Re: [HACKERS] Improving DISTINCT with LooseScan node

2017-09-18 Thread Adrien Nayrat
On 09/17/2017 07:43 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov wrote: [...] 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 Regards, --

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

2017-09-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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? -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

2017-09-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/14/17 10:21, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > BTW I added --with-ldap and --with-pam to the configure line for the > > reports in coverage.postgresql.org and the % covered in auth.c went from > > 24% to 18.9% (from very bad to terribly sad). > > You can add src/test/ldap/

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Expand partitioned table RTEs level by level, without flattening

2017-09-18 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Can you debug this on Monday? > > ...Robert > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Andreas Seltenreich > Date: September 16, 2017 at 6:55:46 AM EDT > To: Robert Haas > Cc:

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Thanks Amit for the patch. I reviewed the code changes as well as performed more testing. Patch looks good to me. Here is the updated patch - where added test-case clean up. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

2017-09-18 Thread Jeevan Chalke
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> wrote: > >> >> Hi Jeevan, >> >> I have started testing partition-wise-aggregate and got one observation,

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

2017-09-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for >> >

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

2017-09-18 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for > > pg_control_recovery() without any checks: > > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM

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

2017-09-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for > pg_control_recovery() without any checks: > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM pg_control_recovery(); >

Re: [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity

2017-09-18 Thread MauMau
From: Peter Eisentraut > The process names shown in pg_stat_activity.backend_type as of PG10 and > the process names used in the ps display are in some cases gratuitously > different, so here is a patch to make them more alike. Of course it > could be debated in some cases which spelling was

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind vs. shared typmod registry

2017-09-18 Thread Thomas Munro
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). -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com 0001-Fix-uninitialized-variable-in-dshash.c.patch Description: Binary data

<    1   2