Hi,
This is an odd request for help. I'm looking to expose an interface so an
external app can insert to a table while maintaining cache consistency and
inserts be promoted via wal.
I need to support about 100k+ inserts/sec from a sensor data stream. It simply
won't work using sql queries. I
Hello
> select into b from my_insert('from func atx');
You missed select something into b. For example,
select ret into b from my_insert('from func atx') as ret;
Using scalar function in from is not bug.
Silent assigning NULL for variables in "into" not matches same in "select"... I
think better
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 1:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Thank you for suggestion. It sounds more smarter. So it would be more
>> better if we vacuums database for anti-wraparound in ascending order
>> of relfrozenxid?
>
> Currently, we're doi
Hi hackers,
I wonder if the following behavior is considered to be a bug in plpgsql
or it is expected result:
create table my_data(id serial primary key, time timestamp, type text);
create or replace function my_insert(type text) RETURNS BOOLEAN
AS
$BODY$
BEGIN
insert into my_data (time,
Hi Ashutosh.
On 2018/02/09 14:09, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> While looking at the changes in partition.c I happened to look at the
>>> changes in try_partition_wise_join(). They mark p
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:07:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You need to read that as "only a SubPlan can be executed after a SubLink
> has been processed by the planner", so please replace the last "latter"
> by "planner".
(I forgot to add Peter and Andrew in CC: previously, so done now.)
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I begin seeing bugs related to new features of v11 popping up around,
> like this one for procedures:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRDxOwPPzpA8i%2BAQeDQFj7bhVw-dR2%3D%3DrfWZ3zMGkm568Q%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Are ther
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/02/09 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme,
>>> which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out
>>> that portion of the patch. That is, the ch
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Ildar Musin wrote:
>
> The idea is to store min and max values of secondary attributes (like
> 'id' in the example above) for each partition somewhere in catalog and
> use it for partition pruning along with partitioning key.
Every insertion and update of secondary
On 2018/02/09 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme,
>> which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out
>> that portion of the patch. That is, the changes to PartitionScheme struct
>> definition and those to
Fujita-san,
Thanks a lot for the review.
I had mistakenly tagged these patches v24, but they were actually supposed
to be v5. So the attached updated patch is tagged v6.
On 2018/02/07 19:36, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
>>> The code in tupconv_map_for_subplan(
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/02/08 11:55, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Hi Ashutosh.
>>
>> On 2018/02/07 13:51, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> Here's a new patchset with following changes
>>>
>>> 1. Rebased on the latest head taking care of partition bound
>>> comparison func
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>> Yeah, thanks. revised patch attached
>>
>> FYI the identity regression test started failing recently with this
>> patch a
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> While looking at the changes in partition.c I happened to look at the
>> changes in try_partition_wise_join(). They mark partitions deemed
>> dummy by pruning as dummy relations. If we
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:45 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Claudio Freire
>> wrote:
>>> I can look into doing 3, that *might* get rid of the need to do that
>>> initial FSM vacuum, but all other intermediate
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> After the LDAP code was switched to use ldap_initialize() as part of the
> ldaps support, ldapi (LDAP over Unix-domain sockets) also works. I
> noticed an old bug report (#13625) that asked for it. So I suggest this
> patch to document th
Hi all,
I begin seeing bugs related to new features of v11 popping up around,
like this one for procedures:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRDxOwPPzpA8i%2BAQeDQFj7bhVw-dR2%3D%3DrfWZ3zMGkm568Q%40mail.gmail.com
Are there any objections in creating a wiki page to track all those bugs
and
After the LDAP code was switched to use ldap_initialize() as part of the
ldaps support, ldapi (LDAP over Unix-domain sockets) also works. I
noticed an old bug report (#13625) that asked for it. So I suggest this
patch to document this and add some tests.
One flaw is that this only works when usi
(2018/02/09 4:32), Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
According to
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rhinoceros&dt=2018-02-08%2001%3A45%3A01
there's still an intermittent issue. I ran "make installcheck" in
contrib/postgres_fdw in a loop
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> I understand getting EPQ semantics right is very important. Can you please
> (once again) summarise your thoughts on what you think is the *most*
> appropriate behaviour? I can then think how much efforts might be involved
> in that. If the e
> Greetings Tatsuo,
>
> * Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
>> In
>> https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1829/
>>
>> URL links to both CVE-2018-1052 and CVE-2018-1053 give me a 404 error.
>> I am the only one who are getting the error?
>
> Unfortunately, we don't have any control over w
Greetings Tatsuo,
* Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
> In
> https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1829/
>
> URL links to both CVE-2018-1052 and CVE-2018-1053 give me a 404 error.
> I am the only one who are getting the error?
Unfortunately, we don't have any control over when RedHat upda
In
https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1829/
URL links to both CVE-2018-1052 and CVE-2018-1053 give me a 404 error.
I am the only one who are getting the error?
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From
On 2018/02/09 4:40, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:32 AM, atorikoshi
wrote:
Attached a minor patch for variable name in comment:
Committed.
Thank you!
On 2018/02/09 4:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> OK, done in the attached.
>
> Committed. Thanks.
Thank you. Sorry, missed renaming leafrel that you did yourself.
Regards,
Amit
Claudio Freire wrote:
> I don't like looping, though, seems overly cumbersome. What's worse?
> maintaining that fragile weird loop that might break (by causing
> unexpected output), or a slight slowdown of the test suite?
>
> I don't know how long it might take on slow machines, but in my
> machin
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $ ./configure --prefix=/build/postgres-jit/ --with-llvm
> --enable-debug --enable-depend --enable-cassert
> /usr/include/c++/5/bits/c++0x_warning.h:32:2: error: #error This
> file requires compiler and library s
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:32 AM, atorikoshi
wrote:
> Attached a minor patch for variable name in comment:
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita writes:
>> (2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that. It's probably
>>> actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't
>>> stable.
>
>> That was my purpose, b
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> OK, done in the attached.
Committed. Thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
W dniu 08.02.2018 o 05:51, David Fetter pisze:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:26:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Rafal Pietrak writes:
[-]
>
> CREATE TABLE foo(b BOOLEAN, i INTEGER NOT NULL, t TEXT NOT NULL) PARTITION BY
> LIST (b);
> CREATE TABLE foo_true PARTITION OF foo (PRIMARY KE
W dniu 08.02.2018 o 04:26, Tom Lane pisze:
> Rafal Pietrak writes:
[]
>
>> And it is sort of "couterintuitive" - as you can see, there is a UNIQUE
>> index for test(a,b) target; admitedly partial, but why should that
>> matter?
>
> Because the index fails to guarantee
On 2018-02-08 14:48:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ildar Musin wrote:
>
> > The idea is to store min and max values of secondary attributes (like
> > 'id' in the example above) for each partition somewhere in catalog and
> > use it for partition pruning along with partitioning key. You can thin
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > partition.c seems to have two kinds of functions 1. that build and
> > manage relcache, creates quals from bounds etc. which are metadata
> > management kind 2. partition bound comparison functions, and other
> > opt
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Attached is the patch accordingly.
OK, I see. That makes sense; committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Ildar Musin wrote:
> The idea is to store min and max values of secondary attributes (like
> 'id' in the example above) for each partition somewhere in catalog and
> use it for partition pruning along with partitioning key. You can think
> of it as somewhat like BRIN index but for partitions.
Wha
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I do not see a reason behind hashing the seed.
It made some sense when I was XOR'ing it to mix. A uniform
distribution of bits seemed desirable then, since random() won't use
the most significant bit -- it generates random numbers in the ran
Hi Andrey,
On 2/7/18 10:46 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> 7 февр. 2018 г., в 18:39, David Steele написал(а):
>>
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> On 1/21/18 5:34 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> Hello, Alexander!
16 янв. 2018 г., в 21:42, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
Please find README patch attached.
>>>
On 2/7/18 23:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You need to update the comment on top of test_connect_ok in
> ServerSetup.pm.
done and committed
> Wouldn't it be better to use the expected result
> as an argument and merge test_connect_ok and test_connect_fails?
That doesn't seem to be the general sty
On 07/02/18 19:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> really useful for my "OUZO" project (a fork of the RUM access method).
>
> Glad to hear that you're continuing to work on it.
Yes, it will be available on Github eventually.
>> One general comment I can already make is that enabling compression
>> shoul
Etsuro Fujita writes:
> (2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote:
>> Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that. It's probably
>> actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't
>> stable.
> That was my purpose, but I agree with the instability. Thanks again,
> Robert!
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:42 PM, amul sul wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Amit Khandekar
>>> wrote:
On 7 February 2018 at 13:53, amul sul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:42 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> On 7 February 2018 at 13:53, amul sul wrote:
Hi,
If an update of partition key involves tuple movement from one pa
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> I can look into doing 3, that *might* get rid of the need to do that
>> initial FSM vacuum, but all other intermediate vacuums are still
>> needed.
>
> Understood. So how about that t
Michael Paquier writes:
> In order to run tests consistently on the whole tree, I use a simple
> alias which tests also things like src/test/ssl and src/test/ldap on the
> way.
> Lately, I am getting annoyed by $subject when working on OpenSSL stuff
> as sometimes I need to test things with and w
On 2018-02-08 15:14:42 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On 8 February 2018 at 10:29, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> >> On 02/07/2018 03:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>
> >> I've pushed v10.0. The big (and pretty painful to make) change is that
> >> now all the LLVM specific code lives in src/backend/ji
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> if (resultRelInfo == NULL);
> {
> /* Initialize partition info. */
> resultRelInfo = ExecInitPartitionInfo(mtstate,
> saved_resultRelInfo,
>
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I guess workers need to wait till leader become active and processes
> the error message.
So if you kill a worker, it doesn't die but sits there waiting for
someone to run a command in the leader? That sounds terrible.
>> Also, if you're OK w
> On 8 February 2018 at 10:29, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 02/07/2018 03:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> I've pushed v10.0. The big (and pretty painful to make) change is that
>> now all the LLVM specific code lives in src/backend/jit/llvm, which is
>> built as a shared library which is loaded
Hi, Peter!
> 8 февр. 2018 г., в 4:56, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> * Faster modulo operations.
>
> * Removed sdbmhash().
Thanks! I definitely like how Bloom filter is implemented now.
I could not understand meaning of this, but apparently this will not harm
+ /*
+* Caller
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On error, workers should be terminated. What kind of problem do you
>> have in mind?
>
> Hmm. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. If the only thing you can do is
> fetch from the cursor -- a
Hi,
Attached patch adds 'autovacuum_table_priority' to the current list of
automatic vacuuming settings. It's used in sorting of vacuumed tables in
autovacuum worker before actual vacuum.
The idea is to give possibility to the users to prioritize their tables
in autovacuum process.
--
---
Regar
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2/7/18 17:21, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Looks like Nov 15 (which I believe is when the stretch upgrade was done)
> > it was upgraded:
> >
> > 2017-11-15 17:38:55 upgrade openjade:amd64 1.4devel1-21.1 1.4devel1-21.3+b1
> >
>
Hi,
In this attached version, I have rebased my changes over new design of
partially_grouped_rel. The preparatory changes of adding
partially_grouped_rel are in 0001.
Also to minimize finalization code duplication, I have refactored them into
two separate functions, finalize_sorted_partial_agg_pa
> On 07 Feb 2018, at 17:54, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> I have found the old way very confusing while working with several
> SSL-related patches recently.
Agreed. I had similar, but way uglier, hacks in my Secure Transport branch.
+1 on something like this.
cheers ./daniel
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Unfortunately valgrind does not work at all on my laptop -- the server
>>> appears to start, but as soon as you try to connect, the whole thing
>>> dies with an error c
Hi!
Thanks for working on this patch.
Reading through patch I’ve noticed that you deleted call to SnapBuildCommitTxn()
in DecodePrepare(). As you correctly spotted upthread there was unnecessary
code that marked transaction as running after decoding of prepare. However call
marking it as committe
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:42 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> On 7 February 2018 at 13:53, amul sul wrote:
Hi,
If an update of partition key involves tuple movement from one pa
Hello, hackers!
Sorry if this have already been discussed. I've had this idea some time
ago and then successfully forgot about it until pgconf.ru, where I had a
conversation with one of postgres users. His situation could be
described as this: they have a table with id, timestamp and some other
a
(2018/02/07 19:36), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 19:43), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
Here is the updated version that contains two patches as described
above.
Here are some minor comments:
o On changes to ExecInsert
* This might be just my taste, but I t
On 02/07/2018 03:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I've pushed v10.0. The big (and pretty painful to make) change is that
now all the LLVM specific code lives in src/backend/jit/llvm, which is
built as a shared library which is loaded on demand.
It does not seem to be possible build without LLVM anym
At Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:04:15 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20180208.180415.112312013.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > > I suggest we remove support for dynamic_shared_memory_type = none first,
> > > and see if we get any complaints. If we don't, then future patche
Hello,
At Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:59:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
<3246.1518040...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > It seems to me that there was a thread where Tom proposed removing
> > support for dynamic_shared_memory_type = none.
>
> I think you're recalling <32138.1502675...@sss.pgh.pa
63 matches
Mail list logo
