Re: [HACKERS] rename pg_log directory?

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:01:04AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > >'log'? > > I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which name > is picked as

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > New patch attached. And bit-rotted less than 24 hours later by fcec6caa. New patch attached just to fix bit-rot. That conflicting patch might be a candidate to merge into the new Ephemeral Named Relation provided by my

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > David Christensen writes: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Here's a review of your patch. >> >> Hi Ilmari, thanks for your time and review. I’m fine with the revised >> version. > > Okay, I've marked

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

2017-03-09 20:19 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund : > Hi, > > On 2017-03-09 13:47:35 +0100, Naytro Naytro wrote: > > We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest > > version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth. > > > > Upgrade was done by

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add pg_disable_checksums() and supporting infrastructure

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:02 PM, David Christensen > wrote: >> Hi Robert, this is part of a larger patch which *does* enable the checksums >> online; I’ve been extracting the necessary pieces out

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks for the review. > > Moved to CF 2017-03, the 8th commit fest of this patch. I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. I think the turning point for this somewhat-troubled patch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

Hello, On Thu, March 9, 2017 9:04 am, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > >> > I think this patch is already in a good shape. >> >> I am sorry for introducing this bug. This fix looks good to me as well. > > > I checked this

[HACKERS] SQL Standard Feature T211

[separate thread from transition table patch, since a different audience might be interested] Four things are required to claim support for Feature T211, "Basic trigger capability": - support for the CREATE TRIGGER statement - the ability to declare and reference transition tables for AFTER

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

Hari Babu, * Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Vitaly Burovoy > wrote: > > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Thanks for the review. I've started taking a look at this with an eye towards

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 2017-03-06 20:40:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm ok with not immediately doing so, but I think Peter's design isn't > > in line with achieving something like this. > > I would be okay with doing this if we had

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amount of partitions

Hi Aleksander, noticed this in your patch: > * Add a corespinding entry to pgStatTabHash. "corresponding" Also a question: Some one-line comments are /* Comment. */ while others are /* * Comment. */ Why the difference? Hope this helps, Tels -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Hi Stephen, On 2017/03/10 6:48, Stephen Frost wrote: > Amit, Michael, > > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >> On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> OK, I am marking that as ready for committer. >> >> Thanks. > > Thanks for this, I've pushed this now. I do have a

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c. > > Although it's reasonable to expect that most of these constants will > never change, that does not make it good programming style to hard-code > the value rather than using

[HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

Hello psql hackers, my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of Code, for the project "Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions”. A short bio, I have

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes. > > David Christensen, reviewed by Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > > Discussion: > http://postgr.es/m/20170215154018.fs5vwtqhp5d2s...@veeddeux.attlocal.net > >

Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > I think this is good fixes. I've checked them. And in my opinion they are > correct. > > The code also is good. Having something with conflicts is not nice, so attached is a rebased version. > I have run

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > While reviewing Amit Langote's patch to handle partitioned tables > properly in various contrib modules (mostly by throwing an error since > things like pageinspect aren't going to work on the empty 'parent' > table), I

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in >>> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on >>> partitioned

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail > properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can > also trigger failures. It would be confusing for users to face "could > not open file"

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail >> properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can >> also trigger

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes.

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes. > dromedary is unhappy because of this commit, and it is using perl 5.10.0: My RHEL6 workstation

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

George, * George Papadrosou (gpapadro...@gmail.com) wrote: > my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student > at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of Code, > for the project "Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > > wrote: > > David

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

On 2017/03/10 10:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> While reviewing Amit Langote's patch to handle partitioned tables >> properly in various contrib modules (mostly by throwing an error since >> things like pageinspect aren't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

Amit Langote writes: > On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I think we can just save $. and use that, as in the attached. > The patch works for me. Me too. Pushed; we'll soon see if that makes the oldest buildfarm critters happy.

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: > > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > > with bytea_output = escape. > > > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running >> > with

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > wrote: > > David Christensen writes: > >>> Hi David, > >>> > >>> Here's a review of your patch. > >> > >> Hi Ilmari,

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/03/10 3:26, Robert Haas wrote: > I think you might have the titles for 0002 and 0003 backwards. Oops, you're right. > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> 0002: some cosmetic fixes to create_table.sgml > > I think this sentence may be unclear to some readers: > > +

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amount of partitions

Hi Aleksander, noticed this in your patch: > * Add a corespinding entry to pgStatTabHash. "corresponding" Also a question: Some one-line comments are /* Comment. */ while others are /* * Comment. */ Why the difference? Hope this helps, Tels PS: Sorry if this appears twice, I

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in >> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on >> partitioned tables at all. > > This patch no longer

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 2017/03/10 6:48, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Amit, Michael, >> >> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >>> On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: OK, I am marking that

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > But I also think it's more important to get some initial verification > functionality in, than resolving this conflict. I do, also quite > strongly, think we'll be better served with having something like what > you're

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > by having state for each segment, it ends up actually *relying on* > ENOENT-on-unlink() as a condition that terminates execution: Yeah, this seems to fall out of the requirement to manage a growable number of partition files

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 2017-03-09 16:29:24 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I am generally in favor of more inclusive Reviewed-By lists. I suggest > that we expand it to: > > "Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Thomas Vondra, Thomas Munro, Anastasia > Lubennikova, Robert Haas, Amit Langote" And pushed with these. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enabling atomics on ARM64

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> I'd like to offer a forward port from a change I'm contributing >> the Greenplum code base over here: >>

[HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors

Over in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple networking misconfiguration. It would probably have taken a lot less effort if the postmaster were more forthcoming about exactly

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors

On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Over in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca > we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple > networking misconfiguration. It would probably have taken a lot less > effort if

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

Hi, On 2017-03-09 14:30:21 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > In practice, I think it's common to do a quick select * from > pg_stat_activity to determine whether a database instance is in use. > (You always see your own session, but that's easy to eyeball.) If we > add all the various background

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > In the meantime, here is a new patch series addressing the other > things you raised. Please see my remarks on 0007-hj-shared-buf-file-v7.patch over on the "on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

On 2017-03-09 16:37:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > >> In practice, I think it's common to do a quick select * from > >> pg_stat_activity to determine

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> But as far as code is concerned, I think the two-list approach will >> turn out to be less simple if we derive corresponding two different >> arrays in AppendState node. Handling two different arrays

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

On 3/7/17 10:30 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: I'm all for this feature and had suggested it back in the original FWIW, I was working with a system just today that has an overflow partition. thread to add partitioning to 10. I agree that adding a new partition should not move any data out of the

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 03/10/2017 11:23 AM, Beena Emerson wrote: Thank you for your reviews Kuntal, Jim, Ashutosh Attached in an updated 02 patch which: 1. Call RetrieveXLogSegSize(conn) in pg_receivewal.c 2. Remove the warning in Windows 3. Change PATH_MAX in pg_waldump with MAXPGPATH Regarding the usage

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

Thank you for reviewing the patch. The attached patch incorporated Michael and Amit comments also. On 2017/03/07 15:45, Haribabu Kommi wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: @@ -496,7 +499,6 @@

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enabling atomics on ARM64

On 2017-03-10 10:29:39 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> I'd like to offer a forward port from a change I'm contributing > >> the Greenplum

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> For reasons which must've seemed good to whoever instituted the >> policy, pg_dump refers to relkinds using the bare letters rather than >> the constants. > Even in pg_dump, it appears to me that the large majority of relkind > references

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: psql show index with type info

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Amos Bird (amosb...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Well, the prefix is used to differentiate other \d commands, like >> this, > > Ah, ok, fair enough. > > Should we consider differentiating different table types also? I > suppose

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (And no, I don't especially >> approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to >> change that.) > FWIW the reason SEQUENCE uses S instead of 's' is that the latter was > taken for "special" relations,

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Suppressing ENOENT because it's not clear which backend actually owns > a file is a bit different from using it to detect that there are no > more segments... +1, emphatically. > Obviously I screwed some things

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Suppressing ENOENT because it's not clear which backend actually owns >> a file is a bit different from using it to detect that

Re: [HACKERS] foreign partition DDL regression tests

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: At least we need to update the documentation. >>> >>> Got a proposal? >> >> How about something like attached? > > Committed

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Existing style is mostly to inject relkind values into constructed >> query strings using %c. I did not bother to touch places that did it >> like that, but really a

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > George, > > * George Papadrosou (gpapadro...@gmail.com) wrote: >> my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student >> at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of >>

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Tom Lane wrote: > (And no, I don't especially > approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to > change that.) FWIW the reason SEQUENCE uses S instead of 's' is that the latter was taken for "special" relations, which we removed a few releases ago (commit 3a694bb0a1). --

[HACKERS] Changing references of password encryption to hashing

Hi all, As discussed here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/98cafcd0-5557-0bdf-4837-0f2b7782d...@joeconway.com We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define what actually is hashing, which is confusing. Attached is a patch for HEAD to change the documentation to

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

Robert Haas writes: > I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=clam=2017-03-10%2002%3A00%3A01 regards, tom lane -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Existing style is mostly to inject relkind values into constructed >>> query strings using %c.

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Quite a lot of thought seems to have gone into making the > fd.c/resowner mechanism leak-proof in the face of errors. So, quite > apart from what that approaches misses out on, I really don't want to > change resource

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. > > Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. > >

[HACKERS] Bug in get_partition_for_tuple

Just observed a crash due to thinko in the logic that handles NULL partition key. Absence of null-accepting partition in this case should have caused an error, instead the current code proceeds with comparison resulting in crash. create table p (a int, b char) partition by list (b); create table

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol >> RecentGlobalXmin >> [C:\buildfarm\buildenv\HEAD\pgsql.build\amcheck.vcxproj] >> >> Rather than marking RecentGlobalXmin as PGDLLIMPORT, I'd rather just >>

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Hm - I think it's fair to export RecentGlobalXmin, given that we >> obviously use it across modules in core code. I see very little reason >> not to export it. > > Well, the assertion is completely useless as anything but

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output > = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape' > format for bytea. > With this, if an installcheck is done, that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> I think we can just save $. and use that, as in the attached. > >> The patch works for me. > > Me too. Pushed; we'll soon see if

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> by having state for each segment, it ends up actually *relying on* >> ENOENT-on-unlink() as a condition that terminates execution: > >

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail > properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can > also trigger failures. It would be confusing for users to face "could

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. > > Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Right, if we use XLogReadBufferForRedoExtended() instead of >> XLogReadBufferExtended()/LockBufferForCleanup during relay routine, >> then

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > And pushed with these. Thanks. > I don't really expect buildfarm fallout, but .. Unfortunately, there is some on Windows: verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol RecentGlobalXmin

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

Hi, On 2017-03-09 19:04:46 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I don't really expect buildfarm fallout, but .. > > Unfortunately, there is some on Windows: Thanks for monitoring. > verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001:

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Do we really need to set LSN on this page (or mark it dirty), if so > why? Are you worried about restoration of FPI or something else? I haven't thought through all of the possible consequences and am a bit to tired

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Over in >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca >> we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple >>

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 09/03/17 19:50, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > Anecdotally, we just stored dates as strings and used a convention (key > ends in "_at", I believe) to interpret them. The lack of support for > dates in JSON is well-known, universally decried... and not a problem > the PostgreSQL community can

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Mike, * Mike Palmiotto (mike.palmio...@crunchydata.com) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not > > updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's > > not

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hello, On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > I took a look at this patch. Overall, the patch looks good to me. > However, there are some review comments that I would like to share, > > 1. I think the macro 'PATH_MAX' used in pg_waldump.c file

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

> > But as far as code is concerned, I think the two-list approach will > turn out to be less simple if we derive corresponding two different > arrays in AppendState node. Handling two different arrays during > execution does not look clean. Whereas, the bitmapset that I have used > in Append has

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David Steele > PostgreSQL currently requires the file mode mask (umask) to be 0077. > However, this precludes the possibility of a user in the postgres group > performing a backup (or whatever).

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

Amit Kapila writes: > Just to let you know that I think I have figured out the reason of > failure. If we run the regressions with attached patch, it will make > the regression tests fail consistently in same way. The patch just > makes all transaction status updates to

Re: [HACKERS] Report the number of skipped frozen pages by manual VACUUM

On 3/6/17 8:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: I don't think it can say "1 frozen pages" because the number of skipped pages according to visibility map is always more than 32 (SKIP_PAGES_THRESHOLD). That's just an artifact of how the VM currently works. I'm not a fan of cross dependencies like

Re: [HACKERS] Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner

On 3/8/17 16:49, Andres Freund wrote: >> make check-world -j2 seems to run fine for me. > > Hm, I at least used to get a lot of spurious failures with this. I > e.g. don't think the free port selection is race free. I was also not sure about that, but as Michael has pointed out, that doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)

On 10 March 2017 at 02:55, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, that's why I tried to advocate that their should be two separate > XID limits in shared memory: leave what's there now the way it is, and > then add a new limit for "don't try to look up XIDs before this point: >

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit subtransactions for PL/Tcl

2017-03-09 7:48 GMT+01:00 Victor Wagner : > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:49:33 +0100 > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > I did a review of this patch > > > I'm attaching new version of patch with the issues pointed by you fixed. > > > > > 4. A documentation is

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 2017-03-09 11:06, Erik Rijkers wrote: file Name: logrep.20170309_1021.1.1043.scale_25.clients_64.NOK.log 20170309_1021 is the start-time of the script 1 is master (2 is replica) 1043 is the time, 10:43, just before the pg_waldump call Sorry, that might be confusing. That 10:43 is the

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit subtransactions for PL/Tcl

Hi 2017-03-09 10:25 GMT+01:00 Victor Wagner : > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:25:14 +0100 > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > > > is this patch complete? I don't see new regress tests > > Oh, really! I've forgot that git diff doesn't include files which are >

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit subtransactions for PL/Tcl

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:12:09 +0100 Pavel Stehule wrote: > the regress tests is unstable > > the proc name has mutable pid > > ! (procedure "__PLTcl_proc_16503" line 3) > invoked from within > ! "__PLTcl_proc_16503 SPI" > > Regards Really, I don't know what

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit subtransactions for PL/Tcl

2017-03-09 11:45 GMT+01:00 Victor Wagner : > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:12:09 +0100 > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > the regress tests is unstable > > > > the proc name has mutable pid > > > > ! (procedure "__PLTcl_proc_16503" line 3) > > invoked

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 2017-03-09 11:06, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2017-03-08 10:36, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 07/03/17 23:30, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2017-03-06 11:27, Petr Jelinek wrote: 0001-Reserve-global-xmin-for-create-slot-snasphot-export.patch + 0002-Don-t-use-on-disk-snapshots-for-snapshot-export-in-l.patch+

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit subtransactions for PL/Tcl

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:25:14 +0100 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > is this patch complete? I don't see new regress tests Oh, really! I've forgot that git diff doesn't include files which are not added into git. So, no old regress tests as well. Sorry for posting incomplete

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for btree

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On 2/16/17 11:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas writes: > >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:05 AM,

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

> > +if (rel->partial_pathlist != NIL && > +(Path *) linitial(rel->partial_pathlist) == subpath) > +partial_subplans_set = bms_add_member(partial_subplans_set, i); > > This seems like a scary way to figure this out. What if we wanted to > build a parallel append

[HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

Hi, We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth. Upgrade was done by pg_upgrade from 9.4 directly do 9.6.1. Now we upgraded to 9.6.2 with no improvement. Some information about our setup: Freebsd, Solaris

[HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

Hi, We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth. Upgrade was done by pg_upgrade from 9.4 directly do 9.6.1. Now we upgraded to 9.6.2 with no improvement. Some information about our setup: Freebsd, Solaris

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

Hello On 07.03.2017 15:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote: I've read the discussion so far but I didn't see the reason why you've changed it to as a contrib module. Could you tell me about that? I did it on the initiative of our customer, who preferred the implementation in the form of contrib.

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Here is another version of patch with the suggested changes. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign Join pushdowns not working properly for outer joins

On 9 March 2017 at 18:06, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> >>> Here's the patch attached. >> >> Agreed. It seems like a good idea to keep that logic in a single location > > Ok. > >> >> I've beaten your patch around a bit and come up with the attached. > > The new name

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE/ALTER ROLE PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method')

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 03/07/2017 08:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> here is a separate thread dedicated to the following extension for >>> CREATE/ALTER ROLE: PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method').

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> +if (rel->partial_pathlist != NIL && >> +(Path *) linitial(rel->partial_pathlist) == subpath) >> +partial_subplans_set = bms_add_member(partial_subplans_set, i); >> >> This

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > 0002: Check hash join work_mem usage at the point of chunk allocation. > > Modify the existing hash join code to detect work_mem exhaustion at > the point where chunks are allocated, instead of checking after every >

<    1   2   3   >