On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:57:48PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I'll register this to the next commitfest.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180719.125117.155470938.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
This is an open item for v11.
>> While considering this, I found a bug in 4b0d28de06
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 02:53:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:46:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The pg_upgrade makefile does in fact use $(SHELL), so it will default to
> >> whatever shell configure used.
>
> > It will not, because we don't set $(
Hello hackers,
This proposal is about recording additional statistics of wait events.
PostgreSQL statistics Issue
The pg_stat_activity view is very useful in analysis for performance issues.
But it is difficult to get information of wait
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:19:12PM +0530, Prabhat Sahu wrote:
> While testing with PG procedure, I found a memory leak on HEAD, with below
> steps:
>
> postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE proc1(v1 INOUT INT)
> AS $$
> BEGIN
> commit;
> END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
> CREATE PROCEDURE
>
> postgres
Hello.
At Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:13:58 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> > As I reconsidered this, I noticed that "lsn - lsn" doesn't make
> > sense here. The correct formula for the value is
> > "max_slot_wal_keep_size * 1024 * 1024 - ((oldest LSN to keep) -
> > restart_lsn). It is not a simple f
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:06:48AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> As for PG11+, I agree that we want to always leave WER on. That is,
> call SetErrorMode(SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS) but not specify
> SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX. The problem with the current specification of
> PostgreSQL is that the us
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:31:57AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> First, as Hari-san said, starting the server with "pg_ctl start" on
> the command prompt does not feel like production use but like test
> environment, and that usage seems mostly interactive. Second, the
> current PostgreSQL
(2018/07/21 0:26), Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
This looks like a terrible design to me. If somebody in future
invents a new plan type that is not projection-capable, then this
could fail an assertion here and there won't be any simple fix. And
if you
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:04:42PM +0900, 임명규 wrote:
> This proposal is about recording additional statistics of wait events.
You should avoid sending things in html format, text format being
recommended on those mailing lists... The patch applies after using
patch -p0 by the way.
I would recomm
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> When you use pg_ctl start within the command prompt, then closing the prompt
> session also causes Postgres to stop immediately. Would it be a problem?
No. But that makes me think more of the startup on command prompt as
non-production usage.
> This proposal is about recording additional statistics of wait
events.
> The pg_stat_activity view is very useful in analysis for performance
> issues.
> But it is difficult to get information of wait events in detail,
> when you need to deep dive into analysis of performance.
> It is because
Hi hackers,
I'm trying to look how to trigger code paths under PGP_PUB_DSA_SIGN constant,
and it seems like it is a dead code in the current implementation.
Can anyone confirm this, or help me with creating a correct DSA sign-only key
with RSA encryption subkey that would trigger the code paths?
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's of course wrong, it's going to be O(max(m, n)) as you said, but
> the point is still valid - if we have partitions A1, A2 from one side
> and B1, ..., BN on another side, we can skip necessary the
> partitions fr
Hi,
that will be a great feature.
On 23.07.2018 10:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have comments about your patch. First, I don't think that you need to
count precisely the number of wait events triggered as usually when it
comes to analyzing a workload's bottleneck what counts is a periodic
*sa
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:16:52AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> I guess that is due to some missing files related to the libraries
> listed in shared_preload_library. If so, no, because this patch
> relates to failure before main().
No, I really mean a library dependency failure. For exa
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/07/20 13:49), Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:35:11PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing
>>> before.)
>>> But since this is definitely a matter
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:58 AM, Yura Sokolov wrote:
>
> It is regular pgbench output, so there is no source for confusion.
> tps numbers is number of transactions completed in that particular
> 5 second interval. That is why there are 0 tps and 1 tps intervals
> without patch. Which way 0tps and
It seems that because enable_partition_pruning's value is only checked
during planning, turning it off *after* a plan is created and cached does
not work as expected.
create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
create table p1 partition of p for
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
[ ... clipped portion ...]
>
> In short, plan creation time is just the wrong time to change the
> plan. It's just a time to translate the plan from the form needed by
> the planner to the form needed by the executor. It would be fine if
> the
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>
> 2018-06-23 21:54 GMT+02:00 Sergei Kornilov :
>
>> Hello all
>> We already have feature to logging query parameters. If we use
>> log_statement = 'all' we write parameters before execution and all is fine
>> here. If we use log_min_durati
Hello
Thank you for review!
Well, i can miss some cases. I'm not sure about overall design of this patch.
Is acceptable add errdetail_params to statement_timeout ereport in such way?
After shutdown signal we must be in aborted state, so we mustn't call
user-defined I/O functions. (quotation from
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 8 clients 72 clients
>>
>> unmodified HEAD 16112 16284
>> with padding patch 16096 16283
>> with SysV s
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
> Thank you for review!
> Well, i can miss some cases. I'm not sure about overall design of this
> patch. Is acceptable add errdetail_params to statement_timeout ereport in
> such way?
>
> After shutdown signal we must be in aborted
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Review submitted
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
Hello,
пн, 23 июл. 2018 г. в 8:13, Andres Freund :
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-21 23:14:47 +0300, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that a fix would require to bisect llvm/clang version which
> stops
> > showing this behavior and making it a new minimum for JIT, if this is
> not a
At Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:59:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in <20180723065916.gi2...@paquier.xyz>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:57:48PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > I'll register this to the next commitfest.
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180719.125117.155470938.horiguchi.k
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:53 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> What's the performance penalty? I am pretty sure that this is
> measurable as wait events are stored for a backend for each I/O
> operation as well, and you are calling a C routine within an inlined
> function which is designed to be light
Hi Andres,
>> > That'd require that an index lookup can't crash if the corresponding
>> > heap entry doesn't exist (etc), but that's something we need to handle
>> > anyway. The issue that multiple separate catalog lookups need to be
>> > coherent (say Robert's pg_class exists, but pg_attribute
Hello!
>> After shutdown signal we must be in aborted state, so we mustn't call
>> user-defined I/O functions. (quotation from comment to errdetail_params in
>> src/backend/tcop/postgres.c ). It seems i can not fix it with current design.
>
> No its not about calling the function after abort/shu
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:31:57AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> First, as Hari-san said, starting the server with "pg_ctl start" on
>> the command prompt does not feel like production use but like test
>> environment, and that usa
Hi
I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned
tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be possible,
the size calculation will be changed.
postgres=# \dt+
List of relations
+++---+---+-+-
Hello Michaël,
I doubt that -V & -? are heavily tested:-) Patch works for me, though.
They are not, and the patch misses this area.
Indeed.
I don't think that it is a bad idea to improve things the way you are
For the record, this is not my patch, I'm merely reviewing it.
doing, howeve
On 3 October 2017 at 15:30, Sokolov Yura wrote:
> If hundreds of backends reaches this timeout trying to acquire
> advisory lock on a same value, it leads to hard-stuck for many
> seconds, cause they all traverse same huge lock graph under
> exclusive lock.
> During this stuck there is no possibi
>Среда, 18 июля 2018, 12:21 +03:00 от Peter Eisentraut
>:
>
>
>In your patch, the effect of the CONCURRENTLY keyword is just to change
>the lock level, without any further changes. That doesn't make much
>sense. If we think the lower lock level is OK, then we should just use
>it always.
I was
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:56 PM Ildus Kurbangaliev
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:30:45 +0300
> Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:05:20 +0300
> > Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, this patch definitely lacks of good usage example. That may
> > > lead to so
Hello Charles,
> Having tried David's method to install 10.4 and 11 on my mac and
> turns out worked for me. The compiling issue posted by Aleksander is
> because some json helpers changed function name and is not backward
> compatible with 9.4 and 10. Using #if macro resolves the problem,
> Here
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David. I
> don't think you are attacking me. I understand your concern and that
> you are also trying to protect PostgreSQL.
>
> On the other hand, I think TPL
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 08:22:23AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> My re-read of the thread the other day left me with a feeling of
> contentment that this was an acceptable change but I also get the feeling
> like I'm missing the downside trade-off too...I was hoping your review
> would help in
On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David.
>I
>> don't think you are attacking me. I understand your concern and that
>> you are also trying t
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 16:31:50 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> >> > That'd require that an index lookup can't crash if the corresponding
> >> > heap entry doesn't exist (etc), but that's something we need to handle
> >> > anyway. The issue that multiple separate catalog lookups need to be
> >> > cohe
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:47:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" writes:
> > From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> >> ... But that might reduce the
> >> size of the community, or lead to a fork.
>
> > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> >> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David.
> >I
> >> don't think you are atta
Michael Paquier writes:
> This does not need a configure switch.
It probably is there because the OP realizes that most people wouldn't
accept having this code compiled in.
> What's the performance penalty? I am pretty sure that this is
> measurable as wait events are stored for a backend for e
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > One possible answer is that you wouldn't. But that might reduce the
> > size of the community, or lead to a fork.
>
> Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen
> of course. I believe PostgreSQL should
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:53:26AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:47:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The core team has considered this matter, and has concluded that it's
> > time to establish a firm project policy that we will not accept any code
> > that is known to be p
Sergei Kornilov writes:
> Please test with logging command tag %i in log_line_prefix. Extended protocol
> has three different messages, each can be canceled by timeout. But here is
> completely no parameters in PARSE and i did not change BIND in first patch.
This patch scares me to death. It r
Hi Andres,
>> > what I'm proposing is that that various catalog access functions throw a
>> > new class of error, something like "decoding aborted transactions".
>>
>> When will this error be thrown by the catalog functions? How will it
>> determine that it needs to throw this error?
>
> The error
On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > >> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And pl
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:30:43PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> I looked for some tradeoffs of the patch. I think it could be parsing
> strings like the following input strings:
>
> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011年5月1日', '-MM-DD');
> SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011y5m1d', '-MM-DD');
>
> HEAD extrac
On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> And the larger question is whether a patent free for use by software
> under any license can be used in a defensive way. If not, it means we
> have no way forward here.
Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
art usable
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 18:31:43 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> It seems that because enable_partition_pruning's value is only checked
> during planning, turning it off *after* a plan is created and cached does
> not work as expected.
>
> create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
> create table p1 pa
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 5:12 PM Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:30:43PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> > I looked for some tradeoffs of the patch. I think it could be parsing
> > strings like the following input strings:
> >
> > SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2011年5月1日', '-MM-DD');
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > And the larger question is whether a patent free for use by software
> > under any license can be used in a defensive way. If not, it means we
> > have no way forward here.
>
> Isn
On 2018-07-23 19:37:46 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> >> > what I'm proposing is that that various catalog access functions throw a
> >> > new class of error, something like "decoding aborted transactions".
> >>
> >> When will this error be thrown by the catalog functions? How will
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say
> > doesn't matter much. My guess is that they would have to give their
> > patents to some legal entity
On 7/22/18, 10:12 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> The refactoring for CLUSTER is pretty obvious, and makes the API a bit
> cleaner, so attached is a proposal of patch to do so. Thoughts?
Sorry for the delay on these patches! This is nearly identical to
what I started writing last night, so it lo
On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say
> > > doesn't matter much. My guess is that they
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the
> >company goes bankrupt. My guess is that in such a situation the
> >company
> >would have no control over
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> ISTM that no-one has any great ideas on what to do about the ereport() in
> quickdie(). But I think we have consensus on replacing the exit(2) calls
> with _exit(2). If we do just that, it would be better than the status quo,
> even if i
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:32:34AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are ba
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 09:38:38AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>> Currently log_autovacuum_min_duration log message has no difference
>> between regular autovacuum and to prevent wraparound autovacuum. There
>> are important differences,
Hello
23.07.2018, 17:08, "Tom Lane" :
> Sergei Kornilov writes:
>> Please test with logging command tag %i in log_line_prefix. Extended
>> protocol has three different messages, each can be canceled by timeout. But
>> here is completely no parameters in PARSE and i did not change BIND in first
On 07/23/2018 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
>> art usable to challenge future patent claims by others on the same
>> technique'?
>>
>> Is there any way that conditions of use, or lack of them, on an
>> existing patent, would
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:42:11AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
> >> art usable to challenge future patent claims by others on the same
> >> technique'?
> >>
> >> Is there any
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the
> > >company goes bankrupt. My guess is that in
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >Notice this makes no mention of what hap
On 23.07.18 15:14, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> Moreover, if you rename Table without query locking, it may crushes your
> services that
> do queries at the same time, therefore, this is unlikely that someone
> will be do it
> with concurrent queries to renamed table, in other words, with running
> pro
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy that line of argument. The *only* reason for this
> feature to exist is if it allows ready creation of security solutions
> that are actually more secure than a non-world-readable .pgpass file.
> That's a much higher bar than
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >Notice this makes no mention of what hap
On 2018-07-23 11:06:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Otherwise ISTM that "-W/--password" still has some minimal value thus does
> not deserve to be thrown out that quickly.
I think I agree. I don't think this option is really hurting
anything, so I'm not quite sure why we would want to abrupt
On 23.07.18 06:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> So, +1 from me for having a directory for each extension.
>
>> So, like Stephen, that's a +1 from me.
>
> Same here. One-file-per-extension is too strongly biased t
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 17:11:30 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> Yet again, you are assuming contrary to reality that you can simply
> read and understand how legal code will operate without court cases to
> back it.
Oh, FFS. You're implying serious bad faith here (and not just on my
part, but also on the
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:20:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Otherwise ISTM that "-W/--password" still has some minimal value thus does
> > not deserve to be thrown out that quickly.
>
> I think I agree. I don't think this option is rea
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> I'd like to bump this old bug that Lloyd filed for more discussion. It
> seems serious enough to me that we should at least talk about it.
>
> Anyone with simply the login privilege and the ability to run SQL can
> instantly block all new
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut writes:
Peter> Nobody said anything about one-file-per-extension. You can of
Peter> course have hstore_this.h and hstore_that.h or if you want to
Peter> have many, use postgis/this.h and postgis/that.h.
So now you want the extension to be able to _optionally_
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Basically I'm against having something called YCSB if it is not YCSB;-)
Yep, that seems pretty clear.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> ;)). But rather, given that that is a reasonable assumption that such
> agreements a
Hi Andres,
>> We can find out if the snapshot is a logical decoding one by virtue of
>> its "satisfies" function pointing to HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC.
>
> I think we even can just do something like a global
> TransactionId check_if_transaction_is_alive = InvalidTransactionId;
> and just set
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> > ;)). But rath
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 11:40:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sun Microsystems seemed reasonably trustworthy too.
I don't really agree with that characterization (they've a long history
of weird behaviour around open source, LONG before the Oracle
acquisition). But it doesn't really matter, as they've
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-23 18:31:43 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> It seems that because enable_partition_pruning's value is only checked
>> during planning, turning it off *after* a plan is created and cached does
>> not work as expected.
[ ...
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I noticed that hash functions appear twice in the list of pgbench functions,
> although once is enough. The code is functional nevertheless, but it looks
> silly. This was added by "e51a04840a1" back in March, so should be removed
> from 11 a
On 2018-Jul-24, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think it's correct to check the plan time value, rather than the
> > execution time value. Other enable_* GUCs also take effect there, and I
> > don't see a problem with that?
>
> Ah, so that may
Robert Haas writes:
> I also think your other question is a good one. It seems like the
> fact that we need to reconnect -- rather than just prompting for the
> password and then sending it when we get it -- is an artifact of how
> libpq is designed rather than an intrinsic limitation of the prot
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think this reasoning actually applies for making HOT pruning
> weaker as necessary for decoding. The xmin horizon on catalog tables is
> already pegged, which'd prevent similar problems.
That sounds completely wrong to me. Setting t
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Also, let's recall that the point of this exercise is that you want to
> install the header files so that you can build things (another
> extension) that somehow interacts with those extensions. Then, even if
> you put things in separate directories per extension, you s
On July 23, 2018 9:11:13 AM PDT, Robert Haas wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> I don't think this reasoning actually applies for making HOT pruning
>> weaker as necessary for decoding. The xmin horizon on catalog tables
>is
>> already pegged, which'd prevent sim
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely
> > aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that.
>
> They can say whatever they
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> As I said before, I think that we should change the existing
Tom> contrib modules to be coded likewise, all using a single -I switch
Tom> that points at SRCDIR/contrib. That'd help give people the right
Tom> coding model to follow.
I don't see that playin
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > And the larger question is whether a patent free for use by software
> > under any license can be used in a defensive way. If not, it means we
> > have no way forward here.
>
> Isn
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> > ;)). But rath
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> My point is that we could just make HTSV treat them as recently dead, without
> incurring the issues of the bug you referenced.
That doesn't seem sufficient. For example, it won't keep the
predecessor tuple's ctid field from being overwri
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > > Andres implicitly ™
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Shay Rojansky wrote:
> Hi hackers, I've encountered some odd behavior with the new stored procedure
> feature, when using INOUT parameters, running PostgreSQL 11-beta2.
>
> With the following procedure:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE my_proc(INOUT results text)
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely
> > > aimed at your concern. Ban
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:37:05AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > > Andres implicitly ™
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:38:47AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I'm fairly sure that I'm ri
> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes:
>> However, connecting via Npgsql, which uses the extended protocol, I
>> see something quite different. As a response to a Describe
>> PostgreSQL message, I get back a NoData response rather than a
>> RowDescription message, In other words, it would seem
Hi!
> 21 июля 2018 г., в 17:11, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
>
> <0001-Physical-GiST-scan-in-VACUUM-v13.patch>
Just in case, here's second part of patch series with actual page deletion.
I was considering further decreasing memory footprint by using bloom filters
instead of bitmap, but it will
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
