On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:06:52PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> To reproduce, the following works too (after creating the objects as
> described above):
>
> alter table partkey_t detach partition partkey_t_1;
> alter table partkey_t attach partition partkey_t_1 for values from (0) to
> (1000);
> E
Hi hackers,
Looks like there is a bug with logging running transactions XIDs and
prepared transactions.
One of our customers get error "FATAL: out-of-order XID insertion in
KnownAssignedXids"
trying to apply backup.
WAL contains the following record:
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 98/
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:26 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > In that vein, I propose a function pg_promote() to promote
> > > physical standby servers.
+1
> >
> > No fundamental issues from me regarding the concept of being able to
> > trigger a promotion remotely, so +1.
On 2018/10/05 16:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> As of commit 2fbdf1b38bc [1], which has been applied in 11 and HEAD
>> branches, RelationBuildPartitionDesc emits an error if we don't find
>> relpartbound set for a child found by scanning pg_inherits, instead of
>> skipping such children. While that
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:06:45AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> As you can notice, XID 2004495308 is encountered twice which cause error in
> KnownAssignedXidsAdd:
>
> if (head > tail &&
> TransactionIdFollowsOrEquals(KnownAssignedXids[head - 1], from_xid))
> {
> Kno
> On 4 Oct 2018, at 13:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:06:06AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Yes, you are correct, the signalfuncs.h includes in 0001 are a rebase error
>> from when I renamed the file. They are not present in the v15 patch but got
>> introduced in
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 0:54 AM, Phil Florent wrote:
Phil, Michael, I appreciate your polite comments.
I understand as follows.
We can find it if we shorten the sampling interval, but a lot of information
comes out.
# The balance is important.
Also, it is not good unless we have enough samples.
A
On 05.10.2018 11:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:06:45AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
As you can notice, XID 2004495308 is encountered twice which cause error in
KnownAssignedXidsAdd:
if (head > tail &&
TransactionIdFollowsOrEquals(KnownAssignedXids[h
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:55:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/10/05 16:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm. Indeed, v10 does not complain but HEAD does. (I ran the attached
>> SQL file, which is the complete test case both of you have compiled).
>
> Did you forget to attach some file?
Y
(2018/10/02 21:16), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is an updated
version of the patch. Changes:
That patch conflicts the recent executor changes, so I'm attaching a
rebased patch, in which I also added a fast path to
add_params_to_result_rel and did some comment editing for consistency.
I'll
Hi,
I am Anushi Maheshwari, Software Engineer in Samsung R&D, looking forward
to be a GCI mentor of Postgresql organisation. I am proficient in C++,
Nodejs, Git/Hg, Python, Bash, SQL/PostgreSQL and have working knowledge of
JAVA and Android. In the context of Open Source I am active contributor in
On 03/10/2018 13:51, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> 1. Patch was applied without any errors except a part related to
> documentation:
> error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_index.sgml:50
> error: doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_index.sgml: patch does not apply
Attached is an updated patch.
> 2. The code
(2018/08/02 23:41), Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Gierth writes:
[ postgres_fdw is not smart about exploiting fast-start plans ]
Yeah, that's basically not accounted for at all in the current design.
One possibility: would it be worth adding an option to EXPLAIN that
makes it assume cursor_tuple_f
Hi,
## Iwata, Aya (iwata@jp.fujitsu.com):
> I think it is convenient to be able to check the archive_status
> directory contents information.
>
> I reviewed patch. It applies and passes regression test.
Great, thanks!
> All similar function are named pg_ls_***dir. It is clear these functio
On 02/10/2018 16:58, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's a bit weird to make this decision based on these two timestamps
> differing. For one, it only indirectly seems to be guaranteed that
> xactStartTimestamp is even set to anything here (to 0 by virtue of being
> a global var).
Maybe but it seems to b
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:26:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The topic of $subject has been discussed a bit times, resulting in a
> couple of patches on the way:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180830200258.gg15...@paquier.xyz
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cabuevezekr
On 04/10/2018 22:07, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-04 12:15:28 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
>> Was this intentional, or an oversight?
>>
>> If welcome, I would be happy to work on a patch. Whilst slightly confusing
>> in terms of naming, we could just track this together with functions, since
>> o
On 02/10/2018 15:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 26/09/2018 23:19, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> It’s not clear to me just how common it is to use GCC via homebrew on macOS.
>
>> I use that all the time.
>
> Hm, so did 5e2217131 break anything for you? Does that version of g
On 10/5/18 2:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:31:49PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
Thanks for making those changes yourself and posting the new version.
Can you check the attached diff file for some updates to the documentation
part of the patch. Other parts look fine.
On 17 September 2018 at 21:15, David Rowley
wrote:
> v9 patch attached. Fixes conflict with 6b78231d.
v10 patch attached. Fixes conflict with cc2905e9.
I'm not so sure we need to zero the partition_tuple_slots[] array at
all since we always set a value there is there's a corresponding map
stored
On 02/10/2018 00:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Re-reading the implementation in standard_ProcessUtility, I wonder what
> is PROCESS_UTILITY_QUERY_NONATOMIC -- there seems to be a maze through
> SPI that determines whether this flag is set or not, which could affect
> whether the event trigger is usef
Postgres documentation says that |"now()| is a traditional PostgreSQL
equivalent to |transaction_timestamp()|".
Also both use the same implementation.
But them have different parallel safety property:
postgres=# \df+ now
List of functions
Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument
On 10/03/2018 12:02 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:24 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
Over the thread for bug #14825 I posted some draft code to show one
way to save/restore the enum blacklist for parallel workers. Here's a
bette
Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> Postgres documentation says that |"now()| is a traditional PostgreSQL
> equivalent to |transaction_timestamp()|".
> Also both use the same implementation.
Right.
> But them have different parallel safety property:
That seems like a bug/thinko. I am not sure which
Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:59 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Laurenz Albe
> > > wrote:
> > > > What about keeping the first successful connection open and storing
> > > > it in
On 23/05/2018 08:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> "tls-unique" and "tls-server-end-point" are overly technical to users.
> They don't care which one is used, there's no difference in security.
A question was raised about this in a recent user group meeting.
When someone steals the server certifi
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 22:59, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>
> I have only done the below two changes yet. After doing that and
> rebasing with latest master, in the regression I got crashes, and I
> suspect the reason being that I have used Virtual tuple slot for the
> destination slot of execute_attr_ma
I wrote:
> Here's a draft patch against HEAD for this.
> I looked for problem spots by (a) testing with the STRESS_SORT_INT_MIN
> option I added in nbtcompare.c, (b) grepping for "x = -x" type code,
> and (c) grepping for "return -x" type code. (b) and (c) found several
> places that (a) didn't, w
On 27/09/2018 16:58, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Working on the new lazy transform for jsonb I found another memory leak in
> PLyObject_ToJsonbValue(): palloc() for output boolean JsonbValue is
> unnecessary,
> 'out' variable is already initialized.
>
> Fix is attached.
Committed, thanks.
--
Peter
On 2018-Oct-05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Looking at the stack trace there is this log in
> validateForeignKeyConstraint:
> ereport(DEBUG1,
> (errmsg("validating foreign key constraint \"%s\"", conname)));
>
> However conname is set to NULL in this code path.
Ouch. Thanks for catching th
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:20 PM wrote:
> I have a feature built around LISTEN / NOTIFY that works perfectly well,
> except for the enormous performance impact to transactions that emit large
> numbers of notifications.
Indeed, I have the same and am very interested in this.
> I hope this patch
Andres Freund writes:
> [ let's use strfromd ]
So I'm having second thoughts about this, based on the fact that
strfromd() in't strictly a glibc-ism but is defined in an ISO/IEC
standard. That means that we can expect to see it start showing up
on other platforms (though a quick search did not f
Hi,
On 2018-10-05 11:54:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > [ let's use strfromd ]
>
> So I'm having second thoughts about this, based on the fact that
> strfromd() in't strictly a glibc-ism but is defined in an ISO/IEC
> standard. That means that we can expect to see it start
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 04:53:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 23/05/2018 08:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > "tls-unique" and "tls-server-end-point" are overly technical to users.
> > They don't care which one is used, there's no difference in security.
>
> A question was raised about
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-10-05 11:54:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I really think that what we ought to do is apply the float[48]out hack
>> I showed in <30551.1538517...@sss.pgh.pa.us> and call it good, at least
>> till such time as somebody wants to propose a full-on reimplementation of
>>
Hi,
On 2018-10-03 17:28:59 -0700, Daniel Wood wrote:
> FYI, be careful with padding PGXACT's to a full cache line.
I'm not actually thinking of doing that, but just to round it up so we
don't have PGXACTs spanning cachelines. It's currently 12bytes, so we
end up with one spanning 60-72, then from
Hi all,
A while back, Robert Haas noticed that the space taken up by very
small tables is dominated by the FSM [1]. Tom suggested that we could
prevent creation of the FSM until the heap has reached a certain
threshold size [2]. Attached is a WIP patch to implement that. I've
also attached a SQL sc
On 9/27/18 9:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/09/27 23:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2018-Sep-27, Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, but the following of your proposed text
>>> needs to be updated a bit:
>>>
>>> +
>>> +
>>> + Having a "default" pa
On 10/4/18 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
>> On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before GA.
>
>> That approach would mean we would require an RC2, which would further
>> delay the GA.
>
> Not sure abou
Hi,
On 2018-10-05 15:31:37 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 10/4/18 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> >> On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before GA.
> >
> >> That approach would mean we would
On 10/5/18 3:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-10-05 15:31:37 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 10/4/18 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before
On 2018-Oct-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> > On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before GA.
>
> > That approach would mean we would require an RC2, which would further
> > delay the GA.
>
> Not sure abou
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Oct-04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure about that. Alvaro seems to think there's a generic problem
>> in event trigger processing, which if true, was likely there pre-v11.
> After sleeping on this, I think that a better answer is to fix the crash
> per Michael's pro
I wrote:
> I'm inclined to just go ahead and apply/backpatch this. It's certainly
> possible that more bugs remain to be found, but I have no good ideas
> about how to search for them, and in any case that wouldn't invalidate
> the patch as it stands.
And done. If anyone can think of additional
Please do not post to multiple lists. Moving -hackers to BCC.
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 4:07 AM, Александр Аникин wrote:
>
> Hey, folks!
>
> I've got a question about events on roles creation.
>
> I need to execute some custom logic on role creation.
>
> All information about roles located in `pg
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:47 AM John Naylor wrote:
> A while back, Robert Haas noticed that the space taken up by very
> small tables is dominated by the FSM [1]. Tom suggested that we could
> prevent creation of the FSM until the heap has reached a certain
> threshold size [2]. Attached is a WIP p
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> On 9/27/18 9:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Yeah, "any other partition" is what the existing description uses too, so:
> >
> > Having a "default" partition for storing data that does not match any
> > other partition
>
> Sorry for t
On 10/5/18 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
>> On 9/27/18 9:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Yeah, "any other partition" is what the existing description uses too, so:
>>>
>>> Having a "default" partition for storing data that does not mat
I wrote:
> Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
>> Postgres documentation says that |"now()| is a traditional PostgreSQL
>> equivalent to |transaction_timestamp()|".
>> Also both use the same implementation.
> Right.
>> But them have different parallel safety property:
> That seems like a bug/thinko.
I wrote:
> So transaction_timestamp() is definitely buggy, but we're not out of the
> woods yet: SQLValueFunction is treated as parallel-safe, but it also has
> some instances that are equivalent to transaction_timestamp and so do not
> work correctly.
Oh, and I notice that timestamp_in and relate
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 01:40:05AM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Andreas" == Andreas Karlsson writes:
>
> > On 10/03/2018 05:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> >> Is there any meaningful distinction between "inlining," by which I
> >> mean converting to a subquery, and predicate pushdown, whi
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> On 2018-Oct-04, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Not sure about that. Alvaro seems to think there's a generic problem
>>> in event trigger processing, which if true, was likely there pre-v11.
>
>> After sleeping on this, I
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:41:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Oct-05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Looking at the stack trace there is this log in
>> validateForeignKeyConstraint:
>> ereport(DEBUG1,
>> (errmsg("validating foreign key constraint \"%s\"", conname)));
>>
>> However c
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 2:31 AM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:24 PM Thomas Munro
> >> wrote:
> >>> Over the thread for bug #14825 I posted some draft code to show one
> >>> way to save/restore the enum blacklist for parallel workers. Here's a
> >>> better version, and a new
On 2018-Oct-06, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> On 2018-Oct-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Not sure about that. Alvaro seems to think there's a generic problem
> >>> in event trigger processing, which if true, was like
On 2018-Oct-06, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:41:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-Oct-05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Looking at the stack trace there is this log in
> >> validateForeignKeyConstraint:
> >> ereport(DEBUG1,
> >> (errmsg("validating foreign
> "David" == David Fetter writes:
>> Consider the difference between (in the absence of CTE inlining):
>>
>> -- inline subquery with no optimization barrier (qual may be pushed down)
>> select * from (select x from y) s where x=1;
David> ...and doesn't need to materialize all of y,
>
I stepped back a bit from the raw performance question and thought about
what we actually want functionally in snprintf's float handling. There
are a couple of points worth making:
* The fact that float[48]out explicitly handle NaN and Inf cases is a
leftover from when they had to cope with varyi
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
Andres> I'm not convinced. Because of some hypothetical platform that
Andres> may introduce strfromd() in a broken/slower manner, but where
Andres> sprintf() is correct, we should not do the minimal work to
Andres> alleviate an actual performance bottle
Andrew Gierth writes:
> So here's a thing: I finally got to doing my performance tests for using
> the Ryu float output code in float[48]out.
> Ryu is so blazing fast that with it, COPY of a table with 2million rows
> of 12 random float8 columns (plus id) becomes FASTER in text mode than
> in bina
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
>> Ryu is so blazing fast that with it, COPY of a table with 2million
>> rows of 12 random float8 columns (plus id) becomes FASTER in text
>> mode than in binary mode (rather than ~5x slower):
Tom> Oh yeah? Where's the code for this?
Upstream code is at http
Andrew Gierth writes:
> Tom> Oh yeah? Where's the code for this?
> Upstream code is at https://github.com/ulfjack/ryu
> ...
> I attach the patch I've used for testing, which has these changes from
> upstream Ryu:
Thanks. Just scanning through the code quickly, I note that it assumes
IEEE floa
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> Thanks. Just scanning through the code quickly, I note that it
Tom> assumes IEEE float format, which is probably okay but I suppose we
Tom> might want a configure switch to disable it (and revert to
Tom> platform sprintf).
Yeah, but even s390 these days s
David Rowley said:
> I believe that we should be delaying the PlannerInfo's
> total_table_pages calculation until after constraint exclusion and
> partition pruning have taken place. Doing this calculation before we
> determine which relations we don't need to scan can lead to
> incorrectly applyin
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:27:59PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, I think partially filling the struct is bad style. I'm going to
> be messing with that shortly anyway, when adding support for FKs
> pointing to partitioned tables; maybe just leave it as is for now and
> I'll see about that l
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:22:49AM -0400, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Looks good.
Actually, after sleeping on it, there could be potentially two problems:
1) We don't check the relkind of the relation. For example it is
possible to get a tree from an index, which is incorrect. I would
suggest to re
66 matches
Mail list logo
