Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows

On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> Hello, >> In Windows, if one needs to take a dump in plain text format (this is >> the default option, or can be specified using -Fp) with some level of >> compression (-Z[0-9]), an output

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Make the optimiser aware of partitions ordering

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Ronan Dunklau wrote: > On lundi 20 mars 2017 15:52:03 CET Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Ronan Dunklau > wrote: >> > With range partitioning, we guarantee that each partition contains non- >> > overlapping values. Since we know the range al

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > Meanwhile, attached is a WIP patch v10. The only change in this patch > w.r.t. the last patch (v9) is that this one has a new function defined > append_nonpartial_cost(). Just sending this to show how the algorithm > looks like; haven't yet

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On 2017/03/23 15:04, Haribabu Kommi wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:11 PM, vinayak > wrote: On 2017/03/21 21:25, Haribabu Kommi wrote: On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:41 PM, vinayak mailto:pokale_vinayak...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> wrote: T

Re: [HACKERS] segfault in hot standby for hash indexes

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> >> I think it would have been probably okay to use *int* for ntuples as >> that matches with what you are actually assigning in the function. > > okay, corrected it. Attached is newer version of patch. > Thanks, this version looks good t

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 24 March 2017 at 13:11, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote: > I have given patch on latest pg sources (on commit > 457a4448732881b5008f7a3bcca76fc299075ac3). configure and make all > install ran successfully, but initdb failed with below error. > FailedAssertion("!(LWLockTranchesAllocated >= > LWTRANC

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect and hash indexes

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >> >> Thanks for reviewing my patch. I have removed the extra white space. >> Attached are both the patches. > > Sorry, I have mistakenly attached wrong patch. Here are the correct

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

Hi Ashutosh, On 2017/03/23 21:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> I have fixed all the issues reported till now. In patch 0007, the following code in have_partkey_equi_join() looks potentially unsafe: /* * If the clause refers to different partition keys from * both relations

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> In Windows, if one needs to take a dump in plain text format (this is >>> the default option, or can be specified usin

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

Hi, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:32:28AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber > when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during > replication but not there). > > Attached patches should fix both issues. I no longer get

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

On 3/23/17, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/23/17 06:09, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: >> I think we'll end up with "DROP IDENTITY IF EXISTS" to avoid raising >> an exception and "ADD OR SET" if your grammar remains. > > That sounds reasonable to me. It would be great if "DROP IDENTITY IF EXISTS" is in th

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 24/03/17 12:32, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 24/03/17 00:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 24/03/17 02:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 3/21/17 21:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: This patch is looking pretty good to me, modulo the failing pg_dump tests. Attached is a fixup patch. I have mainly updated som

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

Hello Rushabh, Thank you for reviewing. Have addressed all your comments in the attached patch. The attached patch currently throws an error if a new partition is added after default partition. >Rather then adding check for default here, I think this should be handle inside >get_qual_for_list().

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > The changes to the plpgsql code don't look so good to me. The change > to exec_stmt_return_query fixes the same bug that I mentioned in the > email linked above, but only half of it -- it corrects the RETURN > QUERY EXECUTE case but not th

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 2017-03-24 10:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote: However one minor observation - as Michael Banck noted - the elapsed time for slave to catch up after running: $ pgbench -c8 -T600 bench on the master was (subjectively) much longer than for physical streaming replication. Is this expected? I think

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> > >> >> I am not sure on what basis user can set such parameters, it will be >> quite difficult to tune those parameters. I think the point is >> whatever threshold we keep,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check for whether we're running as Windows serv

On 03/22/2017 07:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I did some archeology, and found CheckTokenMembership() in MinGW's w32api packages version 3.14 (https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/MinGW/Base/w32api/w32api-3.

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh >>> wrote: Hello, In Windows, if one needs to take a dump in plain text for

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

Hi Ashutosh, On 2017/03/23 21:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> I have fixed all the issues reported till now. I've tried to fix your 0012 patch (Multi-level partitioned table expansion) considering your message earlier on this thread [1]. Especially the fact that no AppendRelInfo and RelOptInfo are

Re: [HACKERS] Backend crash on non-exclusive backup cancel

Thank you all, pushed Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: I believe patch looks good and it's ready to commit. Thanks for the review! As I understand, it fixes bug introduced by commit 7117685461af50f50c03f43e6a622284c8d54694 Date: Tue Apr 5 20:03

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila > > > > The general sense I've got > > here is that we're ok to push some work in background if it helps the > > real-time que

[HACKERS] [psql] patch to fix ordering in words_after_create array

Hi All, While looking at the code around tab-complete.c, I found the ordering in words_after_create array is not correct for DEFAULT PRIVILEGES, which been added under below commit: commit d7d77f3825122bde55be9e06f6c4851028b99795 Author: Peter Eisentraut Date: Thu Mar 16 18:54:28 2017 -0400

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check for whether we're running as Windows serv

On Friday, March 24, 2017, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03/22/2017 07:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> >>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> I did some archeology, and found CheckTokenMembership() in MinGW's w32api packages

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

On 03/23/2017 06:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: And after a lookup the failure is here: - result = get_role_password(port->user_name, &shadow_pass, logdetail); + shadow_pass = get_role_password(port->user_name, logdetail); if (result == STATUS_OK) result is never setup in this code path, s

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 24/03/17 11:23, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2017-03-24 10:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> >> However one minor observation - as Michael Banck noted - the elapsed >> time for slave to catch up after running: >> >> $ pgbench -c8 -T600 bench >> >> on the master was (subjectively) much longer than for phys

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > There is a function for that. [...] > There is not a function for that, but there could be one. I'm not sure you've really considered what you're suggesting here. We need to to make sure we have every file between two LSNs. Y

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

Hi Anastasia, Thanks a lot for a review! As was mentioned above there is also a bottleneck in find_all_inheritors procedure. Turned out the problem there is similar and it could be easily fixed as well. Corresponding patch is attached to this message. To keep things in order I'm attaching the pre

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 3/22/17 09:17, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> If we do it via GRANTs instead, then users can easily extend it. > > The intent here is that users will *also* be able to do it via GRANTs if > > they wish to. > > But why not do it w

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 3/24/17 12:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 3/23/17 16:58, Stephen Frost wrote: The backup tools need to also get the LSN from the pg_stop_backup and verify that they have the WAL file associated with that LSN. There is a function for that. They also need to make sure that they have all

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed This patch looks good to me. As I understand we have both a c

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Jeff, * Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut < > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 3/22/17 17:33, David Steele wrote: > > > and I doubt that most tool writers would be quick to > > > add support for a feature that very few peopl

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Suppress Clang 3.9 warnings

Hi Tom, Since no one seems to be particularly excited about this patch I'm marking it as "Returned with feedback" to save reviewers time. On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:21:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:57:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Seems like t

Re: [HACKERS] Backend crash on non-exclusive backup cancel

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Thank you all, pushed. Thanks. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03/23/2017 06:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> And after a lookup the failure is here: >> - result = get_role_password(port->user_name, &shadow_pass, logdetail); >> + shadow_pass = get_role_password(port->user_name, logdetail);

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

On 03/24/2017 03:02 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: In order to close this thread, I propose to reuse the patches I sent here to make scram_build_verifier() available to frontends: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqT4yc3u8wspYkWbG088Ndp6asMH3=zb___ck89ctvz...@mail.gmail.com And on top of i

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Thanks Amit. v19 addresses some of the comments below. > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Pavan Deolasee >> > wrote

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

Also I would like to share some benchmark results. Before applying any patches (copied from one of previous messages): ``` latency average = 1153.495 ms latency stddev = 154.366 ms tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing) tps = 6.061211 (excluding connections establishing) ``` After a

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 3/23/17 4:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 3/22/17 17:33, David Steele wrote: I think if we don't change the default size it's very unlikely I would use alternate WAL segment sizes or recommend that anyone else does, at least in v10. I simply don't think it would get the level of testing re

Re: [HACKERS] create_unique_path and GEQO

Ashutosh Bapat writes: >> Do you have test case, which can reproduce the issue you >> explained above? > No. It would require some surgery in standard_planner() to measure the > memory consumed in the planner context OR build the code with > SHOW_MEMORY_STATS defined and dump memory context stati

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber > when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during > replication but not there). I think for this we can probably just change the missing_ok argument of RangeVarGetRelid()

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

On 1 March 2017 at 01:36, Amit Langote wrote: > I don't know which way you're thinking of fixing this, but a planner patch > to implement faster partition-pruning will have taken care of this, I > think. As you may know, even declarative partitioned tables currently > depend on constraint exclus

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 24/03/17 15:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber >> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during >> replication but not there). > > I think for this we can probably just c

Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested Hi, I've tried to review this patch, but it seems that I miss something esse

Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

On 10 March 2017 at 13:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Results look good for me. Idea of committing both of patches looks > attractive. > I'll commit mine since I understand what it does. I'll look at the other one also, but won't commit yet. > We have pretty much acceleration for read-only cas

Re: [HACKERS] Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER

Hi Naoki, On 3/17/17 11:58 AM, Surafel Temesgen wrote: I am sending the review of this patch This thread has been idle for a week. Please respond and/or post a new patch by 2017-03-28 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked "Returned with Feedback". -- -David da...@pgmasters

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

On 3/21/17 11:45 AM, David Steele wrote: Hi Nikita, On 3/9/17 8:52 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: I take a look to this patchset. My first notes are following. This thread has been idle for quite a while. Please respond and/or post a new patch by 2017-03-24 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submis

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

Hi Ivan, On 3/21/17 1:06 PM, David Steele wrote: Hi Ivan, On 3/12/17 10:20 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Ivan Kartyshov wrote: Here I attached rebased patch waitlsn_10dev_v3 (core feature) I will leave the choice of implementation (core/contrib) to the discretion o

Re: [HACKERS] PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan [take-2]

Hi Kaigai, On 3/21/17 1:11 PM, David Steele wrote: On 3/13/17 3:25 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: I have reviewed this patch further and here are my comments: This thread has been idle for over a week. Please respond and/or post a new patch by 2017-03-24 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

And the renaming of pg_clog to pg_xact is also my fault. Attached is an updated patch. Thank you. One more question: what about symlinks? If DBA moves, for example, pg_xact to another dist and leaves the symlink in data directoty. Suppose, fsync on symlink will do nothing actually. -- Teodor

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

Hi Dmitry, On 3/21/17 4:42 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: On 21 March 2017 at 18:16, David Steele > wrote: This thread has been idle for over a week. Yes, sorry for the late reply. I'm still trying to find a better solution for some of the problems, that arose in this

[HACKERS] Fix slot name change handling for subscriptions

Hi, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... WITH (SLOT NAME = foo) will make the worker dies on error about unexpected subscription changed. It's my oversight in the original logical replication patch-set. Attached patch fixes it to behave same way as other changes to subscription options. -- Petr Jelinek

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication origin tracking fix

On 10/03/17 05:59, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Hi, > > while discussing with Craig issues around restarting logical replication > stream related to the patch he posted [1], I realized that we track > wrong origin LSN in the logical replication apply. > > We currently track commit_lsn which is *start* o

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication apply to run with sync commit off by default

On 21/03/17 22:37, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 21/03/17 18:54, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Petr Jelinek >> wrote: >>> On 18/03/17 13:31, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 07/03/17 06:23, Petr Jelinek wrote: > there has been discussion at the logical replication initial copy t

Re: [HACKERS] Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses

Hi Pritam, On 3/17/17 5:41 PM, Pritam Baral wrote: So sorry. I'm attaching the correct version of the original with this, in case you want to test the limited implementation, because I still have to go through Tom's list of suggestions. BTW, the patch is for applying on top of REL9_6_2, and wh

[HACKERS] Logical replication SnapBuildInitalSnapshot spelling

Hi, Commit 7c4f52409a8c7d85ed169bbbc1f6092274d03920 seems to have introduced an alternative spelling of "initial". Fixed in the attached. .m logical_inital.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscripti

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

On 3/16/17 1:54 AM, vinayak wrote: On 2017/03/16 14:46, Haribabu Kommi wrote: As the view name already contains WAL, I am not sure whether is it required to include WAL in every column? I am fine to change if others have the same opinion of adding WAL to column names. Ok. So what is the st

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Problem in using pgbench's --connect(-C) and --rate=rate(-R rate) options together.

Hello Teodor, Hi, the patch looks good except why do you remove initialization of is_throttled? Suppose, just a typo? No, it is really needed so that the lag measure is correct. Without the is_throttled change: sh> ./pgbench -T 3 -R 10 -C -S -P 1 starting vacuum...end. progress: 1.0 s, 9

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

Hi Alexander, On 3/16/17 1:35 PM, David Steele wrote: On 2/21/17 9:54 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 15:53 +0300 schrieb Alexander Korotkov: +1 And you could try to use pg_wait_sampling to sampling of wait events. I've t

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

Hi Vaishnavi, On 3/19/17 9:32 PM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Daniel Verite Daniel, any input here? > I would also like to hear Craig's opinion on it before applying this fix > to the original patch, just to make sure am not missing anything here.

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

Hi Simon, > > I don't know which way you're thinking of fixing this, but a planner patch > > to implement faster partition-pruning will have taken care of this, I > > think. As you may know, even declarative partitioned tables currently > > depend on constraint exclusion for partition-pruning and

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On 24 March 2017 at 15:39, David Steele wrote: > > Do you have an idea when you will have a patch ready? Yes, I'll prepare a new version with most important changes in two days.

Re: [HACKERS] cast result of copyNode()

On 3/21/17 6:52 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:13 PM, David Steele wrote: Hi Mark, On 3/9/17 3:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 3/7/17 18:27, Mark Dilger wrote: You appear to be using a #define macro to wrap a function of the same name with the code: #define copyObject(obj)

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

Another modest proposal: I'm not really sold on the approach of using EEOP_FETCHSOME opcodes to trigger initial tupleslot de-forming. Certainly we want to have a single slot_getsomeattrs call per source slot, but as-is, we need a separate traversal over the expression tree just to precompute the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

David Steele writes: > Do you have an idea when you will have a patch ready? We are now into > the last week of the commitfest. I see one question for Tom, but it's > not clear that this would prevent you from producing a new patch. FWIW, I'm up to my eyeballs in Andres' faster-expressions pa

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

things in order I'm attaching the previous patch as well. Patches look good, but I have some notices: 1 step1 Why do you need TabStatHashEntry at all? TabStatHashEntry.t_id is never used for read, so entry for hash could be just a pointer to PgStat_TableStatus. 2 step1 In pgstat_report_stat(

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

Hello Rafia, if (my_command->argc > 2) + syntax_error(source, lineno, my_command->line, my_command->argv[0], + "at most on argument expected", NULL, -1); I suppose you mean 'one' argument here. Indeed. Apart from that indentation is not correct as per pgindent, please check. I guess that

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

Hi Ashutosh, On 3/22/17 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM, David Steele wrote: Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch. Do you know when you'll have a chance to take a look? I have provided my feedback and I could not test it on my machine.

Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 March 2017 at 13:08, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> Results look good for me. Idea of committing both of patches looks >> attractive. > > I'll commit mine since I understand what it does. I'll look at the other one > also, but won't co

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On 24.03.2017 18:29, Tom Lane wrote: David Steele writes: Do you have an idea when you will have a patch ready? We are now into the last week of the commitfest. I see one question for Tom, but it's not clear that this would prevent you from producing a new patch. FWIW, I'm up to my eyeballs

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

Sorry, 1) and 4) is my fault, comment in hsearch.h: * ... The hash key * is expected to be at the start of the caller's hash entry data structure. Ops, forgot that. Teodor Sigaev wrote: things in order I'm attaching the previous patch as well. Patches look good, but I have some notices: 1 st

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

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> Hence, to be consistent with others, bgworker processes can be >> initialized from BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionBy[Oid]. > > Yeah, I am fine with that. Thanks for the updated

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 24 March 2017 at 00:38, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 23 March 2017 at 16:26, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 23 March 2017 at 05:55, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> So in your example we do this: >>> >>> C[0] += 20; >>> C[1] += 16; >>> C[2] += 10; >>> /* C[2] is smaller than C[0] or C[1] at this point,

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot() > > For normal commits and aborts we already reset PgXact->xmin > Avoiding touching highly contented shmem improves concurrent > performance. > > Simon Riggs I'm getting occasional crashes

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

Hi Teodor, Thanks a lot for a review! > > step1 In pgstat_report_stat() you remove one by one entries from hash and > > remove them all. Isn't it better to hash_destroy/hash_create or even let > > hash > > lives in separate memory context and just resets it? Agree, fixed. > > step1 Again, pgst

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Problem in using pgbench's --connect(-C) and --rate=rate(-R rate) options together.

No, it is really needed so that the lag measure is correct. Thank you, pushed -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> But why not do it with GRANTs in the first place then? > > This is akin to asking why do we need GRANT ALL and ALTER DEFAULT PRIVs. Not really. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES affects what happens for future objects, which isn't necessary here at

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot() >> >> For normal commits and aborts we already reset PgXact->xmin >> Avoiding touching highly contented shmem improves concurrent >>

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

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 24 March 2017 at 02:29, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> Changes made per discussion. >> >> Committed 0001. > > Much appreciated. > > Here's the 2nd patch rebased on top of master, with the T

Re: [HACKERS] parallel "return query" is no good

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I guess the downside of back-patching this is that it could cause a >> plan change for somebody which ends up being worse. On the whole, >> serial execution of queries intended to be run in parallel isn't >> likely to

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Hello Corey, v24 highlights: - finally using git format-patch - all conditional slash commands broken out into their own functions (exec_command_$NAME) , each one tests if it's in an active branch, and if it's not it consumes the same number of parameters, but discards them. comments for each

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> If we make the users run all the statements individually then they'll >> also have to get an updated script for the next version of PG too >> because we will have added things that the tools will want access to. > > That's possible, but it r

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: >> ASAICU, if we use binary mode, output is stored bit by bit. In ASCII >> mode, cmd pokes its nose and does CR / LF conversions on its own. So, >> whenever we want compression on a plain-text dump file, we can set the >> stdout mode to O_BINARY

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

Hi, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:00 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Ashutosh, > > On 3/22/17 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM, David Steele >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch. Do you know >>> when you'll have a chance to

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> If we make the users run all the statements individually then they'll >>> also have to get an updated script for the next version of PG too >>> because we will have added things that the t

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hello, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Beena Emerson > wrote: > > PFA an updated patch which fixes a minor bug I found. It only increases > the > > string size in pretty_wal_size function. > > The 01-add-XLogSegmentOffset-macro.patch has a

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

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:08:42 +0900 >>> Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot() >>> >>> For normal commits and aborts we already reset PgXact->xmin >>> Avo

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()

On 24 March 2017 at 16:14, Robert Haas wrote: > I suspect that is the fault of this patch. Please fix or revert. Will revert then fix. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers m

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()

On 2017-03-24 13:50:54 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs > >> wrote: > >>> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot() > >>> > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > I was worried for the case if the index is created non-default > collation, will the datumIsEqual() suffice the need. Now again > thinking about it, I think it will because in the index tuple we are > storing the value as in heap tuple.

Re: [HACKERS] extended statistics: n-distinct

Pushed this after some more tweaking. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postg

Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > Hi, I've tried to review this patch, but it seems that I miss something > essential. Hi Anastasia, Thanks for looking at this. > You claim that SLRUs now support five digit segment name, while in slru.h > at current master I see t

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

Hi, On 2017-03-24 11:26:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Another modest proposal: > > I'm not really sold on the approach of using EEOP_FETCHSOME opcodes to > trigger initial tupleslot de-forming. Certainly we want to have a single > slot_getsomeattrs call per source slot, but as-is, we need a separa

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user > > action to cause the creation of a slot, like --create-slot-if-needed > > or --create-slot=name. Tha

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Here's a rebased series on top of today's a3eac988c267. I call this > v28. > > I put David's pg_dump and COMMENT patches as second in line, just after > the initial infrastructure patch. I suppose those three have to be > committed together, while the others (which add su

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement multivariate n-distinct coefficients

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Implement multivariate n-distinct coefficients dromedary and arapaima have failures like this, which seems likely related to this commit: EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ndistinct GROUP BY a, d; QUERY PLAN

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Rafia Sabih wrote: >> I suspect that code fails to achieve its goals anyway. At the top of >> exec_eval_expr(), you call exec_prepare_plan() and unconditionally >> pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK, so when that function returns, expr->plan >> might now be a parallel pl

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 3/24/17 10:09, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 24/03/17 15:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber >>> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during >>> replication but not there).

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 3/24/17 05:22, Michael Banck wrote: > However, replication also seems to not work, I'm using the following > script right now: The problem is that your publication does not include any tables. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, R

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, David Steele wrote: >> Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's >> then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default >> size. > > I did say that, but I thought I had hit on a compromise. > > But, as I originally poin

  1   2   >