On 18 July 2018 at 14:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:09:57AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Haribabu Kommi [mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com]
> >> I reviewed patch and it works as per the subject, but I am not able to
> verify
> >> the actual
> >> bug that is
On 18.07.2018 02:58, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 07/18/2018 12:41 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
...
Teodor Sigaev has proposed an alternative approach for calculating
selectivity of multicolumn join or compound index search.
Usually DBA creates compound indexes which can be used by optimizer to
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> + /* Does the backend own the temp schema? */
> + if (proc->tempNamespaceId != namespaceID)
> + return false;
> I have a very hard time believing that this is safe lock-less, and a spin
> lock would be enough it seems.
The lwlock in Ba
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Haribabu Kommi [mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com]
> > I reviewed patch and it works as per the subject, but I am not able to
> verify
> > the actual
> > bug that is reported in the upthread. The mov
On 7/17/18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> [... digging ...]
> This comes from get_rel_infos where large objects are treated as user
> data. Rather than the comment you added, I would rather do the
> following:
> "Large object catalogs and toast tables are mutually exclusive and large
> object data is
On 18/07/18 01:43, Fabien COELHO wrote:
The more reasonable alternative could be to always last 2 seconds under
-T 2, even if the execution can be shorten because there is nothing to do
at all, i.e. remove the environment-based condition but keep the sleep.
That sounds reasonable. It's a bit si
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:03:09PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I think that we really need to harden things, by making
> ReadTwoPhaseFile() fail hard is it finds something unexpected, which is
> in this case anything except trying to open a file which fails on
> ENOENT, and that this stuff shou
On 16/07/18 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11.07.18 19:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It's confusing, and risks conflicting with future additions to
the standard. ECPG supports the actual standard syntax, with OPEN,
right? So this wouldn't be consistent with ECPG, either.
It would be consist
Hi David,
Thanks for taking a look.
On 2018/07/15 17:34, David Rowley wrote:
> I've looked over the code and the ExecUseUpdateResultRelForRouting()
> function is broken. Your while loop only skips partitions for the
> current partitioned table, it does not skip ModifyTable subnodes that
> belong
Hello.
At Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:02:47 +1200, Thomas Munro
wrote in
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 18/04/18 09:55, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> Here's a draft patch that does that. One contentious question is:
> >> should you have to opt *in* to auto-exit-on-pos
From: Haribabu Kommi [mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com]
> May be I can give a try by modifying the source code to get the crash.
Thank you, that would be great if you could come up with a good way!
> My point is, With this patch, in case if the postgres crashses
> before reaching main(), does it
Hi!
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:40 AM R, Siva wrote:
> We came across an issue during replay of a gin insert record on a pre-9.4
> uncompressed data leaf page that does not have any items in it. The engine
> version where the replay is done is 9.6.3. The redo logic attempts to
> compress the exist
On 2018/07/16 2:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2018/06/19 2:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or maybe what we should do is drop ExecLockNonLeafAppendTables/
>>> ExecOpenAppendPartitionedTables entirely and teach InitPlan to do it.
>
>> Hmm, for InitPlan to do what ExecOpenAppendPartition
On 18 July 2018 at 03:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> [1] https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Random_Numbers
>
> This quote from the wiki is scary so that's not quite clean either for
> Windows:
> "Be careful when deferring to RAND_poll on some Unix systems because it
> does not seed the generator. S
On 17.07.18 13:48, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> Please, have a look at previous discussions on the subject:
> - 2012
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqtys6juqdxuczbjb0bnw0kprw8wdzuk11kaxqq6o98...@mail.gmail.com
> -
> 2013
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7
On 06.07.18 04:00, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/07/05 23:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> I wonder why we mention on the following page that CREATE COLLATION
>>> requires SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
>>>
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sta
On 2018-Jul-11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That commit is also in pg11, though -- just not in beta2. So we still don't
> know how much of an improvement patch2 is by itself :-)
Oops! I benchmarked with 11beta2 +
0001-Speed-up-INSERT-and-UPDATE-on-partitioned-tables.patch.
Results are as follows.
>Среда, 18 июля 2018, 12:21 +03:00 от Peter Eisentraut
>:
>
>If we think the lower lock level is OK, then we should just use
>it always.
>
Hi, I absolutely agree with you.
If lower locking is safe and possible to be used by default in renaming it will
be great.
What stage is solving of this issu
On 18 July 2018 at 21:44, Kato, Sho wrote:
> part_num | latency_avg | tps_ex | update_latency | select_latency |
> insert_latency
> --+-++++
> 100 |2.09 | 478.379516 | 1.407 | 0.36
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:20 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Forcing users to create their PLs as a superuser increases the routine use
> of superuser accounts. Most users' DDL deploy scripts will get be run as a
> superuser if they have to use a superuser for PL changes; they're not going
> to SET ROLE
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> Well, we'd be getting rid of it because of a danger of data loss which we
> can't otherwise mitigate. Maybe it does need to be backpatched, even if we
> haven't had complaints.
What's wrong with the approach proposed in
http://postgr.es/m/5
(2018/07/04 11:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/07/04 1:35), Andres Freund wrote:
What's the plan forward here?
I still think that this approach would be the right way to go, so I plan
to polish the patch.
The approach would not require extra cycles where partitioning is not
involved as disc
On 17/07/18 21:41, Andrey Borodin wrote:
I was checking WAL replay of new scheme to log page deletes and found
a bug there (incorrect value of deleted downlink in WAL record).
Here's fixed patch v10.
Also I've added support to WAL identification for new record, done
some improvements to comments
Hello David,
I assure you that you expression yourself in English a good deal
better than I do in Portuguese.
Alas, despite a Portuguese "rabbit" name, I cannot speak the language
which got lost between generations.
About this v3: Patch applies, compiles, "make check" ok.
A few minor com
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> What about keeping the first successful connection open and storing it in a
> variable if we are in "prefer-read" mode.
> If we get the read-only connection we desire, close that cached connection,
> otherwise use it.
I like this idea.
Hello Heikki,
I did that in the attached version: no more environment variable hack, and
no execution shortcut even if there is nothing to do.
I also had to reproduce the progress logic to keep on printing report of
(no) progress in this tailing phase.
On second thoughts, there's one problem
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:14:56AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> OK, I guess that it is possible that an older version of OpenSSL
> requires RAND_poll() to be called multiple times. Here's an updated
> patch doing that (with up to 8 retries, based on the old OpenSSL
> code).
Thanks for the updated
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:42:10AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> Well, we'd be getting rid of it because of a danger of data loss which we
>> can't otherwise mitigate. Maybe it does need to be backpatched, even if we
>> haven't had complain
On 18 July 2018 at 14:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks for the updated version. This looks safer to me. It is possible
> to simplify the code by removing the external RAND_status() call and
> check for RAND_status() first in the loop as per the attached.
OK, thanks.
Barring any further comm
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> What's wrong with the approach proposed in
>> http://postgr.es/m/55afc302.1060...@iki.fi ?
>
> For back-branches that's very invasive so that seems risky to me
> particularly seeing the low number of complaints on the matter.
Hmm. I think
On 18.07.18 11:44, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> If lower locking is safe and possible to be used by default in renaming
> it will be great.
> What stage is solving of this issue? Does anybody do it?
We wait to see if anyone has any concerns about this change.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2018/07/16 2:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, there'd be a lot to be said for having InitPlan just open all
>> the rels and build an array of Relation pointers that parallels the
>> RTE list, rather than doing heap_opens in random places elsewhere.
> +1 to this. Actually I h
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> I tried to fix the things you mentioned and improve the comments. Among
> other changes, there is now a description of how merge join works with
> inequalities at the top of nodeMergejoin.c. It also explains why we only
> support one i
On 07/17/2018 08:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Oh, right, I forgot the patch also adds the leader into the group, for
some reason (I agree it's unclear why that would be necessary, as you
pointed out later).
But all this is happening while hol
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> Hello. I confirmed that this patch fixes the crash.
Thanks for double-checking.
> At Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:01:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> <14892.1531872...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Further investigation showed that the part of that code that was
>> actually needed was not
Hello,
Here the backtrace
```Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Core was generated by `postgres: bgworker: logical replication worker for
subscription'.
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 GetActiveSnapshot () at ./build/../src/b
Hi Amit,
On 06/28/2018 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
OK, I've added an example below the table of functions added by the patch.
Attached updated patch.
You forgot to remove the test output in create_table.out, so check-world
is failing.
In pg_partition_parent
+ else
+ /* Not
On 18/07/18 16:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I don't think you want to wait in that situation. I think we should wait at
the end only if there some threads still alive, with nothing to do only
because of --rate.
Yep. The attached version does only the tailing stuff under -R and not all
threads were
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> The problem is you don't know if a transaction does DDL sometime later, in
> the part that you might not have decoded yet (or perhaps concurrently with
> the decoding). So I don't see how you could easily exclude such transactions
> from the
Michael Paquier writes:
> While looking at the source code for more consistency work with error
> messages, I have bumped into a couple of messages which could be
> simplified, as those include in the name of the file manipulated
> basically the same information as the context added.
> I have fin
On 18/07/18 16:29, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
What's wrong with the approach proposed in
http://postgr.es/m/55afc302.1060...@iki.fi ?
For back-branches that's very invasive so that seems risky to me
particularly seeing the low number of complain
Mai Peng writes:
> Here the backtrace
Hmm .. so this can be summarized as "logical replication workers should
provide an ActiveSnapshot in case the user functions they call want one".
Makes me wonder how much other transactional infrastructure is needed
but not present.
r
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:25:46AM -0400, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> >I assure you that you expression yourself in English a good deal
> >better than I do in Portuguese.
>
> Alas, despite a Portuguese "rabbit" name, I cannot speak the language which
> got lost between generations.
On 07/18/2018 04:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
The problem is you don't know if a transaction does DDL sometime later, in
the part that you might not have decoded yet (or perhaps concurrently with
the decoding). So I don't see how you could easi
Hi,
Can multiple processes participate in a single transaction's execution?
I need to do the following actions sequence:
1. Calling service begins transaction. At this step transaction
manager generate new XID.
2. Calling service updates some data.
3. Need to detach a transaction from a service co
On 07/18/2018 05:31 PM, Valery Kuzmin wrote:
Hi,
Can multiple processes participate in a single transaction's execution?
I need to do the following actions sequence:
1. Calling service begins transaction. At this step transaction
manager generate new XID.
2. Calling service updates some data.
3.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Valery Kuzmin
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can multiple processes participate in a single transaction's execution?
> I need to do the following actions sequence:
> 1. Calling service begins transaction. At this step transaction
> manager generate new XID.
> 2. Calling service
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>> One idea is that maybe the running transaction could communicate with
>> the decoding process through shared memory. For example, suppose that
>> before you begin decoding an ongoing transaction, you have to send
>> some kind of notificatio
Hi Michael,
Thanks for taking a look.
On 7/17/18, 1:22 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> The first thing which is striking me is that we may actually *not* want
> to check for lock skipping within expand_vacuum_rel() as that's mainly a
> function aimed at building the relations which are going to b
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So couldn't we use TopTransactionResourceOwner instead of
>> AuxProcessResrouceOwner? I feel a bit uneasy that bootstrap and
>> standalone-backend have *AuxProcess*ResourceOwner.
>
> Since the aux processes aren't running transactions, I didn't
Hi,
Since .pgpass files contain plain-text passwords, I searched for an
alternative.
In the attached patch I've added the possibility to run a command to
produce the content of the pgpass file, in exactly the same format. In this
way I could use gpg or any other command to decrypt a pgpass file. I
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So couldn't we use TopTransactionResourceOwner instead of
>>> AuxProcessResrouceOwner? I feel a bit uneasy that bootstrap and
>>> standalone-backend have *AuxProcess*ResourceOwner.
>> Since the aux processes aren't runni
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:08 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> From looking at the code I see that the caching is being done inside
> nodeSubplan.c. I don't think this is the right approach to the
> problem. The problem exists for any parameterized path, so I think a
> more general approach would be much b
Hi!
> 18 июля 2018 г., в 16:02, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> In the corresponding B-tree code, we use don't do actual recursion, but a
> hand-optimized "tail recursion", to avoid stack overflow if there are a lot
> of splits. I think we need to do something like tha there, too. I don't t
On 2018-Jul-12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:50:28AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:17:48AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Let me review tomorrow.
> >
> > Of course, please feel free.
>
> Alvaro, are you planning to look at that to close t
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, here's a rebased version of this patch. Could probably be polished
> further. One might argue that we should do a bit more wide ranging
> changes, to convert scanint8 and pg_atoi to be also unified. But it
> might also just be worthwhile
I have a background worker running SQL functions, and I believe I have
noticed that when I do things like change function definitions, or even add
tables, the background worker does not pick up the schema changes until I
restart the worker.
Is this expected behavior? If I use background workers i
Yugo Nagata writes:
> To fix this, we agree with Tom about getting rid of "must not intersect"
> restriction.
> A patch is attached for this
Pushed, after fixing documentation and regression tests to match.
regards, tom lane
I've gotten a wide variety of feedback on the proposed patch. The comments
range from rough approval through various discussion about alternative
solutions. At this point I am unsure if this patch is rejected or if it
would be accepted once I had the updated man page changes that were
discussed las
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I've revised the fsync patch with the cleanups discussed and gone through
> the close() calls.
>
> AFAICS either socket closes, temp file closes, or (for WAL) already PANIC on
> close. It's mainly fd.c that needs amendment. Which I've done pe
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> I've gotten a wide variety of feedback on the proposed patch. The comments
> range from rough approval through various discussion about alternative
> solutions. At this point I am unsure if this patch is rejected or if it
> would be accepted
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Makes sense, I guess. But I think many claims made in this thread are
> mostly just assumptions at this point, based on our beliefs how CoW or
> non-CoW filesystems work. The results from ZFS (showing positive impact)
> are an exception, but t
Hello Heikki,
Yep. The attached version does only the tailing stuff under -R and not all
threads were stopped on errors, with comments to tell about the why.
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
case CSTATE_START_THROTTLE:
// ...
if (duration > 0 && st->t
I noticed that psql's \d command doesn't do very well with included
index columns. Given the regression db's test case,
CREATE INDEX tbl_include_reg_idx ON tbl_include_reg (c1, c2) INCLUDE (c3, c4);
we get
regression=# \d tbl_include_reg_idx
Index "public.tbl_include_reg_idx"
Column | Type
On 18/07/18 22:56, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Heikki,
Yep. The attached version does only the tailing stuff under -R and not all
threads were stopped on errors, with comments to tell about the why.
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
case CSTATE_START_THROTTL
Jeremy Finzel writes:
> I have a background worker running SQL functions, and I believe I have
> noticed that when I do things like change function definitions, or even add
> tables, the background worker does not pick up the schema changes until I
> restart the worker.
Maybe you need some Accept
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> regression=# \d tbl_include_reg_idx
> Index "public.tbl_include_reg_idx"
> Column | Type | Key | Definition
> +-+--
> c1 | integer | t | c1
> c2 | integer | t | c2
> c3 | integer | f | c
[...] Done.
All looks well, but I just noticed a warning:
gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement
-Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard -Wno-format-truncation
-O2 -I. -I. -I
On 2018-Jul-18, David G. Johnston wrote:
> -1 for printing a boolean t/f; would rather spell it out:
>
> CASE WHEN "Key" THEN 'Key' ELSE 'Included' END AS "Data"
+1
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Servi
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
case CSTATE_START_THROTTLE:
// ...
if (duration > 0 && st->txn_scheduled > end_time)
{
st->state = CSTATE_FINISHED;
break;
}
That way, we let the client go into CSTATE_THROTTLE state, even tho
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Finzel writes:
> > I have a background worker running SQL functions, and I believe I have
> > noticed that when I do things like change function definitions, or even
> add
> > tables, the background worker does not pick up the schema chan
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Jul-18, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> -1 for printing a boolean t/f; would rather spell it out:
>>
>> CASE WHEN "Key" THEN 'Key' ELSE 'Included' END AS "Data"
> +1
I can sympathize with the eyestrain argument against t/f, but the
above doesn't seem like an improve
On 18/07/18 23:29, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
case CSTATE_START_THROTTLE:
// ...
if (duration > 0 && st->txn_scheduled > end_time)
{
st->state = CSTATE_FINISHED;
break;
}
That way, we let the cli
On 2018-Jul-18, Tom Lane wrote:
> I can sympathize with the eyestrain argument against t/f, but the
> above doesn't seem like an improvement --- in particular, "Data"
> as the column header seems quite content-free. My counterproposal
> is to keep "Key" as the header and use "Yes"/"No" as the val
On 18/07/18 21:27, Andrey Borodin wrote:
Hi!
18 июля 2018 г., в 16:02, Heikki Linnakangas
написал(а):
, but I think it would be better to split this into two patches as
follows:
1st patch: Scan the index in physical rather than logical order. No
attempt at deleting empty pages yet.
2nd patc
Hey Tomas!
I am trying to reproduce the results on my machine. Could you please share the
script to generate .ods files?
Regards,
Kefan
From: Tomas Vondra
Sent: July 18, 2018 2:05 AM
To: Andrey Borodin
Cc: Peter Geoghegan; Kefan Yang; PostgreSQL Hackers
Subject: Re: GSOC 2018 Project - A New So
I don't have any script for that - load the files into a spreadsheet,
create pivot tables and you're done.
regards
On 07/18/2018 11:13 PM, Kefan Yang wrote:
> Hey Tomas!
>
>
>
> I am trying to reproduce the results on my machine. Could you please
> share the script to generate .ods files?
>
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Marco van Eck wrote:
> Since .pgpass files contain plain-text passwords, I searched for an
> alternative.
> In the attached patch I've added the possibility to run a command to produce
> the content of the pgpass file, in exactly the same format. In this way I
> co
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 14:33, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here you side step those questions completely and make that the end
> user's problem. I like it.
+1. This is a clever solution, since any kind of key vault or other system
could be dropped in there.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
x...@thebuild
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So the issue boils down to this: the test script is, effectively,
>> assuming that it's guaranteed that the walreceiver will send a feedback
>> message before it shuts down; but there is no such guarantee. Is this
>> a bu
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Marco van Eck wrote:
>> Since .pgpass files contain plain-text passwords, I searched for an
>> alternative.
>> In the attached patch I've added the possibility to run a command to produce
>> the content of the pgpass file, in exactly the sam
On 2018-Jul-18, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I don't have any script for that - load the files into a spreadsheet,
> create pivot tables and you're done.
What!? You don't use psql's \crosstabview !?
... walks away disappointed ...
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postgre
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Marco van Eck
>> wrote:
>>> Since .pgpass files contain plain-text passwords, I searched for an
>>> alternative.
>>> In the attached patch I've added the possibility to run a command to p
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:14 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> regression=# \d tbl_include_reg_idx
>> Index "public.tbl_include_reg_idx"
>> Column | Type | Key | Definition
>> +-+-
On 2018-Jul-18, Marco van Eck wrote:
> Since .pgpass files contain plain-text passwords, I searched for an
> alternative.
> In the attached patch I've added the possibility to run a command to
> produce the content of the pgpass file, in exactly the same format. In this
> way I could use gpg or an
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. I don't like promote_ioerr_to_panic() very much, partly because the
> same pattern gets repeated over and over, and partly because it would
> be awkwardly-named if we discovered that another 2 or 3 errors needed
> similar handling (or some o
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Seems to me that passing %-specifiers to the command would make it more
> useful (%u for "user", "host" etc) -- your command could refuse to give
> you a password for the superuser account for instance but grant one for
> a read-only user.
It would also provide a *very* f
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Yes that's right. Thanks for taking care of it.
Okay, I have pushed a fix for this one as that's wrong and
back-patched to v11. The coverage of reparameterize_path_by_child is
actually quite poor if you look at the reports:
https:/
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 17.07.18 07:20, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > A user has raised the point that our refusal to GRANT rights to
> > untrusted PLs is counterproductive and inconsistent with how we behave
> > elsewhere.
>
> Previous discussion:
>
On 07/18/2018 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Seems to me that passing %-specifiers to the command would make it more
useful (%u for "user", "host" etc) -- your command could refuse to give
you a password for the superuser account for instance but grant one for
a read-only user
Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Untrusted PLs should be GRANTable with a NOTICE or WARNING telling the
> admin that GRANTing an untrusted PL effectively gives the user the ability
> to escape to superuser.
I don't know that we really want to get into the business of iss
Hello Heikki,
[...]
So threadRun() would not have the opportunity to stop the scheduled
transaction, even if beyond the end of run, because it would not have got
out of doCustom, in the case I outlined above.
I see. Instead of moving to FINISHED state, then, we could stay in THROTTLE
state,
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Or, probably more robust: Simply _exit(2) without further ado, and rely
> on postmaster to output an appropriate error message. Arguably it's not
> actually useful to see hundreds of "WARNING: terminating connection because of
> crash of a
Hi,
Thank you for your replies.
On Tue, July 10, 2018 4:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>I think you'd run into a lot of very hairy details with this approach.
>Consider what happens if client processes need fresh buffers and need to write
>out a victim buffer. You'll need to know that the relevant
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:22:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good catch. Those should be backpatched. While I am looking at this
> stuff, I have noticed that pathnode.c/reparameterize_path_by_child uses
> T_MergeAppend and not T_MergeAppendPath.
Okay, I have checked the full list of path n
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:42:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hearing nobody speaking in favor of the other alternatives,
> I've removed the test.
I had this problem running in the background for a couple of days, but I
could not come up with a solution cleaner than just removing the test.
Thanks fo
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Julian Markwort
wrote:
> Also, while writing this part of the docs, I tried to stay below 80
> characters, but I've exceeded it in some places.
> There are several other places (several in the .sgml files touched by this
> patch), where 80 characters are exceede
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:30:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In the immortal words of Julian Bream: "yeah, I didn't like any of
> that".
One wikipedia lookup later, I still don't know where this quote comes
from, but at least I understand who the man is.
I may be missing something, but I can
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:58:48PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 7/17/18, 1:22 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> Perhaps we could extend RangeVarGetRelidExtended() to only lock if
> has_subclass() is true. However, I also understand Robert's position
> on calling RangeVarGetRelidExtended() with
On 2018-Jul-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:30:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > In the immortal words of Julian Bream: "yeah, I didn't like any of
> > that".
>
> One wikipedia lookup later, I still don't know where this quote comes
> from, but at least I understand wh
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
