Hi
Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and
htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install
pg_isolation_regress.
We should install it too.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style
> > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions.
>
> I disagree. A good example of complex discussions on github is Rust
> language tracker for RFCs:
> https
pgsql-ogr-fdw fails to build against PG 11beta1 with JIT enabled. I
just reported this as https://github.com/pramsey/pgsql-ogr-fdw/issues/153,
but I think the problem might actually be in the PGXS Makefile - it
assumes that all objects have a .c file to build the .bc from.
---8<---
pgsql-ogr-fdw
пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 16:42, Pierre Ducroquet :
> On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style
> > > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions.
> >
> > I disagree. A good example of complex discussio
On 28 May 2018 at 16:02, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 16:42, Pierre Ducroquet :
>
>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
>> > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style
>> > > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions.
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Hello
>
> We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
> advantage being queries involving temporary tables can make use of parallel
> workers.
>
This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
Hi,
Review comments on commit 857f9c36:
1.
@@ -2049,6 +2055,10 @@ _bt_newroot(Relation rel, Buffer lbuf, Buffer rbuf)
metapg = BufferGetPage(metabuf);
metad = BTPageGetMeta(metapg);
+ /* upgrade metapage if needed */
+ if (metad->btm_version < BTREE_VERSION)
+ _bt_upgrademetapag
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I agree that returning 0/0 on this is wrong.
>
> However, can this actually occour for any case other than exactly the case
> of "moving the position to where the position already is"? If I look at the
> physical slot path at least
On 28/05/18 04:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 11:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 08:32:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
OK, I can live with that as well. So we'll go in the dire
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 05:57:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Found one. All the things I have spotted are in the patch attached.
Oops, forgot a ReplicationSlotRelease call.
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
index 056628fe8e..79d7a57d67 1
On Mon, May 28, 2018, 10:03 Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 16:42, Pierre Ducroquet :
>
>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
>> > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style
>> > > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussio
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:00:33PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That's not a new problem, but it makes the MITM protection fairly pointless,
> if a fake server can acquire the user's password by simply asking for it.
> The client will report a failed connection, but with the user's password,
On 28/05/18 12:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:00:33PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That's not a new problem, but it makes the MITM protection fairly pointless,
if a fake server can acquire the user's password by simply asking for it.
The client will report a failed con
>
> It's more than just a bunch of conservative dinosaurs not wanting to
> change how they do anything,
>
I didn't talk that.
It's that a change needs to offer really compelling benefits
>
Because of this benefits depend on your development style and your habits.
For me for example, simple CMake
>
> It is correct that Gmail is incapable of this in the web browser. Many
> other email systems can though, and Gmail still speaks imap so you can use
> those if you prefer.
>
Mail programs outside web browser not popular anymore and this standalone
programs became very slow to grow (for example
On 24 May 2018 at 23:22, Thomas Munro wrote:
> As announced elsewhere[1][2][3], at EnterpriseDB we are working on a
> proposal to add in-place updates with undo logs to PostgreSQL. The
> goal is to improve performance and resource usage by recycling space
> better.
Cool
> The lowest level piec
David>I'm guessing that the Java port wouldn't be too
complicated. It's already well defined.
Is encoding defined somewhere for the "service file"?
I don't like the idea of using "a default" very much.
Vladimir
On 2018-May-27, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Out of curiosity I tried adding a GetLastError variable for Windows
> (to hide the function of that name and break callers) to the earlier
> experimental patch (attached). I had to give it an initial value to
> get rid of a warning about an unused variable (b
Hi,
We were working on this issue and thinking if we could actually make
pg_class(rd_rel) part of recache entry upgradable.
To achieve this we can allocate Form_pg_class structures (for shared relations…
a small number) on shared memory.
We do not need global pg_internal_init file as new backend
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This seems to say that we oughta assign GetLastError() to saved_errno
> during errstart, then use %m in the errmsg() instead.
No, because in some parts of the code, errno does mean something,
even in Windows builds.
I think the right fix is to leave %m alone, and instead
Hello
I don't think this thread has reached a consensus on a design for a fix,
has it? Does anybody have a clear idea on a path forward? Is anybody
working on a patch?
Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Traini
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:26:37PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Sounds good.
Okay. Done this way as attached. If the backend forces anything else
than SCRAM then the client gets an immediate error if channel binding is
required, without waiting for the password prompt.
--
Michael
From 8d0b
Christoph Berg wrote:
> pgsql-ogr-fdw fails to build against PG 11beta1 with JIT enabled. I
> just reported this as https://github.com/pramsey/pgsql-ogr-fdw/issues/153,
> but I think the problem might actually be in the PGXS Makefile - it
> assumes that all objects have a .c file to build the .bc f
Hi,
On 2018-05-28 09:44:32 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> pgsql-ogr-fdw fails to build against PG 11beta1 with JIT enabled. I
> just reported this as https://github.com/pramsey/pgsql-ogr-fdw/issues/153,
> but I think the problem might actually be in the PGXS Makefile - it
> assumes that all object
The tab completion for the TABLE command includes indexes but that's a
bug. Attached is a trivial patch to fix it.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
diff --git a/src/bin/psql/tab-complet
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I would argue the exact opposite - mail is a lot more flexible than using
> github issues and that's one of the most important reasons I prefer it.
>
> (and there are of course many ways to tag and categorize your email, many more
Hi,
(please don't top post)
On 2018-05-28 15:07:52 +, Nishant, Fnu wrote:
> We were working on this issue and thinking if we could actually make
> pg_class(rd_rel) part of recache entry upgradable.
Right, that's necessary. See the patch I just sent.
> To achieve this we can allocate Form_p
Hi
I am writing a article about PostgreSQL 11 features. Now I am looking on
new option --create-slot option of pg_basebackup command.
I don't understand to use case for this option, because It fails when
requested slot already exists. I cannot to imagine use case for this. If I
write some scripts
Hi,
On 2018-05-27 13:00:06 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've a patch that seems to work, that mostly needs some comment
> polishing.
Attached is what I currently have. Still needs some more work, but I
think it's more than good enough to review the approach. Basically the
approach consists out
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2018 02:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> These two small patches allow us to run "perl -cw" cleanly on all our perl
>> code.
>>
>>
>> One patch silences a warning from convutils.pl about the unportability of
>> the literal
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I would argue the exact opposite - mail is a lot more flexible than using
>> github issues and that's one of the most important reasons I prefer it.
>>
>> (and there are of c
Find attached tab completion for the following:
"... Also, recursively perform VACUUM and ANALYZE on partitions when the
command is applied to a partitioned table."
3c3bb99330aa9b4c2f6258bfa0265d806bf365c3
Add parenthesized options syntax for ANALYZE.
854dd8cff523bc17972d34772b0e39ad3d6d46a4
Add
2018-05-28 16:41 GMT-03:00 Pavel Stehule :
> I am writing a article about PostgreSQL 11 features. Now I am looking on new
> option --create-slot option of pg_basebackup command.
>
> I don't understand to use case for this option, because It fails when
> requested slot already exists. I cannot to im
On 29 May 2018 at 03:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am writing a article about PostgreSQL 11 features. Now I am looking on
> new option --create-slot option of pg_basebackup command.
>
> I don't understand to use case for this option, because It fails when
> requested slot already exists. I
First, I apologize if my words hurt someone. I didn't want this.
Second, I totally agree with Andrew.
> He's also right that the build system is among the
> least of our problems in making newcomers feel comfortable.
>
This what I wanted to say. Not big technical difference between build
systems
2018-05-29 3:28 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer :
> On 29 May 2018 at 03:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I am writing a article about PostgreSQL 11 features. Now I am looking on
>> new option --create-slot option of pg_basebackup command.
>>
>> I don't understand to use case for this option, becaus
On 29 May 2018 at 11:51, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> I understand so slot should be unique. But same result (unique rep slot)
> can be done, if it does nothing when slot exists already. This behave is
> not idempotent.
>
> Maybe I am search problem, where it is not. Just, when I see some "create
>
2018-05-29 6:11 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer :
> On 29 May 2018 at 11:51, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I understand so slot should be unique. But same result (unique rep slot)
>> can be done, if it does nothing when slot exists already. This behave is
>> not idempotent.
>>
>> Maybe I am search proble
Moon, Insung wrote:
This patch seems to implement some of the features you propose, especially
encryption of buffers and WAL. I recommend you to check so that no effort is
duplicated:
> [4] Recently discussed mail
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BCSw_tb3bk5i7if6inZFc3yyf%2B9HE
39 matches
Mail list logo
