Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

2016-03-04 3:13 GMT+01:00 Corey Huinker : > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2015-08-06 10:37 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Psql based implementation needs new

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: psql autocomplete for casting

2016-03-04 5:29 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI : > At Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:15:13 +0100, Pavel Stehule > wrote in < > cafj8prdb2ppeslxnwndxmhvts9vl0nmeanudv_hps9wzywx...@mail.gmail.com> > pavel.stehule> 2016-03-03 12:06 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah, that's my first impression as well. We should not need any APIs > changes and the changes would be limited to if extra blocks with > _MSC_VER, if that would occur then I definitely agree that patching > only

Re: [HACKERS] ExecGather() + nworkers

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 12:54, Michael Paquier wrote: > No objections from here as well for the feature itself. I am glad to > see interest in extending the current infrastructure, and just > wondering what kind of tests are going to show up. The tests themselves really

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Aleksander Alekseev < a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Won't it always use the same freelist to remove and add the entry from > > freelist as for both cases it will calculate the freelist_idx in same > > way? > > No. If "our" freelist is empty when we try to

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, Thanks for the review. >> +/* >> + * rename_safe -- rename of a file, making it on-disk persistent >> + * >> + * This routine ensures that a rename file persists in case of a crash by >> using >> + * fsync on the

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

Robert Haas writes: > A couple of my colleagues have been looking into this. It's not > entirely clear to me what's going on here yet, but it looks like the > stats get there if you wait long enough. Rahila Syed was able to > reproduce the problem and says that the

Re: [HACKERS] OOM in libpq and infinite loop with getCopyStart()

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> The easiest way to perform tests with this patch is to take a debugger >> and enforce the malloc'd pointers to NULL in the code paths. > > I see. Still I don't think it's an excuse to not provide clear steps

Re: [HACKERS] Relation extension scalability

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > 1. One option can be as you suggested like ProcArrayGroupClearXid, With > some modification, because when we wait for the request and extend w.r.t > that, may be again we face the Context Switch problem, So may be we

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 4 March 2016 at 05:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Patches 0004 and 0007 remain. > > For readers who're not following closely that's the filtering support for > RecursiveCopy and the support

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: psql autocomplete for casting

At Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:15:13 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote in pavel.stehule> 2016-03-03 12:06 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < > the requirement of space before is not good :( - It should be any different >

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I wouldn't bother tinkering with it at this point. The value isn't > >> going to be recorded on disk anywhere, so it will be easy to

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 17 February 2016 at 17:50, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Here I attached a draft patch based on previous discussions. It still needs > better comments and optimization. Over in [1] Tom posted a large change to the grouping planner which causes large conflict with the

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hmmm, I type them and I'm not so good with a keyboard, so "se" is better > > than: > > > > "selct-onlyect-only". > > I can understand that feeling. Pushed 19-e, thanks. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect error message in InitializeSessionUserId

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have found incorrect error message in InitializeSessionUserId function >> if you try to connect to database

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

On 4 March 2016 at 09:29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This leads me to the conclusion that all these new node types should >> set parallel_aware to false and copy up the other two fields from the >> child,

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > 2015-08-06 10:37 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> Hi, >> >> Psql based implementation needs new infrastructure (more than few lines) >> >> Missing: >> >> * binary mode support >> *

Re: [HACKERS] Way to check whether a particular block is on the shared_buffer?

I found one other, but tiny, problem to implement SSD-to-GPU direct data transfer feature under the PostgreSQL storage. Extension cannot know the raw file descriptor opened by smgr. I expect an extension issues an ioctl(2) on the special device file on behalf of the special kernel driver, to

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect error message in InitializeSessionUserId

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov wrote: > Hi all, > > I have found incorrect error message in InitializeSessionUserId function > if you try to connect to database by role Oid (for example > BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid). > If role have no

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Well the source code does not compile on MSVC2015, the perl changes needed > are really tiny, there is some code that needs changes to work with 2015, > particularly in the locale code-page detection area so it's

Re: [HACKERS] Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug

On 2/5/16 5:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > As Heikki goes into on that thread, the appropriate action seems to be > to constantly reset the error queue, and to make sure that we > ourselves clear the queue consistently. (Note that we might not have > consistently called ERR_get_error() in the

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 4 March 2016 at 05:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Okay, so far I have pushed 0001 and 0002 squashed (commit 5bec1ad4648), > 0003 (commit 7d9a4301c08), 0005 and 0006 squashed (commit 2c83f435a3de). > In the last one I chose to rename your psql_check to safe_psql and >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

I looked at 19.d and I think the design has gotten pretty convoluted. I think we could simplify with the following changes: struct script_t gets a new member, of type Command **, which is initially null. function process_builtin receives the complete script_t (not individual memebers of it)

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On 03/03/16 18:41, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: On 03/03/2016 09:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Microsoft provides a set of VMs that one can use for testing and Windows 10 is

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > > 002 fixes another minor whoopsie, a syntax error in src/test/recovery/t/ > 003_recovery_targets.pl that never got noticed because exit codes are > ignored. >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thanks. As I told Teodor last night, I can't reproduce a performance >> issue here with pgbench-style queries. Do you have any thoughts about >> how we might satisfy ourselves

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Thanks for working on this. Some review comments: > >> - I think all of the new path creation functions should bubble up >> parallel_degree from their subpath. > > Ah, thanks, I

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> I've modified buildfarm member mandrill to use force_parallel_mode=regress >> and >> max_parallel_degree=5; a full run passes. We'll now see if it intermittently >> fails the stats

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > So yes, each estimator works great for exactly the opposite cases. But notice > that typically, the results of the

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

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-02-29 18:30:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Basically, a connection needs to remain open and interleave >>> commands with

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Previous patch has bug around GUC parameter handling. > Attached updated version. I spotted a couple of typos: +used. Priority is given to servers in the order that the appear in the list. s/the appear/they

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench small bug fix

Hello Aleksander, Thanks for the look at the patch. time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2 On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. I'm pretty sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though. Sure. [...] you should probably write: if(someint > 0) Ok. if(somebool

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > So yes, each estimator works great for exactly the opposite cases. But > notice that typically, the results of the new formula is much higher than > the old one, sometimes by two orders of magnitude (and it

Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)

On 2/26/16, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > Proposed patch implements it. I'm sorry, I forgot to leave a note for reviewers and committers: This patch requires CATALOG_VERSION_NO be bumped. Since pg_proc.h entry has changed, it is important to check and run regress tests on a

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

Robert Haas writes: > Thanks for working on this. Some review comments: > - I think all of the new path creation functions should bubble up > parallel_degree from their subpath. Ah, thanks, I didn't have any clue how to set that (though in my defense, the documentation

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, On 03/03/2016 06:40 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: On Mar 3, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, On 03/03/2016 12:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hi, Tomas! I've assigned to review this patch. I've checked version estimate-num-groups-v2.txt by Mark

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

Hi, > +/* > + * rename_safe -- rename of a file, making it on-disk persistent > + * > + * This routine ensures that a rename file persists in case of a crash by > using > + * fsync on the old and new files before and after performing the rename so > as > + * this categorizes as an

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/03/2016 12:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> I've assigned to review this patch. >> >> I've checked version estimate-num-groups-v2.txt by Mark Dilger. >> It applies to head cleanly, passes corrected

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! > > All review comments regarding document and comment are fixed. > Attached latest v14 patch. > >> This accepts 'abc^Id' as a name, which is wrong behavior (but >>

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench small bug fix

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2 > > On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. I'm pretty > sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though. > > I tested this patch on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >Don't we need to add this only when the xid of current transaction is > valid? Also, I think it will be better if we can explain

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm pretty pleased with the way this turned out. grouping_planner() is > about half the length it was before, and much more straightforward IMO. > planagg.c no longer seems like a complete hack; it's a reasonable > prototype

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On 2016-03-03 18:44:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. > > > > I think we may want both

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On 03/03/2016 09:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. > > I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level > has a lot higher

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 03/03/2016 09:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Microsoft provides a set of VMs that one can use for testing and >> Windows 10 is in the set: >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. > > I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level > has a lot higher "priority" than that.

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/03/2016 12:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> Hi, Tomas! >> >> I've assigned to review this patch. >> >> I've checked version estimate-num-groups-v2.txt by Mark Dilger. >> It applies to head

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On 03/03/2016 09:23 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. Any comments on how hard this would be, or why we don't want

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level compression has a bit of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see > pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just > the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. > > Any comments on how

[HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. Any comments on how hard this would be, or why we don't want it? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On 03/03/2016 09:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Hi all, Microsoft provides a set of VMs that one can use for testing and Windows 10 is in the set: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/ I have grabbed one and installed the community version of Visual Studio 2015 so I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?

Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, is anyone checking the other side of this, ie "COPY IN" with equally > wide rows? There doesn't seem to be a lot of value in supporting dump > if you can't reload ... Indeed, the lines bigger than 1GB can't be reloaded :( My test: with a stock 9.5.1 plus Alvaro's

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, On 03/03/2016 12:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hi, Tomas! I've assigned to review this patch. I've checked version estimate-num-groups-v2.txt by Mark Dilger. It applies to head cleanly, passes corrected regression tests. About correlated/uncorrelated cases. I think now optimizer

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. At this point, the earliest the cmake work could land is 9.7, >> and TBH I do not think we are committed to landing it at all. So it'd >> behoove us to fix at least HEAD, and probably older branches too, >> to work with

Re: [HACKERS] OOM in libpq and infinite loop with getCopyStart()

Hello, Michael > The easiest way to perform tests with this patch is to take a debugger > and enforce the malloc'd pointers to NULL in the code paths. I see. Still I don't think it's an excuse to not provide clear steps to reproduce an issue. As I see it anyone should be able to easily check

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah. At this point, the earliest the cmake work could land is 9.7, > and TBH I do not think we are committed to landing it at all. So it'd > behoove us to fix at least HEAD, and probably older branches too, > to work with up-to-date MSVC. In that case we should probably add

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 03/03/16 15:02, Michael Paquier wrote: >> So, would there be interest for a patch on the perl scripts in >> src/tools/msvc or are they considered a lost cause? Having a look at >> the failures could be done with the cmake work, but it seems a bit >>

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

David Rowley writes: > My gripe is that I've added the required code to build the parallel > group aggregate to create_agg_path() already, but since Group > Aggregate uses the RollupPath I'm forced to add code in > create_rollup_plan() which manually stacks up Plan

Re: [HACKERS] Improve error handling in pltcl

Hi I am testing behave, and some results looks strange postgres=# \sf foo CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.foo() RETURNS void LANGUAGE plpgsql AS $function$ begin raise exception sqlstate 'ZZ666' using message='hello, world', detail='hello, my world', hint = 'dont afraid'; end $function$

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

Craig Ringer wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > The rest are feature patches: > > > 004 allows filtering on RecursiveCopy by a predicate function. Needed for > > > filesystem level backups (007). It could probably be squashed with 007 if >

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Hey Alvaro, I was referring to https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ColumnOrientedSTorage . and yes, I'll be at the next fosdem / pgconf.eu for sure. :-) Bert On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bert wrote: > > > Alvaro, > > You wrote that a wiki page

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The performance report is taken on the patch that is WIP columnar storage > on PostgreSQL database. Only the storage part of the code is finished. > To test the performance, we used custom plan to generate the plans > where it can use the columnar storage. This way we ran

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Bert wrote: > Alvaro, > You wrote that a wiki page would be opened regarding this. But I still > cannot find such a page (expect for an old page which hasn't changed in the > last year). Is there already something we can look at? Yeah, I haven't done that yet. I will post here as soon as I get

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hi, Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! All review comments regarding document and comment are fixed. Attached latest v14 patch. > This accepts 'abc^Id' as a name, which is wrong behavior (but > such appliction names are not allowed anyway. If you assume so, > I'd like to see a comment

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On 03/03/16 15:02, Michael Paquier wrote: Hi all, Microsoft provides a set of VMs that one can use for testing and Windows 10 is in the set: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/ I have grabbed one and installed the community version of Visual Studio 2015 so I think

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

So I see no evidence for a slowdown on pgbench's SELECT queries. Anybody else want to check performance on simple scan/join queries? I did your tests with configure --enable-depend and pgbench -i -s 100 and slightly tweaked postgresql.conf, on notebook with CPU i7-3520M (2 cores + 2 HT),

Re: [HACKERS] Improve error handling in pltcl

Hi 2016-03-01 22:23 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 2/29/16 10:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Jim Nasby writes: >> >>> On 2/28/16 5:50 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> Per discussion in [1], this patch improves error reporting in pltcl. >>> >> I

[HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

Hi all, Microsoft provides a set of VMs that one can use for testing and Windows 10 is in the set: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/ I have grabbed one and installed the community version of Visual Studio 2015 so I think that I am going to be able to compile Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] OOM in libpq and infinite loop with getCopyStart()

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I didn't checked your patch in detail yet but here is a thought I would > like to share. > > In my experience usually it takes number of rewrites before patch will > be accepted. To make sure that after every

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

On 3 March 2016 at 22:57, David Rowley wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 18:04, Tom Lane wrote: >> If you come across any points where it seems like it could be >> done better or more easily, that would be tremendously valuable feedback >> at this

Re: [HACKERS] Submit Pull Request

On 3 March 2016 at 19:11, Maton, Brett wrote: > Hi, > > How do I push a branch to git.postgresql.org/git/pgrpms.git ? > You can't push, but you can open a ticket at https://redmine.postgresql.org/projects/pgrpms or write to the pgsql-pkg-...@postgresql.org mailing

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On 3 March 2016 at 21:16, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > > 002 fixes another

Re: [HACKERS] OOM in libpq and infinite loop with getCopyStart()

Hello, Michael I didn't checked your patch in detail yet but here is a thought I would like to share. In my experience usually it takes number of rewrites before patch will be accepted. To make sure that after every rewrite your patch still solves an issue you described you should probably

Re: [HACKERS] TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > The first three are simple fixes that should go in without fuss: > > 001 fixes the above 5.8.8 compat issue. > 002 fixes another minor whoopsie, a syntax error in > src/test/recovery/t/003_recovery_targets.pl that never

Re: [HACKERS] Submit Pull Request

On 03/03/2016 12:11 PM, Maton, Brett wrote: How do I push a branch to git.postgresql.org/git/pgrpms.git ? I would email pgsql-pkg-...@postgresql.org, as mentioned at http://yum.postgresql.org/contact.php, with questions about how to contribute to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench small bug fix

> time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2 On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. I'm pretty sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though. I tested this patch on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS with GCC 4.8. It applies cleanly on master branch (c7111d11) and solves a described problem. No

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, Tomas! I've assigned to review this patch. I've checked version estimate-num-groups-v2.txt by Mark Dilger. It applies to head cleanly, passes corrected regression tests. About correlated/uncorrelated cases. I think now optimizer mostly assumes all distributions to be independent. I think we

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Tobias Florek wrote: >> > > Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5 >> > >> > Is there an ETA? >> > >> >> I just committed the fix to the repo. > > Sorry for being unclear, is there an ETA for a new point-release? Nothing concrete yet. -- Michael --

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >Don't we need to add this only when the xid of current transaction is valid? Also, I think it will be better if we can explain why we need to add the our >own transaction id while caching the snapshot. I have fixed the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: redo failed in physical streaming replication while stopping the master server

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:58 PM, lannis wrote: > So in the replay scenario, before we read the page from wal segment file, > using the specical RecPtr which point to the next page header address, can > we predicat the page header is a long or short? I am not sure I am getting

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: psql autocomplete for casting

2016-03-03 12:06 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > Hello, I considered on this, > > At Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:05:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule > wrote in < > cafj8prdz456okbpv9jdj_vcgtwprqxyu1kqp6z_eu_wgnvs...@mail.gmail.com> > > We have not

[HACKERS] Submit Pull Request

Hi, How do I push a branch to git.postgresql.org/git/pgrpms.git ?

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: psql autocomplete for casting

Hello, I considered on this, At Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:05:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote in > We have not autocomplete for casting introduced by symbol "::". A > implementation should not be hard.

[HACKERS] Novice Presentation and Company Project

Hello everyone, I'm Eduardo Morras from Spain. My company is developing code for Postgresql for another company and want to communicate, debate and share the results with the community. The objetives are upgrade the network backend and frontend of Postgresql: a) Add support for LibreSSL in it

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types

Hi 2016-03-03 0:27 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 3/2/16 3:52 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Right, and it's arguably dubious that that doesn't already work. >> Unfortunately, these % things are just random plpgsql parser hacks, >> not >> real types. Maybe this

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

> > > Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5 > > > > Is there an ETA? > > > > I just committed the fix to the repo. Sorry for being unclear, is there an ETA for a new point-release? Thank you, Tobias Florek -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types

Hi 2016-02-24 22:18 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut : > On 1/18/16 4:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > One idea that occurs to me is: If you can DECLARE BAR FOO%TYPE, but > > then you want to make BAR an array of that type rather than a scalar, > > why not write that as DECLARE BAR

Re: [HACKERS] SP-GiST support for inet datatypes

> Emre, I checked original thread and didn't find sample data. Could you > provide them for testing ? I found it on the Git history: https://github.com/job/irrexplorer/blob/9e8b5330d7ef0022abbe1af18291257e044eb24b/data/irrexplorer_dump.sql.gz?raw=true -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW]: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

This is a review of "Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol" patches http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSMXU35g=w9x74hveqp0uvgjxvyoua4a-a3m+0wfeb...@mail.gmail.com Contents & Purpose -- There was a discussion dedicated to SCRAM:

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb array-style subscription

> If the patch were proposing a similar amount of new infrastructure to > support some datatype-extensible concept of subscripting, I'd be much > happier about it. Well, actually, I agree with that. I can try to rework the patch to achieve this goal.

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

On 3 March 2016 at 10:11, Tobias Florek wrote: > Hi, > > > Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5 > > Is there an ETA? > I just committed the fix to the repo. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

Hi, > Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5 Is there an ETA? We can't easily go back to 9.4 and while adding additional conditions not to trigger this index only scan is possible, but a little fragile. Thank you for your work, btw. I was very surprised to find a bug in PostgreSQL! I honestly still am.

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

On 2 March 2016 at 10:57, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 1 March 2016 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> In any event, I am now of the opinion that this patch needs to be reverted >> outright and returned to the authors for redesign. There are too many >>

[HACKERS] Re: redo failed in physical streaming replication while stopping the master server

Thanks for your reply. If we only take replay for consideration, yeah, we do this header check until we've read the page first. But thanks to the master xlog generator, we know that: when we try advance XLOG insert buffer (page), we treate the new page header as short header at first. then we

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

On 3 March 2016 at 18:04, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> I agree that it would be good to get this in as soon as possible. I'm >> currently very close to being done with writing Parallel Aggregate on >> top of the upper planner

Re: [HACKERS] Publish autovacuum informations

Hello, At Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:48:06 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote in <56d77bb6.6080...@bluetreble.com> > On 3/2/16 10:48 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > Good point, I don't see a lot of information available with this hooks > > that a native system statistics couldn't offer. To

Re: [HACKERS] pl/pgsql exported functions

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 11/02/16 18:29, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Most of the pl/pgsql functions and variables are prefixed plpgsql_, so >> they >> don't risk conflicting with other shared libraries loaded. >> >> There are a couple that are not

  1   2   >