From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com]
> > David has submitted multiple patches for PG 12, one of which speeds up
> pruning of UPDATE/DELETE (I couldn't find it in the current CF, though.)
> What challenges are there for future versions, and which of them are being
> addressed by
On 2018/07/13 14:49, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Amit Langote [mailto:langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
>> For SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE, overhead of partitioning in the planning phase
>> is pretty significant and gets worse as the number of partitions grows.
>> I
>> had intended to fix that in PG 1
On 13 July 2018 at 14:58, Kato, Sho wrote:
> Of course I'm sure table partitioning work well with up to a hundred
> partitions as written on the postgresql document.
>
> But, my customer will use partitioned table with 1.1k leaf partitions.
>
> So, we need to improve performance.
>
> Any ideas?
I
On 13 July 2018 at 17:49, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> David has submitted multiple patches for PG 12, one of which speeds up
> pruning of UPDATE/DELETE (I couldn't find it in the current CF, though.)
> What challenges are there for future versions, and which of them are being
> addressed by p
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:49:20AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> David has submitted multiple patches for PG 12, one of which speeds up
> pruning of UPDATE/DELETE (I couldn't find it in the current CF, though.)
> What challenges are there for future versions, and which of them are being
>
Thanks for the prompt fix, patch [1] works for me.
1] https://postgr.es/m/20180712184537.5vjwgxlbuiomomqd@alvherre.pgsql
Regards,
Amul
From: Amit Langote [mailto:langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> For SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE, overhead of partitioning in the planning phase
> is pretty significant and gets worse as the number of partitions grows.
> I
> had intended to fix that in PG 11, but we could only manage to get part
> of
> that wo
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Julian Markwort
wrote:
> [a patch]
Hello Julian,
Could you please post a rebased patch?
I haven't reviewed or tested any code yet, but here's some proof-reading:
+ This behaviour is similar to the cert autentication method
"behavior" (our manual is writt
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> - XFS has (optional) reflink support. This file system is probably more
> widely used than Btrfs.
>
> - Linux and glibc have a proper function to do this now.
>
> - APFS on macOS supports file cloning.
TIL that Solaris 11.4 (closed) ZFS
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm not sure what to *do* with the partition, though :-) I don't think
> there's a nice way to verify that the FK actually exists, or that
> catalog rows are set in such-and-such way, after restoring this.
> The pg_restore tests are
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I was about to mark this patch "rejected" and forget about it, since
> Craig's patch makes it redundant. But then I noticed that Craig's
> patch doesn't actually remove the retry behaviour completely: it
> promotes only EIO and ENOSPC to PANI
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 08:13:39AM +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
> Timestamp in a backup history file not correspond to any WAL record and
> can't be bind with a time of backup exactly.
> In my opinion, keeping timestamp in XLOG_BACKUP_END is more reliable, safe
> and easy way for recovering a d
Kato-san,
On 2018/07/13 11:58, Kato, Sho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I benchmarked on a RANGE partitioned table with 1.1k leaf partitions and no
> sub-partitioned tables.
Thanks for sharing the results.
> But, statement latencies on a partitioned table is much slower than on a
> non-partitioned table.
>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 08:08:48AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>> On the whole, my vote is to fix and apply step 2, and leave it at that.
Yeah, I have been thinking about the idea 1 mentioned above, or in short
clean up the temporary namespace at
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> I suppose the call to AcceptInvalidationMessages() could go at the end
>> of ClientAuthentication(). That'd be closer to the code that creates
>> the negative entry and immediately after the code that might modify
>> the
>I wondered if you compared to PG10 or to inheritence-partitioning (parent with
>relkind='r' and either trigger or rule or >INSERT/UPDATE directly into child) ?
Thank you for your reply.
I compared to PG11beta2 with non-partitioned table.
Non-partitioned table has 1100 records in one table.
Par
On 2018-Jul-13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:45:37PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Thanks, looks good. I propose to add following pg_dump test to ensure
> > this stays fixed.
>
> Thanks for adding the test. I was looking at a good way to add a test
> but could not come
On 10.07.2018 22:26, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
On 10.07.2018 06:45, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-07-10 06:41:32 +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
This functionality is needed in practice when we have to determine a
recovery time o
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-11 09:16:33 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> > Attached, please find an updated patch based on comments by Alvaro.
>> > See, if this looks okay to you guys.
>>
>> LGTM as far as my previous
Hi,
I benchmarked on a RANGE partitioned table with 1.1k leaf partitions and no
sub-partitioned tables.
But, statement latencies on a partitioned table is much slower than on a
non-partitioned table.
UPDATE latency is 210 times slower than a non-partitioned table.
SELECT latency is 36 times slo
On 2018-07-12 19:22:50 -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 2018, at 17:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Wild guess: you did not issue a checkpoint on the promoted standby
> > before running pg_rewind.
>
> I don't believe a manual checkpoint was done on the target (promoted standby,
>
>I noticed one more thing: pg_dumpall.c doesn't really need to prohibit
>--on-conflict-do-nothing without --insert. Its existing validation rejects
>illegal
>combinations of the settings that are *not* passed on to pg_dump. It seems OK
>to
>just pass those on and let pg_dump complain. For exam
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 19:22, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 17:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Wild guess: you did not issue a checkpoint on the promoted standby
>> before running pg_rewind.
>
> I don't believe a manual checkpoint was done on the target (promoted standby,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:14:01AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Hmm, I'm also not sure about the policy of usage of name data type for
>> columns that show an object identifier on external servers. There is a
>> similar case; we have t
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 17:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Wild guess: you did not issue a checkpoint on the promoted standby
> before running pg_rewind.
I don't believe a manual checkpoint was done on the target (promoted standby,
new master), but it did one as usual during startup after the timel
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:14:01AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hmm, I'm also not sure about the policy of usage of name data type for
> columns that show an object identifier on external servers. There is a
> similar case; we have the pubname in pg_subscritpion as name type
> whereas the subpub
On Mon, July 9, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please can you check insertion with the index on 2 keys
> 1st key has 10,000 values
> 2nd key has monotonically increasing value from last 1st key value
>
> So each session picks one 1st key value
> Then each new INSERTion is a higher value of
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:18:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> That's a small thing, but I agree with you. As far as I can see slot
>> names are always mapped with the name type. I'll push that tomorrow if
>> there are no objections.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi
wrote:
>>+Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING clause in the INSERT commands.
>>
>>I think this would be better as: Add ON CONFLICT DO
>>NOTHING to
>>INSERT commands.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>+printf(_(" --on-conflict-do-nothing dump data as INSERT
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Doesn't have to be a trigger, could be a CHECK constraint, datatype input
> function, etc. Admittedly, having a datatype input function that inserts to
> the table is worth a "huh?", but I'm feeling very confident that we can
> c
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> I don't follow Alvaro's reasoning, TBH. There's a couple of things that
> confuse me ...
>
> I don't quite see how reusing WAL segments actually protects against full
> filesystem? On "traditional" filesystems I would not expect any differenc
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:45:37PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks, looks good. I propose to add following pg_dump test to ensure
> this stays fixed.
Thanks for adding the test. I was looking at a good way to add a test
but could not come up with something which can be summed up with one
q
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:26:17PM -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> What surprises me about the error is that while the recovery point
> seems reasonable, it shouldn't be on timeline 103, but on timeline
> 105.
Wild guess: you did not issue a checkpoint on the promoted standby
before running pg_r
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:18:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's a small thing, but I agree with you. As far as I can see slot
> names are always mapped with the name type. I'll push that tomorrow if
> there are no objections.
Pushed, with a catalog version bump.
While double-checking
Hi, thanks for the revision.
>
>+Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING clause in the INSERT commands.
>
>I think this would be better as: Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
>to
>INSERT commands.
Agreed.
>+printf(_(" --on-conflict-do-nothing dump data as INSERT
>commands with ON CONFLICT DO NOTHIN
On 07/12/2018 06:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jul-12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I fully understand. I think this needs to go back to "Waiting on Author".
Why? Heikki's patch applies fine and passes the regression tests.
Well, I understood Claudio was going to do some more work (see
On 2018-Jul-12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I fully understand. I think this needs to go back to "Waiting on Author".
Why? Heikki's patch applies fine and passes the regression tests.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Tr
Asim R P writes:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Asim R P writes:
>>> One can find several PageInit() calls with no content lock held. See,
>>> for example:
>>> fill_seq_with_data()
>> That would be for a relation that no one else can even see yet, no?
> Yes, when the se
On 07/12/2018 12:38 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudi
Indeed… but then throttling would not be tested:-) The point of the test
is to exercise all time-related options, including throttling with a
reasonable small value.
Ok. I don't think that's really worthwhile. If we add some code that only
runs in testing, then we're not really testing the re
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:40:43PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Sure.
Thanks for the reviews, I have pushed the patch after moving the elog()
call and changing the logs to mention "WAL segments" instead of "WAL
files".
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:29, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> This needs a lot more information before somebody can reasonably act on
> it.
Happy to provide, of course!
The two relevant hosts are "Ash" and "Chi". As mentioned, they've been flipped
back and forth repeatedly using pg_rewind: One will
chenhj writes:
> When execute sql with prepared protocol, read committed transaction will hold
> backend_xmin until the end of the transaction.
No, just till the active portal is dropped.
In the case you show, the issue is that libpq doesn't bother to issue
an explicit Close Portal message, but
> On Jul 4, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 03.07.18 19:20, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-06-29 10:19:17 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2018-06-29 13:56:12 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/29/18 13:07, amul sul wrote:
> This happens because of i
Nico Williams writes:
> Attached is an additional patch, as well as a new, rebased patch.
>
> This includes changes responsive to Álvaro Herrera's commentary about
> the SET CONSTRAINTS manual page.
This patch looks good to me. +1; Álvaro, please update the CF entry
when you're also satisfied.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
> Done.
> Attachment contains an update for use v.2 of the 'Ensure nbtree leaf tuple
> keys are always unique' patch.
My v3 is still pending, but is now a lot better than v2. There were
bugs in v2 that were fixed.
One area that might be w
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems like a *really* ad-hoc place to put it. Why should it be
>> there, and not (say) somewhere inside InitializeSessionUserId, or maybe
>> (also?) inside PerformAuthentication? Why do the existing call sites for
>>
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Changing pg_class.relhastriggers is out of scope because as far as I
> know partitioned tables have no triggers, so the current value is
> correct, and that would be a catalog change at this stage which would
> cause any existing deployments of v11 to compl
On 12.06.18 18:47, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> While testing this, I ran into another semi-related issue:
> shmem_exit_inprogress isn't ever being cleared in the postmaster, which
> means that if you ever have a crash-restart, any attempt to do a
> rollback in a procedure will then crash or get some oth
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For the tests, we only need to
ensure that at least one progress report is printed, right?
[...]
I still don't understand.
Let's look at the code:
if (progress && thread->tid == 0)
{
...
if (last_report == thread_start || now - l
Hi,
On 2018-07-12 10:20:06 -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> PostgreSQL 9.6.9, Windows Server 2012 Datacenter (64-bit).
>
> We're trying to diagnose the error:
>
> requested timeline 105 does not contain minimum recovery point
> A58/6B109F28 on timeline 103
>
> The error occurs when a WA
PostgreSQL 9.6.9, Windows Server 2012 Datacenter (64-bit).
We're trying to diagnose the error:
requested timeline 105 does not contain minimum recovery point
A58/6B109F28 on timeline 103
The error occurs when a WAL-shipping (not streaming) secondary starts up.
These two machines have b
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:49:59PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
> > On the master head, getConstraints() function skips FK constraints for
> > a partitioned table because of tbinfo->hastriggers is false.
> >
> > While creating FK constraints on the partitioned t
> 12 июля 2018 г., в 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> On 12/07/18 19:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> 11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> написал(а):
>>> This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as
>>> far as I can see, this patch never marks internal p
On 2018-Jul-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
> >> next. If you don't mind putting the topic on hold that long, I'll
> >> be happy to take responsibility for it.
2018-07-12 18:29 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > PLpgSQL FETCH documentation is has ref on SQL FETCH command. SQL FETCH
> > allows only int constants as count. PLpgSQL allows any expressions. In
> this
> > case documentation is not clear, and people can be messy - and apply SQL
>
Hi Alexander, Teodor,
On 2018-06-28 18:28:03 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> According to the error message, it is not allowed to alter statistics on
> included column because this is "non-expression column".
>
> postgres=# create table test (i int, d int);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# create index
I was asked to perform two different tests:
1) A benchmarksql run with WAL recycling on and then off, for comparison
2) A test when the filesystem fills up
For #1, I did two 15 minute benchmarksql runs and here are the results.
wal_recycle=on
--
Term-00, Running Average tpmTOTAL: 299.8
On 2018-07-11 09:16:33 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Attached, please find an updated patch based on comments by Alvaro.
> > See, if this looks okay to you guys.
>
> LGTM as far as my previous comments are concerned.
I see Amit pushed a patch here yester
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
>> next. If you don't mind putting the topic on hold that long, I'll
>> be happy to take responsibility for it.
> Is that still the plan? Do you forsee an
Hi,
On 2018-06-29 13:52:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> From 95fc7156afe521b715fab08d44606774df875e92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Peter Eisentraut
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:28:39 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix assert in nested SQL procedure call
Andrew, Peter, are you happy with this? I
Hi Tom,
On 2018-06-29 18:17:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Since Tom has been revamping this code lately, I think it's a good
> > idea to wait for his input.
>
> I'm on vacation and won't have time to look at this until week after
> next. If you don't mind putting the to
On 12/07/18 19:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas
написал(а):
This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as
far as I can see, this patch never marks internal pages as deleted,
only leaf pages. However, we should have something like this in
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
Pavel Stehule writes:
> PLpgSQL FETCH documentation is has ref on SQL FETCH command. SQL FETCH
> allows only int constants as count. PLpgSQL allows any expressions. In this
> case documentation is not clear, and people can be messy - and apply SQL
> FETCH limits on PLpgSQL FETCH.
Right. Pushed w
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:59:16PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Anyway, this patch seems to fix it, and adds what I think is appropriate
> > test coverage.
>
> This looks good to me. I am noticing that the documentation of TRUNCATE
> does not mention
On 12/07/18 19:00, Fabien COELHO wrote:
How pgbenchs prints a progress if none were printed, or if the last
progress was over 0.5 seconds ago, so as to have kind of a catchup in the
end.
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For the tests, we only need to ensure
that at least one progress rep
On 12/07/18 18:06, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
I have added some cross-type test cases and now almost all new code is covered
(excluding several error cases which can be triggered only by custom numeric
type implementations).
Thanks! Some of those new tests actually fail, if you run them against
unp
Hi!
PFA v5 of the patch series.
> 11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as far as I
> can see, this patch never marks internal pages as deleted, only leaf pages.
> However, we should have something like this
The point is to avoid building the message with dynamic allocation and so
if in the end it is not used.
Ok! About avoidance - I'm afraid there's one more piece of debugging code
with the same problem:
Indeed. I'd like to avoid all instances, so that PQExpBufferData is not
needed anywhere,
Hello Heikki,
Thanks for having a look at this small patch which aim at improving
pgbench coverage.
How pgbenchs prints a progress if none were printed, or if the last
progress was over 0.5 seconds ago, so as to have kind of a catchup in the
end.
I don't understand the 0.5 second rule. For
Hi John,
John Naylor writes:
>> On 4/26/18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> if I counted correctly. (Array entries should be ignored for this
>>> purpose; maybe we'll autogenerate them someday.)
>>
>> Hmm, that wouldn't be too hard. Add a new metadata field called
>> 'array_type_oid', then if it finds suc
It would be easier to figure this out if the btree_gist code weren't
so desperately undocumented. Teodor, do you remember why it's like
this?
Will look.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://ww
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
>> I think we also can update the doc about that GROUPS offset mode
>> requires ORDER BY clause. Thoughts? Attached patch updates it.
>
> Ooops, I forgot to check the docs. This isn't quite the right fix
> though --- the
On 07/12/2018 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
bowerbird and hamerkop have some gripes like this:
bowerbird | c:\perl64\lib\core\win32.h(218): warning C4005: 'isnan' : macro
redefinition (src/pl/plperl/SPI.c)
[G:\prog\bf\root\HE
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> I think we also can update the doc about that GROUPS offset mode
> requires ORDER BY clause. Thoughts? Attached patch updates it.
Ooops, I forgot to check the docs. This isn't quite the right fix
though --- the problem is that there's a sentence at the end of that
para
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mmm, yeah, I suppose it should say "all framing options" rather than
>> implying that we've implemented every other window-related frammish
>> there is in the spec.
> +1. Attached patch that does exactly that.
Pushed,
On 11.07.2018 21:03, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26/03/18 19:07, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Attached fixed 3th version of the patch:
Thanks, I'm reviewing this now. Nice speedup!
Thank you for your review.
There is no test coverage for some of the added code. You can get a
code coverage rep
One more thought about estimating the worst case - I wonder if simply
multiplying the per-tuple cost by 1.5 is the right approach. It does not
seem particularly principled, and it's trivial simple to construct
counter-examples defeating it (imagine columns with 99% of the rows
having the same v
V8 contains fixes of Tomas Vondra complaints:
- correct usage of comparison_cost
- remove uneeded check of sortop
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
diff --git a/src/backend/o
OK, so Fi is pretty much whatever CREATE FUNCTION ... COST says, right?
exactly
Hmm, makes sense. But doesn't that mean it's mostly a fixed per-tuple
cost, not directly related to the comparison? For example, why should it
be multiplied by C0? That is, if I create a very expensive comparator
(s
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> bowerbird and hamerkop have some gripes like this:
>>
>> bowerbird | c:\perl64\lib\core\win32.h(218): warning C4005: 'isnan' :
>> macro redefinition (src/pl/plperl/SPI.c)
>> [G:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\plperl.vcxproj]
On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:13:40AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I just pushed it before seeing your message.
Fine as well, thanks for picking this up. The buildfarm shows no
failures about this patch.
I scraped all the compi
At least [1] and [2] hit into to that issues and have an objections/questions
about correctness of cost sort estimation. Suggested patch tries to improve
current estimation and solve that issues.
Sorry for long delay but issue was even more complicated than I thought. When I
tried to add cost_
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:13:40AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I just pushed it before seeing your message.
> Fine as well, thanks for picking this up. The buildfarm shows no
> failures about this patch.
I scraped all the compiler warnings from the buildfarm this m
On 12/07/18 16:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/10/2018 11:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Thanks for picking this up!
(I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell
script seems to be difficult. I also
On 07/10/2018 11:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Thanks for picking this up!
(I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell
script seems to be difficult. I also trimmed the CC list, if that helps.)
On
On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote:
The iteration interface, however, seems quite specific for the use
case of vacuumlazy, so
On 07/12/2018 05:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/07/18 10:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.06.18 18:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The first should be simple and non-controversial. It allows
src/tools/msvc/build.pl to be called in such a way that it only creates
the project files and then
"samuel.coulee" <313914...@qq.com> writes:
> In the PG source code function "write_relcache_init_file()", I found that
> the whole 'Relation' structs were directly written into the file
> 'pg_internal.init'. This brings some binary differences of that file, if we
> run pg_initdb multiple times, be
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:00:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The documentation[1] says that both pg_create_logical_replication_slot
> and pg_create_physical_replication_slot returns slot_name as a name
> type. But only pg_create_logical_replication_slot returns it as text
> type. I think thes
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:00:47PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking at the GnuTLS docs, I believe it has everything we need.
> gnutls_certificate_get_peers() and gnutls_certificate_get_ours() can be used
> to get the certificate, and gnutls_x509_crt_get_signature_algorithm() gets
> the si
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:34:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Meh. We're not going implement tls-unique, anyway, in some of the upcoming
> non-OpenSSL TLS implementations that don't support it.
True enough. Only GnuTLS supports it:
https://www.gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Channel-Bindings.
I think we should add this to open items list so that it gets tracked.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think your fix is correct. I slightly modified it along with updating
>>> nearby comments and added r
On 07/12/2018 10:08 AM, samuel.coulee wrote:
Hi,
In the PG source code function "write_relcache_init_file()", I found that
the whole 'Relation' structs were directly written into the file
'pg_internal.init'. This brings some binary differences of that file, if we
run pg_initdb multiple times, b
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>
>> I think your fix is correct. I slightly modified it along with updating
>> nearby comments and added regression tests.
>
> I updated regression tests to reduce lines. There is no point in
> repeating tests like v2 patch did.
+ *
+
On 12/07/18 15:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:15:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/07/18 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
+ snprintf(path, MAXPGPATH, XLOGDIR "/%s", xlde->d_name);
+ elog(DEBUG2, "removed temporary WAL file \"%s\"", path)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:15:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/07/18 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > + snprintf(path, MAXPGPATH, XLOGDIR "/%s", xlde->d_name);
> > + elog(DEBUG2, "removed temporary WAL file \"%s\"", path);
> > + unlink(path);
>
> The elo
Hello Tom,
11.07.2018 23:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> /make clean/
>> # Also you can just install binary packages to get the same state.
>> make installcheck-world
>> # This check fails.
> I do not think that should be expected to work. It would require that
> "make installcheck" first invoke "make a
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:06:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I think that this patch might be splitted but I will be able to send
>> an updated patch in the next week. As you suggestion this patch needs
>> more careful thoughts. I'll
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
