On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2015, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
>
> Shouldn't this say just "(c) 2016, PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group"? Are we suppose
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
> I see the following contents in the file
> "00010044.0060.backup" which was generated in the pg_wal
> location during the online backup. When pg_stop_backup() is executed, the
> following content is written which includ
Hello Hackers,
I have a question regarding the contents being written to the backup_label
file and the .backup file in the pg_wal location generated when the online
backup is done.
backup_label file contents are as follows, which do not contain backup stop
position (timestamp and STOP WAL locatio
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2016/11/03 18:52, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is the updated version, which includes the restructuring you
>>> proposed.
>>> Other than the above issue and the alias issue we discussed, I addressed
>>> all
>>> your comments except on
On 2016/11/03 18:52, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Here is the updated version, which includes the restructuring you proposed.
Other than the above issue and the alias issue we discussed, I addressed all
your comments except one on testing; I tried to add test cases where the
remote query is deparsed as
On 2016/11/03 23:39, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A larger issue is that I think the API itself is poorly designed, as
I stated awhile ago (<31706.1457547...@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
I agree on that point. I plan to rewrite direct modify using upper
planner pat
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Please find attached latest patch which fix the review point as well as
> additional clean-up.
I've signed up to review this patch and I'm planning to do some
testing. Here's some initial feedback after a quick read-through:
+ if (gather
On 10/24/16 9:22 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I also split out the libpqwalreceiver rewrite to separate patch which
> does just the re-architecture and does not really add new functionality.
> And I did the re-architecture bit differently based on the review.
That looks good to me, and it appears to
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree that adding a hint is good.
> > Updated patch is attached with addition of hint message.
> >
> > 2016-11-03 14:56:28.685 AEDT [7822] ERROR: c
On 11/3/16 9:31 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Release does not really change behavior, it has always dropped ephemeral
> slot.
Well, currently ephemeral is just a temporary state while a slot is
being created. It's not really something that can exist independently.
You might as well call it RS_NOTREA
Apologies if I've made some of these comments before and/or missed
comments you've made on these topics. The size of this patch set is
so large that it's hard to keep track of everything.
Re-reviewing 0001:
+ indicate which table columns are used as partition key. For example,
s/are used
On 4 Nov. 2016 06:05, "Clifford Hammerschmidt"
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to be posting this.
>
> I've started work on a plugin in C (https://github.com/tanglebones/pg_tuid)
for generating generally monotonically ascending UUIDs (aka TUIDs), and
after
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/16 1:38 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Here I attached the first version of patch that supports both EUI-48 and
> > EUI-64 type
> > Mac addresses with a single datatype called macaddr. This is a
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
>>> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. A
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> ALTER TABLE my_table
>> DISABLE INDEX ALL;
>
> +1
> This very thing came up in a conversation with PeterG early last year. I was
> in favor then and I was surprised that the only thing standing in the way
> was a lack of ALTER TABLE synt
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:26:27 +0100
Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 30/10/2016 à 08:04, Karl O. Pinc a écrit :
> > Have you given any thought to my proposal to change
> > CURRENT_LOG_FILENAME to LOG_METAINFO_FILE?
> Yes, I don't think the information logged in this file are kind of
> meta information
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 11/2/16 1:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the right thing is likely to be to copy the presented bytea
>> into a palloc'd (and therefore properly aligned) buffer. And not
>> just in this one function.
> Does the attached look reasonable?
I'd be inclined to wrap it
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 10/31/16 1:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> In info.c, missing some entries in report_unmatched_relation() when
>> reporting unmatching relations?
>
> Yeah, that will need a bit of a rewrite, so FIXME later?
This patch not being complic
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sounak Chakraborty wrote:
>> But my doubt is why this feature is not enabled in case of Foreign Table.
>> (ALTER FOREIGN TABLE doesn't have a option of enabling Row Level Security).
>> Is this is not implemented due to some limitations in th
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 25 October 2016 at 22:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The alternative I'm now thinking about pursuing is to get rid of the
>> conversion of RLS quals to subqueries. Instead, we can label individual
>> qual clauses with security precedence markings.
> +1 for this approach. It lo
Hi all,
Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to be posting this.
I've started work on a plugin in C (https://github.com/tanglebones/pg_tuid)
for generating generally monotonically ascending UUIDs (aka TUIDs), and
after googling around I couldn't find any guidence on a few things. (I
Hello,
Do you have an updated version of the patch?
2016-10-18 20:41 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> > The term "subscription" is confusing me
>
> Yes, you're right. "container" is too general I think, so I renamed
> everything
> to "subscripting".
>
There is another occur
On 6/7/16 2:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/7/16 1:19 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> How about the following case, Do we treat them as same or different?
>>
>> select 'fe80::%eth1'::inet = 'fe80::%ETH1'::inet;
>>
>> fe80::%2/64 is only treated as the valid address but not other way as
>> fe80::
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
>> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
>> experience in this matter, I would like
On 11/2/16 12:24 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> I propose to change the psql \d output a bit, best shown with an example:
>>
>> \d persons3
>> - Table "public.persons3"
>> - Column | Type |Modifiers
>> -+-+-
Hi,
On 11/02/2016 01:38 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
While replaying the delete/vacuum record on standby, it can conflict
with some already running queries. Basically the replay can remove
some row which can be visible on standby. You need to resolve
conflicts similar to what we do in btree dele
Le 03/11/2016 à 16:15, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> What it comes down to is I don't buy the adequacy of the
>> ".csv" suffix test and think that "keeping things simple" now
>> is a recipe for future breakage, or at least significant future
>> co
On 10/31/16 1:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 2) For 0002 and pg_test_fsync, I am seeing a missing entry:
> printf(NA_FORMAT, "n/a*\n");
ok
> 4) 0004 and pg_upgrade... In check.c, three places like that:
> if (!db_used)
> {
> fprintf(script, "Databa
Hi,
> What about the patch attached to make things more consistent?
I have reviewed this patch. It does serve the purpose and looks sane
to me. I am marking it as ready for committer.
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing lis
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>> Sure, the Gather node creates it. There's generally only one per
>> query, though, and that's how most information is communicated from
>> leader to workers.
>
> Ah, right. I haven't realized there's just a single Gather per query.
That's no
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> As for which parts of the system need to know about these implicit
> partition constraints to *enforce* them for data integrity, we could say
> that it's really just one site - ExecConstraints() called from
> ExecInsert()/ExecUpdate().
Well, t
On 11/03/2016 03:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 11/01/2016 08:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Damn! You're right of course. Who'd guess I need more coffee this early?
Attached is a fix replaci
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> OK, I changed things so that DROP TABLE a_partition no longer complains
> about requiring to detach first. Much like how index_drop() locks the
> parent table ('parent' in a different sense, of course) and later
> invalidates its relcache, hea
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, I'm not sure we've exactly reached consensus here, and you're
>> making me feel like I just kicked a puppy.
>
> It was hyperbole. I hope you found it as funny to read as I did to wri
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, marllius ribeiro
wrote:
> This was my first test which had help Gerdan.
>
> I did some tests and found nothing special. The stated resource is
> implemented correctly.
> He passes all regression tests and enables the use of the new features
> specified.
Committed
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:46 AM, wrote:
> El 2016-10-28 07:53, Amit Langote escribió:
>> @@ -6267,6 +6416,12 @@ ATAddForeignKeyConstraint(AlteredTableInfo *tab,
>> Relation rel,
>> * Validity checks (permission checks wait till we have the column
>> * numbers)
>> */
>> +
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Tatsuro Yamada
wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>> You are right. Every call except that one is using NIL, so better to
>> fix it. The pattern was repeated in the recent aggregate pushdown
>> support. Here's patch to fix create_foreignscan_path() call in
>> add_foreign_groupi
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> There are plenty of patches that are in "ready for committer" state,
> committers please have a look at those patches and give some conclusion
> on them.
Yes, we really need some more committer attention on a lot of these
patches. I've been
On 11/2/16 1:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the right thing is likely to be to copy the presented bytea
> into a palloc'd (and therefore properly aligned) buffer. And not
> just in this one function.
Does the attached look reasonable?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.co
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sounak Chakraborty wrote:
> Row level security feature implementation in Postgres is through policy and
> the row security qualifier is attached as a subquery to the main query before
> query planning. The RLS is implemented through ALTER TABLE STATEMENT.
> But m
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> What it comes down to is I don't buy the adequacy of the
> ".csv" suffix test and think that "keeping things simple" now
> is a recipe for future breakage, or at least significant future
> complication and confusion when it come to processing
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> I don't think I've suggested not committing any of the clog patches (or
> other patches in general) because shifting the contention somewhere else
> might cause regressions. At the end of the last CF I've however stated that
> we need to bette
On 11/2/16 3:33 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Add make rules to download raw Unicode mapping files
>>
>> This serves as implicit documentation and is handy if someone wants to
>> tweak things. The rules are not part of a normal build, lik
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 08:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn! You're right of course. Who'd guess I need more coffee this early?
>>>
>>> Attached is a fix replacing the flag with an array
Craig's post yesterday about exposing syntax for disabling indexes reminded
me of another feature I think we're lacking in areas where we have to do
table management.
The issue is to create a *something* that has the exact permissions of
another *something*. Usually it's creating a table related t
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
> experience in this matter, I would like to be certain that nothings breaks
> in recovery tests afte
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Although - it is estimating 1M rows, but only "per worker" estimates are
> shown, and because there are 2 workers planned it says 1M/2.4 which is the
> 416k. I agree it's a bit unclear, but at least it's consistent with how we
> treat loops (i
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
>> confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
>
> I got confused by that a minute ago, so no you're not alone. The problem
> is e
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm not interested in committing this patch. I don't believe it is an
>> improvement on what we've got today.
>> Tom, any chance you could offer an opinion?
>
> I have no objection to this patch as such, but I think that t
>
>
> ALTER TABLE my_table
> DISABLE INDEX ALL;
>
+1
This very thing came up in a conversation with PeterG early last year. I
was in favor then and I was surprised that the only thing standing in the
way was a lack of ALTER TABLE syntax.
Creating temporary data structures to mimic existing met
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> I've updated the patch for review.
>
If an inconsistency is found, it'll just log it for now. Once, the
patch is finalized, we can
change it to FATAL as before. I was making sure that all regression
tests should pass with the patch.
It seems th
Hi,
this is a first review of this patch.
As a feature, I think this functionality is very welcome. Having to
schedule a downtime in order to enable SSL or change the SSL certificate
is a nuisance and it might make admins think twice, reducing security.
The patch applies cleanly (modulo fuzz in
On 21 October 2016 at 19:38, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote:
> Craig, Andres what do you thinks about previous message?
I haven't had a chance to look further to be honest.
Since a downstream disconnect works, though it's ugly, it's not
something I can justify spending a lot of time on, and I already
I've updated the patch for review.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
walconsistency_v12.patch
Description: application/download
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.post
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> By the way, I'm a bit skeptical whether this enhancement is really beneficial
> than works for this enhancement, because we can now easily increase the number
> of processor cores to run seq-scan with qualifier, especially, when it has
> high
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> BTW is it really a good idea to use nloops to track the number of workers
> executing a given node? How will that work if once we get parallel nested
> loops and index scans?
We already have parallel nested loops with inner index scans.
--
R
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> It looks like for about 3 years, PL/Java has been calling
> InitializeTimeouts before calling RegisterTimeout. Looking over
> the callers of InitializeTimeouts in core, though, it appears
> that an extension like PL/Java should be able to ass
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Ah, nuts. Thanks, good catch. Should be fixed in the attached version.
>
> I repeated the test on new patch, It works fine now, Also did some more
> negative tests forcibly failing some inte
On 02/11/16 17:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/24/16 9:22 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> I added one more prerequisite patch (the first one) which adds ephemeral
>> slots (or well implements UI on top of the code that was mostly already
>> there). The ephemeral slots are different in that they go a
Change "even large" to "even larger" because it is used in a comparison.
> ... a reasonable starting value for shared_buffers is 25%
> of the memory in your system. There are some workloads where even large
> settings
> for shared_buffers are effective, ...
... are some workloads where even larg
Thanks every body for the detailed advise.
Let me try replacing latches by condition variables.
I will report the results here.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 2 November 2016 at 02:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Abbas Butt
> wrote:
> >> H
El 2016-10-28 07:53, Amit Langote escribió:
@@ -6267,6 +6416,12 @@ ATAddForeignKeyConstraint(AlteredTableInfo *tab,
Relation rel,
* Validity checks (permission checks wait till we have the column
* numbers)
*/
+ if (pkrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Oleksandr Shulgin
wrote:
> Hi Hackers!
>
> When using psql interactively one might be tempted to guard potentially
> destructive commands such as "UPDATE / DELETE / DROP " by starting
> the input line with an explicit "BEGIN; ...". This has the added benefit
> tha
Hi,
There's two things I found while working on faster expression
evaluation, slot deforming and batched execution. As those two issues
often seemed quite dominant cost-wise it seemed worthwhile to evaluate
them independently.
1) We atm do one ExecProject() to compute each aggregate's
argument
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Adam Brusselback
wrote:
>> There may be some situations where crawling the indexes a row at a
>> time will perform better than this by enough to want to retain that
>> option.
>
> If an index existed, wouldn't it still be able to use that in the set-based
> implemen
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> [ new patches ]
>
> I looked over parts of this today, mostly the hashinsert.c changes.
>
> +/*
> + * Copy bucket mapping info now; The comment in _hash_expandtable where
> +
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> So, whenever we are required to use bimg_info flag, we should make
> sure that has_image
> is set.
OK, we are taking past each other here. There are two possible patterns:
- has_image is set, not apply, meaning that the image block is used
for
> Here is the updated version, which includes the restructuring you proposed.
> Other than the above issue and the alias issue we discussed, I addressed all
> your comments except one on testing; I tried to add test cases where the
> remote query is deparsed as nested subqueries, but I couldn't bec
Hi Takayuki-san,
IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and
generalised starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as
follow:
-If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM, a
-reasonable starting value for shared_buffers is 25%
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> Actually, I just verified that bimg_info is not even valid if
>> has_image is not set.
>> In DecodeXLogRecord, we initialize bimg_info only when has_image flag
>> is set. So, keeping
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> Actually, I just verified that bimg_info is not even valid if
> has_image is not set.
> In DecodeXLogRecord, we initialize bimg_info only when has_image flag
> is set. So, keeping them
> separate doesn't look a good approach to me. If we keep t
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> I'm not getting why we should introduce a new redo action and return
> from the function beforehand.
Per my last email, same conclusion from here :)
Sorry if I am picky and noisy on many points, I am trying to think
about the value of each cha
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say
>> SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case.
>
> I just took 5 minutes to look at the code a
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say
> SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case.
I just took 5 minutes to look at the code and reason about it, and
something like what your patch is doing w
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> -/* If it's a full-page image, restore it. */
>>> -if (XLogRecHasBlockImage(record, block_id))
>>> +/* If full-page i
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In 9.6, "make installcheck" in contrib/postgres_fdw takes a shade
> under 3 seconds on my machine. In HEAD, it's taking 10 seconds.
> I am not happy, especially not since there's no parallelization
> of the contrib regression tests. That's a di
Kindly ignore this, i've added this note to original thread.
Sorry for noise.
Regards,
Amul
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Samuel D. Leslie wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I’d like to submit the attached patch for feedback from the PostgreSQL
> community and potential future inclusion in the codebase. The patch adds a
> new parameter to the RADIUS authentication method named “radiustimeo
Hi Guillaume,
With your v2 patch, -B options working as expected but --no-blobs
options is still unrecognized, this happens is because of you have
forgot to add entry for 'no-blobs' in long_options[] array.
Apart from this concern patch looks good to me. Thanks
Regards,
Amul
--
Sent via pgsql
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
>>> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
>>> experience in this matter, I would
80 matches
Mail list logo
