Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote: >> My idea of improving this patch is that give a threshold N_limit, >> and for q_1 ... q_N_limit, do the same weighted cost estimation in the >> current version of this patch. >> For q_

RE: [bug fix] Produce a crash dump before main() on Windows

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz] > No, I really mean a library dependency failure. For example, imagine that > Postgres is compiled on Windows dynamically, and that it depends on > libxml2.dll, which is itself compiled dynamically. Then imagine, in a > custom build echosystem, t

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Hello. At Wed, 25 Jul 2018 23:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in <20180725140833.gc6...@paquier.xyz> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:58:16PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I'd suggest that we continue based on the patch that Kyotaro posted at > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180

Re: Optimizer misses big in 10.4 with BRIN index

On 26 July 2018 at 04:50, Tomas Vondra wrote: > My guess is this is the root cause - the estimated number of rows is much > higher than in practice (3377106 vs. 23040), so at the end the seqscan is > considered to be slightly cheaper and wins. But the actual row count is > ~150x lower, making the

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >>> I'm not sure that's a good idea, because I think we have a trade-off >>> relation; the more we make create_plan simple, the more we need to make >>> earlier stat

Re: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack

Hi, So, I have spent the last couple of days trying to figure out a nice solution for VACUUM, TRUNCATE and REINDEX, and attached is a set of three patches to address the issues of this thread: 1) 0001 does the work for TRUNCATE, but using RangeVarGetRelidExtended with a custom callback based on th

Re: print_path is missing GatherMerge and CustomScan support

(2018/07/19 14:11), Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Yes that's right. Thanks for taking care of it. Okay, I have pushed a fix for this one as that's wrong and back-patched to v11. T

Re: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:27:16PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I may be misunderstanding something because (really ?) it's still > extremely hot in Japan, today. It is better since yesterday, in exchange of a typhoon heading straight to Tokyo :) -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP s

Re: PartitionDispatch's partdesc field

On 2018/07/26 5:23, Robert Haas wrote: > I noticed today that in the PartitionDispatch structure, the partdesc > field is set but not used. So we could remove it. See attached > pd-partdesc-remove.patch. If we want to go this route, I suggest > doing a slightly more thorough removal and getting

Re: Making "COPY partitioned_table FROM" faster

On 25 July 2018 at 04:37, Simon Riggs wrote: > I don't see any need here for another GUC, nor even a command option. > The user has already indicated their use case to us: I agree. > We know that the common case for RANGE partitioned tables is to load > into the one current partition. We also kn

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I tried running the below on both 11beta2 and HEAD with the patch > applied: > > CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE t1 (c1 int); > INSERT INTO t1 SELECT generate_series(1,1); > /** restart

Re: Making "COPY partitioned_table FROM" faster

Hi Melanie, Many thanks for looking over this again. On 25 July 2018 at 03:32, Melanie Plageman wrote: > One small additional typo I noticed: > > In the patched code on line 2555, there appears to be a typo: > /* ... > * inserting into and act differently if the tuples that have already > * b

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

On 2018/07/26 1:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jul-12, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2018/07/12 2:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Yeah, any domain constraints added before won't be a problem. Another >>> angle on this problem is to verify partition bounds against the domain >>> constraint being add

Re: [Proposal] Add accumulated statistics for wait event

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:23:03PM +, Phil Florent wrote: > It loses non meaningful details and it's in fact a good point. In this > example, sampling will definitely find the cause and won't cost > resources. The higher the sampling frequency, the more details you get, with the most load on t

Re: Alter index rename concurrently to

> > You appear to be saying that you think that renaming an index > concurrently is not safe. In that case, this patch should be rejected. > However, I don't think it necessarily is unsafe. What we need is some > reasoning about the impact, not a bunch of different options that we > don't underst

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On 2018-07-25 18:59:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2018-07-25 18:11:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> But what would be the advantage of avoiding the context release inside > >> FreeExecutorState? It seems pretty appropriate to me to do it there. > >> You could argue

Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

Hi, On 2018-07-20 13:24:50 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-20 16:15:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > We've seen several occurrences of $subject in the buildfarm in the past > > month or so. Scraping the logs, I find > > > > coypu| 2018-06-14 21:17:49 | HEAD | Check | 2018-06-

Re: LLVM jit and matview

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-07-25 18:11:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> But what would be the advantage of avoiding the context release inside >> FreeExecutorState? It seems pretty appropriate to me to do it there. >> You could argue that the JIT context is definitely part of the estate >>

Re: Scariest patch tournament, PostgreSQL 11 edition

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > One month of beta testing has flown by, and enough bugs have already > been reported that your view of what patches are scariest might have > matured. You still have a few days before we close the contest at the > end of the month. Let us

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On 2018-Jul-25, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-25 18:11:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Jul-25, Andres Freund wrote: > > But what would be the advantage of avoiding the context release inside > > FreeExecutorState? It seems pretty appropriate to me to do it there. > > You could ar

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On 2018-07-25 18:11:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jul-25, Andres Freund wrote: > > > The fix is easy, releasing the JIT context should just happen in > > FreeExecutorState(). Only thing is that that function has the following > > comment in the header: > > * Note: this is not responsi

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On 2018-Jul-25, Andres Freund wrote: > The fix is easy, releasing the JIT context should just happen in > FreeExecutorState(). Only thing is that that function has the following > comment in the header: > * Note: this is not responsible for releasing non-memory resources, > * such as open relati

Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header

On 25 July 2018 at 19:24, Cynthia Shang wrote: > > I've reviewed this patch and feel this patch addresses the original ask. I > tested it manually trying to break it and, as mentioned previously, it's > behavior is the same as the CSV copy with regards to it's shortcomings. > However, I feel > 1)

Re: LLVM jit and matview

Hi, On 2018-07-25 08:41:29 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Oh, interesting. It only crashes when compiling LLVM without LLVM's > asserts enabled, even when using exactly the same LLVM checkout for both > builds. No idea what that's about, yet. Oh, well, this took me longer than it should have. The

Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote: > How about checking what the buildfarm thinks about the attached? Hi Laurenz, It looks like initdb is failing with this patch: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.6732 Unfortunately cfbot is not clever enou

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> I'm not sure that's a good idea, because I think we have a trade-off >> relation; the more we make create_plan simple, the more we need to make >> earlier states of the planner complicated. >> >> And it looks to me

BLOB / CLOB support in PostgreSQL

Hi, According to Pgjdbc GitHub statistics, the most popular page is https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/1102 which is "org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection.createClob() is not yet implemented" issue (1600 visits from 1400 unique visitors per a fortnight). There are workarounds to silence the err

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> Isn't that assumption fundamental to your whole approach? > > I don't think so. What I mean here is: currently the subplan would be a > scan/join node, but in future we might have eg, a Sort node atop the > scan/join node, so it would be be

PartitionDispatch's partdesc field

I noticed today that in the PartitionDispatch structure, the partdesc field is set but not used. So we could remove it. See attached pd-partdesc-remove.patch. If we want to go this route, I suggest doing a slightly more thorough removal and getting rid of the key field as well. See attached pd-

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Hi, On 2018-07-25 21:59:32 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Andres Freund 2018-07-25 > <20180725195037.jmykfzfporf6a...@alap3.anarazel.de> > > The way inlining works is that, when referencing a function, the bitcode > > summary file corresponding to it (either postgres.index.bc if builtin or >

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Re: Andres Freund 2018-07-25 <20180725195037.jmykfzfporf6a...@alap3.anarazel.de> > > Different question, the other way round, is there a way to know that > > all files needed to inline a query/extension are there? How does the > > JIT machinery determine it can (try to) compile things? (That's > >

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Hi, On 2018-07-25 21:39:26 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Andres Freund 2018-07-25 > <20180725191143.sietxlbfehv24...@alap3.anarazel.de> > > I haven't investigated the details here. It certainly would be possible > > to have the _PG_init() of postgis's so force JIT to be off, and emit a > >

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Re: Andres Freund 2018-07-25 <20180725191143.sietxlbfehv24...@alap3.anarazel.de> > I haven't investigated the details here. It certainly would be possible > to have the _PG_init() of postgis's so force JIT to be off, and emit a > warning. Isn't that too late, if postgis.so gets loaded by a query

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote: > > "David" == David Fetter writes: > > David> Please find attached a version rebased atop 167075be3ab1547e18 > David> with what I believe are appropriate changes to regression test > David> output. The other changes to the reg

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Hi, On 2018-07-25 21:05:33 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > It'll only be an issue for extensions that throw c++ style exceptions. I > > > don't think that rises to the level of disallowing any LLVM version < > > > 5.0. I suggest postgis adds an error check to its buildprocess that > > > refuses

Re: JIT breaks PostGIS

Re: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski 2018-07-23 > > It looks to me like it's a LLVM issue, specifically > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34424 > > fixed in LLVM 5+. > > > > Thank you for your investigation. Thanks! > > It'll only be an issue for extensions that throw c++ style exception

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:57:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2018-07-24 19:49:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> However, a singly-referenced SELECT CTE could reasonably be treated as > >> equivalent to a sub-select-in-FROM, and then you would have the same > >> mechanisms

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:08:43PM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Nico> It is possible to add a keyword for this purpose in the WITH syntax: > > Nico> WITH VIEW (...) AS a_view > > The existing (and standard) syntax is WITH ctename AS (query). Oy, I flubbed that up. > Syntaxes that have

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:45:58AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > > I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and > > accidentally re-invent someone else's idea. > > It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole topi

Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Cynthia Shang wrote: > With regards to #2, the copy.source tests are for things requiring > replacement when running the tests. Given that these copy tests do not, I > have moved the current last set of copy tests to the copy2.sql file and have > provided an attac

Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header

On 4 July 2018 at 22:44, Simon Muller  wrote:I noticed through the patch tester link at http://commitfest.cputube.org/ that my patch caused a file_fdw test to fail (since I previously tested only with "make check" and not with "make check-world").This v2 patch should fix that.T

Re: Optimizer misses big in 10.4 with BRIN index

Hi, On 07/25/2018 03:58 PM, Arcadiy Ivanov wrote: ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tradedate_idx (cost=0.00..231.96 rows=3377106 width=0) (actual time=4.500..4.500 rows=23040 loops=1)    Index Cond: data_table.data ->> 'tradeDate'::text))::numeric >=

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

On 2018-Jul-12, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/07/12 2:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Yeah, any domain constraints added before won't be a problem. Another > > angle on this problem is to verify partition bounds against the domain > > constraint being added; if they all pass, there's no reason to

Re: Using test_ddl_deparse as an extension

On 2018-Jul-25, Jeremy Finzel wrote: > I am interested in using the exact functionality in test_ddl_deparse which > provides the sub command types for alter table statements. I would prefer > to leverage this code which has already been vetted by the community, and > also not just duplicate this

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On 2018-Jul-07, David Fetter composed: > If they have no plans to practice any exclusive rights, our standard thing > process where individuals submit things and consent to have us name them > with the PGDG copyright and distribute them under TPL would be the > most straightforward approach

"WIP: Data at rest encryption" patch and, 2 phase commit.

Hi. I applied the patch "WIP: Data at rest encryption" to PostgreSQL 11 - beta 2 and I'm working on it. When this patch is applied, the following problem occurs. * An error occurs when CHECKPOINT is executed during two-phase commit. * After an error occurs, if you stop PostgreSQL, it will never

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

> "Nico" == Nico Williams writes: Nico> It is possible to add a keyword for this purpose in the WITH syntax: Nico> WITH VIEW (...) AS a_view The existing (and standard) syntax is WITH ctename AS (query). Syntaxes that have been suggested for explicitly controlling the materializati

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On 2018-07-25 11:45:58 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > > I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and > > accidentally re-invent someone else's idea. > > It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole topic > of softw

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and > accidentally re-invent someone else's idea. It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole topic of software patents has been deeply controversial for so long. You seem

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On 2018-07-25 14:59:20 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 07:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:49:56PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > FWIW, this doesn't crash for me, using a trunk checkout for LLVM. I'll > > > try older ones, as soon as they fini

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 11:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: David Steele writes: On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: The problem is that that'll just hide the issue for a bit longer, while continuing (due to the O_CREAT we'll not PANIC anymore). Which can lead to a lot of followup issues, like checkpoints rem

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-25 11:19:49 -0400, David Steele wrote: If one wanted to improve recoverability in scenarios like this, there'd be actually useful things like adding the option to extract control files, FPIs, clog contents from the WAL with pg_waldump. I thi

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

David Steele writes: > On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> The problem is that that'll just hide the issue for a bit longer, while >> continuing (due to the O_CREAT we'll not PANIC anymore). Which can lead >> to a lot of followup issues, like checkpoints removing old WAL that'd >> have b

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:42:37AM +0200, David Fetter wrote: > Please find attached a version rebased atop 167075be3ab1547e18 with > what I believe are appropriate changes to regression test output. The > other changes to the regression tests output are somewhat puzzling, as > they change the act

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

Hi, On 2018-07-25 11:19:49 -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-07-25 10:52:08 -0400, David Steele wrote: > > The problem is that that'll just hide the issue for a bit longer, while > > continuing (due to the O_CREAT we'll not PANIC anymore). Which ca

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:48:01PM +0700, Benjamin Scherrey wrote: > If you violate a patent, knowingly or otherwise, you are subject to > penalties (perhaps not treble but still penalties) and will have to remove > the offending code unless a deal is reached with the patent holder. Unless you do

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

David Steele writes: > On 7/25/18 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> What would we win here? Which scenario that's not contrived would be less >> bad due to the proposed change. This seems complexity for it's own sake. > I favor the contrived scenario that helps preserve the current cluster > i

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:06:22AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 07/25/18 01:56, Nico Williams wrote: > > > Wrong. With patents the important thing is not to know about them when > > you implement -- if you come up with the same idea by accident (which, > > of course, is obviously entirely pos

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-25 10:52:08 -0400, David Steele wrote: I favor the contrived scenario that helps preserve the current cluster instead of a hypothetical newly init'd one. I also don't think that users deleting files out of a cluster is all that contrived.

Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

> "David" == David Fetter writes: David> Please find attached a version rebased atop 167075be3ab1547e18 David> with what I believe are appropriate changes to regression test David> output. The other changes to the regression tests output are David> somewhat puzzling, as they change the ac

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

Hi, On 2018-07-25 10:52:08 -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 7/25/18 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On July 25, 2018 7:18:30 AM PDT, David Steele wrote: > > > > > > It seems like an easy win if we can find a safe way to do it, though I > > > admit that this is only a benefit in corner cases. >

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:13:37AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us] > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen > > > of course. I believe PostgreSQL

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/25/18 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On July 25, 2018 7:18:30 AM PDT, David Steele wrote: It seems like an easy win if we can find a safe way to do it, though I admit that this is only a benefit in corner cases. What would we win here? Which scenario that's not contrived would be less b

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On July 25, 2018 7:18:30 AM PDT, David Steele wrote: >On 7/23/18 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Brian Faherty writes: > > >>> There does not really seem to be a need for this behavior as all the >>> information postgres needs is in memory at this point. I propose >with >>> a patch to just recreat

Re: Missing pg_control crashes postmaster

On 7/23/18 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Brian Faherty writes: > There does not really seem to be a need for this behavior as all the information postgres needs is in memory at this point. I propose with a patch to just recreate pg_control on updates if it does not exist. I would vote to reject a

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

> On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have tried this idea, but it doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:58:16PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I'd suggest that we continue based on the patch that Kyotaro posted at > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180330.100646.86008470.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp. Whatever happens here, perhaps one way to move on would b

Optimizer misses big in 10.4 with BRIN index

Hi, Before spamming the list with reproduction examples I want to make sure the issue isn't already known. Moving to 10.4 from 9.2 (AWS RDS but repro on local laptop as well) we've discovered that an optimizer prefers a seq scan to fully analyzed consistent BRIN index, ending up with a query

Using test_ddl_deparse as an extension

I am interested in using the exact functionality in test_ddl_deparse which provides the sub command types for alter table statements. I would prefer to leverage this code which has already been vetted by the community, and also not just duplicate this code myself, or package it up myself. It woul

Re: LLVM jit and matview

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 07:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:49:56PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > FWIW, this doesn't crash for me, using a trunk checkout for LLVM. I'll > > try older ones, as soon as they finish rebuilding. But perhaps you could > > re-verify that this

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 AM Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: > On Mon, July 9, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: > > I'm planning to do code review and send it in the next mail. > > Sorry for delaying the code review. > > I did the code review, and I think there are no logical wrongs > with B-Tree

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

Hi! On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:19 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > On 13 July 2018 at 03:14, Imai, Yoshikazu > wrote: > > From an attached graph("some_contention_points_on_leaf_nodes.png"), as > > contention points dispersed, we can see that TPS is increased and TPS > > difference between master and pa

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

Hi! On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:39 PM 今井 良一 wrote: > On 2018/07/10 20:36, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > Thank you for the experiments! It seems that there is real regression > > here... BTW, which script were you using in this benchmark: > > script_unordered.sql or script_duplicated.sql? > > Sorr

Re: "WIP: Data at rest encryption" patch and, 2 phase commit.

Toshi Harada wrote: > Hi. > > I applied the patch "WIP: Data at rest encryption" to PostgreSQL 11 - beta 2 > and I'm working on it. > > When this patch is applied, the following problem occurs. > > * An error occurs when CHECKPOINT is executed during two-phase commit. > * After an error occur

Fwd: Re[2]: Alter index rename concurrently to

Понедельник, 23 июля 2018, 18:06 +03:00 от Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com >: > >You appear to be saying that you think that renaming an index >concurrently is not safe No, I didn't say it about renaming indexes. I tried to say that it does not make sense exactly to rename a ta

Re: Global snapshots

Hello, I have looked through the patches and found them pretty accurate. I'd fixed a lot of small issues here and there; updated patchset is attached. But first, some high-level notes: * I agree that it would be cool to implement functionality like current "snapshot too old": that is, abort t

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hello Thank you for update! I did only quick test now: patch applied and build clean. But i have reproducible error during check-world: > t/001_standby_checksum.pl .. 6/10 > # Failed test 'ensure checksums are enabled on standby' > # at t/001_standby_checksum.pl line 84. > # got: 'i

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On 13 July 2018 at 03:14, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: > 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 k

Re: Online enabling of checksums

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:05, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, failed > Implements feature: not tested > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation:tested, failed > >

Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table

2018-07-25 11:09 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote : > Hi Pavel. > > On 2018/07/23 20:46, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Hi > > > > I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned > > tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be > possible, > > the size calculation wil

Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table

Hi Pavel. On 2018/07/23 20:46, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned > tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be possible, > the size calculation will be changed. > > postgres=# \dt+ >

Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian

On 2018/07/21 0:17, David Rowley wrote: > On 20 July 2018 at 21:44, Amit Langote wrote: >> But I don't think the result of make_partition_pruneinfo itself has to be >> List of PartitionedRelPruneInfo nested under PartitionPruneInfo. I gather >> that each PartitionPruneInfo corresponds to each roo

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:37PM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote: > > On 24 July 2018 at 18:17, Nico Williams wrote: > > > Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as > > > long as the author of the contribution didn'

Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 22:57, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2018, at 02:18, Thomas Munro wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> attached >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> 6118 --select pg_cancel_backend(pg_backend_pid(), 'it brings on many >> changes'); >> 6

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On 07/25/18 01:56, Nico Williams wrote: > Wrong. With patents the important thing is not to know about them when > you implement -- if you come up with the same idea by accident (which, > of course, is obviously entirely possible) then you are not subject to > trebble damages. Even if the damage