ISTM that you can remove "force_column_header" and just set "tuple_only"
to what you need, that is you do not need to change anything in function
"print_unaligned_text".
Last point is not possible - I would not to break original tuple only mode.
Hmmm... I do not understand. I can see only
Hello,
At Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:44:55 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20171110.144455.117208639.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > Those two conditions are not orthogonal. Maybe something like
> > following seems more understantable.
>
2017-11-09 21:12 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2017-11-09 21:03 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
>>
>> Hello Pavel,
>>
>> I hope so I fixed all mentioned issues.
>>>
>>
>> Patch applies with a warning:
>>
>> > git apply ~/psql-graw-2.patch
>>
Ooops! The following comment is wrong. Please ignore it.
At Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:38:11 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20171110.143811.97616847.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Those two conditions are not orthogonal. Maybe something
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:16 AM, amul sul wrote:
>> Fixed in the 0003 patch.
>
> I have committed this patch set with the attached adjustments.
>
Thanks a lot for your support & a ton of thanks to all
Hello, this is the second part of the review.
At Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:30:00 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20171110.123000.151902771.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> In 0002, bms_add_range has a bit naive-looking loop
> In 0003,
In
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Have you set force_parallel_mode=regress; before running the
>> statement?
>
> Yes, I tried that first.
>
>> If so, then why you need to
Hello,
At Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:34:57 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
<5fcb1a9f-b4ad-119d-14c7-282c30c7f...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hi Amul.
>
> On 2017/11/09 20:05, amul sul wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Have you set force_parallel_mode=regress; before running the
> statement?
Yes, I tried that first.
> If so, then why you need to tune other parallel query
> related parameters?
Because I couldn't get it to break the
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
>> I'm guessing no, which essentially means that *we* consider access to
>> lo_import/lo_export to be equivilant to superuser and therefore we're
>> not going to implement anything
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> This change looks suspicious to me. I think here we can't use the
>> tupDesc constructed from targetlist. One problem, I could see is
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
>> The code still chooses the custom plan instead of the generic plan for
>> the prepared statements. I am working on it.
>
> I don't think
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Primarily because it's not an anti-corruption tool. I'd be surprised if
> there weren't ways to corrupt the page using these corruptions that
> aren't detected by it.
It's very hard to assess the risk of missing something
Stephen Frost writes:
> I'm guessing no, which essentially means that *we* consider access to
> lo_import/lo_export to be equivilant to superuser and therefore we're
> not going to implement anything to try and prevent the user who has
> access to those functions from becoming
On 2017-11-09 16:45:07 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Actually, on second thought, I take that back -- I don't think that
> >> REINDEXing will even finish once a HOT chain is broken by the bug.
> >>
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> > So I think
>> > that you should instead do something like that:
>> >
>> > --- a/contrib/bloom/Makefile
>> > +++
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Actually, on second thought, I take that back -- I don't think that
>> REINDEXing will even finish once a HOT chain is broken by the bug.
>> IndexBuildHeapScan() actually does quite a good job of making sure
>> that HOT
Hi,
We are getting the bellow error while trying use Logical Replication
with user defined data types in a C program (when call elog function).
ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for type X
# X is remote type's oid
It occurs in worker.c:slot_store_error_callback function when
Hi Amul.
On 2017/11/09 20:05, amul sul wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/11/06 14:32, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 October
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I don't follow you here. Why would REINDEXing make the rows that
>> should be dead disappear again, even for a short period of time?
>
> It's not the REINDEX that makes them reappear.
Of course. I was just trying to make
On 2017-11-09 16:02:17 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > What I'm currently wondering about is how much we need to harden
> > postgres against such existing corruption. If e.g. the hot chains are
> > broken somebody might have reindexed thinking the problem is fixed - but
> > if they then later
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Further, I agree entirely that we
> > shouldn't be deciding that certain capabilities are never allowed to be
> > given to a user- but that's why superuser *exists*
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Attached is a version of the already existing regression test that both
> reproduces the broken hot chain (and thus failing index lookups) and
> then also the tuple reviving. I don't see any need for letting this run
>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Martin Marques <
martin.marq...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago I had to work on a system where I was cloning a standby
> using pg_basebackup, that didn't have screen or tmux. For that reason I
> redirected the output to a file and ran it with
On 11/09/2017 03:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 03:27 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> Is there a parameter or mechanism for setting the required ssl cipher list
>>> from the client side?
>>
>> I don't believe
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I did miss the need to fix the docs, and am happy to put in some strong
>> wording about the security hazards of these functions while fixing the
>> docs. But I do not
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 03:27 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> Is there a parameter or mechanism for setting the required ssl cipher list
>> from the client side?
>
> I don't believe so. That is controlled by ssl_ciphers, which requires
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did miss the need to fix the docs, and am happy to put in some strong
> wording about the security hazards of these functions while fixing the
> docs. But I do not think that leaving them with hardwired superuser
> checks
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:16 AM, amul sul wrote:
> Fixed in the 0003 patch.
I have committed this patch set with the attached adjustments.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
hash-adjustments.patch
Description: Binary
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> +++ b/src/test/modules/test_session_hooks/session_hooks.conf
>> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
>> +shared_preload_libraries =
On 2017-11-04 06:15:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The reason for that is that I hadn't yet quite figured out how the bug I
> described in the commit message (and the previously committed testcase)
> would cause that. I was planning to diagnose / experiment more with this
> and write an email if
On 2017-11-09 17:14:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we do this, I'd suggest exposing it as a separate SQL function
> get_raw_page_unlocked() rather than as an option to get_raw_page().
>
> The reasoning is that if we ever allow these functions to be controlled
> via GRANT instead of hardwired
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> You can already pass arbitrary byteas to heap_page_items(), so I don't
>> see how this'd change anything exposure-wise? Or are you thinking that
>> users would continually do
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Further, I agree entirely that we
>> shouldn't be deciding that certain capabilities are never allowed to be
>> given to a user- but that's why superuser *exists* and why it's
Hi
We checked some check query based on some operations on pg_depend table.
This query did different result when database was migrated with pg_dump or
with pg_upgrade. I found so this query was broken, but I found interesting
thing.
The count is 1 for any objid
select distinct count(distinct
Hi All,
I am using PostgreSQL version *9.5.7* on Red hat enterprise Linux *7.2.*
*OpenSSL version : * OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013.
I have a requirement to enable the SSL in my environment with specific
cipher suites,we want to restrict weak cipher suites from open SSL default
list.
We have
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree that it may not be obvious which cases lead to a relatively easy
> way to obtain superuser and which don't, and that's actually why I'd
> much rather it be something that we're considering and looking out for
>
2017-11-09 21:03 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> Hello Pavel,
>
> I hope so I fixed all mentioned issues.
>>
>
> Patch applies with a warning:
>
> > git apply ~/psql-graw-2.patch
> /home/fabien/psql-graw-2.patch:192: new blank line at EOF.
> +
> warning: 1 line adds
All,
As we try and make PostGIS more "parallel sensitive" we have been added
costs to our functions, so that their relative CPU cost is more accurately
reflected in parallel plans.
This has resulted in an odd side effect: some of our "wrapper" functions
stop giving index scans in plans [1]. This
Hello Pavel,
I hope so I fixed all mentioned issues.
Patch applies with a warning:
> git apply ~/psql-graw-2.patch
/home/fabien/psql-graw-2.patch:192: new blank line at EOF.
+
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Otherwise it compiles. "make check" ok. doc gen ok.
Two spurious
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This is not unlike the discussions we've had in the past around allowing
> > non-owners of a table to modify properties of a table, where the
> > argument has been
>> This is also effecting lseg ## box operator.
>
> Mmm.. It returns (1.5, 1.5) with the 0004 patch. It is surely a
> point on the second operand but I'm not sure it's right that the
> operator returns a specific point for two parallel segments.
I am changing it to return NULL, when they are
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think I understood your concern after some offlist discussion and it
> is primarily due to the inheritance related check which can skip the
> generation of gather paths when it shouldn't. So what might fit
> better
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I disagree that that is, or should be, a guiding principle.
>
> It was what I was using as the basis of the work which I did in this
> area and, at least at that time, there seemed to be little issue with
> that.
Well,
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > While we have been working to reduce the number of superuser() checks in
> > the backend in favor of having the ability to GRANT explicit rights, one
> > of the
Hi Konstantin!
09.11.17 20:14, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
It is still far from ideal plan because each worker is working with
all partitions, instead of spitting partitions between workers and
calculate partial aggregates for each partition.
But if we add FDW as a child of parent table,
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> While we have been working to reduce the number of superuser() checks in
> the backend in favor of having the ability to GRANT explicit rights, one
> of the guideing principles has always been that capabilities which can
>
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This change looks suspicious to me. I think here we can't use the
> tupDesc constructed from targetlist. One problem, I could see is that
> the check for hasOid setting in tlist_matches_tupdesc won't give the
>
Hi
2017-08-24 5:50 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> Hello Pavel,
>
> I have added the patch to the next commitfest.
>
> Patch applies, compiles, works.
>
> I'm okay with the names graw/graw+, and for having such short-hands.
>
> Missing break in switch, even if last item and
Tom, Michael,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY",
> >> so that people who wanted true
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> No, because the Append node is *NOT* getting copied into shared
> memory. I have pushed a comment update to the existing functions; you
> can use the same comment for this patch.
I spent the last several days working
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> You can already pass arbitrary byteas to heap_page_items(), so I don't
> see how this'd change anything exposure-wise? Or are you thinking that
> users would continually do this with actual page contents and would be
>
On 2017-11-09 12:55:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Occasionally, when debugging issues, I find it quite useful to be able
> > to do a heap_page_items() on a page that's actually locked exclusively
> > concurrently. E.g.
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Occasionally, when debugging issues, I find it quite useful to be able
> to do a heap_page_items() on a page that's actually locked exclusively
> concurrently. E.g. investigating the recent multixact vacuuming issues,
>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY",
>> so that people who wanted true write-only could get it, without breaking
>>
On 11/09/2017 03:27 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Is there a parameter or mechanism for setting the required ssl cipher list
> from the client side?
I don't believe so. That is controlled by ssl_ciphers, which requires a
restart in order to change.
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Currently the locking in get_raw_page_internal() prevents that. If it's
> an option defaulting to off, I don't see why we couldn't allow that to
> skip locking the page's contents. Obviously you can get corrupted
>
Hi,
Occasionally, when debugging issues, I find it quite useful to be able
to do a heap_page_items() on a page that's actually locked exclusively
concurrently. E.g. investigating the recent multixact vacuuming issues,
it was very useful to attach a debugger to one backend to step through
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Michael Paquier <
michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> - Let's restrict the
There is a huge thread concerning pushing-down aggregates to FDW:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRcnueviDpngJ3QSVvj7oyukr9NkSiCspqd4N%2BdCEdvYvg%40mail.gmail.com#cafjfprcnuevidpngj3qsvvj7oyukr9nksicspqd4n+dcedv...@mail.gmail.com
but as far as I understand nothing is done for
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> Em qui, 9 de nov de 2017 às 06:15, Feike Steenbergen <
> feikesteenber...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> Attached a patch that ensures the header of postgresql.auto.conf is
>> consistent, whether created by initdb or recreated
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I think odd coding this was introduced recently because of the
> pg_resetxlog -> pg_resetwal renaming.
Dunno about that, but certainly somebody fat-fingered a refactoring
there. The 9.6 code looks quite different but doesn't seem to be
doing
a.akent...@postgrespro.ru writes:
> I've came across a weird bit in pg_upgrade/exec.c
> We have a function check_bin_dir() which goes like this (old_cluster and
> new_cluster are global variables):
> void check_bin_dir(ClusterInfo *cluster)
> {
> ...
> get_bin_version(_cluster);
>
a.akent...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
> This function has two calls:
> check_bin_dir(_cluster);
> check_bin_dir(_cluster);
>
> I'd like to substitute these last two lines with this:
> get_bin_version(cluster);
Odd indeed. One would think that if a cluster variable is passed as
parameter, the global
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there really much interest in Bonjour support on non-macOS platforms?
>> I hadn't heard that anybody but Apple was invested in it.
> Not from me. My only interest
Robert Haas writes:
> No, that's not right. Now that you mention it, I realize that tuple
> locks can definitely cause deadlocks. Example:
Yeah. Foreign-key-related tuple locks are another rich source of
examples.
> ... So I don't
> think we can remove speculative
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> The code still chooses the custom plan instead of the generic plan for
> the prepared statements. I am working on it.
I don't think it's really the job of this patch to do anything about
that problem.
--
Robert
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Speaking of the acquiring these four lock types and heavy weight lock,
> there obviously is a call path to acquire any of four lock types while
> holding a heavy weight lock. In reverse, there also is a call path
>
Hello!
I've came across a weird bit in pg_upgrade/exec.c
We have a function check_bin_dir() which goes like this (old_cluster and
new_cluster are global variables):
void check_bin_dir(ClusterInfo *cluster)
{
...
get_bin_version(_cluster);
get_bin_version(_cluster);
...
}
This
Hi,
Attached is a patch to reorder header files in joinrels.c and pathnode.c
in alphabetical order, removing unnecessary ones.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
*** a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinrels.c
--- b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinrels.c
***
*** 16,30
#include
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 04:49:17PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> Updated patch with documentation of the new option.
>
I have checked the patch.
The patch is applied and compiled correctly without any errors. Tests passed.
The documentation doesn't have errors too.
I have a little
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
Hello Anthony,
Great job!
I decided to take a closer look
Hi all,
According to the docs at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-CONNSTRING
there are various parameters that control ssl from the client side, including
providing the ssl certs, keys, etc.
Is there a parameter or mechanism for setting the required ssl
Hello all,
Here is the updated patch which is rebased over v10 of Amit Langote's
path towards faster pruning patch [1]. It modifies the PartScanKeyInfo
struct to hold expressions which is then evaluated by the executor to
fetch the correct partitions using the function.
The code still chooses
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/11/06 14:32, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote wrote:
[]
>
> Attached
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> > So I think
> > that you should instead do something like that:
> >
> > --- a/contrib/bloom/Makefile
> > +++ b/contrib/bloom/Makefile
> > @@ -20,5 +20,12 @@ include $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global
> > include
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Interesting... IMHO this typo should be backpatched to 9.4 when ALTER SYSTEM
> was introduced.
Yeah, that's harmless.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Em qui, 9 de nov de 2017 às 06:15, Feike Steenbergen <
feikesteenber...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Attached a patch that ensures the header of postgresql.auto.conf is
> consistent, whether created by initdb or recreated when ALTER SYSTEM
> is issued.
>
> The tiny difference caused some
Hi
2017-11-06 14:00 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>:
> Thank you for the new patch.
>
> - The latest patch is missing xpath_parser.h at least since
> ns-3. That of the first (not-numbered) version was still
> usable.
>
> - c29c578 conflicts on
Hi Dilip,
v6 patch:
42 + /*
43 +* Estimate number of hashtable entries we can have within
maxbytes. This
44 +* estimates the hash cost as sizeof(PagetableEntry).
45 +*/
46 + nbuckets = maxbytes /
47 + (sizeof(PagetableEntry) + sizeof(Pointer) + sizeof(Pointer));
It
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> We do want to generate it later when there isn't inheritance involved,
>> but only if there is a single rel involved (simple_rel_array_size
Oops! The previous patch is forgetting the default case and crashes.
At Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:14:31 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20171108.131431.170534842.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > I don't think 'distance' is a good metric -
Hello,
> I'd like to put comments on 0001 and 0004 only now:
...
I don't have a comment on 0002.
About 0003:
> @@ -4487,21 +4486,21 @@ circle_in(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> ...
> circle->radius = single_decode(s, , "circle", str);
> - if (circle->radius < 0)
> + if
Attached a patch that ensures the header of postgresql.auto.conf is
consistent, whether created by initdb or recreated when ALTER SYSTEM
is issued.
The tiny difference caused some false-positives on our configuration
management identifying changes, which was enough of an itch for me to
scratch.
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the
>>> FreeBSD package?
>
>>
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the
>> FreeBSD package?
> Yes. My take is that the commit was correct: the library is needed
> for
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the
> FreeBSD package?
Yes. My take is that the commit was correct: the library is needed
for --with-bonjour to work on non-macOS systems, and apparently it
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-11-06 10:56:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote
>> > On 2017-11-05 01:05:59 +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> skip-gather-project-v1.patch
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, the library on F25 is also avahi's. Digging in the archives, I find
>> this old thread reporting the same behavior:
>>
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 8 November 2017 at 07:55, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> The changes to trigger.c still make me
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I think it would be a good idea, as Thomas says, to order the qual
>> clauses at an earlier stage and then remember our decision. However,
>> we have to think about whether that's
On 2016-12-16 23:04:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> BTW, I suggest this rewritten comment:
> >>
> >> /*--
> >> * FD_READ events are edge-triggered on Windows per
> >> *
> >>
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Indeed, the assertion tripped during WAL replay on the standby. This was
> caught by TAP tests under src/test/recovery. The assertion is now fixed so
> that WAL replay is exempt from the check. Please find the new patch
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> - Let's restrict the logging to a role name instead of a database
>> name, and let's parametrize it with a setting in
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran
>> wrote:
>>> I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is
On 2017/11/09 7:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> jotpe writes:
>> In the current documentation [1] this create table statement is listed:
>> CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement
>> FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01')
>> TABLESPACE fasttablespace
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luke Lonergan writes:
>> On 11/8/17, 3:00 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>>> BTW, when I try this on Fedora 25, it builds cleanly but the feature
>>> doesn't seem to work --- I get this at
Hey Tom,
On 11/8/17, 4:39 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
So now I'm wondering if you know something the rest of us don't about
how to configure the platform for bonjour to work.
Nope – in fact, I hadn’t tried to use Bonjour on this instance, but had only
enabled it thinking
Luke Lonergan writes:
> On 11/8/17, 3:00 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> BTW, when I try this on Fedora 25, it builds cleanly but the feature
>> doesn't seem to work --- I get this at postmaster start:
>> ...
>> I wonder which libdns_sd you are using.
>
Hi all,
I have a working postgresql v9.3 installation running on out-of-the-box Ubuntu
Trusty, and it works fine. The job at hand: replace the server with postgresql
v9.5 on out-of-the-box Ubuntu Xenial, but this does not work fine.
I am getting the problem described on this page:
101 - 200 of 318634 matches
Mail list logo