At 2016-02-22 07:45:37 +, e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> I think what's needed is:
>
> use 5.008_008;
That is meant to fail if the code is run on a version of Perl older than
5.8.8, not fail if the code uses language features not present in 5.8.8.
It is little help for those trying to maintain
- All the core routines used should be compatible down to perl 5.8.8.
Ugh. So not just Perl, ancient perl.
I don't suppose Perl offers any kind of "compatible(5.8.8)" statement
or
anything? Do I have to compile a ten-year-old Perl and its dependencies
to
work on PostgreSQL tests?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 14:30, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> - All the core routines used should be compatible down to perl 5.8.8.
>
> Ugh. So not just Perl, ancient perl.
>
> I don't suppose
On 22 February 2016 at 14:30, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> +1. I will be happy to contribute into that.
>
Thanks. Hopefully what I wrote will be useful as a starting point.
As I read through the modules I'll write some draft Perldoc too.
> > The docs at
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oooh ... actually, that works today if you consider the SRF-in-targetlist
> case:
>
> regression=# select generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10;
> generate_series
> ---
>
On 02/21/16 23:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another variable is that your answers might depend on what format you
> assume the client is trying to convert from/to. (It's presumably not
> text JSON, but then what is it?)
This connects tangentially to a question I've been meaning to ask
for a while,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I've been taking a look at the Perl test infrastructure ( src/test/perl )
> for writing multi-node tests, starting with PostgresNode.pm and I have a few
> comments based on my first approach to the code "cold".
>
> I
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
wrote:
> I was stuck because both syntaxes have their ugliness. NOTIFY allows the
> payload to be NULL:
> NOTIFY chan01;
>
> How would this look like in "never" mode?
> NOTIFY chan01, NULL, 'never'; -- seems very
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:07:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch writes:
>> > I configured a copy of animal "mandrill" that way and launched a test run.
>> > The postgres_fdw suite failed as
Hi all
I've been taking a look at the Perl test infrastructure ( src/test/perl )
for writing multi-node tests, starting with PostgresNode.pm and I have a
few comments based on my first approach to the code "cold".
I think a README in src/test/perl/ would be very helpful. It's currently
not at
> 4) Create a mechanism for specifying default TRANSFORMs for a PL, and
> essentially "solve" these issues by supplying a built-in transform.
>
> I think default transforms (4) are worth doing no matter what. Having to
> manually remember to add potentially multiple TRANSFORMs is a PITA. But I'm
>
> > 3) Add the concept of PL API versions. This would allow users to specify
>
> So that leaves #3, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable from here.
> We don't have a problem with bundling a bunch of unrelated changes
> into any one major PG revision. The scripting languages we're talking
>
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > So, let's leave adding any additional column, but Alexander has brought
up
> > a good point about storing the wait_type and actual
On 02/16/16 22:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack writes:
>> been several releases of an extension, and the extensions directory
>> is now populated with a bunch of files quux--1.0.sql, quux--1.1.sql,
>> quux--1.0--1.1.sql, quux--1.1--1.0.sql, ..., quux.control.
>> And
Jim Nasby writes:
> Some of our PLs have the unfortunate problem of making a weak effort
> with converting types to and from the PL and Postgres. For example,
> plpythonu will correctly transform a complex type to a dict and an array
> to a list, but it punts back to
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 19/02/16 10:10, Ãlvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>> Oleg and I discussed recently that a really good addition to a GSoC
>> item would be to study whether it's convenient to have a binary
>> serialization format for jsonb over the wire.
> Seems a
Some of our PLs have the unfortunate problem of making a weak effort
with converting types to and from the PL and Postgres. For example,
plpythonu will correctly transform a complex type to a dict and an array
to a list, but it punts back to text for an array contained inside a
complex type. I
On 2/19/16 7:32 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
Wow, and I thought *I* liked metaprogramming! :)
I like what you've proposed, though I am wondering if you considered
doing something server-side instead? It seems a shame to do all this
work and exclude all other tools.
I frequently find myself
On 1/12/16 6:42 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Somehow computing the speed in relation to the cluster/database size is
probably possible, but I wonder how we can do so without constantly
re-computing something relatively expensive?
ISTM relpages would probably be good enough for this, if we take the
On 19/02/16 10:10, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
Oleg and I discussed recently that a really good addition to a GSoC
item would be to study whether it's convenient to have a binary
serialization format for jsonb over the wire. Some argue this should be
benchmarked first. So the scope for
On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
>>>
Stephen Frost writes:
> Just to be clear, I'm not really against this patch as-is, but it
> shouldn't be a precedent or limit us from supporting more permissive
> permissions in other areas (or even here) if there are sensible
> use-cases for more permissive permissions.
OK,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> There seems to be a copy-pasto there - shouldn't
Hi,
while investigating a poor query plan choice, I've noticed suspicious
semi join estimates looking like this:
-> Nested Loop (cost=35.52..1787.31 rows=281653470 width=566)
Buffers: shared hit=9305
-> HashAggregate (cost=34.81..36.81 rows=200 width=32)
Group
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Christoph Berg writes:
> > The attached patch has successfully been included in the 9.6 Debian
> > package, passed the regression tests there, and I've also done some
> > chmod/chown tests on the filesystem to verify it indeed catches the
ISTM that "progress" and "progress_slice" only depend on num_scanned and
per-tablespace num_to_scan and total num_to_scan, so they are somehow
redundant and the progress could be recomputed from the initial figures
when needed.
They don't cause much space usage, and we access the values
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.ga16...@fetter.org>
>> +1 for back-patching. There's literally no case where an infinite
>> input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for
>> generate_series.
> select * from
[...] I do think that this whole writeback logic really does make
sense *per table space*,
Leads to less regular IO, because if your tablespaces are evenly sized
(somewhat common) you'll sometimes end up issuing sync_file_range's
shortly after each other. For latency outside checkpoints it's
Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.ga16...@fetter.org>
> +1 for back-patching. There's literally no case where an infinite
> input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for
> generate_series.
select * from generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10;
... seems
I wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> As for the patch itself, I'm having trouble grokking what it's trying
>> to do. I think it might be worth having a comment defining precisely
>> what we mean by "A blocks B". I would define "A blocks B" in general
>> as either A holds a
On 3 February 2016 at 10:46, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> There seems to be a copy-pasto there - shouldn't that be:
>>
>> + if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_REP_WAIT_FLUSH] < MyWalSnd->flush)
Hi,
On 2016-02-21 10:52:45 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> * CpktSortItem:
>
> I think that allocating 20 bytes per buffer in shared memory is a little on
> the heavy side. Some compression can be achieved: sizeof(ForlNum) is 4 bytes
> to hold 4 values, could be one byte or even 2 bits somewhere.
On 2016-02-21 08:26:28 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>In the discussion in the wal section, I'm not sure about the effect of
> >>setting writebacks on SSD, [...]
> >
> >Yea, that paragraph needs some editing. I think we should basically
> >remove that last sentence.
>
> Ok, fine with me. Does
On 02/21/2016 07:56 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
> Other than that, the only difference is the ::date part. Is it
> really worth adding extra code just for that? I would say not.
>
>
> I would argue it belongs for the sake of completeness.
So would I.
+1 for adding this missing
Christoph Berg writes:
> The attached patch has successfully been included in the 9.6 Debian
> package, passed the regression tests there, and I've also done some
> chmod/chown tests on the filesystem to verify it indeed catches the
> cases laid out by Tom.
Please add this to
>
>
> [step] is in days, but is not documented as such.
>
>
It is in days, and is not documented as such, but since a day is the
smallest unit of time for a date, I felt there was no other interpretation.
> My understanding is you want to replace this
>
> SELECT d.dt::date as dt
> FROM
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
>> FWIW, strcpy() was being used in src/bin/pg_config/pg_config.c that I
>> started with -- does that mean we are not getting Coverity coverage of
>> src/bin?
> Coverity does run against src/bin also. It's
Joe, all,
* Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 08:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Coverity griped about use of unchecked strcpy() into a local variable.
> > There's unlikely to be any actual bug there, since no caller would be
> > passing a path longer than MAXPGPATH, but
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
>> I have no problem running any test cases you wish on a branch in a loop for
>> the next week and reporting back any errors.
> Well, what I've done is push into the
I wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Yeah, you're right. Attached is a draft patch that tries to clean up
>> that and a bunch of other things that you raised.
> I've been reviewing this patch, and I had a question: why do we need to
> bother with a lockGroupLeaderIdentifier
Hi
>> What would be useful logging-wise is if the log line for the query itself
>> could contain lock wait time, but that doesn't sound like what you're
>> proposing?
>>
>
> I hope, so I propose this idea. First time I wanted talk about the idea.
> Next step is the talk about format.
>
Some
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 01/17/2016 04:10 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 01/16/2016 06:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
3) Adds new functions, more or less in line with
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You doesn't seem to have taken care of below typo in your patch as
> pointed out by me earlier.
>
> + * to not rely on taking an exclusive lock an all the WAL insertion locks,
>
> /an
Re: To Tom Lane 2016-02-19 <20160219115334.gb26...@msg.df7cb.de>
> Updated patch attached.
*Blush* I though I had compile-tested the patch, but without
--enable-openssl it wasn't built :(.
The attached patch has successfully been included in the 9.6 Debian
package, passed the regression tests
Hallo Andres,
Here is a review for the second patch.
For 0002 I've recently changed:
* Removed the sort timing information, we've proven sufficiently that
it doesn't take a lot of time.
I put it there initialy to demonstrate that there was no cache performance
issue when sorting on just
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Client_Count/Patch_Ver 1 64 128 256
>>>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> If the list in the joining relation changes (may be because we appended
> parameterized conditions), we would be breaking links on all the upper
> relations in the join tree in an unpredictable manner. The
Hi
I am sending updated version - the changes are related to fix comments.
2016-02-19 10:41 GMT+01:00 Artur Zakirov :
> It seems all fixes are done. I tested the patch and regression tests
> passed.
>
> I think here Alvaro means that you should keep original comment
Hallo Andres,
[...] I do think that this whole writeback logic really does make sense
*per table space*,
Leads to less regular IO, because if your tablespaces are evenly sized
(somewhat common) you'll sometimes end up issuing sync_file_range's
shortly after each other. For latency outside
50 matches
Mail list logo