd be interesting to know wheth
Hi Alexander,
On 10/15/21 15:15, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Hi.
One of the issues when we try to use sharding in PostgreSQL is absence
of partial aggregates pushdown.
I see several opportunities to alleviate this issue.
If we look at Citus, it implements aggregate, calculating internal state
Tomas Vondra писал 2021-10-15 17:56:
Hi Alexander,
Hi.
And then we should extend this for aggregates with more complex
internal states (e.g. avg), by supporting a function that "exports"
the aggregate state - similar to serial/deserial functions, but needs
to be portable.
I think the tricki
On 10/15/21 17:05, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Tomas Vondra писал 2021-10-15 17:56:
Hi Alexander,
Hi.
And then we should extend this for aggregates with more complex
internal states (e.g. avg), by supporting a function that "exports"
the aggregate state - similar to serial/deserial functions,
Hi Gilles,
> Yes, I don't wanted to offend you or to troll. This was just to point
> that the position of "SELECT * is bad practice" is not a good argument
> in my point of view, just because it is allowed for every one. I mean
> that in an extension or a client which allow user query input we mus
In pgsql-docs, this patch has been recommended to you.
Lacking consensus and so not included is the the deletion of
comments pointing between the ref/MOVE and FETCH files. These
were of the form:
Thanks for the software,
Rob
>From 711a3299851cde9ce00b5ff2962f20cdc1796e72 Mon Sep 17 00:00
This removes the outer square brackets in the create_database.sgml
file's synopsis. In the command sysopses, this is the only case
where an optional group contains only optional groups.
Rob
>From dc59127d1a739e6de0cff20086baf47d15837f0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rir
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 09:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we'd at least need to check that the view owner has execute
> permission on the function. I'm not sure whether there are any other
> gotchas.
Right, like we do for tables in a view now.
The alternative is not very appealing: that we
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:40 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 09:29, Gilles Darold wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I don't wanted to offend you or to troll. This was just to point
>> that the position of "SELECT * is bad practice" is not a good argument
>> in my point of view, just because it i
Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 09:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think we'd at least need to check that the view owner has execute
> > permission on the function. I'm not sure whether there are any other
> > gotchas.
>
> Right, like we do for tables
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 13:52 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> While I appreciate that
> it
> isn't really addressing the complaint you have that it'd be nice if
> we
> made things simpler for administrators by making it so they don't
> have
> to GRANT access to both the view and the function, and I can
Hi,
On 2021-10-14 19:23:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > If, and perhaps that's too big an if, relative rpaths actually work despite
> > SIP, it might be worth setting a relative install_rpath, because afaict that
> > should then work both for a "real" installation and our te
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:32:53AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 13:16 +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
> > Here is a proposal to implement HIDDEN columns feature in PostgreSQL.
> >
> > The user defined columns are always visible in the PostgreSQL. If user
> > wants to hide some co
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> As you might have seen from my email in another thread, thanks to
> Stephen and Cybertec staff, I am back working on cluster file
> encryption/TDE.
>
> Stephen was going to research if XTS cipher mode would be a good fit for
> this since it w
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 10/15/21 17:05, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> >Tomas Vondra писал 2021-10-15 17:56:
> >>And then we should extend this for aggregates with more complex
> >>internal states (e.g. avg), by supporting a function that "exports"
> >>the
On 10/15/21 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:32:53AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 13:16 +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
>>> Here is a proposal to implement HIDDEN columns feature in PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> The user defined columns are always visible in the
On 10/15/21 21:22, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
As you might have seen from my email in another thread, thanks to
Stephen and Cybertec staff, I am back working on cluster file
encryption/TDE.
Stephen was going to research if XTS cipher mode would
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:22 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Specifically: The default cipher for LUKS is nowadays aes-xts-plain64
>
> and then this:
>
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/wikis/DMCrypt
>
> where plain64 is defined as:
>
> plain64: the initial vector is the 64-bit little-endian
Hi,
On 2021-10-15 15:22:48 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Finally, there is an interesting web page about when not to use XTS:
> >
> > https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2014/04/30/you-dont-want-xts/
>
> This particular article always struck me as more o
On 10/15/21 23:02, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:22 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
Specifically: The default cipher for LUKS is nowadays aes-xts-plain64
and then this:
https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/wikis/DMCrypt
where plain64 is defined as:
plain64: the initial vecto
Le 15/10/2021 à 21:52, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
On 10/15/21 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:32:53AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 13:16 +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
Here is a proposal to implement HIDDEN columns feature in PostgreSQL.
The user define
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
Hi
I quite like the feature this patch provides, it makes specia
On 10/15/21 21:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
On 10/15/21 17:05, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Tomas Vondra писал 2021-10-15 17:56:
And then we should extend this for aggregates with more complex
internal states (e.g. avg), by supporting a
Hi,
On 2021-10-15 11:50:30 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems to work quite well to change our own references to libpq in binaries
> / shared libs to be relative, but to leave the install_name of the libraries
> intact. In combination with adding an rpath of @loader_path/../lib/ to
> binaries
Hi,
On 2021-10-15 15:36:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-10-15 11:50:30 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It seems to work quite well to change our own references to libpq in
> > binaries
> > / shared libs to be relative, but to leave the install_name of the libraries
> > intact. In combina
While fooling with something else, I happened to notice $SUBJECT.
The reason turns out to be that it's checking the wrong element
of the tblinfo[] array; see one-liner fix attached.
I had a feeling of deja vu about this bug, and indeed a dig in
the git history shows that we fixed it in passing in
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:13:14PM -0400, rir wrote:
> This removes the outer square brackets in the create_database.sgml
> file's synopsis. In the command sysopses, this is the only case
> where an optional group contains only optional groups.
>
> CREATE DATABASE name
> -[ [ WITH ] [ OWNER [
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 02:58:55PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:24 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yes, you are right here. I did not remember the semantics this relies
>> on. I have played more with the patch, reviewed the whole, and the
>> fields you are resetting as par
On Friday, October 15, 2021 7:23 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Attach a patch to fix it.
Attach a new version patch which refactor the fix code in a cleaner way.
Best regards,
Hou zj
v2-0001-fix-double-publish.patch
Description: v2-0001-fix-double-publish.patch
Le 15/10/2021 à 18:42, Aleksander Alekseev a écrit :
> Hi Gilles,
>
>> Yes, I don't wanted to offend you or to troll. This was just to point
>> that the position of "SELECT * is bad practice" is not a good argument
>> in my point of view, just because it is allowed for every one. I mean
>> that in
56 matches
Mail list logo
