Re: [HACKERS] Reducing tuple overhead

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Split into a new thread, the other one is already growing fast > enough. This discussion started at > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/55391469.5010506%40iki.fi > > On April 23, 2015 6:48:57 PM GMT+03:00, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinn

Re: [HACKERS] Initializing initFileRelationIds list via write is unsafe

I wrote: >> I've been chasing the intermittent "cache lookup failed for access method >> 403" failure at session startup that's been seen lately in the buildfarm, >> for instance here: >> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=axolotl&dt=2015-06-04%2019%3A22%3A46 >> (Axolotl has sho

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/2015 07:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the observance, but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27310.1251410...@sss.pgh.pa.us htt

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] More Vacuum Statistics

Thank you for quick feedback, and I'm sorry for slow response. All of your opinions were very helpful for me. I have confirmed Greg's Idea "Timing events". http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/509300f7.5000...@2ndquadrant.com Greg said at first, "Parsing log files for commonly needed performance

Re: [HACKERS] error message diff with Perl 5.22.0

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > With the recently released Perl 5.22.0, the tests fail thus: > > -ERROR: Global symbol "$global" requires explicit package name at line 3. > -Global symbol "$other_global" requires explicit package name at line 4. > +ERROR: Global symbol "$global" requires explicit pack

Re: [HACKERS] error message diff with Perl 5.22.0

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Also, do we need a buildfarm member running 5.22? Actually, I wonder if there's a way to have a buildfarm animal that runs the pl/perl tests with all supported versions of Perl, for example. This would probably require adding a new .pm file each time a new Perl is released

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the observance, > but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27310.1251410...@sss.pgh.pa.us > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19174.129

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> Tom, for example, has previously not wanted to even bump >> catversion after beta1, which rules out a huge variety of >> possible fixes and interface changes. If we want to make a >> policy decision to change our appr

[HACKERS] error message diff with Perl 5.22.0

With the recently released Perl 5.22.0, the tests fail thus: -ERROR: Global symbol "$global" requires explicit package name at line 3. -Global symbol "$other_global" requires explicit package name at line 4. +ERROR: Global symbol "$global" requires explicit package name (did you forget to decla

[HACKERS] RLS fails to work with UPDATE ... WHERE CURRENT OF

Attached test case patch shows how RLS fails to play nice with UPDATE ... WHERE CURRENT OF. If you run the revised rowsecurity regression test against the master branch, the tests do not pass (which, ideally, they would -- "expected" is actually what I expect here): *** /home/pg/postgresql/src/tes

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE POLICY and RETURNING

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-10-17 14:57:03 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 10/17/2014 02:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > I think you could probably make the DELETE policy control what can get >> > deleted, but then have the SELECT policy further filter what gets

Re: [HACKERS] nested loop semijoin estimates

FWIW, I've repeated the TPC-DS tests on a much larger data set (50GB) today, and I see that (a) 3f59be836c555fa679bbe0ec76de50a8b5cb23e0 (ANTI/SEMI join costing) changes nothing - there are some small cost changes, but only in plans involving semi/anti-joins (which is expected). Neverthe

Re: [HACKERS] Restore-reliability mode

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > - Write, review and commit more automated test machinery to PostgreSQL. Test > whatever excites you. If you need ideas, Craig posted some good ones > upthread. Here are a few more: > - Improve TAP suite (src/test/perl/TestLib.pm) logging

Re: [HACKERS] psql :: support for \ev viewname and \sv viewname

> 1. > make failed with docs > Fixed. > 2. > > \ev vw1 3 > > This syntax is supported. But documentation only says: > \ev [ viewname ] > Missing optional line_number clause > Fixed. Documented. 3. > > strip_lineno_from_objdesc(char *func) > > Can we have parameter name as obj instead of func. >

Re: [HACKERS] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 08:25:34AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > This whole idea of "feature development" vs reliability is bogus. It > implies people that work on features don't care about reliability. Given > the fact that many of the features are actually about increasing database > reliability in

[HACKERS] Initializing initFileRelationIds list via write is unsafe

I wrote: > I've been chasing the intermittent "cache lookup failed for access method > 403" failure at session startup that's been seen lately in the buildfarm, > for instance here: > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=axolotl&dt=2015-06-04%2019%3A22%3A46 > (Axolotl has shown th

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/2015 07:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only a

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have extensive README type documentation with them so the underlying principles used in the development

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Robert Haas wrote: > Tom, for example, has previously not wanted to even bump > catversion after beta1, which rules out a huge variety of > possible fixes and interface changes. If we want to make a > policy decision to change our approach, we should be up-front > about that. What?!? There hav

[HACKERS] pg_stat_archiver issue with aborted archiver

Hello, I just noticed that if the archiver aborts (for instance if the archive_command exited with a return code > 127), pg_stat_archiver won't report those failed attempts. This happens with both 9.4 and 9.5 branches. Please find attached a patch that fix this issue, based on current head.

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Really? You genuinely don't have time to paste, say: > > mkdir -p ~/src/pgdevel > cd ~/src/pgdevel > wget https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/snapshot/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > tar xjf postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > mkdir bld > cd bld > ..

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 6 June 2015 at 13:41, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless > wrote: > > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would > genuinely be prepared to download > > and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one > of the n

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely > be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already > have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only ask because I assume that > releasing > an

Re: [HACKERS] Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation

On 06/05/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Yeah, Good point. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly (always a dubious bet), the avoidance of that kind of ambiguity is why we introduced the #> and #>> operators in the first place, after going round and round for a while

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be > prepared to download > and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the > nightlies? I only ask > because I assume that releasing

Re: [HACKERS] Is it possible to have a "fast-write" Index?

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:54:01PM +, deavid wrote: > Thanks to everybody for answering. I wasn't expecting this attention; this > is a great community :-) > > Jim asked me about something real. Well, the problem is this showed up more > than five years ago, and keeps popping from time to time

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

> > > ​ ​ To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only ask because I assume that ​releasing ​ an alpha is not zero-developer-cost and I don't believe

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Hi, On Sat, 2015-06-06 at 12:15 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If I'm not mistaken, we (Simon and me) actually discussed something > else along this line a while ago that might be worth considering. That > is, maybe we should consider time-based alpha releases. That is, we > can just decide "we w

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly >> > > stable that we'd be pretty happy to relea

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/15 21:07, Simon Riggs wrote: On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly > > > stable that we'd be pretty happy to release if things go well, which > > > is a higher bar to clear. >