Re: [HACKERS] Removing LEFT JOINs in more cases

Thanks for looking over this and my apologies for the delay in my response. I've been on leave and out of range of the internet for most of that time. On 23 November 2017 at 02:30, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > @@ -597,15 +615,25 @@ rel_supports_distinctness(PlannerInfo *root, > RelOptInfo *rel) > +

Re: Commit fest 2017-11

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > I want to move also "Covering B-tree indexes (aka INCLUDE)" . Seems like we > have common view with Peter Geoghegan and Anastasia that found drawback will > be fixed before next CF. > > If there is no objections, I'll put "needs review" to

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 30 November 2017 at 07:40, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Hi, > > On 24/11/17 07:41, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 24 November 2017 at 13:44, Nikhil Sontakke > > > > > > How practical is adding a lock class? > > > > Am open to suggestions. This looks like it could work decently. > > > > > > It lo

Re: Commit fest 2017-11

Michael, thank you for your hard work! > 30 нояб. 2017 г., в 10:39, Michael Paquier > написал(а): > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: >> Now I tried that, successfully marking it as "waiting on author", but the >> patch doesn't move to the next CF when I then cha

RE: Commit fest 2017-11

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] > If you have a patch "waiting on author" that you would like to move to the > next commit fest, just switch its status back temporarily to "needs review", > and then do the move. Yes, that's unnecessary complication but I am not > going to f

Re: Commit fest 2017-11

On 2017/11/30 14:29, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] >> All patches not marked as ready for committer have been classified, by either >> being marked as returned with feedback or moved to the next CF. >> I may have made some mistakes of course,

Re: Commit fest 2017-11

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Now I tried that, successfully marking it as "waiting on author", but the > patch doesn't move to the next CF when I then change the status as "Move to > next CF." How can I move the patch to next CF? If you have a patch "waiting on

Re: Allowing SSL connection of v11 client to v10 server with SCRAM channel binding

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/22/17 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yes, agreed. This patch looks good to me. In fe-auth-scram.c, it would >> be also nice to add a comment to keep in sync the logics in >> build_client_first_message() and build_client_final_messa

RE: Commit fest 2017-11

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] > All patches not marked as ready for committer have been classified, by either > being marked as returned with feedback or moved to the next CF. > I may have made some mistakes of course, hence if you feel that the status > of your patch is

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

Hello, On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Beena Emerson > wrote: >> Thank you for your suggestion. I am looking into this and will post a >> patch soon. > > It has been two weeks since this update and no new patch has showed > up. I am mar

Re: [HACKERS] <> join selectivity estimate question

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat writes: >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >>> Please find attached a new version, and a test script I used, which >>> shows a bunch of interesting cases. I'll add this to the commitfest. > >> I added some

Re: Commit fest 2017-11

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The current commit fest is coming to an end, and as many may have > noticed, I have begun classifying patches depending on their status. > This will likely take a couple of days. As a last push, I would like > to point out that there are 2

Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows

Noah Misch writes: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't really have an opinion about the relative merits of these changes, >> but why do anything? The existing solution has the buildfarm happy, and >> we've not heard any field complaints that I saw. I'm not sure

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > Here is a rebased version of the patch. The patch does not apply, and needs a rebase. I am moving it to next CF with waiting on author as status. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] log_destination=file

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> average latency: >> >> clients patch master >> 10 0.321 0.286 >> 20 0.669 0.602 >> 30 1.016 0.942 >> 40

Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4. >>> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can >>> readily do. Real

Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:34:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4. > >> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can > >> readi

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The patch does not currently apply. I am noticing as well that Peter > Geoghegan has registered himself as a reviewer a couple of hours back, > so moved to next CF with waiting on author as status. Marko unregistered me, so I promptly rere

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic result sets from procedures

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> There is also one need error that needs further investigation. > > I've looked at this bit in the regression tests about \gexec: > > --- a/src/test/regress/expected/psql.out > +++ b/src/test/regress/expect

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Jing Wang wrote: > Hi All, > > This is a patch for current_database working on ALTER ROLE/GRANT/REVOKE > statements which should be applied after the previous patch > "comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.4.patch". > > By using the patch the CURRENT_DATABASE c

Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows

Noah Misch writes: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4. >> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's about the best we can >> readily do. Realistically, nobody out in the wider world is likely >> to

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> >> > But I'm generally against >> > interfaces which put arbitrary restrictions on what power users can do >> > on >> > t

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Alex K wrote: >> On 16 Jun 2017, at 21:30, Alexey Kondratov >> wrote: > >> > On 13 Jun 2017, at 01:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > >> > Speculative insertion has the following special entry points to >> > heapam.c and execIndexing.c, currently only called within

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Peter Moser wrote: > 2017-11-14 18:42 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : >> You might consider putting the rewriting into, um, the rewriter. >> It could be a separate pass after view expansion, if direct integration >> with the existing behavior seems unduly spaghetti-ish. Or d

Re: [HACKERS] Flexible configuration for full-text search

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Aleksandr Parfenov wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:05:23 +1300 > Thomas Munro wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aleksandr Parfenov >> wrote: >> > In attachment updated patch with fixes of empty XML tags in >> > documentation. >> >> Hi Aleksandr, >> >> I'

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Here's the remaining bits, rebased. At least patch 3 has conflicts with HEAD. I am moving this patch to next CF per a lack of reviews, switching status to waiting on author. -- Michael

Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Apparently there was some minor breakage due to duplicate OIDs, so here > is the patch series updated to current master. Moved to CF 2018-01. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 11/28/2017 02:29 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:20:12 +0100 >> Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >>> I guess the trick might be -DRANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY (I first >>> tried without it, and it seemed working fine). If that'

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we have to mark this as returned with feedback or rejected for >> the reasons mentioned here: >> http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmozjn28uyjrq2k+5idhyxwbder68sctoc2p_nw7h7jb...@mail.gmail.com > Good point. I forgot

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Antonin Houska wrote: > I'm not about to add any other features now. Implementation of the missing > parts (see the TODO comments in the code) is the next step. But what I'd > appreciate most is a feedback on the design. Thanks. I am getting a conflict after apply

Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Short of declaring this version of Perl unsupported, the only answer > > I can think of is to put a kluge into the MSVC build scripts along > > the lines of "if it's 32-bit Windows, and the Perl version is before X, > > assume

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Attached is an updated version of the patch series, fixing the issues > reported by Mark Dilger: Moved to next CF. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ON CONFLICT and partitioned tables

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/11/24 11:45, Amit Langote wrote: >> Meanwhile, rebased patch is attached. > > Oops, forgot to attach in the last email. Attached now. Moved to next CF. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 09/11/2017 01:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev >> wrote: >>> Moreover, RUM index >>> stores positions + lexemes, so it doesn't need tsvectors for ranked >>> search. As a result, tsvector beco

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Pattern based listeners for asynchronous messaging (LISTEN/NOTIFY)

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Markus Sintonen wrote: > I'll reflect on the rest of the feedback on the next patch if we reach some > conclusion on the pg_listening_channels and UNLISTEN. So this point is not settled? Still I can see that the feedback from Marko has not been actually much answe

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > (2017/10/27 20:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> >> Please find attached an updated version of the patch. > > > Amit rebased this patch and sent me the rebased version off list. Thanks for > that, Amit! > > One thing I noticed I overlooked is abo

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > Messages have the following format now: > > SELECT to_timestamp('97/Feb/16', 'FXYY:Mon:DD'); > ERROR: unexpected character "/", expected ":" > HINT: In FX mode, punctuation in the input string must exactly match the > format string. Mov

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:50:21PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Nico Williams wrote: >> > Rebased (there were conflicts in the SGML files). >> >> Hi Nico >> >> FYI that version has some stray absolute paths i

Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > # I had been forgetting to count the version for latestst several > # patches. I give the version '4' - as the next of the last > # numbered patch. With all the changes that have happened in the documentation lately, I suspect that this i

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > After investigation, I found out that my previous patch was wrong > direction. I should have changed XLogSendLogical() so that we can > check the read LSN and set WalSndCaughtUp = true even after read a > record without wait. Attached updat

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

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Ants Aasma wrote: > Robert made a good point that people will still rely on the token > being an LSN, but perhaps they will be slightly less angry when we > explicitly tell them that this might change in the future. This thread has stalled, I am marking the patch

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > [snip] Moving to next CF per the hotness of the topic. -- Michael

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> wrote: >>> This is a rebased version of the patch. >> >> As far as I can see, the patch still applies, compiles, and got no >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > +1, > FDW looks OK for prototyping pluggable storage, but it doesn't seem suitable > for permanent implementation. > BTW, Hadi, could you visit "Pluggable storage" thread and check how suitable > upcoming pluggable storage API is for cst

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> This is a rebased version of the patch. > > As far as I can see, the patch still applies, compiles, and got no > reviews. So moved to next CF. I think we have to mark this as

Re: [HACKERS] create_unique_path and GEQO

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> On 8/8/17 05:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote: Are you planning to work on remaining patches 0005 and 0006 that >>

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov >> wrote: >> > pg_prune_xid makes sense only for heap pages. Once we introduce special >> > area for heap pages, we can mov

Re: [HACKERS] eval_const_expresisions and ScalarArrayOpExpr

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> This patch no longer applies cleanly on HEAD, so here's a rebased version >> (no substantive changes). As before, I think the most useful review task >> would be to quantify whether it makes planning noticeably slower. > > Rebased agai

Re: [HACKERS] create_unique_path and GEQO

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Rebased again, now with a commit message. That assertion has since > been removed (commit ec99dd5a) so the attached test script can once > again be used to see the contents of pg_serial as the xid goes all the > way around, if you build with T

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Ashutosh, > > * Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > The "global rethink" being contemplated seems to be more about >> > authentication forwarding than it is ab

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > [snip] Moved to next CF as the discussion is still hot. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > It is hard to create regress tests. Any ideas? Moving to next CF per lack of reviews. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] <> join selectivity estimate question

Ashutosh Bapat writes: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Please find attached a new version, and a test script I used, which >> shows a bunch of interesting cases. I'll add this to the commitfest. > I added some "stable" tests to your patch taking inspiration from the

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On 30 November 2017 at 15:34, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:17 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > The remove_singleton_appends_examples_of_differences_2017-11-15.patch > > which I've attached applies changes to the regression tests to make > > many of the major tables partitioned

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2017-09-13 1:42 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gustafsson : >> >> > On 08 Apr 2017, at 15:46, David Steele wrote: >> > >> >> On 1/13/17 6:55 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Jim Nasby > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Removing LEFT JOINs in more cases

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:39 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > >> In this case, the join *can* cause row duplicates, but the distinct or >> group by would filter these out again anyway, so in these cases, we'd >> not only get the benefit of not j

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > One more idea: > > I think the metadata (ALIGN_GAP) should be stored separate from the actual > data so that you can use memcpy() instead of this loop: > > while (i < j) > { > charc = targetRegionAligned[i

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: enabling parallel execution for cursors explicitly (experimental)

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> That forces materialization, and I'm guessing part of Tomas's goal >> here is to prevent the need to materialize into a temp table / >> tuplestore / etc. > > I get that, but if you're runn

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:17 PM, David Rowley wrote: > The remove_singleton_appends_examples_of_differences_2017-11-15.patch > which I've attached applies changes to the regression tests to make > many of the major tables partitioned tables with a single partition. > It also changes the expected r

Re: [HACKERS] compress method for spgist - 2

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > Should I start a separate thread for this issue and add patches to > commitfest? Yes, please. It would be nice if you could spawn a separate thread for what looks like a bug, and separate topics should have their own thread. This will attra

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On 2017-11-30 14:17:51 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Munro > > wrote: > >> Here's a new patch set with responses to the last batch of review comments. > > > > Rebased on top of the recent SGML->XML

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/11/30 11:18, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I'm working on a revised version of these patches to address recent >> comments by Horiguchi-san. I will also consider the points above before >> sending the new version. > > Ok, this is fres

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that a set of quals q1 > qn are ordered the same irrespective of the set of clauses they > are subset of. E.g. if {q1 .. qn} is subset of Q (ordered as Qo) and > also Q' (ordered as Q'o) the o

Re: [HACKERS] Lazy hash table for XidInMVCCSnapshot (helps Zipfian a bit)

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Sokolov Yura wrote: > Simplified a bit and more commented patch version is in attach. > > Algorithm were switched to linear probing, it makes code simpler and > clearer. > Flag usages were toggled: now it indicates that hash table were built, > it also makes code c

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > I'm working on a revised version of these patches to address recent > comments by Horiguchi-san. I will also consider the points above before > sending the new version. Ok, this is fresh news, so I am moving this entry to next CF with waiti

Re: [HACKERS] Secondary index access optimizations

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Concerning broken partition_join test: it is "expected" failure: my patch > removes from the plans redundant checks. > So the only required action is to update expected file with results. > Attached please find updated patch. The last

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > [snip] This is still a hot topic so I am moving it to next CF. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] >> This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving it >> to next CF with waiting on author as status. Please provide a rebased >> version. >> Tsunakawa-sa

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Yeah, I was thinking the commit is relevant with this issue but as > Amit mentioned this error is emitted by DROP SCHEMA CASCASE. > I don't find out the cause of this issue yet. With the previous > version patch, autovacuum workers were wok

RE: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com] > This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving it > to next CF with waiting on author as status. Please provide a rebased version. > Tsunakawa-san, you are listed as a reviewer of this patch. If you are not > plannin

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Attached latest patch incorporated all comments so far. Please review it. >> >> I think you only need RelExtLockReleas

Re: [HACKERS] <> join selectivity estimate question

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Are you referring to rounding errors? We should probably add some fuzz > factor to cover the rounding errors and cause a diff when difference > in expected and reported plan rows is beyond that fuzz factor. As far as I can see the patch pro

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Yeah and I think something like that can happen after your patch > because now the memory for tuples returned via TupleQueueReaderNext > will be allocated in ExecutorState and that can last for long. I > think it is better to free memory, but

Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 16:34, Konstantin Knizhnik > wrote: > >> Attached please find yet another version of the patch. > > Thanks. I'm reviewing it. Two months later, this patch is still waiting for a review (you are listed as well as a revi

Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > One more patch passing all regression tests with autoprepare_threshold=1. > I still do not think that it should be switch on by default... This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving it to next CF with waitin

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: full merge join on comparison clause

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > I am attaching the updated patch, rebased to 820c03. (Please avoid top-posting) This patch has rotten and conflicts with recent changes in joinrels.c. This did not get any reviews, so I am moving it to next CF with "waiting on author"

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached latest patch incorporated all comments so far. Please review it. > > I think you only need RelExtLockReleaseAllI() where we currently have > LockReleaseAll(DEFAULT_LOCKMETH

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> The latest patch is good. It lacks a test that verifies the serialize >> support with actual parallel workers, so in case if it broken, it is >> difficult to know. > > Could this

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/11/30 7:15, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that >>> wasn't based on a valid assumption. I was wrongly assuming that

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/11/30 5:28, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that >> wasn't based on a valid assumption. I was wrongly assuming that all hash >> partitions for a given modulus (largest modulu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Thank you for the report. > Please, find rebased patch in the attachment. This patch cannot be applied. Please provide a rebased version. I am moving it to next CF with waiting on author as status. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The latest patch is good. It lacks a test that verifies the serialize > support with actual parallel workers, so in case if it broken, it is > difficult to know. Could this question be answered? The patch still applies so I am moving it to

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem)

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby writes: >> I've verified that the patch still applies and make check-world is clean. > > Not any more :-(. Here's a v3 rebased over HEAD. No substantive > change from v2. Patch applies and compiles, and it got no reviews. Moved to CF

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

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This patch does not apply. And the thread has stalled for three months > now but I cannot see a review for what has been submitted. I am moving > it to next CF with waiting on author. Please provide a rebased > version. If there are other t

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, amul sul wrote: > Apart from this I have added few assert to keep eye on node->as_whichplan > value in the attached patch, thanks. This is still hot, moved to next CF. -- Michael

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > This is a rebased version of the patch. As far as I can see, the patch still applies, compiles, and got no reviews. So moved to next CF. -- Michael

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

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Rebased for the recent re-indent and shm_toc API change; no functional > changes in this version. > > (I have a new patch set in the pipeline adding the skew optimisation > and some other things, more on that soon.) This patch does not apply.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Here's a new patch set with responses to the last batch of review comments. > > Rebased on top of the recent SGML->XML change. Andres asked me off-list how I tested the barrier.c ca

Re: Use of uninitialized variables in ExecFindPartition() for parent partition without leaves (HEAD only)

On 2017/11/30 10:11, Amit Langote wrote: > in the attached updated version. Oops, I messed up taking the diff and mistakenly added noise to the patch. Fixed in the attached. Thanks, Amit diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c index 2fc411a9b5..8

Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:25 PM, David Rowley wrote: > I just had a quick glance over this and wondered about 2 things. > > 1. Why a GUC and not a new per user option so it can be configured > differently for different users? Something like ALTER USER ... WORKER > LIMIT ; perhaps. I mentioned abou

Re: Use of uninitialized variables in ExecFindPartition() for parent partition without leaves (HEAD only)

Hi Michael. On 2017/11/30 9:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > Since commit 4e5fe9ad (committer Robert Haas and author Amit Langote), > coverity has been complaining that the new code of ExecFindPartition() > may use a set of values and isnull values which never get initialized. > This is a

Re: [HACKERS] JIT compiling expressions/deform + inlining prototype v2.0

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-19 12:57:33 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: >> >> >> On 04.09.2017 23:52, Andres Freund wrote: >> > >> > Hi. That piece of code isn't particularly clear (and has a bug in the >> > submitted version), I'm revising it. >> >> ... >>

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put >> in foreign tables, because early drafts of postgres_fdw did what you >> propose here, and we ran into very nasty pro

Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

On 30/11/17 00:47, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-11-30 00:45:44 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> I don't understand. I mean sure the SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() can live >> with it, but the problematic logic happens inside the >> XactLockTableInsert() and SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() has no way of >> detectin

Use of uninitialized variables in ExecFindPartition() for parent partition without leaves (HEAD only)

Hi all, Since commit 4e5fe9ad (committer Robert Haas and author Amit Langote), coverity has been complaining that the new code of ExecFindPartition() may use a set of values and isnull values which never get initialized. This is a state which can be easily reached with the following SQLs of a pare

Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

On 2017-11-30 00:45:44 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > I don't understand. I mean sure the SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() can live > with it, but the problematic logic happens inside the > XactLockTableInsert() and SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() has no way of > detecting the situation short of reimplementing the >

Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

On 30/11/17 00:40, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-11-30 00:25:58 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Yes that helps thanks. Now that I reproduced it I understand, I was >> confused by the backtrace that said xid was 0 on the input to >> XactLockTableWait() but that's not the case, it's what xid is change

Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

On 2017-11-30 00:25:58 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Yes that helps thanks. Now that I reproduced it I understand, I was > confused by the backtrace that said xid was 0 on the input to > XactLockTableWait() but that's not the case, it's what xid is changed to > in the inner loop. > So what happens

  1   2   >