On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 03:40:48PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (I think that at least currently, there is no need for the Gather and
> GatherMerge cases in reparameterize_path_by_child, but I don't object to
> keeping those as-is there.)
Let's keep them. As far as my understanding goes, which i
On 2018/07/27 1:19, David Rowley wrote:
> On 18 July 2018 at 20:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Let me know what you think of the code in the updated patch.
>
> Thanks for sending the updated patch.
>
> I looked over it tonight and made a number of changes:
>
> 1) Got rid of PARTITION_ROUTING_MAXSIZ
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 10:38, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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, bu
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:55:26PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:14 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> > Please find attached the next version, which passes 'make check'.
>
> ... but not 'make check-world' (contrib/postgres_fdw's EXPLAIN is different).
Please find attached a patc
Thank you for taking this.
At Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:12:50 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <672f4c42-6742-c1ec-e9a4-1994b815a...@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 07/11/2018 07:13 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> > New versions are attached after the patch got in. I noticed
> > tests failing on Windows [1] and added
Thank you, Michael and Horiguchi-san,
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> autovacuum.c is a pretty bad place for stuff as namespace.c holds all the
> logic related to temporary tablespaces, so I renamed the routine to
> isTempNamespaceInUse and moved it there.
I don't have a stro
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 26 July 2018 at 07:12, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> In the patch clauselist_selectivity() gets called repeatedly for every
>> new qual added to the clause list. Instead, if we try to combine the
>> cost/row estimation with order_qual_clause
Hi Postgres Hackers,
We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make use of
the new logical decoding functions to achieve the same thing. I
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:41 AM Philip Scott
wrote:
> Hi Postgres Hackers,
>
> We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
> successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
> grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make use of
> the
Hi!
Some community members did communicate with me using my Skype account
(korotkovae). Today this account was hacked. You should know that
any requests to send money sent from my account are fraud.
Sorry for inconvenience. I've send request to restore my Skype
account, it will be under conside
Hi All,
All the pageinspect functions dealing with raw page has the error
message as "must be superuser to use raw page function" however,
that's not true for bt_page_items_bytea() which has "must be
superuser to use pageinspect functions". This seems to me like a copy
paste error which got trans
Hello Michaël,
Thanks, committed and back-patched.
Ok.
I have added some tests for least() and greatest() on the way.
Good!
Thanks,
--
Fabien.
Hi Amit,
On 07/26/2018 10:33 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
Optional parameter sounds good, so made it get_partition_level(regclass [
, regclass ]) in the updated patch. Although, adding that argument is not
without possible surprises its result might evoke. Like, what happens if
you try to find the
Here is a current version of the patch, still rather experimental. Since
the previous version, I fixed some bugs and added the possibility to
remove a relation even when it is mentioned in target lists. I have to
rewrite all references to the removed relation in targetlists and the
equivalence
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 2018, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>
>> You mean to say the number (Buffers: shared read=442478) in HEAD,
>> right? If so, yeah, I am also wondering why the results of the patch
>> are different in HEAD and 11beta2.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This is a killer point here- clearly the people who have been
> contributing to PG aren't going to complain about their contributions
> being released as part of some other work which has a different license
> or they'd have gone after the m
>> PFA, latest patchset, which completely removes the earlier
>> LogicalLock/LogicalUnLock implementation using groupDecode stuff and
>> uses the newly suggested approach of checking the currently decoded
>> XID for abort in systable_* API functions. Much simpler to code and
>> easier to test as we
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:53 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> What made PostgreSQL attractive to those companies in the first place
> was a known lack of need to have Extensive Conversations with Legal™
> about licensing and other financial/IP matters.
If you think that the lack of a CLA and a patent g
On 07/27/2018 12:44 PM, Philip Scott wrote:
Hi Postgres Hackers,
We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make use of
the new logical
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Another alternative, which I think might make more sense, is to make
>> use pd->key and pd->partdesc in preference to pd->reldesc->rd_partkey
>> and pd->reldesc->rd_partdesc. It seems to me that the idea of the
>> PartitionDispatch structur
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> In the 2012 thread, it was mentioned several times that some thought
> that renaming without an exclusive lock was unsafe, but without any
> further reasons. I think that was before MVCC catalog snapshots were
> implemented, so at that ti
>> We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
>> successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
>> grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make use of
>> the new logical decoding functions to achieve the same thing. I thought
>>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> This is a killer point here- clearly the people who have been
>> contributing to PG aren't going to complain about their contributions
>> being released as part of some other work which has a different license
>> or t
2018-07-27 16:43 GMT+02:00 :
> >> We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
> >> successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
> >> grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make use of
> >> the new logical decoding functions to ac
I agree with all you say here; these were all my mistakes. Pushed
patch, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:30 AM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 July 2018 at 20:59, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
> > Great, thank you! So, I think the regression is demystified. We can
> > now conclude that on our benchmarks this patch doesn't cause
> > performance regression larger than measurem
On 07/27/2018 04:43 PM, from_postg...@safetyphil.com wrote:
We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is
starting to grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if
we can make use of the new logical decoding
Greetings,
* from_postg...@safetyphil.com (from_postg...@safetyphil.com) wrote:
> >> We have been using our own trigger-based audit system at my firm
> >> successfully for some years, but the performance penalty is starting to
> >> grate a bit and so I have been tasked with seeing if we can make
On some recent testing, pg_basebackup -Fp was taking an annoying amount of
time to finish once the it was done copying the data. Using -v seemed to
blame this on "waiting for background process to finish streaming", based
on that being the last message on display while the delay was happening.
Bu
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, that does *not* mean that adding patent-related qualifiers to the
> license is going to be OK with everybody. An easy counterexample is that
> we get code from some of those selfsame companies with private forks,
> which then feeds back
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 09:30:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If you think that the lack of a CLA and a patent grant never causes
> extensive conversations with legal, I am quite certain that you are
> incorrect. I know of multiple instances where this has been a
> concern.
>
> Other open source
Hi.
I want to build one master & multi slave environments to use physical
replication.
Slave nodes have low hardware spec, so I changed max_connection server
parameters, and try start slave node.
But I could not start slave nodes,
because CheckRequiredParameterValues function (in
src/backend/a
Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
- require disclosure in contributions
- require a wide grant in contributions
- document all such grants separately from the copyright license
Putting the grants in the license is convenient, but it's not required
to include paten
> "Andreas" == Andreas Karlsson writes:
>> WITH ctename AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] (query)
Andreas> I think "NOT MATERIALIZED" would be a bit misleading since the
Andreas> planner may choose to materialize anyway,
It would certainly be possible to make an explicit NOT MATERIALIZED
override
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:30 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I agree RANGE partition is probably the most likely case to benefit
> from this optimisation, but I just don't think that HASH could never
> benefit and LIST probably sits somewhere in the middle.
>
> HASH partitioning might be useful in case
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> Is there any real reason to retain it?
>
> As I recall, the principal argument for having it to begin with was
> that it's a "non proprietary" format that could be read without any
> PG-specific tools. Perhaps the direc
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> While reading the replication slot codes, I found a wrong assignment
> in pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts() function as follows.
>
> if (PG_ARGISNULL(2))
>upto_nchanges = InvalidXLogRecPtr;
> else
>
Hi,
On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
>
> - require disclosure in contributions
That really has no upsides, except poison the area. Either we reject
the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to kn
Hi,
On 2018-07-27 12:51:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> Is there any real reason to retain it?
> >
> > As I recall, the principal argument for having it to begin with was
> > that it's a "non proprietary" format that
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:01:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
> >
> > - require disclosure in contributions
>
> That really has no upsides, except poison the area. [...]
Su
On 07/27/2018 10:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Yeah. I don't mind removing really marginal features to ease
maintenance, but I'm not sure that this one is all that marginal or
that we'd save that much maintenance by eliminating it.
My point is more that it forces users to make choices whenever
On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
> the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
I'm not sure this line of thinking, which seems rooted in notions of
tainted or cleanroom development from the copyright
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> Is there any real reason to retain it?
> >
> > As I recall, the principal argument for having it to begin with was
> > that it's a "non proprietary" format tha
On 2018-07-27 13:33:28 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
> > the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
>
> I'm not sure this line of thinking, which seems rooted in
> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2018, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean to say the number (Buffers: shared read=442478) in HEAD,
>>> right? If so, yeah, I am also wondering
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> My point is more that it forces users to make choices whenever they use
> pg_dump. And the tar format has plenty downsides that aren't immediately
> apparent. By keeping something with only a small upside around, we
> force users to waste ti
On 07/27/2018 01:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-27 13:33:28 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>> the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
>>> the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
>>
>> I'm not
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 19:01 Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
> >
> > - require disclosure in contributions
>
> That really has no upsides, except poison the area. Either we rejec
Jeff Janes writes:
> But he isn't proposing getting rid of -Fp, just -Ft. Isn't -Ft is just as
> PostgresSQL-specific
> as -Fd is?
No. The point about -Ft format is that you can extract files that contain
SQL text and COPY data, using nothing but standard Unix tools (i.e. tar).
So just as with
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
>> Why did we invent "custom" format dumps instead of using a standard
>> container-file format like tar/cpio/zip/whatever?
Andres> Because they're either not all that simple, or don't random
Andres> read access inside. But that's just a guess, not fac
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Apart from the complexity there's also a possibility that this
> skipping will reduce the efficiency actually in normal cases. Consider
> a case where A and B have exactly matching partitions. Current
> partition matching algorithm compare a
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Some community members did communicate with me using my Skype account
> (korotkovae). Today this account was hacked. You should know that
> any requests to send money sent from my account are fraud.
> Sorry for inconvenience. I've sen
Daniel,
Thanks for the update.
On 07/25/2018 01:37 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Hmm, this is missing the eqop fields of SortGroupClause. I haven't
tested yet but does the similar degradation happen if two
SortGroupCaluses have different eqop and the same other values?
I wasn’t able to const
On 07/18/2018 10:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
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 risk
I've setup FreeBSD 11.1 in a VM and I setup a ZFS filesystem to use for the
Postgres DB. I ran the following simple benchmark.
pgbench -M prepared -c 4 -j 4 -T 60 postgres
Since it is in a VM and I can't control what else might be happening on the
box, I ran this several times at different times
On 2018-Jul-20, Minh-Quan Tran wrote:
> Something like this?
Can you provide a reproducer for this problem?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:11 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:30 AM Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 26 July 2018 at 20:59, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Great, thank you! So, I think the regression is demystified. We can
> > > now conclude that on our benchmarks t
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:58:42AM -0400, Jeff Janes wrote:
> But it was really waiting for the syncs of the new -D dir to finish. The
> attached patch adds a -v notice that it is starting to do the sync, with
> the wording taken from initdb's equivalent message.
This is a good idea. Would we wa
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:40:42PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 7/26/18, 11:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> I think I'm essentially suggesting what you have in 0002 but without
> the new RangeVarGetRelidExtended() callback. I've attached a modified
> version of 0002 that seems to fix the
While populating pgbench_account table by using COPY FROM STDIN,
pgbench sends out "\." at the end of the copy data. However this is
only necessary in the version 2 of frontend/backend protocol (i.e. the
version 3 protocol does not need it). I think we can safely remove the
code to save a few CPU c
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> While populating pgbench_account table by using COPY FROM STDIN,
> pgbench sends out "\." at the end of the copy data. However this is
> only necessary in the version 2 of frontend/backend protocol (i.e. the
> version 3 protocol does not need it). I think we can safely remov
On 27 July 2018 at 19:11, Amit Langote wrote:
> I've attached a delta patch to make the above changes. I'm leaving the
> hash table rename up to you though.
Thanks for the delta patch. I took all of it, just rewrote a comment slightly.
I also renamed the hash table to your suggestion and change
> Tatsuo Ishii writes:
>> While populating pgbench_account table by using COPY FROM STDIN,
>> pgbench sends out "\." at the end of the copy data. However this is
>> only necessary in the version 2 of frontend/backend protocol (i.e. the
>> version 3 protocol does not need it). I think we can safely
I noticed that there's some strange coding in libpq's choice of
what hostname to use for searching ~/.pgpass for a password.
Historically (pre-v10), it just used the pghost parameter:
conn->pgpass = PasswordFromFile(conn->pghost, conn->pgport,
conn->
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
wrote:
>
>> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that would be better. Today, I have tried the patch on both
>> Head and PG11 and I am getting same and correct results.
>
> I have applied the the patch to PG11beta2 and
65 matches
Mail list logo
