On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>
>
> - environment variable); any user can make such a change for his
> session.
> + environment variable); any user can make such a change for their
> session.
-1. It
On 2015-09-22 04:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Use gender-neutral language in documentation
Based on patch by Thomas Munro ,
although
I rephrased most of the initial work.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/741ccd5015f82e31f80cdc5d2ae81263ea92d794
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:30:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > Right now, if a BYPASSRLS user creates a SECURITY DEFINER function, any
> > caller
> > can change that function's behavior by toggling the GUC. Users won't test
> > accordingly; better to
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>
>> In walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c there are several
>> places where volatile qualifiers are used apparently only to prevent
>> reordering around spinlock operations.
>
> In replication/slot.c there ar
On 21 September 2015 at 22:21, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/21/2015 12:13 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
>> > I would expect some kind of error. We're trying to address a position
>> in an array, and we're instead passing a key. If it completes
>> successfully, the chances are it isn't what th
On 09/17/2015 07:27 PM, James Sewell wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have recently been working with PostgreSQL and HAProxy to provide
> seamless load balancing to a group of database servers. This on it's own
> isn't a hard thing: I have an implementation finished and am now
> thinking about the best w
On 09/21/2015 12:13 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> I would expect some kind of error. We're trying to address a
position in an array, and we're instead passing a key. If it
completes successfully, the chances are it isn't what the user intended.
Thanks for the explanation. So, basically, it sh
Hi!
By default, HAproxy configuration can not be changed without breaking a
connection with the client :)
--
Dmitry Vasilyev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 12:27 +1000, James Sewell wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have recently
Thomas Munro wrote:
> In walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c there are several
> places where volatile qualifiers are used apparently only to prevent
> reordering around spinlock operations.
In replication/slot.c there are a number of places (12, I think) that
introduce a block specifi
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I noticed that COPY calls planner() (this was introduced in 85188ab88).
> I think it should be calling pg_plan_query() instead.
+1 --- AFAICS, this is the *only* place that is going directly to
planner() without going through pg_plan_query(); other utility
functions such
On 2015-09-21 22:34:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?
Yes, will do so tomorrow.
Thanks,
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hac
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 14:35:20 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > while exploring lwlock.c I found following macro to be strange.
> >
> > #define LW_SHARED_MASK ((uint32)(1 << 23))
> >
> > This is macro is used to extract number of shared locks fr
I noticed that COPY calls planner() (this was introduced in 85188ab88).
I think it should be calling pg_plan_query() instead. The latter is a
very thin wrapper around the former which simply adds a couple of
logging entries, DTrace hooks for start/end, and a debugging cross-check
for plan node cop
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I happened to notice that we have a macro COMPARE_POINTER_FIELD in
> nodes/equalfuncs.c that Tom introduced in 2eafcf68d563d (25 Nov 2002)
> and then removed its only callers a0bf885f9ea (12 Dec 2002).
Hm. I think it was meant to correspond to copyfuncs.c's
COPY_POINTER_
Jeevan Chalke writes:
> It is observed that, when we have one remote (huge) table and one local
> (small) table and a join between them, then
> 1. If the column type is text, then we push the join qual to the remote
> server, so that we will have less rows to fetch, and thus execution time
>
I happened to notice that we have a macro COMPARE_POINTER_FIELD in
nodes/equalfuncs.c that Tom introduced in 2eafcf68d563d (25 Nov 2002)
and then removed its only callers a0bf885f9ea (12 Dec 2002).
Should we just remove it?
--
Álvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreS
On 2015-09-21 10:30:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 07:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-09-21 10:31:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> So, where are we with this patch?
> >
> > Uh. I'd basically been waiting on further review and then forgot about
> > it.
>
> Does the current p
On 09/21/2015 07:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 10:31:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, where are we with this patch?
>
> Uh. I'd basically been waiting on further review and then forgot about
> it.
Does the current plan to never expire XIDs in 9.6 affect multixact
truncation at al
W dniu piątek, 18 września 2015 Daniel Verite
napisał(a):
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > in the help inside your last patch, you are using "crosstab". Cannto be
> > crosstab the name for this feature?
>
> If it wasn't taken already by contrib/tablefunc, that would be a first
> choice. But n
Hello all,
I have recently been working with PostgreSQL and HAProxy to provide
seamless load balancing to a group of database servers. This on it's own
isn't a hard thing: I have an implementation finished and am now thinking
about the best way to bring it to a production ready state which could b
Hi,
It is observed that, when we have one remote (huge) table and one local
(small) table and a join between them, then
1. If the column type is text, then we push the join qual to the remote
server, so that we will have less rows to fetch, and thus execution time
is very less.
2. If the
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 21 September 2015 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After trying to rework the comment to explain what maxdig really meant
>> after your changes, I came to the conclusion that it'd be better to do
>> it as per attached. Does this look sane to you?
> Yes that looks better. I
> I would expect some kind of error. We're trying to address a position in
an array, and we're instead passing a key. If it completes successfully,
the chances are it isn't what the user intended.
Thanks for the explanation. So, basically, it should be like this, am I
right?
postgres=# SELECT j
On 21 September 2015 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Dean Rasheed writes:
>>> The problem then arises in the final carry propagation pass. During
>>> this phase of the computation, the carry from one digit (which can be
>>> a shade under INT_MAX / NBASE) is added to the next digit, and th
I wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> The problem then arises in the final carry propagation pass. During
>> this phase of the computation, the carry from one digit (which can be
>> a shade under INT_MAX / NBASE) is added to the next digit, and that's
>> where the overflow happens.
> Nice catch! I
Dean Rasheed writes:
> The problem then arises in the final carry propagation pass. During
> this phase of the computation, the carry from one digit (which can be
> a shade under INT_MAX / NBASE) is added to the next digit, and that's
> where the overflow happens.
Nice catch! I think the comment
Pavel,
> with -1 option support
FWIW, I have tried to apply this patch against master (7f11724) and
there is a minor error, see below.
>From patch:
patching file src/bin/psql/settings.h
Hunk #2 FAILED at 135.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/bin/psql/settings.h.rej
>From s
On 2015-09-21 10:31:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>On the other hand, in the common case, by the time we perform a
> >>restartpoint, we're consistent: I think the main exception to that is
> >>if we do a base backup that spans multiple check
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>On the other hand, in the common case, by the time we perform a
>>restartpoint, we're consistent: I think the main exception to that is
>>if we do a base backup that spans multiple checkpoints. I think that
>>in the new location, the chances
Hi,
By chance, while testing the nearby numeric log/exp/pow patch, I came
across the following case which generates an initially puzzling
looking error on HEAD -- (5.6-1e-500) ^ (3.2-1e-200). This computation
actually works OK with that other patch, but only by blind luck. It
turns out that the un
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > So not using \crosstab is deliberate; it's to prevent confusion with
> > the server-side function.
>
> I don't afraid about this - crosstab is a function in extension. Psql
> backslash commands living in different worlds.
Sure, but the confusion would be assumin
Hi,
The planstate_tree_walker() oversight custom_ps of CustomScanState;
that should be a list of underlying PlanState object if any.
ExplainPreScanNode() treated ForeignScan and CustomScan in special
way (it is sufficient for ExplainPreScanNode() purpose), thus, it
didn't implement its recursive
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> Right now, if a BYPASSRLS user creates a SECURITY DEFINER function, any caller
> can change that function's behavior by toggling the GUC. Users won't test
> accordingly; better to have just one success-case behavior.
I agree that's not good, though the fu
On 09/18/2015 11:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I have done various runs on an Intel Xeon 28C/56T w/ 256Gb mem and 2 x
RAID10 SSD (data + xlog) with Min(64,).
The benefit with this patch could be seen at somewhat higher
client-count as you can see in my initial mail, can you please
once try with cl
Fixed (9acb9007de30b3daaa9efc16763c3bc6e3e0a92d), but didn't backpatch because
it isn't a critical bug.
For those on older versions, whatтАЩs the simplest workaround?
FWIW, I thought this would be a reasonable thing to back-patch.
It's not as though contrib/citext hasn't been around for awhile.
35 matches
Mail list logo
