On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:37:33AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> So far, dory has failed three times with essentially identical symptoms:
> >>
> >> 2018-04-23 19:57:10.624 GMT [
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > So far, dory has failed three times with essentially identical symptoms:
> >
> > 2018-04-23 19:57:10.624 GMT [2240] FATAL: could not reattach to shared
> memory (key=0190
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:25:27PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here's a new version, because FreeBSD's new interface changed slightly.
I have been looking at the proposed set for Linux, and the numbers are
here. By replaying 1GB worth of WAL after a pgbench run with the data
folder on a tmpfs th
Hi
When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's not
uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a
table.
For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one would
write :
DELETE FROM big_table WHERE id IN (SELECT id FRO
Hello Charles,
> Thanks for selecting my project as one of GSoC student projects! Pretty
> exciting and honor to join the development for PostgreSQL (the best
> database in the world :)).
Welcome!
> 1. What ide or command line tools do you guys used most for PostgreSQL
> development?
Personally
On 23.04.2018 21:56, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Hmmm, that's unfortunate. I guess you'll have process the startup packet
in the main process, before it gets forked. At least partially.
I'm not keen on a design that would involve doing more stuff
Thanks. I have almost missed this.
At Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:44:14 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2018/04/23 11:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I tried to update the patch to do things that way. I'm going to create a
> > new entry in the next CF titled "generalized expression syntax for
> > parti
Hi
2018-04-24 9:58 GMT+02:00 Pierre Ducroquet
:
> Hi
>
> When running database migrations with .sql files on a live database, it's
> not
> uncommon to have to run a migration in a loop to prevent a big lock on a
> table.
> For instance if one want to delete some old datas from a big table one
>
Hi,
While building stable releases and v11 on Fedora 28, I am seeing some warnings.
What is the project's policy about fixing those warnings in older branches?
To contribute to world peace, I did not attach the text to the email. Here is
what I see in today's git snapshot:
https://gunduz.org/t
Hi.
On 2018/04/24 0:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello Amit
>
> Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> acquire_inherited_sample_rows() currently uses equalTupleDescs() being
>> false as the condition for going to tupconv.c to determine whether tuple
>> conversion is needed. But equalTupleDescs() will always r
Hi all,
Bellow a 1¢ on feedback from a side project about this.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:37:20 -0300
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:49:03PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > OTOH, that also kinda bloats the output noticeably... I'm somewhat
> > > i
Thank you very much for looking this!
At Mon, 23 Apr 2018 03:41:47 -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in <89e33d4f-5c75-0738-3dcb-44c4df59e...@iki.fi>
> On 18/01/18 20:54, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > At Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:52:52 -0800, Andres Freund
> > wrote in <20180118195252.hyxgkb3krcqjz...@a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> IMHO end-user do not have skills and time to create their own compression
> algorithms. And without knowledge of specific of particular data set,
> it is very hard to implement something more efficient than
Forwarding to hackers. Hope that's OK after few days.
Pavel
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: obsoleting plpython2u and defaulting plpythonu to plpython3u
Date: Thursday, April 19, 2018, 11:56:40 AM CEST
From: Pavel Raiskup
To: pgsql-general
Per current plpython docs:
T
Hi,
Here is a comment for ExecInitPartitionInfo:
296 * ExecInitPartitionInfo
297 * Initialize ResultRelInfo and other information for a
partition if not
298 * already done
I think we should remove the words "if not already done" from that
comment because 1) that function is calle
(2018/04/17 19:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/04/17 18:43), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Here's updated patch-set.
Will review.
I started reviewing this.
o 0001-Handle-ConvertRowtypeExprs-in-pull_vars_clause.patch:
+ else if (IsA(node, ConvertRowtypeExpr))
+ {
+#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
+
> 24 апр. 2018 г., в 11:31, Юрий Соколов написал(а):
>
> Before implementing algorithms within PostgreSQL it will be great to test
> them outside with real traces.
>
> I think, there should be mechamism to collect traces from real-world
> postgresql instalations: every read and write access.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> In other words, transparent connection pooling is going to require
> some new mechanism, which third-party code will have to know about,
> for tracking every last bit of session state that might need to be
> preserved or cleared. That's going
Amit Langote wrote:
> That's neat! Definitely agree that we should call ExecInitExpr just once
> here. The patch looks good too, except the long line.
How about this as a small tweak? Determine the array index using a
macro, which serves as documentation.
--
Álvaro Herrerahtt
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, at 00:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Jonathan Rudenberg
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018, at 19:31, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Jonathan Rudenberg
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yep, I think I know approximately what it look
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> Why does it have to be completely transparent? As long as the feature
> is optional (say, a .conf setting) the tradeoffs can be managed. It's
> a reasonable to expect to exchange some functionality for pooling;
> pgbouncer provides a 're
Evan Carroll writes:
> Currently the behavior of bit-string extensions is pretty insane.
You've provided no support for this assertion, much less any defense
of why your proposed semantics change is any less insane. Also, if
I understood you correctly, you want to change the semantics of
casting
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:07:52PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/10/18 06:29, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > One of our 2ndQuadrant support customers recently reported a sudden rush
>
On 4/18/18 02:37, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> While I agree that we should clean it up, I wonder if changing error
> text would be a good idea. These errors are being reported by a very
> long time and if we change the text, we might forget the knowledge about
> the past reports.
It's presumably fixed
>
> That's SQL:99 6.22 general rule 11) c).
> (SV and TD are the source value and the target datatype for a cast.)
>
> In hindsight, it would likely be more consistent with this if we'd
> considered bitstrings to be LSB first when coercing them to/from integer,
> but whoever stuck that behavior in
Perfect! I would like to commit it but have some suggestions:
1)
TRUNCATE bttest_multi;
INSERT INTO bttest_multi SELECT i, i%2 FROM generate_series(1, 10) as i;
SELECT bt_index_parent_check('bttest_multi_idx', true);
to improve test stability it would be better to disable autovacuum:
ALTER
On 4/10/18 10:31, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Also, it doesn't parse back in as jsonb either:
>
> =# select jsonbnan()::text::json;
> ERROR: invalid input syntax for type json
> DETAIL: Token "NaN" is invalid.
> CONTEXT: JSON data, line 1: NaN
>
> And it's inconsistent wi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking
> into it?
Thanks for the ping. I just had a look over the proposed patch and I
guess I don't like it very much. Temporarily modifying the range
table in place and the
On 23.04.2018 23:14, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Well, may be I missed something, but i do not know how to efficiently
support
1. Temporary tables
2. Prepared statements
3. Sessoin GUCs
with any external connection pooler (with pooling level o
Pushed. Thanks!
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Perfect!
Thanks!
> I would like to commit it but have some suggestions:
I attach a revised version, which has changes based on your feedback.
> to improve test stability it would be better to disable autovacuum:
> ALTER TABLE bttest_multi
On 2018-04-19 12:04:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 19 April 2018 at 03:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 10% is more than a "slight" improvement, I'd say! It's certainly got
> > to be worth avoiding the repeated calls to ExecInitExpr, whatever we
> > do about the memory contexts.
Yea, that seems im
On 4/23/18 00:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah, right, I have missed the point that they can be vacuumed
> separately, however, I think that decision is somewhat questionable.
Manually vacuuming the TOAST table was a way to repair the recently
fixed TOAST bug, so it's kind of useful.
--
Peter Eisen
Hi,
While thinking about the at the fsync mess, I started looking at the
fsync request queue. I was primarily wondering whether we can keep FDs
open long enough (by forwarding them to the checkpointer) to guarantee
that we see the error. But that's mostly irrelevant for what I'm
wondering about he
вт, 24 апр. 2018 г., 15:16 Andrey Borodin :
>
>
> > 24 апр. 2018 г., в 11:31, Юрий Соколов
> написал(а):
> >
> > Before implementing algorithms within PostgreSQL it will be great to
> test them outside with real traces.
> >
> > I think, there should be mechamism to collect traces from real-world
Hi,
On 2018-04-24 17:16:47 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> But, I think that cost of development of real page eviction strategy
> itself is neglectable small compared to infrastructure changes needed
> by any non-CS5 strategy.
What problems are you seeing? This isn't a lot of code?
Greetings,
An
Andres Freund wrote:
> What I wonder, after skimming this change, is where the relevant
> expression context is reset? That's not really related to this change
> but the wider thread, I just noticed it while looking at this.
Do you mean ResetExprContext? We use the plan's context, so it should
On 4/11/18 11:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> (Wanders away wondering what Peter has done about toasted parameter
> values for procedures in general ...)
I'm not sure. How can a procedure have a toasted parameter value?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
On 04/24/2018 12:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/10/18 10:31, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Also, it doesn't parse back in as jsonb either:
>>
>> =# select jsonbnan()::text::json;
>> ERROR: invalid input syntax for type json
>> DETAIL: Token "NaN" is invalid.
>> CONTE
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking
>> into it?
>
> Thanks for the ping. I just had a look over the proposed patch and I
> guess I don't like it v
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Jonathan Rudenberg
wrote:
> This issue happened again in production, here are the stack traces from three
> we grabbed before nuking the >400 hanging backends.
>
> [...]
> #4 0x55fccb93b21c in LWLockAcquire+188() at
> /usr/lib/postgresql/10/bin/postgres at l
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, at 16:06, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Jonathan Rudenberg
> wrote:
> > This issue happened again in production, here are the stack traces from
> > three we grabbed before nuking the >400 hanging backends.
> >
> > [...]
> > #4 0x55fccb93b21c i
> In hindsight, it would likely be more consistent with this if we'd
> considered bitstrings to be LSB first when coercing them to/from integer,
> but whoever stuck that behavior in didn't think about it. Too late to
> change that now I'm afraid, though perhaps we could provide non-cast
> conversi
Jim Finnerty wrote:
> The patch looks good to me, David.
>
Thanks for checking! It's already pushed.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/04/24 6:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Not really sure how best to handle that one. For starters, I think it need
> > to stop mentioning the GUC name in the title;
>
> Hmm, "Constraint Exclusion" that's used in the title is a concept, not a
> GUC, although pretty clo
On 4/24/18 07:13, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> .. the status quo seems to be bit optimistic with the "distant future",
> and we should start thinking about dropping plpython2 support, same as
> upstream (a bit optimistically too, IMO) does [1].
I don't think we are going to drop Python 2 support anytime
Fujita-san,
On 2018/04/24 20:14, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a comment for ExecInitPartitionInfo:
>
> 296 * ExecInitPartitionInfo
> 297 * Initialize ResultRelInfo and other information for a
> partition if not
> 298 * already done
>
> I think we should remove the word
Hello.
At Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:49:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking
> >> into it?
> >
> > Thanks for th
On 2018/04/25 4:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking
>>> into it?
>>
>> Thanks for the ping. I just had a look over the
I forgot to mention that.
At Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:17:02 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2018/04/25 4:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> wrote:
> >>> Robert, I think this is your turf, per
Amit Langote wrote:
> > I think we should remove the words "if not already done" from that
> > comment because 1) that function is called if the partition wasn't
> > already initialized and 2) that function assumes that. Attached is a
> > small patch for removing the words.
>
> Thanks, sounds fi
Hi all,
I just found $subject:
the server was compiled without --with-llvm),
-JIT will not performed, even if considered to be
+JIT will not be performed, even if considered to be
beneficial based on the above criteria. Setting
Thanks,
--
Michael
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/jit.
Oops, really meant to send the "+1 to the root -> rte refactoring" comment
and the rest in the same email.
On 2018/04/25 4:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have done some refactoring to avoid that. See attached.
>
> I didn't really get beyond the refactoring stage with this today.
> This version still
(2018/04/25 11:05), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Amit Langote wrote:
I think we should remove the words "if not already done" from that
comment because 1) that function is called if the partition wasn't
already initialized and 2) that function assumes that. Attached is a
small patch for removing the
> On Apr 24, 2018, at 06:52, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Why does it have to be completely transparent?
Well, we have non-transparent connection pooling now, in the form of pgbouncer,
and the huge fleet of existing application-stack poolers. The main reason to
move it into core is to avoid the l
On 24/04/18 21:00, Andres Freund wrote:
Right now if the queue is full and can't be compacted we end up
fsync()ing on every single write, rather than once per checkpoint
afaict. That's a fairly horrible.
For the case that there's no space in the map, I'd suggest to just do
10% or so of the fsync
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been looking at the proposed set for Linux, and the numbers are
> here. By replaying 1GB worth of WAL after a pgbench run with the data
> folder on a tmpfs the recovery time goes from 33s to 28s, so that's a
> nice gain.
Thanks for
> 24 апр. 2018 г., в 23:14, Andres Freund написал(а):
>
> On 2018-04-24 17:16:47 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> But, I think that cost of development of real page eviction strategy
>> itself is neglectable small compared to infrastructure changes needed
>> by any non-CS5 strategy.
>
> What pr
Hi,
I have a stock table.
One of the users in the system ran this query: update stock set quantity=quantity-5 where stockid=100 (from his client application).
On the same time I ran from pg-admin this query:
do $$beginalter table stock disable trigger stock_aftertrigger;update stock set stock
On 25/04/18 09:21, Nick Dro wrote:
Hi,
I have a stock table.
One of the users in the system ran this query: update stock set
quantity=quantity-5 where stockid=100 (from his client application).
On the same time I ran from pg-admin this query:
do $$
begin
alter table stock disable trigger stoc
60 matches
Mail list logo
