Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:33 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 9/18/17 7:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 8/31/17 11:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Here is an updated patch with refreshed

Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Xin Zhang wrote: > If primary crashed at that moment, and failover to standby, the foo table is > lost, even though the replication is synced according to > `pg_stat_replication` view. GUC parameters are reloaded each time a query is run, and

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Or we could make upgradecheck a noop, then remove it once all the MSVC > animals have upgraded to a newer version of the buildfarm client which > does not use upgradecheck anymore (I am fine to send a patch or a

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

Hi, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017, Michael Paquier wrote: >Attached is a set of 3 patches: I tried to review the patch and firstly patch applies cleanly without any noise. >- 0001 removes ALLOW_DANGEROUS_LO_FUNCTIONS I think it is better to remove

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I'd think about adjusting the comments the proper way for each AM so > as one can read those comments and catch any limitation immediately. > The fact this has not been pointed out on this thread before any >

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_basebackup and 'shared' tablespace

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > All my apologies for the schockingly long time with no answer on this topic. No problem. That's the concept called life I suppose. > I will do my best to help review some patches in the current CF. Thanks for the

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2017-09-11 14:44 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement > >> SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt > >> e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

Hello Masahiko-san, Attached the latest version patch incorporated the tap tests. Please review it. Patch applies, compilation & make check ok. Tests are simple and provide good coverage of new functionalities. I would suggest to add '--unlogged-tables' so speedup the tests a little.

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> >> >> You have already noticed above

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Attached patch fixes these problems. > > Hmm, this patch adds a kill(notify_pid) after one call to > ForgetBackgroundWorker, but the postmaster has several more such calls. >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

On 2017-09-11 15:02:21 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > >> On 09/08/2017 09:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Like you, I'm a bit worried about the code for extracting an exit > >>> status from

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

> On 2017-09-10 17:12:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-09-11 09:10:49 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> > If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch? >> >> Ok, will do so. > > And, done. Thanks for patch and reminder! Thanks! -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English:

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-09-10 17:12:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-11 09:10:49 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > If you don't mind, can you please commit/push the patch? > > Ok, will do so. And, done. Thanks for patch and reminder! - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro > > wrote: > >> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch]

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Very very minor comments that I should have noticed before, sorry for this additional round trip. >>> >>> >>> Thank you for

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> [ssi-parallel-v5.patch] > > Rebased. Rebased again. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Doug Doole writes: >> Looks good to me. >> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Pushed. Grepping found a few more places that should be changed to > use these macros rather than

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind vs. shared typmod registry

Hi, On 2017-09-18 18:04:36 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > Here is a patch to fix that. > > Here's a better one (same code, corrected commit message). Pushed. For a second I was tempted to also replace the

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Uh, why does the planner need to be involved at all? >> >> Because it

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-04-01 03:05:07 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> [ lots of valuable discussion ] > > I think this patch clearly still is in the

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On 9/18/17 7:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 8/31/17 11:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Here is an updated patch with refreshed documentation, as a result of >>> 449338c which was discussed in thread >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/31/17 11:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Here is an updated patch with refreshed documentation, as a result of >> 449338c which was discussed in thread >>

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

Hi Michael, On 8/31/17 11:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Here is an updated patch with refreshed documentation, as a result of > 449338c which was discussed in thread > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d4d951b9-89c0-6bc1-b6ff-d0b2dd5a8...@pgmasters.net. > I am just outlining the fact that

[HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication

By setting up synchronized replication between primary and standby, commits on primary should be blocked by function `SyncRepWaitForLSN()` until its effects replicated to the standby. Currently, `SyncRepWaitForLSN()` fast exits if the `SyncStandbysDefined()` is false, which means GUC

[HACKERS] CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it?

As I pointed out a couple of times already [1], we don't currently sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags within CREATE COLLATION. CREATE COLLATION will accept literally any string as a language tag as things stand, even when the string is unambiguously bogus. While I accept that there are limits on

[HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 Logical and Fisical replication

Hi guys I am working with Postgres9.6 with a Master/Slave cluster replication using Streaming replication. I would like to add a new Slave server database but this database with logical replication . I tried with some configurations but it was not possible :(

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

On Monday, September 18, 2017 5:13:38 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote: > Ryan Murphy writes: > > Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me. > > Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly > > via atoi / atol to be read as strings first, to give

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

På mandag 18. september 2017 kl. 16:28:07, skrev Bruce Momjian >: On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 11:36:40PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > På lørdag 16. september 2017 kl. 18:34:51, skrev Bruce Momjian < > br...@momjian.us>: >     No.  If you ran

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Uh, why does the planner need to be involved at all? > > Because it loses if the Bloom filter fails to filter anything. That's > not at all

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

Ryan Murphy writes: > Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me. > Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly via > atoi / atol > to be read as strings first, to give better error handling. > > This looks good to go to me. Reviewing this

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Uh, why does the planner need to be involved at all? Because it loses if the Bloom filter fails to filter anything. That's not at all far-fetched; consider SELECT * FROM a.x, b.x WHERE a.x = b.x given a foreign key on a.x

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > partition pruning might need partexprs look up relevant quals, but > nullable_partexprs doesn't have any use there. So may be we should add > nullable_partexpr to RelOptInfo as part of 0002 (partition-wise

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

Doug Doole writes: > Looks good to me. > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer Pushed. Grepping found a few more places that should be changed to use these macros rather than referencing btpo_flags directly, so I did that. I tend to agree with Alvaro that

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > 3. Gather Merge and Parallel Hash Join may have a deadlock problem. > Since Gather Merge needs to block waiting for tuples, but workers wait > for all participants (including the leader) to reach barriers.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Make ExplainBeginGroup()/ExplainEndGroup() public.

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> The patch is a kind of straightforward and looks fine for me. > +1 for this change. LGTM too, pushed. regards, tom lane --

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-09-18 12:16:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I don't understand what you're talking about here. > I often see a backend crash, psql reacting to that crash by > reconnecting, successfully establish a new connection, just to be kicked > off by

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

Mark Dilger writes: > I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and > contrib/. > Find the patch, attached. All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop. Pushed after some rebasing and some minor additional editorialization. The original point

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

On 2017-09-18 12:16:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > One thing that I've noticed for a while, but that I was reminded of > > again here. We very frequently allow psql to reconnect in case of crash, > > just for postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] psql: new help related to variables are not too readable

2017-09-18 11:44 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > I am looking on man pagers - and there are very well readable > > > > The rules are simply - when some variables are short - less than 6 chars, > > then it description and label are on same line.

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/005_encoding.pl is broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-09-18 11:50:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason seems to be that its method of waiting for replication >> to happen is completely inapropos. It's watching for the master >> to say that the slave has received all the WAL, but that does not

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/005_encoding.pl is broken

Hi, On 2017-09-18 11:50:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The reason seems to be that its method of waiting for replication > to happen is completely inapropos. It's watching for the master > to say that the slave has received all the WAL, but that does not > ensure that the logicalrep apply workers

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >>> (2) We could push a Bloom filter down to scans >>> (many other databases do this, and

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> (2) We could push a Bloom filter down to scans >> (many other databases do this, and at least one person has tried this >> with PostgreSQL and found it to pay

Re: [HACKERS] Reporting query on crash even if completed

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Now, for pg_stat_activity part of the argument why this wouldn't be > > confusing was that you could also see the "state" field. Maybe we > >

Re: [HACKERS] Reporting query on crash even if completed

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Now, for pg_stat_activity part of the argument why this wouldn't be >> confusing was that you could also see the "state" field. Maybe we >> should try to shoehorn equivalent info

Re: [HACKERS] Boom filters for hash joins (was: A design for amcheck heapam verification)

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Indeed. Thank you for working on this! To summarise a couple of > ideas that Peter and I discussed off-list a while back: (1) While > building the hash table for a hash join we could build a Bloom filter >

Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 09/15/2017 06:55 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> I can't build against gnutls-2.12.23-21.el6.x86_64 from CentOS 6.9 >> > > Thanks for testing my patch. I have fixed both these issues plus some of > the other feedback. A

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]make pg_rewind to not copy useless WAL files

At 2017-09-17 08:33:33, "Michael Paquier" wrote: >On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 5:56 PM, chenhj wrote: >>> >>> This patch optimizes the above mentioned

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add citext_pattern_ops to citext contrib module

On 09/18/2017 12:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexey Chernyshov writes: >> Do we need expected/citext.out? It seems that only >> expected/citext_1.out has correct output. > Well, for me, citext.out matches the results in C locale, > and citext_1.out matches the results

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

On 16 September 2017 at 21:27, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-16 15:59:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> This does not seem like a problem that justifies a system-wide change >> that's much more delicate than you thought. +1 The change/reason ratio is too high. -- Simon

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add citext_pattern_ops to citext contrib module

Alexey Chernyshov writes: > Do we need expected/citext.out? It seems that only > expected/citext_1.out has correct output. Well, for me, citext.out matches the results in C locale, and citext_1.out matches the results in en_US. If you don't satisfy both of those

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

Amit Kapila writes: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The subscriber log includes >> 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] WARNING: out of background worker slots >> Maybe that's harmless, but I'm suspicious that it's a smoking gun.

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

Amit Kapila writes: > Attached patch fixes these problems. Hmm, this patch adds a kill(notify_pid) after one call to ForgetBackgroundWorker, but the postmaster has several more such calls. Shouldn't they all notify the notify_pid? Should we move that functionality into

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > One thing that I've noticed for a while, but that I was reminded of > again here. We very frequently allow psql to reconnect in case of crash, > just for postmaster to notice a child has gone and kill that session. I >

Re: [HACKERS] Reporting query on crash even if completed

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Now, for pg_stat_activity part of the argument why this wouldn't be > confusing was that you could also see the "state" field. Maybe we > should try to shoehorn equivalent info into the crash log entry? Yeah, I think so.

[HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/005_encoding.pl is broken

To reproduce the subscription-startup hang that Thomas Munro observed, I changed src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c like this: @@ -427,7 +427,8 @@ retry: bgw.bgw_notify_pid = MyProcPid; bgw.bgw_main_arg = Int32GetDatum(slot); - if

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 09/18/2017 04:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Private: Not so much. Well, as much as the Internet is actually private: https://ilccyberreport.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nsa11.jpg JD ;) -- Command Prompt, Inc. ||

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 09/15/2017 02:30 AM, amul sul wrote: Attached rebased patch, thanks. While reading through the patch I thought it would be better to keep MODULUS and REMAINDER in caps, if CREATE TABLE was in caps too in order to highlight that these are "keywords" for hash partition. Also updated some

Re: [HACKERS] compress method for spgist - 2

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > >>> Poorly, by hanging boxes that straddled dividing lines off the parent > >>> node in a big linear list. The hope would be that the

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> On 12 September 2017 at 12:39, Amit Khandekar wrote: >>> On 12 September 2017 at 11:57, Dilip Kumar

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> In this build you can see the output of the following at the end, >> which might provide clues to the initiated. You might need to click a >> small triangle to unfold

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

I wrote: > The subscriber log includes > 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] WARNING: out of background worker slots > 2017-09-18 08:43:08.240 UTC [15672] HINT: You might need to increase > max_worker_processes. > Maybe that's harmless, but I'm suspicious that it's a smoking gun. Actually:

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 11:36:40PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > På lørdag 16. september 2017 kl. 18:34:51, skrev Bruce Momjian < > br...@momjian.us>: > No.  If you ran initdb with --waldir on the new primary, you will create > a symbolic link in the PGDATA directory, and a

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

Thomas Munro writes: > In this build you can see the output of the following at the end, > which might provide clues to the initiated. You might need to click a > small triangle to unfold the commands' output. > cat

Re: [HACKERS] additional contrib test suites

On 9/16/17 08:10, David Steele wrote: >>> (5) drop contrib/chkpass altogether, on the grounds that it's too badly >>> designed, and too obsolete crypto-wise, to be useful or supportable. >> crypt() uses the 7 lowest characters, which makes for 7.2e16 values, >> so I would be fine with (5), then

Re: [HACKERS] Reporting query on crash even if completed

Andres Freund writes: > When a backend dies, in a manner triggering a crash restart, we > currently log something like: > DETAIL: Failed process was running: %s > > That used to be only when there's an active query, but since > commit 4f42b546fd87a80be30c53a0f2c897acb826ad52

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

Thanks 2017-09-18 15:33 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gustafsson : > > On 18 Sep 2017, at 15:31, Jan Michálek wrote: > > > > I have`t any new version recently, because i was waiting for new > version. But I will have some time on this in next months. How many time I

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

> On 18 Sep 2017, at 15:31, Jan Michálek wrote: > > I have`t any new version recently, because i was waiting for new version. But > I will have some time on this in next months. How many time I have to next > freeze? The next commitfest runs from 2017-11-01 to

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

I have`t any new version recently, because i was waiting for new version. But I will have some time on this in next months. How many time I have to next freeze? Thanks Je; 2017-09-13 1:14 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gustafsson : > > On 08 May 2017, at 12:02, Fabien COELHO

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 18.09.2017 00:38, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Nikita Glukhov wrote: 0007-json_table-v02.patch: - JSON_TABLE using XMLTABLE infrastructure 0008-json_table-json-v02.patch: - JSON_TABLE support for json type I'm confused ... why are these two patches and not a single one? As I sad before,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

Sorry for the top post. Sounds reasonable to me. Cannot look closely until Tuesday or so. Joe On September 17, 2017 11:29:32 PM PDT, Andres Freund wrote: >On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund

[HACKERS] Re: Error: dsa_area could not attach to a segment that has been freed

Kindly help me with the above thread.. Thanks G. Sai Ram On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:21:33 +0530 Gaddam Sai Ram gaddamsaira...@zohocorp.com wrote Hello everyone, Based on the discussion in the below thread, I built a an extension using DSA(postgres-10 beta-3, linux

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Thanks a lot Robert. >> >> Here are rebased patches. > > I didn't get quite as much time to look at these today as I would

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Private: Not so much. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > And now you missed the "same infrastructure" part. I am sort of aware of that per the list of parameters at the top fe-connect.c, thanks for the reminer :) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 4:15:31 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >> >> >> On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund >>wrote: It seems to me that you are looking more

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >>>It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter >>>here. >> >> I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter >>here. > > I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction here? Env vars and connection > parameters are handled using the same framework in libpq. And using

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Rushabh Lathia > wrote: > > Thanks Amit for the patch. > > > > I reviewed the code changes as well as performed more testing. Patch > > looks good to me. >

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 3:50:17 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >> On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The real problem in this area, to my mind, is that we're not testing >that

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The real problem in this area, to my mind, is that we're not testing that >> code --- either end of it --- in any systematic way. If it's broken it >> could take us quite

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Perform only one ReadControlFile() during startup.

On 2017-09-17 01:07:52 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-16 13:27:05 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > This does not seem like a problem that justifies a system-wide change > > > that's much more delicate than you thought. > > > > We need one more initialization call during crash-restart -

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

> On 18 September 2017 at 11:39, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > I think it would be good to add new catalog table. It may be named as pg_type_sbs or pg_subscripting (second is better I think). > This table may have the fields: > - oid > - sbstype > - sbsinit > - sbsfetch > -

Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

Hi, On 2017-09-18 21:57:04 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > The subscription tests 002_types.pl sometimes hangs for a while and > then times out when run on a Travis CI build VM running Ubuntu Trusty > if --enable-coverage is used. Yea, I saw that too. > I guess it might be a timing/race > problem

[HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment

Hi, The subscription tests 002_types.pl sometimes hangs for a while and then times out when run on a Travis CI build VM running Ubuntu Trusty if --enable-coverage is used. I guess it might be a timing/race problem because I can't think of any mechanism specific to coverage instrumentation except

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The real problem in this area, to my mind, is that we're not testing that > code --- either end of it --- in any systematic way. If it's broken it > could take us quite a while to notice. Independent of the thrust of my question - why aren't we

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest

Hi Thomas, > 1. I didn't have --enable-cassert enabled before. Oops. > 2. It'll now dump a gdb backtrace for any core files found after a > check-world failure (if you can find your way to the build log...). > Thanks to Andres for the GDB scripting for this! > 3. It'll now push gcov results

Re: [HACKERS] psql: new help related to variables are not too readable

Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am looking on man pagers - and there are very well readable > > The rules are simply - when some variables are short - less than 6 chars, > then it description and label are on same line. Between items are empty > line I was having a similar idea. I'm not sure how many

Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

> On 16 Sep 2017, at 01:51, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Gustafsson > wrote: > > On 04 Apr 2017, at 14:58, David Steele > > wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > Just to clarify, do you mean that `CREATE SUBSCRIPTING FOR` would only make > a > dependency record? In this case `DROP SUBSCRIPTING FOR` actually means just > drop an init function. I think it would be good to add new catalog

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Thanks Amit for the patch. > > I reviewed the code changes as well as performed more testing. Patch > looks good to me. > In that case, can you please mark the patch [1] as ready for committer in CF app > Here

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jeevan Chalke < jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Jeevan Chalke < > jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi < >> rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com>

[HACKERS] global indices

Hi, I've just joined the list, as discussion on the [GENERAL] pointed me to a thread here, which I'm very interested in. But I'm not quite at "hacker" level, so pls forgive me if what I'll say is naive for you here. To the point. ... with a little introduction first: On [GENERAL] I've been

Re: [HACKERS] Improving DISTINCT with LooseScan node

> It seems related to this thread? : > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5037A9C5.4030701%40optionshouse.com#5037a9c5.4030...@optionshouse.com > > And this wiki page : https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscan Yep. Now i can see 2 use cases for this feature: 1. DISTINCT queries.

[HACKERS] Reporting query on crash even if completed

Hi, When a backend dies, in a manner triggering a crash restart, we currently log something like: LOG: %s (PID %d) was terminated by signal %d LOG: %s (PID %d) exited with exit code %d DETAIL: Failed process was running: %s Notably we log the query from the backend whenever

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

> On 17 September 2017 at 23:34, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > > I have put some thought into it. What about the following syntax? > > CREATE SUBSCRIPTING FOR type_name > INITFUNC = subscripting_init_func > FETCHFUNC = subscripting_fetch_func > ASSIGNFUNC =

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:57:36AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09/12/2017 04:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:50:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:12:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >>>On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Momjian

  1   2   >