[HACKERS] Possible memory leak with SQL function?

2013-09-12 Thread Yeb Havinga
Hello list, Is the following known behaviour, or should I put some time in writing a self contained test case? We have a function that takes a value and returns a ROW type. With the function implemented in language SQL, when executing this function in a large transaction, memory usage of

Re: [HACKERS] Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

2013-09-12 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
(reviving an old thread) On 23.10.2012 19:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 10/22/12 1:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: On 10/12/12 3:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: In general, I think it's good to build on existing implementations where possible. Perhaps we

Re: [HACKERS] Protocol forced to V2 in low-memory conditions?

2013-09-12 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 09/11/2013 02:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Note that I was proposing removing libpq's support for V2 connections. Not the backend's. I vote against this. If we remove V2 support

Re: [HACKERS] Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

2013-09-12 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 12.09.2013 17:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/12/2013 09:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I just found out that OpenSSL has added support for SRP in version 1.0.1. We're already using OpenSSL, so all we need to do is to provide a couple of callbacks to OpenSSL, and store SRP verifiers in

Re: [HACKERS] Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

2013-09-12 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/12/2013 09:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Now, to a completely different approach: I just found out that OpenSSL has added support for SRP in version 1.0.1. We're already using OpenSSL, so all we need to do is to provide a couple of callbacks to OpenSSL, and store SRP verifiers in

Re: [HACKERS] Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

2013-09-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: You forgot to mention that we'd actually like to get away from being tied closely to OpenSSL because it has caused license grief in the past (not to mention that it's fairly dirty to manage). While I agree with this sentiment (and have complained

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench progress report improvements

2013-09-12 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Pavel, Thanks for your review. * patched with minor warning * compilable cleanly * zero impact on PostgreSQL server functionality * it does what was in proposal ** change 5sec progress as default (instead no progress) ** finalise a rate limit support - fixes a latency calculation Just

Re: [HACKERS] Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

2013-09-12 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: On 12.09.2013 17:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/12/2013 09:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I just found out that OpenSSL has added support for SRP in version 1.0.1. We're already using OpenSSL, so all we

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench progress report improvements

2013-09-12 Thread Fabien COELHO
* patched with minor warning some minor issue: patch warning make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/pavel/src/postgresql/config' [pavel@localhost postgresql]$ patch -p1 pgbench-measurements-v2.patch (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.) patching file

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

2013-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/12/13 3:00 AM, Samrat Revagade wrote: We are improving the patch for Commit Fest 2 now. We will fix above compiler warnings as soon as possible and submit the patch Attached *synchronous_transfer_v5.patch* implements review comments from commit fest-1 and reduces the

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on foreign tables

2013-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/11/13 10:14 AM, Ronan Dunklau wrote: On Wednesday 11 September 2013 06:27:24 Michael Paquier wrote: As your patch is targeting the implementation of a new feature, please consider adding this patch to the next commit fest that is going to begin in a couple of days:

Re: [HACKERS] lcr v5 - primary/candidate key in relcache

2013-09-12 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: 0007 wal_decoding: Add information about a tables primary key to   struct RelationData * Could be used in the matview refresh code I think you and Kevin should discuss whether this is

Re: [HACKERS] ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME

2013-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/11/13 1:09 AM, wangs...@highgo.com.cn wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Note that other schema objects can depend on the existence of constraints. For example, the validity of a view might depend on the existence of a primary key constraint. What would you do with the view if the primary

[HACKERS] record identical operator

2013-09-12 Thread Kevin Grittner
Attached is a patch for a bit of infrastructure I believe to be necessary for correct behavior of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY as well as incremental maintenance of matviews. The idea is that after RMVC or incremental maintenance, the matview should not be visibly different that it

[HACKERS] 9.4 HEAD: select() failed in postmaster

2013-09-12 Thread Jeff Janes
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Noah Misch escribió: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: I think the problem is here, where there should be a Max rather than a Min: commit 82233ce7ea42d6ba519aaec63008aff49da6c7af Author: Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling Checksums

2013-09-12 Thread Greg Smith
On 3/18/13 10:52 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: With a potential 10-20% overhead, I am unclear who would enable this at initdb time. If you survey people who are running PostgreSQL on cloud hardware, be it Amazon's EC2 or similar options from other vendors, you will find a high percentage of them

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling Checksums

2013-09-12 Thread Greg Smith
On 3/18/13 10:52 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: With a potential 10-20% overhead, I am unclear who would enable this at initdb time. If you survey people who are running PostgreSQL on cloud hardware, be it Amazon's EC2 or similar options from other vendors, you will find a high percentage of them

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

2013-09-12 Thread Sawada Masahiko
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 9/12/13 3:00 AM, Samrat Revagade wrote: We are improving the patch for Commit Fest 2 now. We will fix above compiler warnings as soon as possible and submit the patch Attached

[HACKERS] background workers, round three

2013-09-12 Thread Robert Haas
Last week, I attempted to write some code to perform a trivial operation in parallel by launching background workers. Despite my earlier convictions that I'd built enough infrastructure to make this possible, the experiment turned out badly - so, patches! It's been pretty obvious to me from the

Re: [HACKERS] ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME

2013-09-12 Thread wangshuo
On 09/13/2013 05:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote: = create table test1 (a int constraint pk primary key, b text); = create view test2 as select a, b from test1 group by a; = alter table test1 drop constraint pk; ERROR: 2BP01: cannot drop constraint pk on table test1 because other objects depend on

[HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_upgrade: Split off pg_fatal() from pg_log()

2013-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
The experiences with elog() and ereport() have shown that having one function that can return or not depending on some log level parameter isn't a good idea when you want to communicate well with the compiler. In pg_upgrade, there is a similar case with the pg_log() function. Since that isn't a

Re: [HACKERS] getting rid of maintainer-check

2013-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The maintainer-check target never really caught on, I think. Most people don't run it, and that in turn annoys those who do. Also, it doesn't provide much functionality. I propose that we get rid of it and roll the functionality

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench progress report improvements

2013-09-12 Thread Pavel Stehule
Dne 12. 9. 2013 17:34 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr napsal(a): * patched with minor warning some minor issue: patch warning make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/pavel/src/postgresql/config' [pavel@localhost postgresql]$ patch -p1 pgbench-measurements-v2.patch (Stripping trailing CRs