Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar wrote: > > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 > > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated. > > taskkill /f *forcefully*

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On 10/11/2015 01:19 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/11/2015 02:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I apologize -- that didn't came out right. >> What I meant to suggest was "open an issue" to track >> any works that needs to be done. But I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On 10/11/2015 02:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/10/2015 04:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I was arguing that it's an on-going task that would do >> better if it had a TODO list, instead of "ideas for tests" >>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/11/2015 02:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I apologize -- that didn't came out right. > What I meant to suggest was "open an issue" to track > any works that needs to be done. But I guess that's > not the PG way. No problem. I was not

Re: [HACKERS] Improve the concurency of vacuum full table and select statement on the same relation

Get it now, thanks. The lock upgrade(from ExclusiveLock to AccessExclusiveLock) may result in deadlocks iff one transaction first takes an AccessShareLock and then takes a lock(lockmode > AccessShareLock) on the same relation. The single SQL statement can't take an AccessShareLock and then

[HACKERS] Release of CVEs

The release notes for the new version reference some CVEs that have not been publically released yet. Are they slow, or is this something that needs to be added to the release process checklist? For example, see the CVE hyperlink for json parsing at:

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > > The log you can see bellow: > > ... > > 2015-10-10 19:00:32 AST DEBUG: cleaning up dynamic shared memory control segment with ID 851401618 > > 2015-10-10 19:00:32 AST

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm a bit suspicious that we may have leaked a handle to the shared >> memory block someplace, for example. That would explain why this >> symptom is visible now when it was

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase > logging seem reasonable. I'm back to the position I had in the previous thread, which is that we don't really understand why any delay is needed here at all, and we ought to try

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > The release notes for the new version reference some CVEs that > have not been publically released yet. Are they slow, or is > this something that needs to be added to the release > process checklist? My guess is

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar > wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier < >> michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase > > logging seem reasonable. > > I'm back to the position I had in the previous thread, which is that > we

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

On 10/11/2015 04:54 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > The release notes for the new version reference some CVEs that > have not been publically released yet. Are they slow, or is > this something that needs to be added to the release > process checklist? These days MITRE is lagging 2-6 weeks

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi Emre Pls. don't misunderstand my questions: They are directed to get an even more useful spatial data handling of PostgreSQL. I'm working with PostGIS since years and are interested in any work regarding spatial types... Can anyone report use cases or applications of these built-in geometric

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about > it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them > what they need to be more prompt. http://cve.mitre.org/ has a "Contact Us" tab linking to the

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar wrote: >> > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 >> > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated. >> >> taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > +/*- > + * datumSerialize > + * > + * Serialize a possibly-NULL datum into caller-provided storage. > +void > +datumSerialize(Datum value, bool isnull, bool

[HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT documentation clean-up patch

Attached documentation patch is intended to close-out the INSERT ... ON CONFLICT documentation items from the 9.5 open item list. I also attach a patch that makes a minor adjustment to an error message concerning deferred constraints; the problem came to my attention as I worked on the

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about >> it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them >> what they need to be more prompt. >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 12 October 2015 at 15:07, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel > with the help of Gather and > partial seq scan nodes. The following is the basic overview of the > parallel aggregate changes. > > Decision phase:

[HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel with the help of Gather and partial seq scan nodes. The following is the basic overview of the parallel aggregate changes. Decision phase: Based on the following conditions, the parallel aggregate plan is generated. - check

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm a bit suspicious that we may have leaked a handle to the shared > >> memory block someplace,

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:25 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 12 October 2015 at 15:07, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> - check whether the aggregate supports parallelism or not. >> >> As for first patch, I thought of supporting only some