On 29 March 2018 at 23:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I agree with the former, of course - docs are a must. I disagree with
>> the latter, though - there have been about no proposals how to do it
>> without the locking. If there are, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> I don't care. Either another soluti
On 29 March 2018 at 23:30, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 29/03/18 23:58, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-03-29 23:52:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I have added details about this in src/backend/storage/lmgr/README as
suggested by you.
>>>
>>> Thanks. I think the README is a good start, b
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any opinions about this suggestion? Can it be considered as a bug fix and
>> included into t
Hello,
I am trying to perform "make installcheck-world" after "make clean" (or
after installing a precompiled binaries), but it fails.
The error I get is related to ECPG regression test:
make -C test installcheck
make[2]: Entering directory
`/home/postgres/postgres/src/interfaces/ecpg/test'
gc
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:41:12AM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Arthur Zakirov
> wrote:
> I found this bug, when working on presentation about FTS and it looked
> annoying, since it validates
> the consistency of FTS.I think this is a bug, which needs to be fixed,
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:26:36 -0700
Andres Freund wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I attach a patch to fix issues
you've pointed out.
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-28 20:26:48 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml
> > index b2c7203..96d477c
Fujita-san,
Thanks for updating the patch.
On 2018/03/30 21:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I modified the patch to use the existing API ExecForeignInsert instead of
> that API and removed that API including this doc.
OK.
>> 2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
>> po
> On 2 April 2018 at 11:27, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:41:12AM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Arthur Zakirov
>> wrote:
>> I found this bug, when working on presentation about FTS and it looked
>> annoying, since it validates
>> the consiste
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
>>
>> I want to announce new model, "diagonal storage" which combines benefits
>> of both approaches.
>> The idea is very simple: we first store column 1 of first record, then
>> c
On 2 April 2018 at 17:18, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/03/31 0:55, David Rowley wrote:
>> explain (analyze, costs off, summary off, timing off) execute q1 (1,2,2,0);
>>QUERY PLAN
>>
>> Result (actual rows=0 loops=1)
>>One-Time Filter: false
>> (2
> 2 апр. 2018 г., в 16:57, Ashutosh Bapat
> написал(а):
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>
>> I'm a little worried about the fact that even with this model we're still
>> limited to only two dimensions. That's bound to cause problems sooner or
>> later.
> How about a
(2018/03/30 22:28), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
patch so that we keep the former step in ExecInitPartitionInfo and
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRo
(2018/04/02 18:49), Amit Langote wrote:
2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
point of having ri_PartitionIsValid and ExecInitExtraPartitionInfo() is to
avoid possibly-redundantly performing following two steps in
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting() for *reused* parti
On 3/31/18 18:21, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah, I started by putting what I thought was going to be just ALTER
> TABLE in that test, then moved to the other file and added what I
> thought were more complete tests there and failed to move stuff to
> alter_table. Honestly, I think these should most
Hi!
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:27:21PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> It might be a micro-optimisation, but ISTM that we shouldn't do the
> basename(palloc(fn)) in is_heap_file() unless we actually need it -- so not
> at the top of the function. (And surely "." and ".." should not occur here?
> I
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 31 March 2018 at 14:21, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I think the vacuum assigns xids only if it needs to truncate some of
>> the pages in the relation which happens towards the end of vacuum.
>> So, it shouldn't hold back the xmin horizon for lo
>
> Quick thought: Should be simple to release lock when interacting with network.
I don’t think this will be that simple. The network calls will typically happen
from inside the plugins and we don’t want to make plugin authors responsible
for that.
> Could also have abort signal lockers.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:18:14AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> Yeah, I see why you want to PANIC.
> >
> > Indeed. Even doing that leaves question marks about all the kernel
> > versions before v4.13, which at this point is pretty much everything
> > out there, not even detecting this reliably.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:13:09AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>On 31 March 2018 at 21:24, Anthony Iliopoulos <[1]ail...@altatus.com>
>wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:18:14AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> > >> Yeah, I see why you want to PANIC.
> > >
> > > Indeed
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:38:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
> > So we should just use the big hammer here.
>
> And bitch, loudly and publicly, about how broken this kernel behavior is.
> If we make enough of a stink maybe it'll get fixed.
It is not likely to be fixed (beyond
Comments on the code:
@@ -7226,12 +7235,23 @@ ATAddForeignKeyConstraint(AlteredTableInfo *tab,
Relation rel,
* numbers)
*/
if (pkrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
+ {
+ /* fix recursion in ATExecValidateConstraint to enable this case */
+ if (fkconstrai
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> +analysis of whether that's safe to do from a cryptographic POV. There's a
> reason compression has been disabled for just about all SSL/TLS libraries.
As I understand it on a brief review of the Google search
results^W^W^Wliterature, the r
On 3/21/18 21:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:42:35AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I'm super excited by the idea of multi-version support in TAP, if that's
>> what you mean.
>>
>> Why? Because I use TAP heavily in extensions. Especially replication
>> extensions. Which like
On 4/2/18 10:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> As I understand it on a brief review of the Google search
> results^W^W^Wliterature, the reason that was done was to prevent
> things like the CRIME attack, which apparently involves Javascript
> running in your browser from deducing information that it shouldn
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> Yep, I see the risk.
Committed 0001 last week and 0002 just now. I don't really see 0003 a
a critical need. If somebody demonstrates that this saves a
meaningful amount of planning time, we can consider that part for a
future release.
--
On 2 April 2018 at 02:24, Thomas Munro
wrote:
>
> Maybe my drive-by assessment of those kernel routines is wrong and
> someone will correct me, but I'm starting to think you might be better
> to assume the worst on all systems. Perhaps a GUC that defaults to
> panicking, so that users on those
On 3/30/18, 7:09 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote:
> Pushed.
Thanks!
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/2/18 10:25, Robert Haas wrote:
>> As I understand it on a brief review of the Google search
>> results^W^W^Wliterature, the reason that was done was to prevent
>> things like the CRIME attack, which apparently involves Javascript
>> r
On 1 April 2018 at 00:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-31 22:13:42 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > We'll still need a mechanism to transport them to downstreams (like WAL
> > messages) and to send responses upstream. For responses I think we will
> > finally want to add a backchannel to the l
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> How will it break it? They'll see an invalid ctid and conclude that the
> tuple is dead? Without any changes that's already something that can
> happen if a later tuple in the chain has been pruned away. Sure, that
> code won't realize it sh
On 4/2/18 02:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that this routine should be logically put into
> be-secure-common.c so as future SSL implementations can use it. This
> makes the code more consistent with the frontend refactoring that has
> happened in f75a959. I would not have bothered a
On 4/2/18 11:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> Ah. Yeah, that makes sense. Although to use PG as a vector, it seems
> like the attacker would need to the ability to snoop network traffic
> between the application server and PG. If both of those are
> presumably inside the bank's network and yet an attack
> /*
> - * Check whether default partition has a row that would fit the
> partition
> - * being attached.
> + * Check if the default partition contains a row that would belong in
> the
> + * partition being attached.
>*/
> - defaultPartOid =
> - g
I've fixed a bug and added some tests and documentation.
--
Dmitry Ivanov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
index 5abb1c46fb..c3b7be6e4e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I agree the attack is less likely to be applicable in typical database
> installations. I think we should move forward with considering protocol
> compression proposals, but any final result should put a warning in the
> documentation that using compression is potential
On 4/1/18 04:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> small bugfix patch
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 4/2/18 12:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> I agree the attack is less likely to be applicable in typical database
>> installations. I think we should move forward with considering protocol
>> compression proposals, but any final result should put a warning in the
>> documentat
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:46:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I agree the attack is less likely to be applicable in typical database
> > installations. I think we should move forward with considering protocol
> > compression proposals, but any final result should put a
On 2018-04-02 09:23:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 March 2018 at 23:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> I agree with the former, of course - docs are a must. I disagree with
> >> the latter, though - there have been about no proposals how to do it
> >> without the locking. If there are, I'd lik
Hi,
On 2018-04-01 03:14:46 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:38:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Craig Ringer writes:
> > > So we should just use the big hammer here.
> >
> > And bitch, loudly and publicly, about how broken this kernel behavior is.
> > If we make enough
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 10:25:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> In general, I'd expect compressing data to be beneficial for the
> security of encryption because it should increase the entropy of the
> encrypted bytes, but obviously it's not hard to hypothesize cases
> where the opposite is true for one re
On 4/1/18 16:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-01-25 14:21:15 +0100, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
>> +if (SessionReplicationRole != SESSION_REPLICATION_ROLE_REPLICA)
>> +{
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Check foreign key references. In CASCADE mode, this should
>> be
>> +
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 12:46:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seemed like the attack you described wasn't all that dependent on
> whether the data is compressed or not: if you can see the size of the
> server's reply to "select ... where account_number = x", you can pretty
> well tell the difference betw
On 2 April 2018 at 19:30, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>>> ***
>>> *** 111,116 CREATE PUBLICATION >> class="parameter">name
>>> --- 111,121
>>> and so the default value for this option is
>>> 'insert, update, delete'.
>>>
>>> +
>>> +
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 14:30:50 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/1/18 16:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-01-25 14:21:15 +0100, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> >> + if (SessionReplicationRole != SESSION_REPLICATION_ROLE_REPLICA)
> >> + {
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check foreign
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 07:39:57 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 April 2018 at 21:01, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> ***
> >> *** 111,116 CREATE PUBLICATION >> class="parameter">name
> >> --- 111,121
> >> and so the default value for this option is
> >> 'in
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 23:07:17 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We then lack any mechanism by which you can NACK, saying "I can't apply
> this".
Sure, but nothing forces this mechanism to be in-band.
> So upstream will wait indefinitely. I guess we just expect the user to
> intervene and ROLLBACK if th
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:13:46AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-04-01 03:14:46 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:38:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Craig Ringer writes:
> > > > So we should just use the big hammer here.
> > >
> > > And bitch, loudl
Why do we need AccessExclusiveLock on all children of a relation that we
want to scan to search for rows not satisfying the constraint? I think
it should be enough to get ShareLock, which prevents INSERT, no? I have
a feeling I'm missing something here, but I don't know what, and all
tests pass w
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> On March 30, 2018 3:16:31 PM PDT, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> >> What do you mean with "current database"? Before you
> >> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection() there is no such thing?
> >
> >
> >My module is based directly off the worker_s
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 14:24:53 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Thank you, this makes sense. However, how can this be done since I can
> only pass one argument to bgw_main? Is there any way to do this without
> having to store the value in shared memory?
No (I mean you can store it in the filesystem o
On 2018-04-02 20:53:20 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:13:46AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Throwing away the dirty pages *and* persisting the error seems a lot
> > more reasonable. Then provide a fcntl (or whatever) extension that can
> > clear the error status in
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-04-02 14:24:53 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > Thank you, this makes sense. However, how can this be done since I can
> > only pass one argument to bgw_main? Is there any way to do this without
> > having to store the value
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 14:33:54 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Hmmm... not sure if I follow. My goal is to run a SQL statement every 10
> seconds (or what value is chosen) in a particular database, using a
> background worker. Those are the two arguments. Am I missing some way to
> implement this apa
postgres_fdw has values called fdw_startup_cost and fdw_tuple_cost
that you can adjust in order to control the perceived cost of starting
a remote query and schlepping a tuple over the network. Parallel
query, similarly, has parallel_startup_cost and parallel_tuple_cost.
Today, I noticed that on a
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 04:52:29PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:12:26PM +, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> > The following bug has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Bug reference: 15112
> > Logged by: Keiko Oda
> > Email address: keiko...@gmail.c
Tom Lane wrote:
> I noticed that several places in brin_pageops.c do this sort of thing:
>
> if (extended)
> {
> Assert(BlockNumberIsValid(newblk));
> RecordPageWithFreeSpace(idxrel, newblk, freespace);
> FreeSpaceMapVacuum(idxrel);
> }
>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:32:45PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 20:53:20 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:13:46AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Throwing away the dirty pages *and* persisting the error seems a lot
> > > more reasonable. Then provide
Hi,
The, now reverted, MERGE patch used EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS OFF, TIMING
OFF) on a few queries. That doesn't seem like a bad idea when it's
interesting to display the plan and run a query without (interesting)
results. Otherwise one has to duplicate the query.
But right now it triggers differ
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I noticed that several places in brin_pageops.c do this sort of thing:
>> ...
>> ie they put *one* page into the index's free space map and then invoke a
>> scan of the index's entire FSM to ensure that that info is bubbled up to
>> the top immediately.
Greetings,
* Anthony Iliopoulos (ail...@altatus.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:32:45PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-04-02 20:53:20 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:13:46AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Throwing away the dirty pages *and*
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> i.e. memory consumption differs between environments. Which isn't
> surprising.
>
> I wonder if we could disable the display with a separate switch or tie
> it to !'COSTS OFF && TIMING OFF' or such?
Yeah, I agree with having these suppress
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:50, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm not convinced. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to truncate
> away data on the live node, but maintain it on an archival node.
+1. We've had at least one specific request for this, in maintaining a data
warehouse from an OLTP syst
Michael, all,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 09:39:02AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Thanks for checking. Attached is an updated version which also includes
> > the changes for adminpack, done in a similar manner to how pgstattuple
> > was updated, as
So here's a draft patch for this. It fixes the originally complained-of
issue about --with-libxml breaking the build on Macs. I've not tested
it very far beyond that plus a sanity cross-check on Linux, but I doubt
there's any point in further manual testing; we might as well just
throw it at the
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 17:01:08 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > i.e. memory consumption differs between environments. Which isn't
> > surprising.
> >
> > I wonder if we could disable the display with a separate switch or tie
> > it to !'COSTS OFF && TIMING
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:58:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> fsync() doesn't reflect the status of given pages, however, it reflects
> the status of the file descriptor, and as such the file, on which it's
> called. This notion that fsync() is actually only responsible for the
>
> A complain that I have about such concepts is that it creates a
> dependency between utilities which are usually classified by
> distributions as client-side (pg_basebackup goes to postgresql-client
> for Debian), and the server itself. There is perhaps room for an
> extension though. If many v
On 2018-04-03 01:05:44 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> Would using sync_file_range() be helpful? Potential errors would only
> apply to pages that cover the requested file ranges. There are a few
> caveats though:
To quote sync_file_range(2):
Warning
This system call is extremely
On 3 April 2018 at 07:05, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:58:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > fsync() doesn't reflect the status of given pages, however, it reflects
> > the status of the file descriptor, and as such the file, on which it's
> > calle
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 16:27, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> They're undocumented and extremely surprising semantics that are arguably a
> violation of the POSIX spec for fsync(), or at least a surprising
> interpretation of it.
Even accepting that (I personally go with surprising over violation, as i
On April 2, 2018 5:03:39 PM PDT, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 16:27, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> They're undocumented and extremely surprising semantics that are
>arguably a violation of the POSIX spec for fsync(), or at least a
>surprising interpretation of it.
>
>Even accep
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 17:05, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Don't we pretty much already have agreement in that? And Craig is the main
> proponent of it?
For sure on the second sentence; the first was not clear to me.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
x...@thebuild.com
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:39:57AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> committed
Thanks for the commit, Peter.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>Even accepting that (I personally go with surprising over violation, as
>>if my vote counted), it is highly unlikely that we will convince every
>>kernel team to declare "What fools we've been!" and push a change...
>>and even if they did, Pos
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:08:34AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> However, it helps explain the disagreements about pgbench features: pgbench
> internal developer-oriented use for postgres is somehow limited, and a lot
> of new features are suggested with an external performance benchmarking use
> i
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I see little benefit to not just PANICing unconditionally on EIO, really. It
> shouldn't happen, and if it does, we want to be pretty conservative and
> adopt a data-protective approach.
>
> I'm rather more worried by doing it on ENOSPC. Which
Hi,
On 2018-03-30 12:10:04 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 March 2018 at 10:50, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 28 March 2018 at 12:00, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> >
> >> v27 attached, though review changes are in
> >> the add-on 0005 patch.
> >
> > This all looks good now, thanks for making all of thos
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I did a scan through this, as I hadn't been able to keep with the thread
> previously. Sorry if some of the things mentioned here have been
> discussed previously. I am just reading through the patch in its own
> order, so please excuse if the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 03:48:07PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Attach please find patch with first prototype implementation. It
> provides about 3.14 times improvement of performance at most of TPC-H
> queries.
Congratulations in finding a patch able to improve all workloads of
Postgres i
From: Jerry Sievers [mailto:gsiever...@comcast.net]
> Wonder if this is the case for streaming standbys replaying truncates
> also?
Yes, As I wrote in my previous mail, TRUNCATE is worse than DROP TABLE.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote:
> Given precisely that the dirty pages which cannot been written-out are
> practically thrown away, the semantics of fsync() (after the 4.13 fixes)
> are essentially correct: the first call indicates that a writeback error
> indeed occurred
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I did a scan through this, as I hadn't been able to keep with the thread
>> previously. Sorry if some of the things mentioned here have been
>> discussed previously. I am just reading
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> I did a scan through this, as I hadn't been able to keep with the thread
> >> previously. Sorry if some of the things ment
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Honestly I don't think Peter ever raised concerns about the join, though I
> could be missing early discussions when I wasn't paying attention. It's
> there from day 1. Peter raised concerns about the two RTE stuff which was
> necessitated wh
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 19:40:12 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > So what happens if there's a concurrent insertion of a potentially
> > matching tuple?
>
> It's not a special case. In all likelihood, you get a dup violation.
> This is a behavior that I argued for from an early stage.
Right. I think
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Also, this really does make it impossible to write reliable programs.
> Imagine that, while the server is running, somebody runs a program
> which opens a file in the data directory, calls fsync() on it, and
> closes it. If the fsync() fails, p
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I thought abut that another time and I decided that it would be safer
> to use 13th bit in index tuple flags. There are already attempt to
> use whole 6 bytes of tid for not heap pointer information [1]. Thus, it
> would be safe to use
On 2018/04/02 21:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/03/30 22:28), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>>> Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
>>> conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
>>> patch so that we keep the former s
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 18:32:53 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:26:36 -0700
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Thank you for your comments. I attach a patch to fix issues
> you've pointed out.
I found a typo in the documentation and attach the updated patch.
Regards,
>
> > Hi,
> >
>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 05:09:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
>> No refactoring for pg_file_unlink and its v1.1?
>
> I considered each function and thought about if it'd make sense to
> refactor them or if they were simple enough that the additiona
Fujita-san,
On 2018/04/02 21:29, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/04/02 18:49), Amit Langote wrote:
>> I looked at the new patch. It looks good overall, although I have one
>> question -- IIUC, BeginForeignInsert() performs actions that are
>> equivalent of performing PlanForeignModify() + BeginForei
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 05:19:46PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-30 18:39:01 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I think the most straightforward approach for fixing this is to add
>> skip-locked functionality in find_all_inheritors(),
>> find_inheritance_children(), and vac_open_indexes(),
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-26 17:20:05 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> In a multi-level partitioned table, a parent whole-row reference gets
>> translated into nested ConvertRowtypeExpr with child whole-row
>> reference as the leaf. During the executi
Hello.
At Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:11:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20180402191112.wneiyj4v5upnfjst@alvherre.pgsql>
> Why do we need AccessExclusiveLock on all children of a relation that we
> want to scan to search for rows not satisfying the constraint? I think
> it should be enough to get Sha
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:35:09AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I took a quick look at that part. It appears to be quite invasive, more
> than I would have hoped. Basically, it imposes that from now on all
> program invocations must observe the bindir setting, which someone is
> surely going
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
[ missing values are loaded in the TupleDesc by RelationBuildTupleDesc ]
>>> > I'm still strongly object to do doing this unconditionally for queries
>>> > that never need any of this
97 matches
Mail list logo
