Hi.
I noticed a bug with creating an expression index on a partitioned table.
The fact that a partition may have differing attribute numbers is not
accounted for when recursively *creating* the index on partition. The
partition index gets created but is unusable.
create table p (a int) partition
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:52:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Okay, so this makes two votes in favor of keeping the messages simple
>> without context, shaped like "could not read file %s", with Robert and
>> Alvaro, and two votes f
On 20 June 2018 at 14:28, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 20 June 2018 at 14:24, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It looks to me like t
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 10:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Currently, the planner always first decides the scan/join order, and
> > adds Group/Agg nodes on top of the joins. Sometimes it would be legal,
> > and beneficial, to perform the aggregation below a join. I've been
> > ha
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:05:41AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:16:46PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:29:57PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> >> > Note that unless the pg_catalog is
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:43:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-18 11:13:47 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> We could do that - but add_to_unowned_list() is actually a bottleneck in
>> other places during recovery too. We pretty much never (outside of
>> dropping relations / databases) cl
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:34:42PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Thanks. I have checked that make check passes with this patch. I have
> marked this entry as ready for committer.
Thanks, Ashutosh.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:35:10PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I wrote it because I got sick of Assert(false) debugging, and I was chasing
> down some "ERROR: 08P01: insufficient data left in message" errors. Then I
> got kind of caught up in it... you know how it is.
Yes, I know that feeling!
This is what the stacks look like btw
[2018-06-21 12:26:45.309 AWST] [7293] [] [] [:0] DEBUG: 0:
find_in_dynamic_libpath: trying
"/home/craig/pg/10/lib/postgresql/pglogical.so"
[2018-06-21 12:26:45.309 AWST] [7293] [] [] [:0] LOCATION:
find_in_dynamic_libpath, dfmgr.c:639
[2018-06-21 12:26:4
On 2018-06-18 11:13:47 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-19 03:06:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2018-06-15 10:45:04 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> > +
> > >> > + srels = palloc(sizeof(SMgrRelation) * nde
On 21 June 2018 at 01:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-20 13:10:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > If we instead had a backtrace enabled for all PANICs and some FATALs by
> > > default (and perhaps a SIGSEGV handler too), we'd be
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>> We just had a customer hit this issue. I kind of wonder whether this
>>> shouldn't be backpatched: Currently the execution on the primary is
>>> O(NBuffers * log(ndrels)) whereas it's O
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
>> Hi Amit
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
>> > identify and flush all th
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:16:46PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:29:57PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
>> > Note that unless the pg_catalog is protected against manipulation by
>> > remote storage, then TDE for user
Hi,
On 2018-06-20 20:53:34 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This version adds a lock on the table owning the attribute.
Cool.
>
> /*
> + * in binary upgrade mode, update the catalog with any missing
> values
> + * that might be present.
> + */
On 06/20/2018 01:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached deals with all those issues except locking.
This version adds a lock on the table owning the attribute.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstanhttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, T
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us]
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 08:41:46PM +0900, Moon, Insung wrote:
> > BTW, I want to support CBC mode encryption[3]. However, I'm not sure how
> to use the IV in CBC mode for this proposal.
> > I'd like to hear opinions by security engineer.
>
> Well, CB
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> I have no idea how expensive backtrace() and libunwind are, but I doubt
> we want to pay the cost for every message before we know that error
> requires the backtrace to be collected. Something like PGC_USERSET
> server_min_backtraces=PANI
On 06/20/2018 07:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hello
Per discussion at
https://postgr.es/m/0684a598-002c-42a2-ae12-f024a324e...@winand.at
I intend to change xpath() and xpath_exists() in a subtly backwards-
incompatible way, so that they match the behavior of SQL-standard-
specified XMLTABLE.
On 2018/06/21 0:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-19, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch. Also,
>> made a minor update to a nearby comment.
>
> Pushed, thanks. I made a couple of comments one or two words shorter
> while (IMO) not losin
On Thu., 21 Jun. 2018, 04:30 Tom Lane, wrote:
> Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> > Okay just bouncing another approach, how about generating UUID for a
> > postgres instance during initdb and pg_basebackup ?
>
> There's no uuid generation code in core postgres, for excellent reasons
> (lack of portabili
Hello
Per discussion at
https://postgr.es/m/0684a598-002c-42a2-ae12-f024a324e...@winand.at
I intend to change xpath() and xpath_exists() in a subtly backwards-
incompatible way, so that they match the behavior of SQL-standard-
specified XMLTABLE. It seems sane to keep them in sync. Anybody wants
Hi,
On 2018-06-21 00:25:03 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 19 June 2018 at 17:43, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > The problem is that StandbyReleaseLocks() does a linear search of all
> > known AccessExclusiveLocks when a transaction ends. Luckily, since
> > v10 (commit 9b013dc2) that is skipped for tra
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:19:40PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 05:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:06:20AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > Even if they are encrypted with the same key, they use different
> > initialization vectors that are stored inside the encry
Hi David,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:25 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 19 June 2018 at 17:43, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> The problem is that StandbyReleaseLocks() does a linear search of all
>> known AccessExclusiveLocks when a transaction ends. Luckily, since
>> v10 (commit 9b013dc2) that is skipped
On 06/20/2018 05:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:06:20AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> At the same time, having to have a bunch of independently-decipherable
>>> short field values is not real secure either, especially if they're known
>>> to all be encrypted with the same k
On 06/20/2018 05:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:20:58AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
>> The idea has not been extensively fleshed out yet, but the thought was
>> that we create column level POLICY, which would transparently apply some
>> kind of transform on input and/or outpu
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 06:06:56PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 05:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:49:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> know the ordering of the values under whatever ordering semantics
> >> apply to that index. It's unclear to me how useful
On 06/20/2018 05:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:29:32AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
Or
maybe key management is really tied into the separately discussed effort
to create SQL VARIABLEs somehow.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate on how key management is tied into SQL V
On 06/20/2018 05:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:49:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> know the ordering of the values under whatever ordering semantics
>> apply to that index. It's unclear to me how useful such information
>
> I don't think an ordered index is possible, o
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:16:46PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:29:57PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Note that unless the pg_catalog is protected against manipulation by
> > remote storage, then TDE for user tables might be possible to
> > compromise. Like so: the at
Hello Team,
I am trying to use the PLV8 via function and while using the function
created via PLV8 in one of the create materialized view, postgres crashes,
attached is the log file with DEBUG5 turned on.
SQL which is breaking the code and SQL function is attached.
Creating materialized view - m
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:29:57PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 06:22:22PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > As per discussion at PGCon unconference, I think that firstly we need
> > to discuss what threats we want to defend database data against. If
>
> We call that a thr
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:06:20AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > At the same time, having to have a bunch of independently-decipherable
> > short field values is not real secure either, especially if they're known
> > to all be encrypted with the same key. But what you know or can guess
> > about t
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:49:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> figure stuff out. You can infer something about the length of
> particular values. Perhaps you can find cases where the same
> encrypted value appears multiple times. If there's a btree index, you
Most encryption methods use a rando
On 06/20/2018 10:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Currently, the planner always first decides the scan/join order, and
> adds Group/Agg nodes on top of the joins. Sometimes it would be legal,
> and beneficial, to perform the aggregation below a join. I've been
> hacking on a patch to allow that.
On 06/20/2018 10:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Currently, the planner always first decides the scan/join order, and
> adds Group/Agg nodes on top of the joins. Sometimes it would be legal,
> and beneficial, to perform the aggregation below a join. I've been
> hacking on a patch to allow that.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:29:32AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> Or
> >> maybe key management is really tied into the separately discussed effort
> >> to create SQL VARIABLEs somehow.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on how key management is tied into SQL VARIABLEs?
>
> Well, the key management probab
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:20:58AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 05:22 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > As per discussion at PGCon unconference, I think that firstly we need
> > to discuss what threats we want to defend database data against.
>
> Exactly. While certainly there is demand f
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 08:41:46PM +0900, Moon, Insung wrote:
> BTW, I want to support CBC mode encryption[3]. However, I'm not sure how to
> use the IV in CBC mode for this proposal.
> I'd like to hear opinions by security engineer.
Well, CBC makes sense, and since AES uses a 16 byte block size
Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> On 20.06.2018 00:04, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
>>> On 18.06.2018 23:34, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>>
I also don't like that you've injected into the *startup* path -
before authentication takes place. Fundamentally, authentication
Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> Okay just bouncing another approach, how about generating UUID for a
> postgres instance during initdb and pg_basebackup ?
There's no uuid generation code in core postgres, for excellent reasons
(lack of portability and lack of failure modes are the main objections).
This
I wrote:
> Thanks for the report. I traced through this, and the problem seems to
> be that split_pathtarget_at_srfs() is neglecting to attach sortgroupref
> labeling to the extra PathTargets it constructs. I don't remember
> whether that code is my fault or Andres', but I'll take a look at
> fix
Thanks David for the response, I have opened a issue with PLV8 team.
Let me know if I should report this bug to postgres or not, since I was not
sure thus I sent email earlier.
Regards,
Mukesh
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:02 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Mukesh Chhatani wrote:
> I am trying to use the PLV8 via function and while using the function
> created via PLV8 in one of the create materialized view, postgres crashes,
> attached is the log file with DEBUG5 turned on.
>
These are not the correct place to po
Greetings,
* Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> In trying to troubleshoot the source of a recent connection storm, I was
> frustrated to find that the app name was not included in the connection
> messages. It is there in the log_line_prefix on the disconnection messages
> but I would prefer it
Hi,
While rebasing the logical replication patches on top of PG11, I've
noticed that ReorderBufferSerializeChange claims this:
case REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_TRUNCATE:
...
/* ReorderBufferChange contains everything important */
That is not quite correct, though - the OIDs of t
Good afternoon, all.
In trying to troubleshoot the source of a recent connection storm, I was
frustrated to find that the app name was not included in the connection
messages. It is there in the log_line_prefix on the disconnection messages
but I would prefer it be directly visible with the connec
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:50 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> On June 20, 2018 10:31:05 AM PDT, Ashwin Agrawal
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:17:23PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:33 AM, T
> On 27 Apr 2018, at 04:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2018-04-27 11:52:18 +0930, Tom Dunstan wrote:
>>> I'd argue this should contain the non-error cases. It's just as
>>> reasonable to want to add this as a debug level or such.
>>
>> So all of warning, info, debug and debug1-5?
>
> Yea. Like
Hi!
Thank you for your work on this issue.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:25 PM Ivan Kartyshov
wrote:
> Thank you for your valuable comments. I've made a few adjustments.
>
> The main goal of my changes is to let long read-only transactions run on
> replica if hot_standby_feedback is turned on.
>
>
>
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think that's ok. It's perfectly possible to hit
> ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR at a high frequency in some situations,
Really? How?
> and
> there's plenty cases that aren't ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR where we'd want
> this. E.g. a lot of gen
On June 20, 2018 10:31:05 AM PDT, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:17:23PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane
>wrote:
>> >
>> > Ashwin Agrawal writes:
>> > > Propo
On 06/20/2018 12:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick scan-through review:
On 2018-06-20 12:51:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/pg_upgrade_support.c
b/src/backend/utils/adt/pg_upgrade_support.c
index 0c54b02..2666ab2 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/a
> On 20 Jun 2018, at 17:10, Craig Ringer wrote:
> BTW, Álvaro posted a simpler patch at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180410213203.nl645o5vj5ap66sl@alvherre.pgsql.
> It uses backtrace() from glibc, and requires each site you want to bt to be
> annotated explicitly. I forgot about b
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:17:23PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> > > Proposing to create directory with timestamp at time of creating
> > t
Andres Freund writes:
> Seems it can be hacked around: https://stackoverflow.com/a/13497879
> But yikes, that's ugly.
I bet it's not very portable either. I'm not sure that all compilers
will think that HANDLEARGS should be expanded in that situation.
regards, tom lane
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-20 12:12:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally, my habit is to set the breakpoint at errfinish, which works
>> independently of just where the call is.
> I do that too, occasionally. Doesn't really if there's a lot of error
> messages before the bug you're wai
On 2018-06-20 13:10:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > If we instead had a backtrace enabled for all PANICs and some FATALs by
> > default (and perhaps a SIGSEGV handler too), we'd be in a better
> > place. That'd obviously only work when comp
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think the problem is that this most frequently is an issue when
> investigating an issue for customers. Often enough it'll legally not be
> possible to gain direct access to the system, and remotely instructing
> people to install an exten
Hi
On 2018-Mar-27, Markus Winand wrote:
> I’ve found two issues with XML/XPath integration in PostgreSQL. Two
> patches are attached. I’ve just separated them because the second one
> is an incompatible change.
>
> * Patch 0001: Accept TEXT and CDATA nodes in XMLTABLE’s column_expression.
I pus
Hi,
Just a quick scan-through review:
On 2018-06-20 12:51:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/pg_upgrade_support.c
> b/src/backend/utils/adt/pg_upgrade_support.c
> index 0c54b02..2666ab2 100644
> --- a/src/backend/utils/adt/pg_upgrade_support.c
> +++ b/src/back
On 18 June 2018 at 15:02, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 June 2018 at 00:03, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> The way I am implementing this can be seen in attached
>> apply_launcher_subtrans_WIP.patch. (check launcher.c changes). I
>> haven't started testing it yet though.
>
> Attached patch passes some
On 06/19/2018 10:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-19 22:41:26 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This unfortunately crashes and burns if we use DirectFunctionCall3 to call
array_in, because it uses fn_extra. There is the CallerFInfoFunctionCall
stuff, but it only has 1 and 2 arg variants, and
Hi,
Hi,
On 2018-05-26 10:08:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Not sure about the relative-path idea. Seems like that would create
> a huge temptation to put tablespaces inside the data directory, which
> would force us to deal with that can of worms.
It doesn't seem impossible to normalize the path,
On 2018-06-20 12:12:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I'm fairly frequently annoyed that when I see an error message in the
> > log, I can't just generally set a breakpoint on the included line
> > number. That's because the line number in the error message is from the
> > *end
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:17:23PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> > Proposing to create directory with timestamp at time of creating
> tablespace
> > and create symbolic link to it instead.
>
>
Hi,
On 2018-06-20 12:12:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I'm fairly frequently annoyed that when I see an error message in the
> > log, I can't just generally set a breakpoint on the included line
> > number. That's because the line number in the error message is from the
> >
On 2018-Jun-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> By the way, why do we need to strlen() the target buffer when strlcpy
> already reports the length? (You could argue that there is a difference
> if the string is truncated ... but surely we don't care about that case)
> I propose the attached.
I decided n
Andres Freund writes:
> I'm fairly frequently annoyed that when I see an error message in the
> log, I can't just generally set a breakpoint on the included line
> number. That's because the line number in the error message is from the
> *end* of the message:
IME it varies depending on which comp
On 2018-06-20 12:04:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-06-20 11:20:49 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I have no idea how expensive backtrace() and libunwind are, but I doubt
> >> we want to pay the cost for every message before we know that error
> >> requires the back
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-20 11:20:49 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I have no idea how expensive backtrace() and libunwind are, but I doubt
>> we want to pay the cost for every message before we know that error
>> requires the backtrace to be collected. Something like PGC_USERSET
>> se
Hi,
I'm fairly frequently annoyed that when I see an error message in the
log, I can't just generally set a breakpoint on the included line
number. That's because the line number in the error message is from the
*end* of the message:
2018-06-20 09:02:39.226 PDT [21145][3/2] LOG: 0: statement
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
> Below test case is failing with ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found
> in targetlist. this issue is reproducible from PGv10.
Thanks for the report. I traced through this, and the problem seems to
be that split_pathtarget_at_srfs() is neglecting to attach sor
Hi,
On 2018-06-20 11:20:49 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I recently needed a way to get backtraces from errors in a convenient,
> > non-interactive and indescriminate way. The attached patch is the result.
> > It teaches Pg to use libunwind to self-backtrace in elog/ereport.
> >
> > Anyone thi
Hi,
On 2018-06-20 15:05:59 +0300, Sergey Burladyan wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>
> > You should first make sure it's actually this problem - which tables are
> > holding back the xmin horizon? After that, yes, deleting the
> > global/pg_internal.init file is the way to go, and I can't think
On 06/20/2018 06:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I recently needed a way to get backtraces from errors in a convenient,
non-interactive and indescriminate way. The attached patch is the
result. It teaches Pg to use libunwind to self-backtrace in elog/ereport.
Anyone think this is useful/interesti
On 2018-Jun-19, Amit Langote wrote:
> Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch. Also,
> made a minor update to a nearby comment.
Pushed, thanks. I made a couple of comments one or two words shorter
while (IMO) not losing clarity.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://
On 2018-Jun-20, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I recently needed a way to get backtraces from errors in a convenient,
> non-interactive and indescriminate way. The attached patch is the result.
> It teaches Pg to use libunwind to self-backtrace in elog/ereport.
>
> Anyone think this is usefu
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Hi Amit
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
> > identify and flush all the dirty (local) buffers for the relation
> > being accessed pa
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:00:25PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Moving to -hackers;
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 06:53:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:45:15PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Is it because max_parallel_workers_per_gather now defaults to 2 ?
> > >
Hi folks
I recently needed a way to get backtraces from errors in a convenient,
non-interactive and indescriminate way. The attached patch is the result.
It teaches Pg to use libunwind to self-backtrace in elog/ereport.
Anyone think this is useful/interesting/worth pursuing?
(Patch is currently
2018-06-20 4:30 GMT-03:00 Haribabu Kommi :
> Attached is a simple patch with implementation. Comments?
>
Why don't you extend the existing function pg_stat_statements_reset()?
--
Euler Taveira Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, D
Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
[pg_test_fsync doesn't use pgwin32_open and hence doesn't respect O_DSYNC]
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:58:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > One anoth
>> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
>> supported branches for several more years, but we at Postgres Professional
>> are
>> ready to accept any your decision on this matter for now.
>
> I had not thought of translations, but wouldn't all translations also
> n
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:46:24PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 20.06.2018 15:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>
> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
> supported branches for
20.06.2018 15:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
>> supported branches for several more years, but we at Postgres Professional
>> are
>> ready to accept any your dec
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
>
>
> In the reported testcase, parallel_workers is set to 0 for all partition
> (child) relations. Which means partial parallel paths are not possible for
> child rels. However, the parent can have partial parallel paths. Thus, when
> we have
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Jeevan Chalke <
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> In the reported testcase, parallel_workers is set to 0 for all partition
>> (child) relations. Which means partial parallel paths are not possible for
>> child rels. However, the parent can have partial par
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>
> Could not add RAISE statement, because the isolation test does not
> seem to print those statements in the output. Instead, I have dumped
> some rows in a new table through the trigger function, and did a
> select from that table. Attached
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Good point, I have added those. Except that you meant
> tableoid::regclass.
Thanks. I have checked that make check passes with this patch. I have
marked this entry as ready for committer.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:50:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> I would go as far as suggesting to remove qualifiers that indicate what
> >> the file is for (such as "relati
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> In looking over pg_verify_checksums I found a few small things that I think
> would improve on it:
>
> * pg_verify_checksums was placed in the Client Utils section in the docs.
> Since it requries physical access to the cluster datafile
On 19 June 2018 at 17:43, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The problem is that StandbyReleaseLocks() does a linear search of all
> known AccessExclusiveLocks when a transaction ends. Luckily, since
> v10 (commit 9b013dc2) that is skipped for transactions that haven't
> taken any AELs and aren't using 2PC, b
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> To complete the picture of possible issues with older branches in XML, we
> posted a question in packager lists some time ago and didn't receive any
> objections. Just to keep record of all related questions in one place, here's
>
Adding Simon and David R.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hence, I have a modest proposal: use elog(LOG) followed by Assert(false),
> so that debug builds report such problems loudly but production builds
> do not. We've done that before, see e.g. load_relcache_init_file aroun
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:32 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> > Ok. I've rephrased comment a bit. Also, you created "index vacuum"
> > subsection in the "resource usage" section. I think it's not
> > appropriate for this option to be in "resource
On 20 June 2018 at 14:24, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
>> On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks to me like traversal of the partial subpaths is the right
thing
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 June 2018 at 10:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks to me like traversal of the partial subpaths is the right
>>> thing here, in which case we should do
>>>
>>> - foreach
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Fixed in the attached patch. I will wait for a day or two to see if
>> Tom or Robert wants to say something and then commit.
>
> The patch LGTM but the commit message could perhaps use a
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
