RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump

2018-07-10 Thread Ideriha, Takeshi
Hi, > The new structure member appears out of place, can you move up along > with other "command-line long options" ? > > > >Done > I did regression tests (make check-world) and checked manually pg_dump --on-conflict-do-nothing works properly. Also it seems to me the code has no prob

Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key

2018-07-10 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jul-09, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Alvaro, >> >> Can you please comment whether this addresses your concern? > > I was thinking that it would be a matter of passing the tuple slot to > EvalPlanQual for it to fill, rather than requiring

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

2018-07-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Thanks for picking this up! > > (I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell > script seems to be difficult. I also trimmed the CC list, if that helps.) > > On 04/07/18 07:59, Michael Paquier wrote: >>

Re: Shared buffer access rule violations?

2018-07-10 Thread Tom Lane
Asim R P writes: > In order to make changes to a shared buffer, one must hold a pin on it > and the content lock in exclusive mode. This rule seems to be > followed in most of the places but there are a few exceptions. > One can find several PageInit() calls with no content lock held. See, > fo

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

2018-07-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Langote wrote: > What's the solution here then? Prevent domains as partition key? Maybe if a domain is used in a partition key somewhere, prevent constraints from being added? Another thing worth considering: are you prevented from dropping a domain that's used in a partiti

Re: Tips on committing

2018-07-10 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:52:42AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> FWIW, I developed a document on committing for my own reference, with > >> some help from Andres. My rule has been to add to my private checklist anytime I mail or push

Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key

2018-07-10 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > >> Please move the output arguments at the end of argument lists; > > make sense. > >> also, it >> would be great if you add commentary about ExecDelete other undocumented >> arguments (tupleD

Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key

2018-07-10 Thread Amit Khandekar
On 11 July 2018 at 09:48, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> >> >>> Please move the output arguments at the end of argument lists; >> >> make sense. >> >>> also, it >>> would be great if you add commentary

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

2018-07-10 Thread Amit Langote
On 2018/07/11 13:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jul-11, Amit Langote wrote: > >> What's the solution here then? Prevent domains as partition key? > > Maybe if a domain is used in a partition key somewhere, prevent > constraints from being added? Maybe, but I guess you mean only prevent add

Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

2018-07-10 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 07/10/2018 01:15 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote: >> >> Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at the patch and send me >> feedback. I'm happy to work on improving the documentation of this new >> tunable to clarify when it should be used

Preferring index-only-scan when the cost is equal

2018-07-10 Thread Yugo Nagata
Hi, I found that there is a situation that even when index only scan can be effective, the planner doesn't select this. The planner makes indexe paths in descending order of indexrelid, and the new path is discarded if its cost is not less than the existing paths' cost. As a result, IndexOnlySc

Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

2018-07-10 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello. Sawada-san. > > Thank you for the comments. > Thank you for updating the patch! > At Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:43:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> --- >> +SpinLockAcquire

RE: automatic restore point

2018-07-10 Thread Yotsunaga, Naoki
>-Original Message- >From: Yotsunaga, Naoki [mailto:yotsunaga.na...@jp.fujitsu.com] >Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 5:05 PM >Does that mean that the application (user) is interested in which table? >For example, there are two tables A. It is ok even if one table disappears, >but it is troub

Re: Problem with tupdesc in jsonb_to_recordset

2018-07-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:39:28PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > I've found out that currently in some situations jsonb_to_recordset can lead > to > a crash. Minimal example that I've managed to create looks like this: It would be better not to send the same email across multiple mailing lists.

Re: automatic restore point

2018-07-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:11:01AM +, Yotsunaga, Naoki wrote: > I want to hear about the following in addition to the previous > comment. What would you do if your customer dropped the table and asked you > to > restore it? I can think of 4 reasons on top of my mind: 1) Don't do that. 2) Im

<    1   2