[HACKERS] spoonbill - rare buildfarm failures in test_shm_mq_pipelined()

Spoonbill is very rarely (ie once every few months) failing like this: [2016-08-29 18:15:35.273 CEST:57c45f88.52d4:8] LOG: statement: SELECT test_shm_mq_pipelined(16384, (select string_agg(chr(32+(random()*95)::int), '') from generate_series(1,27)), 200, 3); [2016-08-29 18:15:35.282 CEST:57c4

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 08/18/2016 09:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> On 08/18/2016 09:30 PM, Christian Convey wrote: > >>> Yury: Would it make sense to add a call to "cmake_minimum_required" in >>> one or more of your CMakeLists.txt files? >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 08/18/2016 09:42 PM, Christian Convey wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for that information. > > Is there some document I can read that explains which platform > versions (e.g., OpenBSD 5.3) are considered strongly supported? well not sure we have very clear document on that - I would say that the

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 08/18/2016 09:30 PM, Christian Convey wrote: > Hi Karl, > > I'll need to let Yury answer your original question regarding the best > way to report CMake-related bugs. > > Regarding the errors you're getting... I just looked at CMake's > online documentation regarding your "target_compile_defi

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 08/18/2016 08:57 PM, Christian Convey wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > I think I've seen similar errors when a project's CMake files assumed > a newer version of CMake than the one being run. > > Which version of CMake gave you those errors? (Sorry if you provided > that detail and I'm just missing it

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 06/29/2016 06:23 PM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello Hackers. > > I decided to talk about the current state of the project: > 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql > all work correctly (all tests pass). > 3. Works done for all contrib modules. 4. You can use gett

Re: [HACKERS] HEADSUP: gitmaster.postgresql.org - upgrade NOW

On 01/28/2016 05:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner > wrote: >> On 01/28/2016 04:00 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>> Per discussion in the afternoon break at FOSDEM/PGDay 2016 Developer >>> Meeting we are going to

Re: [HACKERS] HEADSUP: gitmaster.postgresql.org - upgrade NOW

On 01/28/2016 04:00 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Hi all! > > Per discussion in the afternoon break at FOSDEM/PGDay 2016 Developer > Meeting we are going to upgrade gemulon.postgresql.org aka "gitmaster" > today (the upgrade was originally scheduled end of last year

[HACKERS] HEADSUP: gitmaster.postgresql.org - upgrade NOW

Hi all! Per discussion in the afternoon break at FOSDEM/PGDay 2016 Developer Meeting we are going to upgrade gemulon.postgresql.org aka "gitmaster" today (the upgrade was originally scheduled end of last year but due to release and other constraints was never executed). The upgrade is going to st

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

On 11/26/2015 09:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> that seems entirely doable with our current infrastructure (and even >> with minimal-to-no hackery on mj2) - but it still carries the "changes >> From:" issue :/ > > Yeah. What do you

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

On 11/24/2015 11:03 PM, José Luis Tallón wrote: > On 11/24/2015 07:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> [snip] >> The clearly critical thing, though, is that when forwarding a message >> from >> a person at a DMARC-using domain, we would have to replace the From: line >> with something @postgresql.org. This

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

On 11/24/2015 07:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> "Rudolph T. Maceyko" writes: >>> The basic changes since Yahoo implemented their p=reject DMARC policy >>> last year (and others followed) were: >>> * make NO CHANGES to the body of the message--no headers, footers, etc. >>> * make NO CHANGES

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 10/01/2015 05:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-01 11:07:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> On 2015-10-01 16:48:32 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: That would require people to actually use the bug form to submit the initial thread as well of course - which mos

Re: [HACKERS] upcoming infrastructure changes/OS upgrades on *.postgresql.org

On 09/25/2015 08:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-25 20:47:21 +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> yeah the point about 9.0.x is a very good one - so I think we will >> target mid/end of october for borka so we get a bit of time to deal with >> any fallout from t

Re: [HACKERS] upcoming infrastructure changes/OS upgrades on *.postgresql.org

On 09/25/2015 08:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> * borka.postgresql.org - official tarball and docs build server, the >> upgrade will upgrade the toolchain on that box to the respective >> versions of what is in jessie. If people think it is nece

[HACKERS] upcoming infrastructure changes/OS upgrades on *.postgresql.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all! As part of our regular maintenance schedule and in our continous effort to run our systems on current and fully supported operating systems the postgresql sysadmin has started upgrading the OS on our infrastructure hosts from Debian Wheezy(aka

Re: [HACKERS] No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

On 09/24/2015 07:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 09/23/2015 10:25 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> On 09/23/2015 05:21 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: Do you think it would make any sense to consider evolving what we have already? At the moment, w

Re: [HACKERS] Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE

On 09/02/2015 10:10 PM, dinesh kumar wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner > mailto:ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc>> wrote: > > On 07/25/2015 03:38 AM, dinesh kumar wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Robert

Re: [HACKERS] Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE

On 07/25/2015 03:38 AM, dinesh kumar wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, dinesh kumar > mailto:dineshkuma...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas > m

Re: [HACKERS] (full) Memory context dump considered harmful

On 08/22/2015 06:25 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Tomas Vondra writes: I also don't think logging just subset of the stats is a lost case. Sure, we can't know which of the lines are important, but for example logging just the top-level contexts with a summary

Re: [HACKERS] (full) Memory context dump considered harmful

On 08/20/2015 06:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> I wonder if we should have a default of capping the dump to say 1k lines >> or such and only optionally do a full one. > > -1. It's worked like this for the last fifteen years or thereabouts,

[HACKERS] (full) Memory context dump considered harmful

Hi all! We just had a case of a very long running process of ours that creates does a lot of prepared statements through Perls DBD:Pg running into: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=88827 This resulted in millions of prepared statements created, but not removed in the affected

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] postpone next week's release

On 05/31/2015 03:51 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 5/30/15 8:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets? Heikki's WAL format changes? That la

Re: [HACKERS] problems on Solaris

On 05/25/2015 03:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-24 21:01:54 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Yes, but it wasn't running these tests until a few days ago when its >> buildfarm software was upgraded. > > But barriers are used in other places too... fwiw: spoonbill just failed in the same p

Re: [HACKERS] MD5 authentication needs help

On 03/04/2015 04:52 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Bruce, all, > > I've been discussing this with a few folks outside of the PG community > (Debian and Openwall people specifically) and a few interesting ideas > have come out of that which might be useful to discuss. > > The first is a "don't break a

Re: [HACKERS] New CF app deployment

On 02/26/2015 01:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Asif Naeem wrote: >> This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF pages >>> The MSVC portion of this fix got completely lost in the void: >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_v

Re: [HACKERS] "multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1"

On 02/13/2015 06:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Two different CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS critters recently reported exactly > the same failure pattern on HEAD: > > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=markhor&dt=2015-02-06%2011%3A59%3A59 > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 01/11/2015 11:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Yeah, if we come up with a plan for X workers and end up not being able >>> to spawn that many then I could see that being worth a warning or noti

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On 01/09/2015 08:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Amit, > > * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> I agree, but we should try and warn the user if they set >>> parallel_seqscan_degree close to max_worker_processes, or at least give >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Updating copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG

On 01/06/2015 10:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 08:46:19PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>>> I will run the script today. I didn't do it earlier because I want to >>>> be current on reading community em

Re: [HACKERS] Updating copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG

On 01/06/2015 04:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 01:45:37PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 09:54:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Shouldn't we update the copyright notices to 2015 for PGDG like in >>> 7e04792? I mean those things ma

Re: [HACKERS] SSL information view

On 07/13/2014 10:35 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner > wrote: >> On 07/12/2014 03:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> As an administrator, I find that you fairly often want to know what >>> your current connect

Re: [HACKERS] SSL information view

On 07/12/2014 03:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > As an administrator, I find that you fairly often want to know what > your current connections are actually using as SSL parameters, and > there is currently no other way than gdb to find that out - something > we definitely should fix. Yeah that wo

Re: [HACKERS] Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures

On 06/27/2014 08:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2014-06-27 13:12:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I don't personally object to dropping Alpha, but when this was >>> discussed back in October, Stefan did: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52616373.10...@kaltenbrunne

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, we need an initdb

On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be >> imprudent. Anyone think differently? >> >> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other >> initdb-forci

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm animals and 'snapshot too old'

On 05/15/2014 07:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 05/15/2014 12:43 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> today I got a few of errors like these (this one is from last week, >> though): >> >> Status Line: 493 snapshot too old: Wed May 7 04:36:57 2014 GMT >> Content: >> snapshot t

[HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: Viability of text HISTORY/INSTALL/regression README files (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document a few more regression test hazards.)

On 02/05/2014 07:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> Right. I mean, a lot of the links say things like "Section 26.2" >>> which obviously makes no sense in a standalone text file. >> >> For s normally displayed that way, text output could emit a URL,

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Compress GIN posting lists, for smaller index size.

On 01/22/2014 06:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Compress GIN posting lists, for smaller index size. > > GIN posting lists are now encoded using varbyte-encoding, which allows them > to fit in much smaller space than the straight ItemPointer array format used > before. The new encoding is used

Re: [HACKERS] Changeset Extraction v7.0 (was logical changeset generation)

On 01/18/2014 02:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Anybody who actually uses SHIFT_JIS as an operational encoding, rather >> than as an input/output encoding, is into pain and suffering. Personally >> I'd be quite happy to see it supported as clie

Re: [HACKERS] Happy new year from viva64

On 12/27/2013 01:27 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Hackers, > > I believe many of us have seen report of checking PostgreSQL with > PVS-Studio. > http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/ > Me and Oleg Bartunov got license key for PVS-Studio. Thanks Viva64 for it. > I've just run PVS-Studio against Postgr

Re: [HACKERS] Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

On 12/04/2013 07:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 12/04/2013 07:32 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> >> On 12/04/2013 04:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 12/4/13, 2:14 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>>> running a >>>> few kvm instanc

Re: [HACKERS] Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

On 12/04/2013 04:33 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:44:15 -0800 > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> It seems clear that Kernel.org, since 2.6, has been in the business of >> pushing major, hackish, changes to the IO stack without testing them or >> even thinking too hard about what the

Re: [HACKERS] Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

On 12/04/2013 04:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 12/4/13, 2:14 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: running a few kvm instances that get bootstrapped automatically is something that is a solved problem. Is it sound to run performance tests on kvm? as sounds as on any other platform imho, the

Re: [HACKERS] Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

On 12/04/2013 05:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 14:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Would certainly be nice. Realistically, getting good automated >> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me >> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile

Re: [HACKERS] Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

On 12/03/2013 08:23 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/03/2013 10:59 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> This seems rather half cocked. I read the article. They found a problem, >> that really will only affect a reasonably small percentage of users, >> created a test case, reported it, and a patch was produc

Re: [HACKERS] Record comparison compiler warning

On 10/31/2013 07:51 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I am seeing this compiler warning in git head: rowtypes.c: In function 'record_image_cmp': rowtypes

Re: [HACKERS] removing old ports and architectures

On 10/18/2013 06:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-10-18 18:24:58 +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> On 10/18/2013 02:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>>> On 10/17/13 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] removing old ports and architectures

On 10/18/2013 02:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 10/17/13 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> The attached patch, which I propose to apply relatively soon if nobody >>> objects, removes the IRIX port. >> >> +1 > > Done. And here's a patch f

Re: [HACKERS] removing old ports and architectures

On 10/16/2013 07:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I think we should remove support the following ports: >> - IRIX >> - UnixWare >> - Tru64 > > According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX, IRIX has been > officially retired. The last release

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump

On 09/03/2013 06:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner > wrote: >>> It would seem that a simple solution would be to add an elevel argument >>> to ProcessGUCArray and then call it with NOTICE in the case that >>> check_

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump

On 09/01/2013 12:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Stefan Kaltenbrunner (ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc) wrote: >> On 08/18/2013 05:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >>>> While working on upgrading the database of the search system on >>>>

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump

On 08/18/2013 05:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> While working on upgrading the database of the search system on >> postgresql.org to 9.2 I noticed that the dumps that pg_dump generates on >> that system are actually invalid and cannot be reloaded wi

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump

On 08/18/2013 05:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> While working on upgrading the database of the search system on >> postgresql.org to 9.2 I noticed that the dumps that pg_dump generates on >> that system are actually invalid and cannot be reloaded wi

[HACKERS] CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump

Hi all! While working on upgrading the database of the search system on postgresql.org to 9.2 I noticed that the dumps that pg_dump generates on that system are actually invalid and cannot be reloaded without being hacked on manually... Simple way to reproduce is using the following: CREATE T

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Statistics collection for CLUSTER command

On 08/09/2013 12:02 AM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 08/08/2013 07:57 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >> On 08/08/2013 01:52 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >>> I would add this to the next commitfest but I seem to be unable to log >>> in with my community account (I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Statistics collection for CLUSTER command

On 08/08/2013 01:52 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > As part of routine maintenance monitoring, it is interesting for us to > have statistics on the CLUSTER command (timestamp of last run, and > number of runs since stat reset) like we have for (auto)ANALYZE and > (auto)VACUUM. Patch against today's HEAD

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling ALTER SYSTEM SET WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters

On 08/05/2013 09:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane escribió: > >> What Josh seems to be concerned with in this thread is the question of >> whether we should support an installation *policy decision* not to allow >> ALTER SYSTEM SET. Not because a particular set of parameters is broken, >>

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling ALTER SYSTEM SET WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters

On 08/05/2013 10:18 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Hi, > > I'm now completely lost in the current threads. Is there a single valid > use case for the feature we're trying to design? Who is the target > audience of this patch? wonder about that myself... > > Josh Berkus writes: >> I don't see t

Re: [HACKERS] Unsafe GUCs and ALTER SYSTEM WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET

On 08/05/2013 08:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/05/2013 11:14 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> * in a few years from now people will just use superuser over the >> network for almost all stuff "because its easy and I can click around in >> $gui", having potentia

Re: [HACKERS] Unsafe GUCs and ALTER SYSTEM WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET

On 08/05/2013 07:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Stephen, all: > > (forked from main ALTER SYSTEM discussion. this thread is meant to > discuss only this question: > > E) whether "unsafe" settings or "restart" settings should be allowed in > ALTER SYSTEM SET.) > > On 08/02/2013 01:48 PM, Stephen Fr

Re: [HACKERS] Unsafe GUCs and ALTER SYSTEM WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET

On 08/05/2013 08:02 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/05/2013 10:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Josh, I really have to ask- are these people who are implementing puppet >> to control these configs really clamoring to have an 'ALTER SYSTEM' PG >> command to have to code against instead of dealing with

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 9.3 latest dev snapshot

On 06/28/2013 06:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander escribió: > >> However, if oyu're looking for a snapshot, please use the one on the >> ftpsite. Generating those snapshots on the git server is slow and >> expensive... > > Maybe we should redirect those gitweb snapshot URLs to the F

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 9.3 latest dev snapshot

On 06/27/2013 12:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On 2013/06/25, at 22:23, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Misa Simic wrote: > Hi, >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fast gin cache performance improvement

On 06/23/2013 04:03 AM, ian link wrote: > Looks like my community login is still not working. No rush, just wanted > to let you know. Thanks! have you tried to log in once to the main website per: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyt9tQfcF7T2Uzcr8WeF9M=s8qSACuCmN5L2Et26=r...@mail.gmail.

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 9.3 beta breaks some extensions "make install"

On 05/29/2013 06:08 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote: >> I just took time to inspect our contribs, USE_PGXS is not supported by all >> of them atm because of SHLIB_PREREQS (it used submake) I have a patch >> pending here to fix that. Once all our contribs can build with USE_PGXS I >> fix the VPATH. > >

Re: [HACKERS] gemulon.postgresql.org/gitmaster.postgresql.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/2013 12:20 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Hi All! > > > We will be upgrading gemulon.postgresql.org during the next few > hours to the current release of debian (wheezy/7.0) as discussed > with various people. To p

[HACKERS] gemulon.postgresql.org/gitmaster.postgresql.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All! We will be upgrading gemulon.postgresql.org during the next few hours to the current release of debian (wheezy/7.0) as discussed with various people. To prevent any kind of issues we will be locking out commiters for a brief amount of time so

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 04/04/2013 02:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: On 04/03/2013 12:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: BTW, on further thought it seems like maybe this is an OpenBSD bug, at least in part: what is evidently happening is that the temporary blockage of SIGINT during the handler persists

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #8128: pg_dump (>= 9.1) failed while dumping a scheme named "old" from PostgreSQL 8.4

On 05/01/2013 06:14 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Fetter writes: >>> According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if >>> that matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are >>> reserved words, so we're going

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #8128: pg_dump (>= 9.1) failed while dumping a scheme named "old" from PostgreSQL 8.4

On 05/01/2013 04:26 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> adrian.vondendrie...@credativ.de writes: >>> [ recent pg_dump fails against an 8.4 server if "old" is used as a >>> name ] >> >> Yeah. The reason for this is that "old" was considered a reser

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe

On 04/24/2013 09:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 04/24/2013 03:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 04/24/2013 03:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >>> Andrew Dunstan writes: On 04/23/2013 07:53 PM, Timothy Garnett wrote: > Anyways, the question is if people think this is generally use

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Get rid of USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER dependency in trigram constructi

On 04/08/2013 10:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Tom Lane writes: >> If there is anybody still using Postgres on machines without wcstombs() or >> towlower(), and they have non-ASCII data indexed by pg_trgm, they'll need >> to REINDEX those indexes after pg_upgrade to 9.3, else searches may fail

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 04/03/2013 12:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> I think the simplest fix is to insert "PG_SETMASK(&UnBlockSig)" into >> StatementCancelHandler() and any other handlers that might exit via >> longjmp. I'm a bit inclined to only do this on platforms where a >> problem is demonstrable, which so

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 03/26/2013 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> There is some timeout code already in the buildfarm client. It was >> originally put there to help us when we got CVS hangs, a not infrequent >> occurrence in the early days, so it's currently only used if configured >> for the

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 03/26/2013 11:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> hmm - will look into that in a bit - but I also just noticed that on the >> same day spoonbill broke there was also a commit to that file >> immediately before that code adding the fflush() calls. >

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 03/26/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It looks from here like the isolationtester client is what's dropping >>> the ball --- the backend states are unsurprising, and two of them

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the >> buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. >> It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very >> clos

[HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

Hi all! I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very close to January 23th) broke it in a fairly annoying way - running the buildfarm script seems to consisten

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting post-mortem on a near disaster with git

On 03/24/2013 11:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 03/24/2013 06:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Tom Lane > > wrote: >> >> Over the weekend, KDE came within a gnat's eyelash of losing *all* >> their authoritative git repos, de

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting post-mortem on a near disaster with git

On 03/24/2013 05:08 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Over the weekend, KDE came within a gnat's eyelash of losing *all* >> their authoritative git repos, despite having seemingly-extensive >> redundancy. Read about it here: >> http://

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest progress

On 03/03/2013 08:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Works for me, since I haven't been able to find time for it during the >> week. > > Set aside a couple hours to deal with it this AM, foiled because my > community account is broken. Grrr. we might be able to fix this if you could tell us what exa

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump transaction's read-only mode

On 01/21/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: On 01/21/2013 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: (It's entirely likely that the 7.0 server I keep around for testing this is the last one in captivity anywhere. But IIRC, we've heard fairly recent reports of people still

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump transaction's read-only mode

On 01/21/2013 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavan Deolasee writes: >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> As submitted, this broke pg_dump for dumping from pre-8.0 servers. >>> (7.4 didn't accept commas in SET TRANSACTION syntax, and versions >>> before that didn't have the READ ON

Re: [HACKERS] Porting to Haiku

On 01/12/2013 10:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Hellegers" writes: >> I have only one server available running Haiku. Can I also run a normal >> Postgresql installation on that same machine? If so, I will be able to >> run the build multiple times a day. > > I believe that works at the moment,

[HACKERS] strange isolation test buildfarm failure on guaibasaurus

Hi all! http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=guaibasaurus&dt=2012-12-05%2016%3A17%3A01 seems like a rather odd failure in the isolation test (client) Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.p

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] Maintenance announcement for trill.postgresql.org

On 11/19/2012 06:24 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Hi all! > > > There will be planned hardware/software maintenance this tomorrow > Tuesday (20th November 2012) from starting at 16:30 CET - affecting some > redundant services (ftp and www mirrors) as well as the follow

[HACKERS] Maintenance announcement for trill.postgresql.org

Hi all! There will be planned hardware/software maintenance this tomorrow Tuesday (20th November 2012) from starting at 16:30 CET - affecting some redundant services (ftp and www mirrors) as well as the following public hosts: * yridian.postgresql.org (www.postgresql.eu) * antos.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/10/2012 05:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc >>> build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. >> >> You keep threatening with that. You

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/07/2012 06:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>> >>> A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have >>> pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced substantial

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/06/2012 03:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:33:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 20

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely >>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it >>> used to work. What's being proposed now just sou

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cross-link to doc build requirements from install requirements.

On 09/01/2012 12:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Cross-link to doc build requirements from install requirements. > > Jeff Janes > > Branch > -- > master > > Details > --- > http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e8d6c98c2f082bead1202b23e9d70e0fbde49129 > > Modified Files > -- >

[HACKERS] Mailsystem maintenance/migration announcement

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all! We are currently planning to finalize the ongoing work on the mailsystem migration we started earlier this year by migrating the two remaining components of the postgresql.org mailsystem infrastructure to new systems. Those parts (listserver a

[HACKERS] compiler warnings on the buildfarm

seeing some of the latest commits about fixing compiler warnings I took a look at the buildfarm to see if there are any interesting ones there (in total we have a thousends of warnings on the buildfarm but most of those are from very noisy compilers). so in case anybody is interested those are a s

Re: [HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

On 06/22/2012 11:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >>>> PID PENDING CAUGHT IGNORED BLOCKED COMMAND >>>> 12480 20004004 34084005 c942b002 fffefeff postgres: writer process >>>> 9841 20004004 34084007 c942b000 fffefeff postgres: wa

Re: [HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

On 06/22/2012 11:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > oh, and just for comparison's sake, what do the postmaster's signal > masks look like? # ps -o pid,sig,sigcatch,sigignore,sigmask,command -p 18020 PID PENDING CAUGHT IGNORED BLOCKED COMMAND 180200 74084007 8972b0000 /home/pgbuild/

Re: [HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

On 06/22/2012 11:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> On 06/22/2012 09:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (Hey Stefan, is there a way on BSD to check a process's signals-blocked >>> state from outside? If so, next time this happens you should try

Re: [HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

On 06/22/2012 09:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On Friday, June 22, 2012 08:51:55 PM Robert Haas wrote: >>> I remarked to Stefan that the symptoms seem consistent with the idea >>> that the children have signals blocked. But I don't know how that >>> could happen. > >> You can

Re: [HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

On 06/22/2012 08:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> It has now happened at least twice that builds on spponbill started to >> fail after it failed during ECPGcheck: >> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=spoonbill&dt=2012-06-19%20

[HACKERS] random failing builds on spoonbill - backends not exiting...

It has now happened at least twice that builds on spponbill started to fail after it failed during ECPGcheck: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=spoonbill&dt=2012-06-19%2023%3A00%3A04 the first failure was: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=spoonbill&dt=2012-05-24%

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >