On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In the case of REINDEX, we *allow* shared catalogs to be reindexed.
> Hence, if a user is a database owner, he would also be able to reindex
> critical indexes on shared catalogs, where blocking authentication is
> possible just with session
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Currently postgres_fdw cannot be used with 'cert' authentication, i.e.
> client-certificate validation and cert cn => postgres username mapping. You
> also can't use things like Kerberos, SSPI, etc with a superuser-created FDW
> and username ma
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> If hackers and non-core extension authors are to write such code, let's make
> it easier to check the work.
+1. Better still would be to invent a way to remove the need for such
onerous qualification, but I don't have a good idea.
> a. SQL int
On 07/08/18 17:34, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:32:27PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Well, it'd be useless for users, there is no reason to switch off channel
binding if bo
On 2018/08/08 8:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rushabh Lathia writes:
>> Consider the below case:
>
> I initially thought the rule might be messing stuff up, but you can get
> the same result without the rule by writing out the transformed query
> by hand:
>
> regression=# explain UPDATE pt_p1 SET a = 3
Hi,
On 2018-08-08 16:55:22 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:10 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:55:26PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:14 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > Please find attached the next version, which passes 'mak
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:10 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:55:26PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:14 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>> > Please find attached the next version, which passes 'make check'.
>>
>> ... but not 'make check-world' (contrib/postgre
Hi,
I noticed
if (HeapTupleHeaderGetNatts(tuple.t_data) <
RelationGetDescr(erm->relation)->natts)
{
copyTuple = heap_expand_tuple(&tuple,
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Asim R P wrote:
> Please find attached a patch to mark a shared buffer as read-write or
> read-only using mprotect(). The idea is to catch violations of shared
> buffer access rules. This patch was useful to detect the access
> violations reported in this thread.
Please find attached a patch to mark a shared buffer as read-write or
read-only using mprotect(). The idea is to catch violations of shared
buffer access rules. This patch was useful to detect the access
violations reported in this thread. The mprotect() calls are enabled
by -DMPROTECT_BUFFER co
Rushabh Lathia writes:
> Consider the below case:
I initially thought the rule might be messing stuff up, but you can get
the same result without the rule by writing out the transformed query
by hand:
regression=# explain UPDATE pt_p1 SET a = 3 from pt
WHERE pt.a = 2 and pt.a = pt_p1.a;
ERROR:
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Now that the minors have been tagged, I'm considering pushing this
>> shortly to 9.6 - master.
> I may be missing something, but the next round of minor releases is not
> tagged yet, and only stamped. So
hOn Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:37:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > On 16/07/18 18:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> TBH I'm not really excited about investing any work in this area at all.
> >> Considering how seldom we hear any questions about transform_null_equals
> >> anymore[1]
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:08:12PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >I know this is an academic question now, but I am not sure this is true.
> >A man-in-the-middle attacker could say they don't support channel
> >binding to the real client and real server and pretend to be the real
> >server. W
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Now that the minors have been tagged, I'm considering pushing this
> shortly to 9.6 - master.
I may be missing something, but the next round of minor releases is not
tagged yet, and only stamped. So I think that you should hold on
On 07/08/18 22:34, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:26:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/07/18 07:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:01:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I started digging into this more closely, and ran into a little problem. If
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:26:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/07/18 07:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:01:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>I started digging into this more closely, and ran into a little problem. If
> >>channel binding is not used, the
On 2018-Aug-02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> After considering several possible solutions, I propose to have
> heap_xlog_visible compute free space for any page being marked frozen;
> Pavan adds to that to have heap_xlog_clean compute free space for all
> pages also. This means that if we later promot
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Jacob Champion writes:
> > Thanks! We have made some progress towards a repro but we're having
> > problems putting it into the pg_dump suite.
>
> Yeah, I find the pg_dump test suite to be pretty much unreadable too.
> Don't worry about it ---
Jacob Champion writes:
> Thanks! We have made some progress towards a repro but we're having
> problems putting it into the pg_dump suite.
Yeah, I find the pg_dump test suite to be pretty much unreadable too.
Don't worry about it --- I don't think we need to memorialize a test
case for this.
> H
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see any reason to insist on a test case before pushing this
> fix, so I did that. (As I expected, the fix doesn't change any existing
> regression test results.)
Thanks! We have made some progress towards a repro but we're having
problems
This email was sent to docs, but I think it is a hackers issue. The
person is asking why exclusion constraints aren't marked as UNIQUE
indexes that can be used for referential integrity. I think the reason
is that non-equality exclusion constraints, like preventing overlap, but
don't uniquely i
Don Seiler writes:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, if you're going to insist on that part, it's probably not worth
>> making the application_name GUC have inconsistent behavior.
> OK so just to make sure I understand:
> 1. We want to make a generic, central ascii-lob
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, gotcha. But whether the behavior is sane or not, it'd be reproducible
>> for any specific input dataset on any specific platform (unless you've got
>> a quicksort that actually uses randomized pivots; but ours doesn'
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> But having said that, I don't exactly see why you couldn't force it
> >> with an ultimately-redundant SetConfigOption call to put the value
> >> in place before the ereport ha
Hi,
Consider the below case:
CREATE TABLE pt (a INT, b INT, c INT) PARTITION BY RANGE(a);
CREATE TABLE pt_p1 PARTITION OF pt FOR VALUES FROM (1) to (6) PARTITION BY
RANGE (b);
CREATE TABLE pt_p1_p1 PARTITION OF pt_p1 FOR VALUES FROM (11) to (44);
CREATE TABLE pt_p1_p2 PARTITION OF pt_p1 FOR VALUE
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> But having said that, I don't exactly see why you couldn't force it
>> with an ultimately-redundant SetConfigOption call to put the value
>> in place before the ereport happens. The GUC machinery is surely
>> functional before we d
Hello Marina,
v10-0001-Pgbench-errors-use-the-RandomState-structure-for.patch
- a patch for the RandomState structure (this is used to reset a client's
random seed during the repeating of transactions after serialization/deadlock
failures).
About this v10 part 1:
Patch applies cleanly, co
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> That's how I read this part of RestoreArchivedFile:
>
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/access/transam/xlogarchive.c#L110
>
> The very first thing it does is checking if the local file exists, and if i
On 08/07/2018 05:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 08/06/2018 09:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 08/06/2018 06:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
WAL checksums are per WAL record, not
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 08/06/2018 09:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >>On 08/06/2018 06:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >WAL checksums are per WAL record, not across the whole file... And,
> >yes, th
*Hi The Percona Live Europe Open Source Database Conference is being held
this year in Frankfurt from November 5-7, 2018. In case you are not
familiar with the conference, our brief is to offer a platform for the
presentation of technical and business papers on any topic that’s relevant
to open sou
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Guo writes:
> > [ make the postmaster execute setsid() too ]
>
> I'm a bit skeptical of this proposal. Forcing the postmaster to
> dissociate from its controlling terminal is a good thing in some
> scenarios, but probably less good in othe
Greetings Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Moreover, if you don't check it then the appname recorded
> >> by log_connections would not match appearances for the same session
> >> later in the log, which puts the en
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Moreover, if you don't check it then the appname recorded
>> by log_connections would not match appearances for the same session
>> later in the log, which puts the entire use-case for this patch into
>> question. So no, this conce
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:32:27PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Well, it'd be useless for users, there is no reason to switch off channel
> >> binding if both the client and
Greetings Don,
* Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> > > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 13/07/2018 20:20, Don Seile
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> >> Is the concern that any user can set their client's application name value
> >> to any string they want? Is there a reason we can't call
> >> check_application_name() before set
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 13/07/2018 20:20, Don Seiler wrote:
> > > > See attached for latest revision
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I happened to notice that there is a variable 'garbage' in GNUmakefile.in,
> which was defined in 32163099d7c43a0244f463eb4e525c711e6e97a3 ~18 years ago,
> but which seems to not be used? Is 'garbage' a special make variable or is a
> leftover which can be removed?
It
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
>> Is the concern that any user can set their client's application name value
>> to any string they want? Is there a reason we can't call
>> check_application_name() before setting it in the Port struct in
>> postmaster.c?
> I've not lo
Hi Arseny,
> - Decoding transactions at PREPARE record changes rules of the "we ship
> all commits after lsn 'x'" game. Namely, it will break initial
> tablesync: what if consistent snapshot was formed *after* PREPARE, but
> before COMMIT PREPARED, and the plugin decides to employ 2pc? Inste
Greetings,
* Don Seiler (d...@seiler.us) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13/07/2018 20:20, Don Seiler wrote:
> > > See attached for latest revision.
> >
> > This doesn't compile with SSL enabled because there is a co
I think the latest v4 patch addresses the concerns raised upthread. I'm
marking the commitfest entry as RFC.
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 13/07/2018 20:20, Don Seiler wrote:
> > See attached for latest revision.
>
> This doesn't compile with SSL enabled because there is a comma missing.
>
Hmm I'll check this out tonight. Sorry I wasn't
On 2018-08-08 01:23:51 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 8 August 2018 at 00:47, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-08-08 00:40:12 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> >> 1. Obtain a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table rather
> >> than an AccessExclusiveLock.
> >> 2. Do all the normal partition
On 8 August 2018 at 00:47, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-08-08 00:40:12 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> 1. Obtain a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table rather
>> than an AccessExclusiveLock.
>> 2. Do all the normal partition attach partition validation.
>> 3. Insert pg_partition recor
I happened to notice that there is a variable 'garbage' in GNUmakefile.in,
which was defined in 32163099d7c43a0244f463eb4e525c711e6e97a3 ~18 years ago,
but which seems to not be used? Is 'garbage' a special make variable or is a
leftover which can be removed?
cheers ./daniel
garbage.diff
Descr
On 7 August 2018 at 13:47, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-08-08 00:40:12 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> 1. Obtain a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table rather
>> than an AccessExclusiveLock.
>> 2. Do all the normal partition attach partition validation.
>> 3. Insert pg_partiti
Hi,
On 2018-08-08 00:40:12 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> 1. Obtain a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table rather
> than an AccessExclusiveLock.
> 2. Do all the normal partition attach partition validation.
> 3. Insert pg_partition record with partvalid = true.
> 4. Invalidate relcache
On 3 August 2018 at 01:25, David Rowley wrote:
> 1. Do all the normal partition attach partition validation.
> 2. Insert a record into pg_partition with partisvalid=false
> 3. Obtain a session-level ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table.
> 4. Obtain a session-level AccessExclusiveLock
On 07.08.2018 13:02, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
I want to confirm one point.
If I will have reviewed the autoprepare patch, then are you ready to register
the patch at commit fest in the near future? I fear that autoprepare patch do
not registered at commit fest in the future (for example, you are so
Hi Peter,
I understand what you're pointing at and I agree that it could be a good
thing to be able to dump/restore a table without problem.
My point was that check constraints weren't supposed to be used that way
theorically (or maybe i'm mistaken ?) so I thought maybe we should just
inform the
On 08/06/2018 09:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 08/06/2018 06:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 08/06/2018 05:19 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net)
Hi,
On 08/07/2018 03:32 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Do we need a pg_partition_level that expects the individual partition OID
to be passed to it or can we do with the information we get from the
revised pg_partition_children? In earlier revisions,
pg_partition_children returned only the partition O
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:32:27PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Well, it'd be useless for users, there is no reason to switch off channel
>> binding if both the client and server support it. It might not add any
>> security you care about
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 7:02 AM
> To: Yamaji, Ryo/山地 亮
> Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
>
> Thank you.
> Unfortunately expression_tre
Andres Freund writes:
>> - On decoding of aborted xacts. The idea to throw an error once we
>> detect the abort is appealing, however I think you will have problems
>> with subxacts in the current implementation. What if subxact issues
>> DDL and then aborted, but main transaction success
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Well, it'd be useless for users, there is no reason to switch off channel
> binding if both the client and server support it. It might not add any
> security you care about, but it won't do any harm either. The
> non-channel-binding codep
Hi.
On 2018/08/07 3:32, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> When testing out CREATE PROCEDURE with 11 beta 2, I noticed, the hints
> in the errors reference DROP FUNCTION, which doesn't work for
> procedures.
Good catch.
> DROP ROUTINE works for both functions and procedures, so
> this patch should work for b
Hi,
On 2018/08/03 21:35, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> On 08/03/2018 04:28 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> That's a good idea, thanks.
>>
>> Actually, by the time I sent the last version of the patch or maybe few
>> versions before that, I too had started thinking if we shouldn't just have
>>
Hi,
I wrote a background worker (hcleaner) to demonstrate application of
Retail IndexTuple deletion (see patch at attachment).
Like Autovacuum it utilizes concept of one launcher and many workers.
But one worker correspond to one database.
Short description:
Backend collects dirty block number
On 07/26/2018 07:27 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Arcadiy, can you provide plans with parallel query disabled? Or even
better, produce a test case that reproduces this (using synthetic
data, anonymized data or something like that, if needed).
So I basically spent most of the time trying to create a re
63 matches
Mail list logo
