Hello Ildar,
Here is a new version of patch. I've splitted it into two parts. The
first one is almost the same as v4 from [1] with some refactoring. The
second part introduces random_seed variable as you proposed.
Patch 1 applies. Compilations fails, there are two "hash_seed" declared in
"p
Hi All,
While working on exclusion constraints for one of our internal
project, I noticed that there is no test-case for exclusion
constraints in alter_table.sql file. However, for other constraints i
could see lots of test-cases in alter_table.sql. There are hardly 1-2
test-cases for exclusion co
On 2018-01-17 01:29, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Centralize json and jsonb handling of datetime types
[...]
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cc4feded0a31d2b732d4ea68613115cb720e624e
Modified Files
--
src/backend/utils/adt/date.c | 6 +--
src/backend/utils/adt/json.c | 122
+++
Hi David.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 16 January 2018 at 21:08, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2018/01/12 12:30, David Rowley wrote:
>>> 8. The code in get_partitions_from_ne_clauses() does perform quite a
>>> few nested loops. I think a more simple way to would be t
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:38:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, pg_upgrade already has to cope with cases where the newer version
>> thinks a table needs a toast table when the older version didn't, or
>> vice versa. This looks like it
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Do we optimize for TIMESTAMP <@ RANGE as well?
Not currently. It requires a little extra complexity because empty
ranges will match anything and need special handling.
> Does this link in nicely with partition-aware joins?
Yes: if the partit
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:38:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, pg_upgrade already has to cope with cases where the newer version
> thinks a table needs a toast table when the older version didn't, or
> vice versa. This looks like it ought to fall into that category.
> Not that testing it wouldn
Amit Langote writes:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Aargh. Will apply this patch break pg_upgrade from v10?
> AFAICS, it doesn't. Partitioned tables that used to have a TOAST
> table in v10 cluster will continue to have it after upgrading.
> Whereas, any partitioned t
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:18:29PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So I was looking into how we can do it without OBJECT_RELATION. For the
> first patch, that was obviously easy, because that's what my initial
> proposal did. We just treat OBJECT_TABLE within the context of
> GRANT/REVOKE as "mi
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends
>> up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk.
>>
>> create table p (a int[]) partition by list (a);
>> CREAT
On 16 January 2018 at 21:08, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached v20. Thanks again.
Thanks for working on v20. I've had a look over part of it and I've
written down the following:
1. The following comment is not correct
/*
* Equality look up key. Values in the following array appear in no
* partic
On 16 January 2018 at 21:08, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/12 12:30, David Rowley wrote:
>> 8. The code in get_partitions_from_ne_clauses() does perform quite a
>> few nested loops. I think a more simple way to would be to track the
>> offsets you've seen in a Bitmapset. This would save you hav
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:51:13PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it helpful when patch sets come with
>> a single-sentence summary of the patch set and a commit message for
>> each individual patch.
>>
>> Is git format-patch really too h
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 January 2018 at 06:21, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:43AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 9 January 2018 at 04:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think that that represents bad practice in those changes,
> precisely because of the hazard it poses for uncommitted patches.
> If you're changing a function signature, it's usually not that hard
> to make sure that un-updated code will pr
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> The parallel CREATE INDEX patch is something that I've worked on
> (fairly inconsistently) for 2 years now. I remember two occasions in
> which somebody else changed a function signature for functions that my
> code called, and without that causing even a compiler warning
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've seen that before as well.
>
> I have also noticed people complaining about patches that apply "with
> offsets", which also seems like needless nitpicking. If the offsets
> are large and the patch has been sitting around for a long time,
>
On 1/11/18 17:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Looking around where else they are used, the uses in numeric.c sure seem
> like noops:
>
> #if SIZEOF_DATUM == 8
> #define NumericAbbrevGetDatum(X) ((Datum) SET_8_BYTES(X))
> #define DatumGetNumericAbbrev(X) ((int64) GET_8_BYTES(X))
> #define NUMERIC_ABB
On 17 January 2018 at 03:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> 9. Error details claim that p2_a_idx is not a partition of p.
>> Shouldn't it say table "p2" is not a partition of "p"?
>
> You missed the "on" in the DETAIL:
> DETAIL: Index "p2_a_idx" is not on a partition of table "p".
> You could argue t
[ I'm sending this comment separately because I think it's an issue
Andres might take an interest in. ]
Marina Polyakova writes:
> [ v7-0001-Precalculate-stable-and-immutable-functions.patch ]
Another thing that's bothering me is that the execution semantics
you're proposing for CachedExpr seem
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
> I can confirm this code works. However, since this is quite a large patch, I
> believe we better have a second reviewer or a very attentive committer.
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
This is indeed quite a large patch, but it seems to me it c
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends
> up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk.
>
> create table p (a int[]) partition by list (a);
> CREATE TABLE
>
> select pg_table_size('p');
> pg_table_size
>
On 01/16/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/15/18 12:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This confused me slightly:
>>
>> + Transactions cannot be ended inside loops through query results
>> or inside
>> + blocks with exception handlers.
>>
>> I suggest: "A transaction canno
David Fetter wrote:
> I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it helpful when patch sets come with
> a single-sentence summary of the patch set and a commit message for
> each individual patch.
>
> Is git format-patch really too heavy a lift to ask of people?
I think it's okay as general guideline, bu
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> I will make your suggested changes that is merge create_sort_agg_path() and
> create_hash_agg_path(). Will name that function as
> create_sort_and_hash_agg_paths().
I suggest add_paths_to_grouping_rel() and
add_partial_paths_to_grouping_rel(
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:56:55AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> > <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> >> Robert Haas writes:
> >> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch"
Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, I remain of the opinion that we needn't necessarily teach them the
> minimum-keystrokes solution; it's better to teach something that will work
> every time. Maybe ^C is close enough on that score, but I'm not sure.
IMO in the spirit of keeping things simple, it's enough
>the slave replication server does not seem to be recognized correctly
Could you elaborate on what do you mean by "does not seem to be recognized
correctly"?
You might be hitting https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/844 , so would
you please check if pgjdbc 42.2.0-SNAPSHOT (e.g.
https://oss.sona
Robert Haas writes:
> This gets a little complex; you need to note only the parser state but
> also, in the case of dollar-quoting, what appeared between the two
> dollar signs when the dollar quotes were opened.
True; perhaps we could cheat and just print $$ in that case.
> Plus, it's quite
> p
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> People complain... asking them not to is unlikely to get anywhere.
It doesn't hurt to ask.
> We must encourage people to speak up if they see an improvement or a
> lack of quality. I have benefited from such comments and they are not
> often
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> A quick PoC.
>
> I should say upfront that I've no axe to grind over this, if no-one
> likes the idea I don't mind: I'm not sure I like it myself (it's quite
> an aggressive stance to take, I think) - I just wanted to see if it
> would work,
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Right, but if we're willing to look at the parse state, we don't need
> to cram all possible knowledge into one 80-character string. I'm
> thinking about just responding to the current situation, say
>
> You have begun a quoted string. To end i
On 16 January 2018 at 06:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:43AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 9 January 2018 at 04:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> We're not talking about standbys, so the message is incorrect.
On 16 January 2018 at 16:56, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
>> <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is tota
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is totally
>> > harmless, I'm not sure why you should need to de
On 2018-01-16 16:12:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 12:26:50AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:39:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> @@ -73,11 +73,19 @@ pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32_impl(volatile
> >> pg_atomic_uint32 *ptr,
> >> static
Thanks Noah !
Hummm You have a big machine, more powerful than mine. However, it seems that
you do not see the random failure I see.
Cordialement,
Tony Reix
ATOS / Bull SAS
ATOS Expert
IBM Coop Architect & Technical Leader
Office : +33 (0) 4 76 29 72 67
1 rue de Provence - 38432 Échirolles -
Hi!
> 15 янв. 2018 г., в 23:42, Alexander Korotkov
> написал(а):
>
> I'm very glad this patch isn't forgotten. I've assigned to review this patch.
Cool, thanks!
> My first note on this patchset is following. These patches touches sensitive
> aspects or GiST and are related to complex concurre
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:50:29PM +, REIX, Tony wrote:
> And, on BuildFarm, I do not see any details about the logical/physical
> configuration of the AIX VMs, like hornet.
> Being able to run real concurrent parallel stress programs, thus required
> multi-physical-CPU VM, would help.
It ha
All,
I have reviewed and tested these patches.
The patches applied cleanly in order against master at (90947674fc).
I ran the provided regression tests and a 'check-world'. All tests succeeded.
Marking ready for committer.
-Adam
On 1/15/18 12:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This confused me slightly:
>
> + Transactions cannot be ended inside loops through query results
> or inside
> + blocks with exception handlers.
>
> I suggest: "A transaction cannot be ended inside a loop over query
> results, nor inside
Hi.
These patches enable to use Persistent Memory Development Kit(PMDK)[1]
for reading/writing WAL logs on persistent memory(PMEM).
PMEM is next generation storage and it has a number of nice features:
fast, byte-addressable and non-volatile.
Using pgbench which is a PostgreSQL general benchmark,
Hello,
the slave replication server does not seem to be recognized correctly when
using read-only jdbc connection and targetServerType=preferSlave.
Sample conn str
jdbc:postgresql://master,slave/up?user=***&password=***&sslmode=require&ApplicationName=***&targetServerType=preferSlave&loadBalanceH
David Rowley wrote:
> I've just made another pass over the patch and have a few more comments.
Thanks! I'm a bit tied up in a few other things ATM, so an updated
version will have to wait a couple of days.
> 1. Expression varattnos don't seem to get translated correctly.
Yesterday while creati
On 1/16/18 01:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:31:05PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 9/12/17 15:35, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>> On 10 September 2017 at 00:08, Jaime Casanova
>>> wrote:
During my own tests, though, i found some problems:
>>
>> Here is an update
Hi Fabien,
13/01/2018 11:16, Fabien COELHO пишет:
>
> Hello Ildar,
>
>>> so that different instances of hash function within one script would
>>> have different seeds. Yes, that is a good idea, I can do that.
>>>
>> Added this feature in attached patch. But on a second thought this could
>> be so
On 01/16/2018 08:50 AM, REIX, Tony wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> You said:
>
>> Setting up a buildfarm member with the combination of compiler and
>> environment where you are seeing the failures would be the best answer
>> in my opinion:
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Buildfarm_Howto
>
Hi Michael
You said:
> Setting up a buildfarm member with the combination of compiler and
> environment where you are seeing the failures would be the best answer
> in my opinion:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Buildfarm_Howto
>
> This does not require special knowledge of Postgre
On 01/16/2018 12:13 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On 2 January 2018 at 05:01, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> New version of the patch that fills in the remaining piece in
>> equalTupleDescs.
> This no longer applies to current master. Can send an updated patch?
>
Yeah, got caught by the bki/pg_attribu
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:25:51AM +, REIX, Tony wrote:
> My team and my company (ATOS/Bull) are involved in improving the
> quality of PostgreSQL on AIX.
Cool to hear that!
> We have AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 Power8 systems, with several
> logical/physical processors. And I plan to have a more p
Hello,
I'm still wandering on the way and confused. Sorry for
inconsistent comments in advanceX-(
At Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:20:57 +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote in
> > I found seemingly inconsistent handling of NaN.
> >
> > - Old box_same assumed NaN != NaN, but new assumes NaN ==
> > NaN. I'm not
On 15 January 2018 at 17:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Geoff Winkless writes:
>> At this point it depends quite how far down the rabbit-hole you want
>> to go to stop people googling "how do I exit psql", I suppose :p
>
> Well, I concur with Robert's comment upthread that we don't want to
> print any adv
On 16 January 2018 at 09:17, David Rowley wrote:
> On 16 January 2018 at 01:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> Even where partitions are present, in the usual case where there are
>>> Instead of a bool array, we can even make it a Bitmapset.
Hi Sanyam,
Interesting topic!
2018-01-16 7:50 GMT+01:00 sanyam jain :
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to solve WAL flooding due to FPWs.
>
>
> What are the cons of setting BLCKSZ as 4kB?
>
>
> When saw the results published on http://blog.coelho.net/
> database/2014/08/17/postgresql-page-size-for-SSD-2.ht
Hi.
I used to think that $subject didn't happen, but it actually does and ends
up consuming a fixed 8192 bytes on the disk.
create table p (a int[]) partition by list (a);
CREATE TABLE
select pg_table_size('p');
pg_table_size
---
8192
(1 row)
select pg_relation_size(c1.o
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > 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 i
Hi all,
I have been continue doing testing of parallel create index patch. So far
I haven't came across any sort of issue or regression with the patches.
Here are few performance number for the latest round of testing - which
is perform on top of 6th Jan patch submitted by Peter.
Testing is done
I'm digressing...
At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
<26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is totally
> > harmless, I'm not sure why you should need to devote any effort to
> > avoiding it. Anyone who
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Jeevan Chalke
> wrote:
> > Attached new set of patches adding this. Only patch 0007 (main patch)
> and
> > 0008 (testcase patch) has changed.
> >
> > Please have a look and let me know if I missed any.
>
> I
Hi Michael,
My team and my company (ATOS/Bull) are involved in improving the quality of
PostgreSQL on AIX.
We have AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 Power8 systems, with several logical/physical
processors.
And I plan to have a more powerful (more processors) machine for running
PostgreSQL stress tests.
A
60 matches
Mail list logo
