Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/15 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >> >>> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >>> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >>> on >>> $ postgres -C wal_level >>> minimal >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On October 29, 2015 7:59:03 AM GMT+01:00, Noah Misch > wrote: > >That helps; thanks. Your design seems good. I've located only insipid > >defects. > > Great! > > > I propose to save some time by writing a

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and currently > is using standard PostgreSQL two phase commit: > > Code in GO performing two phase commit: > > exec(conn1, "prepare transaction '" + gtid + "'") >

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and currently is using standard PostgreSQL two phase commit: Code in GO performing two phase commit: exec(conn1,

Re: [HACKERS] OS X El Capitan and DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" writes: >> Apple says that the more people file bugs, the more likely the issue is to >> get attention. So by all means, please file radars about this. You can >> reference 21732670

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support

On 07.11.2015 17:20, Emre Hasegeli wrote: It seems to have something to do with the order of the affixes. It works, if I move affix 2646 to the beginning of the list. [1] https://tr-spell.googlecode.com/files/dict_aff_5000_suffix_113_words.zip Thank you for reply. This was because of the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I thought about something like that at some point by saving a minimum > activity pointer in XLogCtl, updated each time a segment was forcibly > switched or after inserting a checkpoint record. Then the bgwriter > looked at if the current

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:00 AM, kolo hhmow wrote: > Ok. > Thak you all! This patch was listed twice in the CF app. I removed the duplicated entry and let this one alive: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/392/ Could you add your name as an author please? -- Michael --

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On 8 November 2015 at 16:59, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: >> >>> In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and >>> currently >>> is using

Re: [HACKERS] Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD

On 2015-11-08 13:34:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > $ cd doc/src/sgml > $ make postgres-US.pdf > ... lots of crap later ... > ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [number of strings=245828]. > We ran into a very similar issue back around 9.0, and solved it with an > ugly style-sheet hack, see thread here:

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and > "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would > not be really enhanced with additional spacing. > > ISTM that

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #13611: test_postmaster_connection failed (Windows, listen_addresses = '0.0.0.0' or '::')

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:39:36PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > I am happy to finish it, but I am no less happy if you finish it. Which do > > you prefer? > > Please go ahead and commit. > > > Should the back-branch commits mirror the master branch? A more-cautious > > alternative would be

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote: >I have pushed a stack of branches to >https://github.com/nmisch/postgresql.git: > >mxt0-revert - reverts commits 4f627f8 and aa29c1c >mxt1-disk-independent - see below >mxt2-cosmetic - update already-wrong comments and

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns

Jeff Janes writes: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> I've however also noticed that all the 'like' procedures are marked as not >> leak proof, which is a bit unfortunate because that's the example from >> Jeff's e-mail

[HACKERS] Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD

$ cd doc/src/sgml $ make postgres-US.pdf ... lots of crap later ... [3253.0.51 ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [number of strings=245828]. \endgroup \set@typeset@protect l.1879198 {1}} \Node% ! ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced! Transcript

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:11:42AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote: > > >I have pushed a stack of branches to > >https://github.com/nmisch/postgresql.git: > > > >mxt0-revert - reverts commits 4f627f8 and aa29c1c >

Re: [HACKERS] Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD

On 2015-11-08 16:29:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: > > While taking pretty short of forever, postgres-US.pdf seems to build on > > my debian unstable as of 8d7396e509 + some additional docs. Is this > > dependant of what version of text you're using (plain

Re: [HACKERS] Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD

and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: > While taking pretty short of forever, postgres-US.pdf seems to build on > my debian unstable as of 8d7396e509 + some additional docs. Is this > dependant of what version of text you're using (plain tex, pdftex, > xetex, whatnot)? > postgres-US.log

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On November 8, 2015 11:52:05 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote: >On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:11:42AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch >wrote: >> >> >I have pushed a stack of branches to >>

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/07/2015 02:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: I think LEAKPROOF is probably fine for this. How would the

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Since the start-pos is recorded in the array, I wonder if it's worth >> supporting negative indexing for arrays with the default 1-indexed >> element numbering, and just ERRORing for others. Does anyone really >> use

Re: [HACKERS] Uh-oh: documentation PDF output no longer builds in HEAD

and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: >> In some cases, it is possible for pdfjadetex to error out even with >> expanded texmf.cnf settings. The sign of this is that jadetex is able >> to process the file, but pdfjadetex isn't. The upstream maintainer, >> Sebastian Rahtz, had this to say:

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

On 10/15/2015 05:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: All other issues raised by Álvaro and Steve have been addressed, except for this one, which I will argue against: I've been looking through the updated patch In snapmgr.c + * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64 value to be atomic, we can

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

Hi, On 2015-10-19 21:43:32 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > Patch revision 3 attached. It's a one-liner, with just the fix, and an > explanatory note in the patch header. Pushed to 9.5 and master. Thanks for noticing the issue, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:38 AM > To: 'Robert Haas' > Cc: Etsuro Fujita; Tom Lane; Kyotaro HORIGUCHI; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; > Shigeru Hanada > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual > > > On Fri,

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 8 November 2015 at 16:59, Konstantin Knizhnik > wrote: >> >> On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: In

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Lock manager is one of the tasks we are currently working on. > There are still a lot of open questions: > 1. Should distributed lock manager (DLM) do something else except > detection of distributed

Re: [HACKERS] Returning 'Infinity'::TIMESTAMPTZ from "to_timestamp" function

Vitaly Burovoy writes: > To add an ability to construct 'Infinity' TIMESTAMPTZ via > "to_timestamp" call, there are two ways: > 1. Rewrite the function "pg_catalog.to_timestamp(double precision)" as > an internal one. It's the easiest way, because it allows to avoid >

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > The previous patch would not compile on the latest HEAD. Here's updated > > patch. > > Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] Adjust errorcode in background worker code

On 7 November 2015 at 02:55, Robert Haas wrote: > I wonder if we need to think about inventing some new error codes. I > can sort of understand that "feature not supported" is something that > can come in a large number of different contexts and mean pretty much > the

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On 7 November 2015 at 16:53, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > On 11/07/2015 05:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Today, while studying your proposal and related material, I noticed > that in both the approaches DTM and tsDTM, you are talking about > committing a transaction

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On 7 November 2015 at 04:59, Robert Haas wrote: > So, I really wonder why we're not happy with the ability to substitute > out just the host and IP. I tend to agree. That solves 95% of the problem and doesn't foreclose solving the other 5% some other way if someone really

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> > > > @@ -85,6 +86,18 @@ ForeignRecheck(ForeignScanState *node, TupleTableSlot > *slot) > > > > ResetExprContext(econtext); > > > > + /* > > +* FDW driver has to recheck visibility of EPQ tuple towards > > +* the scan qualifiers once it gets pushed

[HACKERS] Returning 'Infinity'::TIMESTAMPTZ from "to_timestamp" function

Hello everyone! Continuing the topic of extracting EPOCH from 'Infinity'::TIMESTAMPTZ and according to an item "converting between infinity timestamp and float8" in the TODO list... Even when "SELECT extract(EPOCH FROM TIMESTAMPTZ 'Infinity')" results 'Infinity'::float, there is still trouble to

Re: [HACKERS] bootstrap pg_shseclabel in relcache initialization

On 9 November 2015 at 12:40, Adam Brightwell wrote: > Hi All, > > While working on an auth hook, I found that I was unable to access the > pg_shseclabel system table while processing the hook. I discovered > that the only tables that were bootstrapped and made

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/11/09 9:26, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: I think ForeignRecheck should first call ExecQual to test fdw_recheck_quals. If it returns false, return false. If it returns true, then give the FDW callback a chance, if one is defined. If that returns false, return false. If we haven't yet

Re: [HACKERS] Bitmap index scans use of filters on available columns

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: >>> I've however also noticed that all the 'like' procedures are marked as not >>> leak proof,

[HACKERS] bootstrap pg_shseclabel in relcache initialization

Hi All, While working on an auth hook, I found that I was unable to access the pg_shseclabel system table while processing the hook. I discovered that the only tables that were bootstrapped and made available at this stage of the the auth process were pg_database, pg_authid and pg_auth_members.

Fwd: [HACKERS] Multixid hindsight design

On 25 June 2015 at 00:52, Robert Haas wrote: > I agree that we can do much better at testing than we traditionally > have done, and I think pretty much everyone in the room for the > developer unconference session on testing at PGCon was also in > agreement with that. I

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 9 November 2015 at 07:04, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-10-19 21:43:32 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Patch revision 3 attached. It's a one-liner, with just the fix, and an >> explanatory note in the patch header. > > Pushed to 9.5 and master. > > Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > The base rel's consider_parallel flag won't be percolated to childrels, so > > even > > if we mark base rel as parallel capable, while

[HACKERS]

unsubscribe pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers