Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:47:05PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:58:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > When the security team was discussing this issue before, we speculated > > about ideas like inventing a function trust mechanism, so that attacks > > based on search path mani

Re: [PATCH] Fix formatting in pg_upgrade manpage doc

I spotted the formatting issue in an older version and the change I did confused me thinking that it was fixing the issue.  Sorry. Martín On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:34 AM Bruce Momjian < Bruce Momjian ( Bruce Momjian ) > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 08:02:54PM -0700, Martín Fern

Re[2]: doc - improve description of default privileges

Hello Bradley, comments on the patch ... Thanks for the review. 1) I think that adding the "This privilege is abbreviated ... when displayed." lines to the privilege descriptions is redundant. The abbreviations are already listed after the "The entries shown by \dp are interpreted thus:"

Bug in slot.c and are replication slots ever used at Window?

Hi hackers, I am really confused.  If my conclusions are correct, then nobody ever tried to use replication slots at Windows! The function RestoreSlotFromDisk in slot.c contains the following code: static void RestoreSlotFromDisk(const char *name) {     ReplicationSlotOnDisk cp;     int       

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

Hi, thanks for fixing this up! On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25:28PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > index ecc5501eae..a1ff060c2b 100644 > --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > +++ b/doc/s

pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Hi, I noticed that pg_verify_checksums computes bogus checksums if I compile it with '-O2 -Wall' but without -fno-strict-aliasing. Also I am getting a compile warning then: |src/bin/pg_verify_checksums$ make CFLAGS='-g -O2 -Wall' [...] |gcc -g -O2 -Wall -I../../../src/include  | -I/home/mba/Proj

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:13:31 +0200 Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for fixing this up! > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25:28PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > > b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > > index ecc5501eae..a1ff060

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

Hi, On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 05:35:09PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > @@ -61,11 +61,11 @@ PostgreSQL documentation > > > > - -d > + -v Sorry that I did not catch this the fir

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:34:06 +0200 Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 05:35:09PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml > > @@ -61,11 +61,11 @@ PostgreSQL documentation > > > >

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

Hi, On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 05:48:24PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > Oops, It's my mistake. I updated the patch. Looks good to me now. One could argue that the message could be 'checksums verified in file FILE' (plural) rather than 'checksum verified in file FILE', but that is quickly approaching

Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 09:32, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > > * Many functions carry some unrelated arguments just to pass them through, > > which obscures the purpose of a function. > > Can you please provide some examples? E.g this chain with partsupfunc & collations: partition_range_bounds

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

Hello hackers! It seems bgwriter running on the replicas is broken in the commit 8d68ee6 and as a result bgwriter never updates minRecoveryPoint in the pg_control.Please see a detailed explanation below. 2018-08-29 22:54 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : > This is not a solution in my opinion, as you

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:54:08 +0200 Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 05:48:24PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > Oops, It's my mistake. I updated the patch. > > Looks good to me now. > > One could argue that the message could be 'checksums verified in file > FILE' (plural) ra

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

Hi! On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:50 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:39 PM Andrey Borodin wrote: > > I'm not sure in architectural point of view: supporting two ways (list and > > heap) to store result seems may be a bit heavy, but OK. At least, it has > > meaningful bene

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

On 2018/08/29 21:06, Amit Langote wrote: > I measured the gain in performance due to each patch on a modest virtual > machine. Details of the measurement and results follow. > > UPDATE: > > nparts master0001 0002 0003 > == == > 0 28562893 2862

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > # Current patch (use list) > x run 1 run 2 run 3 > 0.11206 1230 1231 > 0.01 2862 2813 2802 > 0.003 13915 13911 13900 Sorry, I didn't explain what these tables means. There are times in milliseconds for 3 runs of spgist_be

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:30 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > # Current patch (use list) > > x run 1 run 2 run 3 > > 0.11206 1230 1231 > > 0.01 2862 2813 2802 > > 0.003 13915 13911 13900 > > Sorry, I didn't explain what

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

Thanks! Pushed. There was a markup error in the documentation. This should have been listed in the pg11 open items. Please list there everything that should apply be applied branch 11 before release, so that they get fixed (or at least considered) before we release. https://wiki.postgresql.org

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:52:58 -0300 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thanks! Pushed. There was a markup error in the documentation. Thank you! > > > This should have been listed in the pg11 open items. Please list there > everything that should apply be applied branch 11 before release, so > that the

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On 2018-Aug-30, Yugo Nagata wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:52:58 -0300 > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > This should have been listed in the pg11 open items. Please list there > > everything that should apply be applied branch 11 before release, so > > that they get fixed (or at least considered) be

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module

At Mon, 27 Aug 2018 19:38:19 -0700, Michael Paquier wrote in <20180828023819.ga29...@paquier.xyz> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 02:34:31PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I like the direction of your thinking, but it seems to me that this > > would cause a problem if you want to set search_path=foo,bar

Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > At Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:50:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov > > wrote in > > > > > Also I found that this new pg_ctl isn't covered with tests at all. So > > > I've added ver

Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:18:13 -0300 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Aug-30, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:52:58 -0300 > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > This should have been listed in the pg11 open items. Please list there > > > everything that should apply be applied branch

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

(2018/08/29 18:40), Etsuro Fujita wrote: (2018/08/29 0:21), Jonathan S. Katz wrote: On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: (2018/08/24 11:47), Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:00:49PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I tried this today, but doing git behind the corporate

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

I noticed that pg_verify_checksums computes bogus checksums if I compile it with '-O2 -Wall' but without -fno-strict-aliasing. Also I am getting a compile warning then: [...] If I add -fno-strict-aliasing to $CFLAGS, the problem goes away. Is this something to worry about, or just pilot erro

Extra word in src/backend/optimizer/README

Hi, Here is a small patch to remove $SUBJECT: s/has contains/contains/ Best regards, Etsuro Fujita diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/README b/src/backend/optimizer/README index 0db3d36..9c852a1 100644 --- a/src/backend/optimizer/README +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/README @@ -1109,7 +1109,7 @@ of

Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:05 PM Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > >> SHOW block_size ; > >> block_size > >> > >> 4096 > >> > >> CREATE TABLE foo(val text); > >> INSERT INTO foo VALUES('bernd'); > >> > >> CREATE INDEX ON foo USING hash(val)

Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)

Hi! On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 PM Andrey Borodin wrote: > > 28 авг. 2018 г., в 14:18, Alexander Korotkov > > написал(а): > > > > OK, but I think cube_c_f8() and cube_c_f8_f8() also need to be > > revised. Also, I think this behavior should be covered by regression > > tests. > True. Also th

Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Kapila >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> So, I think we need to open the file in bin

Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:05 PM Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Ka

Re: Problem while updating a foreign table pointing to a partitioned table on foreign server

Hello. At Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:45:35 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in <5b7ffdef.6020...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > (2018/08/21 11:01), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > At Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:49:02 +0900, Etsuro > > Fujita wrote > > in<5b72c1ae.8010...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > >> (2018/08/09 22:04), Etsuro Fujita wrote: >

Re: Catalog corruption

Hi Andrew, what is the name of the channel ? Thanks , Mariel. ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 29 באוג׳ 2018 ב-14:31 מאת ‪Andrew Gierth‬‏ <‪ and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk‬‏>:‬ > > "Mariel" == Mariel Cherkassky writes: > > Mariel> Hi, > > Mariel> I sent already an email about this topic to pgsql-admins but I

Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP

Hello. At Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:42:42 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote in > It seems that http://commitfest.cputube.org/ runs only "make check" on > Windows. But my Postgres Pro colleagues checked that tests passed on > 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2008. Also I made some > minor

Re: Catalog corruption

> "Mariel" == Mariel Cherkassky writes: Mariel> Hi Andrew, Mariel> what is the name of the channel ? The name of the channel is #postgresql (including the # character) -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Re: A strange GiST error message or fillfactor of GiST build

Hello! > 30 авг. 2018 г., в 2:42, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > написал(а): > > At Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:42:59 -0300, Andrey Borodin > wrote in <6fbe12b2-4f59-4db9-bde9-62c880118...@yandex-team.ru> >> >> We are passing freespace everywhere. Also, we pass GistInsertState, and >> GistState. >> Maybe let'

Re: rare crash - FailedAssertion snapbuild.c Line: 580

On 2018-08-29 21:15, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2018-08-29 17:43:17 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: To test postgres 11, I still regularly run series of short sessions of pgbench-over-logical-replication (basically the same thing that I used last year [1] - now in a perl incarnation). Most of the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:41 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Right, performance regression appears to be caused by queue memory > context allocation. I've tried to apply the same approach that we've > in GiST: allocate separate memory context for queue only at second > rescan call. And it appear

Re: Problem while updating a foreign table pointing to a partitioned table on foreign server

(2018/08/30 20:37), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:45:35 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in<5b7ffdef.6020...@lab.ntt.co.jp> (2018/08/21 11:01), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:49:02 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in<5b72c1ae.8010...@lab.ntt.co.jp> (2018/08/09 22:04),

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:55:23AM +0200, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > Bgwriter itself never changes updateMinRecoveryPoint to true and boom, > we can get a lot of pages written to disk, but minRecoveryPoint in the > pg_control won't be updated! That's indeed obvious by reading the code. The bgwr

Startup cost of sequential scan

Hi! Our customer have a bad plan problem, which could be reduced to the following example. create table t1 (id int primary key, k int); create table t2 (id int); insert into t1 (select i, i from generate_series(1,100) i); insert into t2 (select 0 from generate_series(1,100)i); insert into t2

Proposal for disk quota feature

Hi all, We want to introduce disk quota feature into Postgres. *Why disk quota* *In a multi-tenant environment, there is a requirement to limit the disk quota that database/schema/table can be written or a user can consume for different organizations.* *Meanwhile, other databases such as Oracle, T

Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)

Alexander Korotkov writes: > I'm going to check this patchset on Windows and commit if no objections. These error messages do not conform to our message style guidelines: you've copied an errdetail message as primary error message, but the rules are different for that (no complete sentences, no i

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

Hi, 2018-08-30 15:39 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : > That's indeed obvious by reading the code. The bgwriter would be > started only once a consistent point has been reached, so the startup > process would have normally already updated the control file to the > consistent point. Something like th

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

Alexander Korotkov writes: > But I think there is another issue in sequential scan cost. We have > zero startup cost for sequential scan. But why? Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. Also, I do not think we can change that without a whole lot of unpleasant side

Re: Proposal for disk quota feature

On 08/30/2018 09:57 AM, Hubert Zhang wrote: > 2 Keep one worker process for each database. But using a parent/global > quota worker process to manage the lifecycle of database level worker > processes. It could handle the newly created database(avoid restart > database) and save resource when a da

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > But I think there is another issue in sequential scan cost. We have > > zero startup cost for sequential scan. But why? > > Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. Right. So as I und

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Fabien COELHO writes: >> If I add -fno-strict-aliasing to $CFLAGS, the problem goes away. >> Is this something to worry about, or just pilot error cause I am not >> using the same $CFLAGS as for the rest of the build? I originally >> noticed this problem with my external fork of pg_verify_checksum

Re: rare crash - FailedAssertion snapbuild.c Line: 580

On 2018-Aug-30, Erik Rijkers wrote: > ok, is this any use? Seems mostly good, but the Xids are not printed. Could you please do "bt full"? Also: frame 3 print *snap Thanks, -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Traini

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On 2018-Aug-30, Fabien COELHO wrote: > As PostgreSQL source is expected to conform to some C standard (unsure which > one right now, possibly c89 but maybe it is beginning to switch to c99, a > young 19 years old standard), I'd suggest that the right fix is rather to > actually remove the aliasing

Re: rare crash - FailedAssertion snapbuild.c Line: 580

On 2018-08-30 16:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2018-Aug-30, Erik Rijkers wrote: ok, is this any use? Seems mostly good, but the Xids are not printed. Could you please do "bt full"? Also: frame 3 print *snap See the attached. # gdb --quiet -ex 'bt full' --batch /var/data1/pg_stuff/pg_

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. > From this model we make a conclusion that we're starting getting rows > from sequential scan sooner than from index scan. And this conclusion >

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

On 30.08.2018 17:58, Tom Lane wrote: Alexander Korotkov writes: On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. From this model we make a conclusion that we're starting getting rows from sequential scan sooner than fro

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:08 PM Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > On 30.08.2018 17:58, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alexander Korotkov writes: > >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. > >> From this model we make a conclu

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

> "Konstantin" == Konstantin Knizhnik writes: >> No, startup cost is not the "time to find the first row". It's >> overhead paid before you even get to start examining rows. Konstantin> But it seems to me that calculation of cost in LIMIT node Konstantin> contradicts with this statement:

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

Andrew Gierth writes: > The model (assuming I understand it rightly) is that what we're actually > tracking is a startup cost and a per-output-row cost, but for comparison > purposes we actually store the rows and the computed total, rather than > just the per-row cost: > rows > startup_cost > to

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. > > > From this model we make a conclusion that we're starting getting rows > > from seque

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

Alexander Korotkov writes: > I understand that startup cost is not "time to find the first row". > But I think this example highlight not one but two issues. > 1) Row count estimates for joins are wrong. Yup. > 2) Rows are assumed to be continuous while in reality they are > discrete. Where do

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:51 PM, David Steele wrote: > > On 8/29/18 5:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 29/08/2018 12:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Here is a patch to change some struct initializations to use C99-style >>> designated initializers. These are just a few particularly egregiou

Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:59 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > I'm going to check this patchset on Windows and commit if no objections. > > These error messages do not conform to our message style guidelines: > you've copied an errdetail message as primary error message, but the

Re: "Write amplification" is made worse by "getting tired" while inserting into nbtree secondary indexes (Was: Why B-Tree suffix truncation matters)

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > If you include heap TID as a column the suffix will be unique and cannot > benefit from suffix truncation. Right. During a page split, we must generate a new high key that's less than or equal to all items on the left side (where the new high

[PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE

Hi hackers, I just noticed that psql's tab completion for ALTER TABLE … SET TABLESPACE was treating it as any other configuration parameter and completing with FROM DEFAULT or TO after it, instead of a list of tablespaces. PFA a patch that fixes this. - ilmari -- "A disappointingly low fraction

Re: Hint to set owner for tablespace directory

On 23/08/2018 13:24, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > I have noticed the novice users are stuck trying to create tablespace > over a directory whose owner is not the system postgres user. They > observed the message "could not set permissions on directory ...: > permission denied". > > I want to add pa

Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE

ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: > Hi hackers, > > I just noticed that psql's tab completion for ALTER TABLE … SET > TABLESPACE was treating it as any other configuration parameter and > completing with FROM DEFAULT or TO after it, instead of a list of > tablespaces. And just

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

On 2018-Aug-30, Mark Dilger wrote: > static struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] = > { > { > {"enable_seqscan", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD, > gettext_noop("Enables the planner's use of sequential-scan > plans."), > NULL > }, > &enable_s

Re: Add a semicolon to query related to search_path

On 17/08/2018 05:32, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 2018/08/17 4:32, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:20 AM, Tatsuro Yamada >> wrote: >>> As you can see, queries with and without a semicolon are mixed, it is hard >>> to understand the end of each query. This is not beaut

Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction

Man, how I dislike patches in tarballs. 0002 says: + * shouldFree is set 'true' since a tuple stored on a disk page should not be + * pfree'd. Surely you mean 'false' :-) -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training &

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:03:43PM +0200, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > 2018-08-30 15:39 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : >> Does it take care of the problem? > > Yep, with the patch applied bgwriter acts as expected! Thanks for double-checking. I have been struggling for a couple of hours to get a de

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module

On 28/08/2018 05:55, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery) wrote: >>> I like the direction of your thinking, but it seems to me that this >>> would cause a problem if you want to set search_path=foo,bar. >> ... OPTIONS ( host 'remhost1', port '5433', dbname 'demodb', >> option='option1=foo',

B-tree cache prefetches

Hi hackers! I've been at the database conference and here everyone is talking about cache prefetches. I've tried simple hack diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.c b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.c index d3700bd082..ffddf553aa 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:39:26AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I rather suspect that this hasn't been tested on anything but Intel > hardware, which is famously misalignment-tolerant. The lack of any > apparent regression test infrastructure for it isn't leaving a warm > feeling about how much the bu

Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:28:20PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > In general looks good for me. Personally I get tired with cube.out > and cube_2.out. They are different with only few checks involving > scientific notation. But all the patches touching cube regression > tests should update b

Re: B-tree cache prefetches

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > The idea is pretty simple - our search are cache erasing anyway, let's try to > get at least some of it by prefetching possible ways of binary search. > And it seems to me that on a simple query >> insert into x select (random()*100)::

Re: Online verification of checksums

On 26/07/2018 13:59, Michael Banck wrote: > I've now forward-ported this change to pg_verify_checksums, in order to > make this application useful for online clusters, see attached patch. Why not provide this functionality as a server function or command. Then you can access blocks with proper loc

Re: Bug in slot.c and are replication slots ever used at Window?

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > So if "isdir" is true (and it is true in this case), it sets O_RDONLY > flag. Then fsync_fname successfully opens slot file in readonly mode > and calls fsync() which at windows is substituted with _commit() which > in turn is

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

2018-08-30 19:34 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : > I have been struggling for a couple of hours to get a deterministic test > case out of my pocket, and I did not get one as you would need to get > the bgwriter to flush a page before crash recovery finishes, we could do In my case the active standby s

Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 08:31:36PM +0200, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > 2018-08-30 19:34 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier : >> I have been struggling for a couple of hours to get a deterministic test >> case out of my pocket, and I did not get one as you would need to get >> the bgwriter to flush a page be

Re: Online verification of checksums

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 26/07/2018 13:59, Michael Banck wrote: > > I've now forward-ported this change to pg_verify_checksums, in order to > > make this application useful for online clusters, see attached patch. > > Why not

Re: Proposal for disk quota feature

2018-08-30 16:22 GMT+02:00 Chapman Flack : > On 08/30/2018 09:57 AM, Hubert Zhang wrote: > > > 2 Keep one worker process for each database. But using a parent/global > > quota worker process to manage the lifecycle of database level worker > > processes. It could handle the newly created database(

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fabien COELHO writes: > >> If I add -fno-strict-aliasing to $CFLAGS, the problem goes away. > >> Is this something to worry about, or just pilot error cause I am not > >> using the same $CFLAGS as for the rest of the build? I originally > >> not

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Output parameter handling is not compatible between function calls and > procedure calls. Our implementation of output parameters in functions > is an extension of the SQL standard, and while it's been useful, it's > nonstandard, and I wo

Re: Extra word in src/backend/optimizer/README

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a small patch to remove $SUBJECT: s/has contains/contains/ > Definitely looks correct. A good first test to verify your own commit/push privileges, perhaps? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: >> But I think there is another issue in sequential scan cost. We have >> zero startup cost for sequential scan. But why? > > Because it's what the mental model of startup cost says it should be. Whose mental model?

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I agree that assuming that they're physically zeroes is OK from a > portability standpoint, because we'd have a whole lot of other issues > if they weren't. But I have a different point to make, which is that > it's fairly standard practice for u

Re: 10.5 but not 10.4: backend startup during reindex system: could not read block 0 in file "base/16400/..": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:35:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Pryzby writes: > > I've seen this message now a handful of times recently. It seems to happen > > overnight, during a maintenance job which reindex things, including system > > catalog indices. > > It's easy to reproduce error und

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Fabien COELHO writes: >> >> If I add -fno-strict-aliasing to $CFLAGS, the problem goes away. >> >> Is this something to worry about, or just pilot error cause I am not >> >> using the

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:35:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Should we make it a separate test in pg_verify_checksums, or should we > piggyback on the pg_basebackup tests (which AFAICT is the only ones that > create a cluster with checksums enabled at all, and thus is the only > codepath that

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:35:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Should we make it a separate test in pg_verify_checksums, or should we > > piggyback on the pg_basebackup tests (which AFAICT is the only ones that > > create a cluster

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

On 2018-08-30 10:39:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > charbuf[BLCKSZ]; > PageHeader header = (PageHeader) buf; > (The right fix, of course, is to malloc the work buffer rather than > put it on the stack.) Or alternatively, for places where such allocations could be a proble

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

Hi, On 2018-08-30 13:54:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Aug-30, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > static struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] = > > { > > { > > {"enable_seqscan", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD, > > gettext_noop("Enables the planner's use of sequential

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

> > > In other words, being more like the SQL standard is probably good, but > breaking compatibility is bad. You've technically avoided a > *backward* compatibility break by deciding that functions and > procedures can work differently from each other, but that just moves > the problem around. N

Re: 10.5 but not 10.4: backend startup during reindex system: could not read block 0 in file "base/16400/..": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

Hi, On 2018-08-30 15:00:28 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:35:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > This looks suspiciously like the issue under discussion in > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12259.1532117714%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > > > As far as we can tell, that bug

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 30.08.2018, 22:02 +0200 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > PFA some *very* basic tests for pg_verify_checksums, which should at > least be enough to catch the kind of errors we had now in the tool > itself. I proposed something similar for pg_basebackup back then and IIRC Peter (ri

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 30.08.2018, 21:35 +0200 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > So if I get you  right, you're saying the attached patch should be all > that's needed?  I tried to do some similar changes but neither what you proposed nor what I came up with actually fixes the checksum failures, though

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Michael Banck writes: > Could well be I'm doing something wrong, so it would be cool if somebody > could reproduce this first. In principle, it should be enough to run > 'make clean && make CLFAGS=-O2' in the src/bin/pg_verify_checksums > subdirectory in order to get a broken executable. I can re

Re: 10.5 but not 10.4: backend startup during reindex system: could not read block 0 in file "base/16400/..": read only 0 of 8192 bytes

Justin Pryzby writes: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:35:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> As far as we can tell, that bug is a dozen years old, so it's not clear >> why you find that you can reproduce it only in 10.5. But there might be >> some subtle timing change accounting for that. > It seems to

Re: Startup cost of sequential scan

Robert Haas writes: > Whose mental model? I guess the Tom Lane mind is the canonical one > for this project, but I'm not sure that it entirely agrees with mine. Since the fact that we have a notion of startup cost at all is entirely my fault, I don't feel shy about claiming to have the authorita

Re: B-tree cache prefetches

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:53 AM Andrey Borodin wrote: > Hi hackers! > > I've been at the database conference and here everyone is talking about cache > prefetches. > > I've tried simple hack > > diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.c > b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.c > index

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Hi, On 2018-08-30 17:19:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > So, I've been fooling around trying to get it to work without > -fno-strict-aliasing, but with little luck so far. The problem presumably is that pg_checksum_block() accesses the relevant fields as an uint32, whereas pg_checksum_page() accesses

Re: pg_verify_checksums and -fno-strict-aliasing

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> (The right fix, of course, is to malloc the work buffer rather than >> put it on the stack.) > So if I get you right, you're saying the attached patch should be all > that's needed? Well, that's some of what's needed

Re: Use C99 designated initializers for some structs

Mark Dilger writes: > I tried doing this perhaps a year ago, and there are a few files with arrays > of structs whose representations get much larger when you change the format > in this way. For instance, in guc.c: > ... > What should the general rule be for initializing arrays of structs such a

  1   2   >