[HACKERS] Remove pre-10 compatibility code in hash index

Commit ea69a0dead5128c421140dc53fac165ba4af8520 has bumped the hash index version and obviates the need for backward compatibility code added by commit 293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2. The same has been mentioned in the commit message, please find attached patch to remove the pre-10

Re: [HACKERS] Time based lag tracking for logical replication

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:07:26AM +, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:28:53AM +0200, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 23 April 2017 at 01:10, Petr Jelinek > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The time based lag tracking commit [1] added interface for logging

Re: [HACKERS] modeling parallel contention (was: Parallel Append implementation)

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, David Rowley wrote: > > We really need a machine with good IO concurrency, and not too much > RAM to test these things out. It could well be that for a suitability > large enough table we'd want to scan a whole 1GB extent per worker.

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/2/17 21:44, Noah Misch wrote: >>> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they >>> are dumped by default, just like we have --no-blobs, --no-owner, >>> --no-password,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [Pkg-postgresql-public] Debian "postgresql-common" config check issue with pg10

Hallo Christoph, I've relaxed the regexps there. It's still not exactly what the PG parser accepts, but I think it's a superset now, so we should be safe. Will it be released with the next pg10dev compilation? The answer is "yes", and it works as expected. Vielen Dank again for the fix!

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

On 5/8/17 23:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The way this uses RESTRICT and CASCADE appears to be backwards from its > usual meaning. Normally, CASCADE when dropping an object that is still > used by others will cause those other objects to be dropped. The > equivalent here would be DROP

Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On 5/1/17 08:10, David Rowley wrote: > On 20 April 2017 at 07:29, Euler Taveira wrote: >> 2017-04-19 1:32 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier : >>> >>> I vote for "location" -> "lsn". I would expect complains about the >>> current inconsistency at some

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

On 5/8/17 17:55, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 08/05/17 22:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/5/17 13:01, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> What do you think of attached. I actually did add RESTRICT/CASCADE, in a >>> way that if there is slot RESTRICT will refuse to drop subscription and >>> CASCADE will try to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

On 2017/05/08 12:42, Stephen Frost wrote: > Amit, > > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >> Thanks for committing the patch after improving it quite a bit, and sorry >> that I couldn't reply promptly during the last week due to vacation. > > No worries, hopefully you have an

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 08/05/17 17:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Petr Jelinek >> wrote: >>> On 03/05/17 13:23, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2017-05-03 08:17, Petr Jelinek

Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

On 2017-05-05 02:00, Andres Freund wrote: Could you have a look? Running tests with these three patches: 0001-WIP-Fix-off-by-one-around-GetLastImportantRecPtr.patch+ 0002-WIP-Possibly-more-robust-snapbuild-approach.patch + fix-statistics-reporting-in-logical-replication-work.patch

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

On 08/05/17 22:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/5/17 13:01, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> What do you think of attached. I actually did add RESTRICT/CASCADE, in a >> way that if there is slot RESTRICT will refuse to drop subscription and >> CASCADE will try to drop it. Still all errors. >> >> The new

Re: [HACKERS] Google Summer Of Code 2017 & PostgreSQL

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:54:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings! > > I am very pleased to be able to announce that the PostgreSQL project has > been approved for 4 GSoC projects this year! Thanks for the hard work! Google's process has gotten a lot more rigorous over the years, and

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes

Hello, st->cnt -- number of transactions finished successed or failed, right? Or *skipped*. That is why I changed the declaration comment. one iteration of for(;;) is for one transaction or really less. Right? No, under -R -L late schedules are simply skipped. We can't process two

Re: [HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

On 5/7/17 04:21, Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

On 5/5/17 13:01, Petr Jelinek wrote: > What do you think of attached. I actually did add RESTRICT/CASCADE, in a > way that if there is slot RESTRICT will refuse to drop subscription and > CASCADE will try to drop it. Still all errors. > > The new way to not drop slot is to set slot_name to NONE

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes

В письме от 8 мая 2017 22:08:51 пользователь Fabien COELHO написал: > >while (thread->throttle_trigger < now_us - > >latency_limit && > > > > /* with -t, do not overshoot */ > > (nxacts

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > It yields > > CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF test DEFAULT PARTITION BY LIST(b); > > This reads to me like "DEFAULT PARTITION". > > I can imagine a lot of confusion when those queries are encountered in the > wild. I know this

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes

Hello Alvaro, Here is a v3, with less files. I cannot say I find it better, but it still works. The "command_likes" function has been renamed "command_checks". Do parts of this need to be backpatched? I would not bother too much about backpatching. I notice that you're patching

[HACKERS] Re: [Pkg-postgresql-public] Debian "postgresql-common" config check issue with pg10

Hallo Christoph, password_encryption = scram-sha-256 Hmm. Naïvely I would have assumed this would be missing quotes :) That what I thought at first, but the comments, documentation and code were saying otherwise, so I dug into debian packaging instead. I've relaxed the regexps there.

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

Hi Robert, Thanks for your explnation. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > > While reviewing the code I was trying to explore more cases, and I here > > comes an > >

Re: [HACKERS] Not getting error if ALTER SUBSCRIPTION syntax is wrong.

On 5/6/17 08:44, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> We could check validity of the connection string though to complain >> immediately like we do in CREATE. > > The attached does exactly that. committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,

[HACKERS] Re: [Pkg-postgresql-public] Debian "postgresql-common" config check issue with pg10

Re: Fabien COELHO 2017-05-08 > Thus I naïvely added: > > password_encryption = scram-sha-256 Hmm. Naïvely I would have assumed this would be missing quotes :) > The result is: > > Error: Invalid line 88 in /etc/postgresql/10/main/postgresql.conf:

[HACKERS] Debian "postgresql-common" config check issue with pg10

Hello Peter, Although this is really a small debian packaging issue, I cc to pgdev because it illustrates unintended consequences of trivial changes. Thanks (again!) to the great and up-to-date apt.postgresql.org repository, I've tried to test the new scram-sha-256 feature. For that I

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes

Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Here is a v3, with less files. I cannot say I find it better, but it still > works. > > The "command_likes" function has been renamed "command_checks". Do parts of this need to be backpatched? I notice that you're patching pgbench.c, probably to fix some bug(s); is the

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

On 2017-05-08 12:28:38 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/8/17 02:58, Noah Misch wrote: > > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due > > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > > item ownership[1] and then reply

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

On 5/8/17 02:58, Noah Misch wrote: > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by > 2017-05-09 07:00 UTC, I

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c

On 08/05/17 18:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/5/17 07:13, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Yes that's different thing that we've been discussing a bit in snapbuild >> woes thread. >> >>> the 'TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c' anymore. >>> >>> (If there is any other configuration of patches worth

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c

On 08/05/17 17:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Petr Jelinek > wrote: >> On 03/05/17 13:23, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>> On 2017-05-03 08:17, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 02/05/17 20:43, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > While reviewing the code I was trying to explore more cases, and I here > comes an > open question to my mind: > should we allow the default partition table to be partitioned further? I think yes. In general,

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

On 5/6/17 14:50, Noah Misch wrote: >> I consider this item low priority and don't plan to work on it before >> all the other open items under logical replication are addressed. >> >> (Here, working on it would include thinking further about whether it is >> necessary at all or what alternatives

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c

On 5/5/17 07:13, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Yes that's different thing that we've been discussing a bit in snapbuild > woes thread. > >> the 'TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c' anymore. >> >> (If there is any other configuration of patches worth testing please let >> me know) > > Thanks, so the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 03/05/17 13:23, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> On 2017-05-03 08:17, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 02/05/17 20:43, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> > code path that calls

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Incremental sort is faster in vast majority of cases. It appears to be > slower only when whose dataset is one sort group. In this case incremental > sort is useless, and it should be considered as misuse of

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication ApplyContext bloat

On 5/5/17 03:09, Noah Misch wrote: > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication ApplyContext bloat

I'm not sure about some of the details. I think it would make more sense to reset ApplyMessageContext in apply_dispatch(), so that it is done consistently after every message (as the name implies), not only some messages. Also, perhaps ApplyMessageContext should be a child of

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range

> + else \ > + (snapshotdata).xmin = \ > + TransactionIdLimitedForOldSnapshots(RecentGlobalDataXmin, \ > + relation); \ > > I think we don't need to use TransactionIdLimitedForOldSnapshots() as > that is required to override xmin for table vacuum/pruning purposes. > >> Maybe we need >> to use

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:18:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> On Tue,

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in snapmgr.c

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> So rearranged code a little to keep it lean. > > Didn't you break it with that? As it now stands, the memcpy will > copy the nonzero value. > Right, I'd missed it. That code

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:18:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > I

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov wrote: > > I think we can use RecentGlobalDataXmin for non-catalog relations and > RecentGlobalXmin for catalog relations (probably a check similar to > what we have in heap_page_prune_opt). > > > I took check from

Re: [HACKERS] Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage()

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 7:27 PM, David Rowley wrote: > > I've also noticed that both the atomics patch and unpatched master do > something that looks a bit weird with synchronous seq-scans. If the > parallel seq-scan piggybacked on another scan, then subsequent >

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

Hi, On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> >> Please note that these patches needs to be applied on top of [1]. >> > > Few more review comments: > > 1. > - page =

Re: [HACKERS] Detecting schema changes during logical replication

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Sounds like you're reimplementing pglogical > (http://2ndquadrant.com/pglogical) on top of a json protocol. The fact the protocol is JSON is more a detail, but it's a good start as it's human-readable. > [...]

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in snapmgr.c

Simon Riggs writes: > So rearranged code a little to keep it lean. Didn't you break it with that? As it now stands, the memcpy will copy the nonzero value. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range

I think we can use RecentGlobalDataXmin for non-catalog relations andRecentGlobalXmin for catalog relations (probably a check similar towhat we have in heap_page_prune_opt).I took check from heap_page_prune_opt (Maybe this check must be present as separate function?)But it requires to initialize

Re: [HACKERS] no test coverage for ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER name HANDLER ...

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: > Hackers, > > just FYI, I cannot find any regression test coverage of this part of the > grammar, not > even in the contrib/ directory or TAP tests. I was going to submit a patch > to help out, > and discovered it is

Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:36:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > >> Do any of the committers who voted for this change feel inclined to > >> pick this patch up? > > > I'll echo that

Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc

2017-05-08 12:59 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > After giving it some thoughts, I see three possible solutions: >>> >>> 0. Do nothing about it. >>>I would prefer the prepare is cleaned up. >>> >>> 1. assign a special name, eg "_psql_gdesc_", so that >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2017-05-08 13:13, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>> >>> On 2017-05-08 11:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >>> >>> FWIW, running >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On 2017-05-08 13:13, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2017-05-08 11:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: FWIW, running 0001-WIP-Fix-off-by-one-around-GetLastImportantRecPtr.patch+ 0002-WIP-Possibly-more-robust-snapbuild-approach.patch

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication deranged sender

On 08/05/17 01:17, Jeff Janes wrote: > After dropping a subscription, it says it succeeded and that it dropped > the slot on the publisher. > > But the publisher still has the slot, and a full-tilt process described > by ps as > > postgres: wal sender process jjanes [local] idle in transaction

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On 08/05/17 11:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > I encountered a situation where DROP SUBSCRIPTION got stuck when > initial table sync is in progress. In my environment, I created > several tables with some data on publisher. I created subscription on > subscriber and drop subscription

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

Hello Jan, Please give a number to submitted patches. I think that this was v3. The patch does NOT fix various issues I pointed out in my previous review: - tabs introduced in "doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml" - too long help line in "src/bin/psql/help.c" - spurious space after a comma in

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2017-05-08 11:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I encountered a situation where DROP SUBSCRIPTION got stuck when >> initial table sync is in progress. In my environment, I created >> several tables with some data on

Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc

Hello Pavel, After giving it some thoughts, I see three possible solutions: 0. Do nothing about it. I would prefer the prepare is cleaned up. 1. assign a special name, eg "_psql_gdesc_", so that DEALLOCATE "_psql_gdesc_" can be issued afterwards. [...] The doc says about unnamed

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

Hello Jan, Please give a number to submitted patches. I think that this was v3. The patch does NOT fix various issues I pointed out in my previous review: - tabs introduced in "doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml" - too long help

Re: [HACKERS] password_encryption, default and 'plain' support

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 05/06/2017 01:56 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: >> On 06/05/17 22:44, Vik Fearing wrote: >>> On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: +This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards +compatibility. Isn't

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On 2017-05-08 11:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: Hi, I encountered a situation where DROP SUBSCRIPTION got stuck when initial table sync is in progress. In my environment, I created several tables with some data on publisher. I created subscription on subscriber and drop subscription immediately

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 19:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (Or, wait a minute. That documentation only applies to v10, but we >>> need to be writing this relnote for 9.6 users. What terminology should >>> we be using

[HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

Hi, I encountered a situation where DROP SUBSCRIPTION got stuck when initial table sync is in progress. In my environment, I created several tables with some data on publisher. I created subscription on subscriber and drop subscription immediately after that. It doesn't always happen but I often

Re: [HACKERS] May cause infinite loop when initializing rel-cache contains partitioned table

Hi, On 2017/05/05 17:26, 甄明洋 wrote: > The function of initializing rel-cache is RelationCacheInitializePhase3 and > in src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c file. > When initializing the partition description information, we forget to check > if partition key or descriptor is NULL. > Therefore,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Craig Ringer > On 13 April 2017 at 14:59, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > > 2. Make transaction_read_only GUC_REPORT This is to avoid the added > > round-trip by

Re: [HACKERS] password_encryption, default and 'plain' support

On 05/05/2017 03:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: +This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards +compatibility. Isn't that incorrect English? It seems to me that this be non-plural, as "for backward compatibility". I changed most cases to "backward compatibility",

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

>I am not able add a new partition if default partition is further partitioned >with default partition. Thanks for reporting. I will fix this. >pg_restore is failing for default partition, dump file still storing old syntax of default partition. Thanks for reporting . I will fix this once the

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in snapmgr.c

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 8 May 2017 at 06:28, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Attached patch for $subject. >> >> s/recovey/recovery/ > > There was a typo, but the comment itself was slightly wrong and also >

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in snapmgr.c

On 8 May 2017 at 06:28, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > Attached patch for $subject. > > s/recovey/recovery/ There was a typo, but the comment itself was slightly wrong and also duplicated with another comment further down. So rearranged code a little to keep it lean.

Re: [HACKERS] password_encryption, default and 'plain' support

On 05/06/2017 01:56 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: On 06/05/17 22:44, Vik Fearing wrote: On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: +This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards +compatibility. Isn't that incorrect English? No. It seems to me that this be

Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc

Hi 2017-05-08 9:08 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > A complement to my previous comments: > > Also, maybe it would be better if the statement is cleaned up server side >> at the end of the execution. Not sure how to achieve that, though, libpq >> seems to lack

Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

On May 3, 2017 10:45:16 PM PDT, Noah Misch wrote: >On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:42:58PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> >> On April 27, 2017 9:34:44 PM PDT, Noah Misch >wrote: >> >On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:36:21PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On

Re: [HACKERS] proposal psql \gdesc

Hello Pavel, A complement to my previous comments: Also, maybe it would be better if the statement is cleaned up server side at the end of the execution. Not sure how to achieve that, though, libpq seems to lack the relevant function:-( """although there is no libpq function for deleting

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 11:50:16AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:01:57AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 5/2/17 21:44, Noah Misch wrote: > > >> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they > > >> are dumped by default, just like we have

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

On 2017/05/03 6:30, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the >> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case >> of

Re: [HACKERS] Transition tables for triggers on foreign tables and views

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 06:58:35PM +, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 06:06:47PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > They will fire if you have an INSTEAD OF row-level trigger; the existence > > > of

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:02:46PM +, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:29:29PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 4/30/17 04:05, Noah Misch wrote: > > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > > > since you committed the patch believed to

Re: [HACKERS] Not getting error if ALTER SUBSCRIPTION syntax is wrong.

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 02:44:27PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 05/05/17 19:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > On 05/05/17 14:40, tushar wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> While testing 'logical replication' against v10 , i encountered one > >> issue where data stop migrating after ALTER PUBLICATION. > >> > >>