2018-02-11 6:24 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane :
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas writes:
> >>> Me neither. I just ran the postgres_fdw regression tests 713 times in
> >>> a row without a failure. Tom, since you seem to be able to reproduce
> >>>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I pushed a fix for all that.
> Shouldn't there be a test case as well?
There was one for the premature-free issue in d02d4a6d4. I didn't really
see a need for an explicit test for the subselect issue.
> This
While poking around in pg_dump for another purpose, I happened to notice
these things about its handling of extended-statistics objects:
1. pg_dump supposes that a stats object must be in the same schema as
the table it's on. This is flat wrong.
regression=# create schema s1;
CREATE SCHEMA
regre
On 09/02/18 06:24, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 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 regressio
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Hmm. I think the ldap test suite should be changed to use
> $node->restart instead of $node->reload, so we can be sure that the
> various pg_hba.conf lines are actually accepted. It appears that doing
> so wouldn't impact the run
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 08:17:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I pushed a fix for all that.
>
> Shouldn't there be a test case as well? The patch I sent upthread was
> doing the whole set, except that I did not bother
... Rename E
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I pushed a fix for all that.
Shouldn't there be a test case as well? The patch I sent upthread was
doing the whole set, except that I did not bother
> The failure in pg_get_functiondef() is still there. While the immediate
> answer pr
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> As far as the second one, looking back at what happened with parallel
> query, I found (on a quick read) 13 back-patched commits in
> REL9_6_STABLE prior to the release of 10.0, 3 of which I would qualify
> as low-importance (improving document
Hi,
I forgot to register a display name for LWTRANCHE_PARALLEL_HASH_JOIN,
the tranche ID used by the LWLock that Parallel Hash uses when handing
out chunks of memory. Please see attached.
It's rare for this LWLock to show up in pg_stat_activity, but if you
stick pg_usleep(1) into ExecParalle
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Me neither. I just ran the postgres_fdw regression tests 713 times in
>>> a row without a failure. Tom, since you seem to be able to reproduce
>>> the problem locally, could you have a look at this
Thanks Craig,
As I'm back in pg code after many years, I'm feeling much better there's
one (1) or two (2) items causing the hiccup. Rereading your comments, I'm
agreeing with you. I'm considering bumping up the ram to 512gb as a RAM
disk just for consistent profiling (an old bad habit).
I'm reas
I wrote:
> However, I also wondered how ExecuteCallStmt works at all for pass-by-
> reference datatypes, since it immediately destroys the execution context
> for each expression. And the answer is that it doesn't, as proven here:
On closer inspection, there are actually three sub-cases involved.
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-02-09 09:42:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... But otherwise it's an OK restriction that stems from
>>> exactly the same cause: we do not want to invoke the full planner in
>>> this context (and eve
On 2/7/18 09:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2018-02-06 15:43:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> void* isn't necessarily compatible with function pointers --- there are
>>> platforms where they're physically different widths, though possibly
>>> you'd never get PG to run on such hardw
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/01/19 23:55, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Local partitioned indexes
>
>> I noticed that the declarative partitioning section in ddl.sgml hasn't
>> been updated to reflect the features added by this commit. Atta
Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/19 23:55, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Local partitioned indexes
> I noticed that the declarative partitioning section in ddl.sgml hasn't
> been updated to reflect the features added by this commit. Attached patch
> is an attempt to fix that.
Thanks! I considered t
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-02-09 09:42:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't look significantly different to me than the restriction
>> that you can't have sub-selects in CHECK expressions, index
>> expressions, etc. Obviously we need a clean failure
On 10 February 2018 at 14:26, Gary M wrote:
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> @Craig
>
> Realtime ? well not really. I guess it's your definition of realtime. I
> usually think of micro to nano seconds as real-time. If I were still
> designing chips, I'd be calling picosecs real-time these days.
>
H
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:44:38PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> I agree that it would be nice if the build farm (and my unofficial
>> patch tester for that matter) could automatically test the LDAP stuff
>> when running on a suitable system
19 matches
Mail list logo
