RE: speeding up planning with partitions

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:45 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Thanks a lot for hacking on the patch. I'm really happy with the direction > you took for inheritance_planner, as it allows UPDATE/DELETE to use > partition pruning. I was astonished by Tom's awesome works and really thanks him. > Certainly.

RE: Timeout parameters

Hi, Kirk-san, > From: Jamison, Kirk [mailto:k.jami...@jp.fujitsu.com] > In addition, regarding socket_timeout parameter. > I referred to the doc in libpq.sgml, corrected misspellings, and rephrased the > doc a little bit as below: You aimed consistency with connect_timeout. Didn't you? If yes, Tha

Re: idle-in-transaction timeout error does not give a hint

> Personally, I don't find this hint particularly necessary. The session > was terminated because nothing was happening, so the real fix on the > application side is probably more involved than just retrying. This is > different from some of the other cases that were cited, such as > serializatio

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 2019-03-28 09:07, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > Unfortunately patch does not apply due recent commits. Any chance this can be > fixed (and even committed in pg12)? Committed :) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training

Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:17 AM Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-02-22 14:52:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM Amit Khandekar > wrote: > > > Thanks for the review. Attached v2. > > > > Thanks. I took this, combined it with Andres's > > v12-0040-WIP-Move-xi

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

>>  Unfortunately patch does not apply due recent commits. Any chance this can >> be fixed (and even committed in pg12)? > > Committed :) wow! Congratulations! This was very long way my favorite pg12 feature regards, Sergei

Re: Timeout parameters

Hi, thank you for the new version. This compiles on Windows. (I didn't comfirmed that it works correctly..) # ȁ (I inserted this garbage to force my mailer to send in utf-8). At Fri, 29 Mar 2019 06:52:41 +, "Nagaura, Ryohei" wrote in > Hi all. > > I found my mistake in backend patch. >

RE: Timeout parameters

Hi all. I found that connect_timeout uses pqWaitTimed(). Socket_timeout is related to pqWait() not pqWaitTimed(). Thus, I removed connect_timeout in my socket_Timeout patch. FYI, I summarized a use case of this parameter. The connection is built successfully. Suppose that the server is hit by som

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:39:23AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > wow! Congratulations! This was very long way > > my favorite pg12 feature So this has been committed, nice! Thanks a lot to all for keeping alive this patch over the ages, with particular thanks to Andreas and Peter. -- Michael

RE: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority

Hi Hari-san, I've reviewed all the files. The patch would be OK when the following have been fixed, except for the complexity of fe-connect.c (which probably cannot be improved.) Unfortunately, I'll be absent next week. The earliest date I can do the test will be April 8 or 9. I hope someon

Re: Multitenancy optimization

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:40 AM Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Certainly it is possible to create multicolumn statistics to notify > Postgres about columns correlation. > But unfortunately it is not good and working solution. > > First of all we have to create multicolum

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 2019-03-29 09:04, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:39:23AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: >> wow! Congratulations! This was very long way >> >> my favorite pg12 feature > > So this has been committed, nice! Thanks a lot to all for keeping > alive this patch over the ages, wit

RE: Timeout parameters

Hi Horiguchi-san, Thank you so much for your review! > From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > Hmm. "forcefully" means powerful or assertive, in Japanese "力強く > " or "強硬に". "forcibly" means acoomplished through force, in Japanesee " > 無理やり" or "強引に". Actually the latter

Re: Syntax diagrams in user documentation

On 2019-03-29 03:53, Corey Huinker wrote: > #3b As long as I live, I will never properly memorize the syntax for > RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW. I will google this > and copy-paste it. I suspect I'm not alone. If it's available only in an > image, then I can't copy paste, and I

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

Hello. Sorry for being late a bit. At Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:30:37 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20190327.173037.40342566.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > I don't see much point in continuing to review this patch at this > > point. There's been no new version of the

Re: Syntax diagrams in user documentation

On 2019-03-28 23:45, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > We're just gearing up for the Google Season of Docs and I think this > would be a great task for a doc writer to help with. Any reason to > expect serious objections to syntax diagram graphics in the docs? It's worth a thought, but I tend to think th

RE: Timeout parameters

Hi Nagaura-san, Thank you for the updated patches. It became a long thread now, but it's okay, you've done a good amount of work. There are 3 patches in total: 2 for tcp_user_timeout parameter, 1 for socket_timeout. A. TCP_USER_TIMEOUT Since I've been following the updates, I compiled a summary

Re: Multitenancy optimization

On 29.03.2019 11:06, Hadi Moshayedi wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:40 AM Konstantin Knizhnik mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote: Certainly it is possible to create multicolumn statistics to notify Postgres about columns correlation. But unfortunately it is not good and wor

Re: SET LOCAL ROLE NO RESET -- sandbox transactions

These seem like much better ideas than mine. :-) Thanks. Did anything ever come of these ideas? Do you have a sense of the level of community support around these ideas? Thanks, Eric On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:23 AM Chapman Flack wrote: > On 3/27/19 2:40 AM, Eric Hanson wrote: > > > What wou

RE: Timeout parameters

Hi all. I found my mistake in backend patch. I modified from + port->keepalives_count = count; to + port->tcp_user_timeout = timeout; in line 113. Sorry for mistake like this again and again... Best regards, - Ryohei Nagaura socket_timeout_v12.patch Descriptio

Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option

Hi, On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:50 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > -* previous time we got a different result. > +* previous time we got a different result.In PERCENTAGE option > there are > +* no bound on the number of output tuples */

Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)

Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:36:24PM +1300, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 11:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I wonder if Mandrill's problem is related to Mailchimp raising the > > freeze_max_age to a point where autovac did not have enough time to > > react with an emergency vacuum

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Here are some comments on v38. On 2019/03/29 12:44, Amit Langote wrote: > Thanks again for the new patch. I'm reading it now and will send comments > later today if I find something. -Assert(rte->rtekind == RTE_RELATION || - rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY); -

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 2019-03-29 09:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-03-29 09:04, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:39:23AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: >>> wow! Congratulations! This was very long way >>> >>> my favorite pg12 feature >> >> So this has been committed, nice! Thanks a lot to a

Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:13:35AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So, we're getting buildfarm failures, only with clang. I can reproduce > those (with clang). Indeed, I can reproduce the failures using -O2 with clang. I am wondering if we are not missing a volatile flag somewhere and that some

Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

On 2019-03-29 01:09, Thomas Munro wrote: >> I would like to fix these problems and commit the patch. First, I'm >> going to go and do some project-style tidying, write some proposed doc >> tweaks, and retest these switches on the machine where I saw >> beneficial effects from the patch before. I'

Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 00:06, Andres Freund wrote: > Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary. > > Previously the xid horizon was only computed during WAL replay. This commit message was quite confusing. It took me a while to realize this relates to btree index deletes and tha

Re: propagating replica identity to partitions

On 2019-03-28 17:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thanks, Michael and Peter, for responding; however there is a second > part to the question, which is "should I change the recursivity of > REPLICA IDENTITY, while not simultaneously changing the recusivity of > the TABLESPACE and OWNER TO forms of ALTER

Re: propagating replica identity to partitions

On 2019-03-28 18:16, Simon Riggs wrote: > SET TABLESPACE should not recurse because it copies the data, while > holding long locks. If that was ever fixed so it happened concurrently, > I would agree this could recurse by default. Since a partitioned table has no storage, what is the meaning of mo

Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid

On Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:16 AM, Noah Misch wrote: This patch is not really in my wheelhouse, so I might very well be testing it in the wrong way, but whats the fun in staying in shallow end. Below is my attempt at reviewing this patchset. Both patches applies with a little bit of fuzz, and p

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

On 2019-03-28 02:43, Jeff Janes wrote: > At first blush I thought it was obvious that you would not want to run > analyze-in-stages in parallel.  But after thinking about it some more > and reflecting on experience doing some troublesome upgrades, I would > reverse that and say it is now obvious yo

Re: propagating replica identity to partitions

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 09:51, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-03-28 18:16, Simon Riggs wrote: > > SET TABLESPACE should not recurse because it copies the data, while > > holding long locks. If that was ever fixed so it happened concurrently, > > I would agree

Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions

On 2019-03-26 03:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > Do we really want to extend the replication protocol to control that? Perhaps we are losing sight of the original problem, which is that if you create the target directory with the wrong permissions then ... it has the wrong permissions. And you are f

Re: Log a sample of transactions

On 3/29/19 3:06 AM, Kuroda, Hayato wrote: Dear Adrien, Hello Kuroda-san, I understood the cost of randomizing is very low. Maybe it's OK.. I'll change the status to "Ready For Committer." Thanks, I hope it will be commited in PG12 as the feature is closed to log_statement_sample_rate.

Re: Enable data checksums by default

Am Dienstag, den 26.03.2019, 16:14 +0100 schrieb Christoph Berg: > select 92551.0/97363; > 0.9506 > > So the cost is 5% in this very contrived case. In almost any other > setting, the cost would be lower, I'd think. Well, my machine (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6770HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz, 32 GByte RAM) tells

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

Hi Robert, On 3/20/19 5:08 PM, David Steele wrote: I'll revise the patch if Peter thinks this approach looks reasonable. Hopefully Peter's silence can be interpreted as consent. Probably just busy, though. I used your suggestions with minor editing. After some reflection, I agree that t

table_privileges view always show object owner as a grantor

Hi All, I noticed that irrespective of whoever grants privileges on an object, it's always the object owner who is seen as a grantor in the output of table_privileges view. As an example, consider the following case. create user u1; create user u2 with superuser; create user u3; \c postgres u1 c

Re: Re: log bind parameter values on error

Hi Alexey, On 3/14/19 12:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Meanwhile, I have committed a patch that refactors the ParamListInfo initialization a bit, so you don't have to initialize hasTextValues in a bunch of places unrelated to your core code. So please rebase your patch on that. It's been tw

Re: Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications

Hi Pierre, On 3/18/19 8:13 PM, Joe Conway wrote: I have no idea what the other entry is all about as I have not had the time to look. There doesn't seem to be consensus on your patch, either -- I'm planning to mark it rejected at the end of the CF unless you have a new patch for considerati

Re: pg_ctl on windows can't open postmaster.pid: Permission denied

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:01 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Buildfarm animal thrips just failed with a curious error: > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=thrips&dt=2017-12-13%2002%3A27%3A27 > > > > ===

Re: Enable data checksums by default

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:38 AM Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Ants Aasma 2019-03-27 < > ca+csw_twxdrzdn2xsszbxej63dez+f6_hs3qf7hmxfenxsq...@mail.gmail.com> > > Can you try with postgres compiled with CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native"? > There's > > a bit of low hanging fruit there to use a runtime CPU ch

Inconsistencies in the behavior of CHR() function in PG.

Hi All, While trying to explore on CHR() function in PG, I found that few of the ASCII values are returning hex number values(like '\x08', '\x0B') and few are executing within SQL (i.e. chr(9) => Horizontal tab, chr(10) => Line feed) as below example. postgres=# select 1|| chr(8)|| 2 || chr(9)||

Re: Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions

On 3/26/19 3:59 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: I am really questioning if we should keep this stuff isolated within pg_basebackup or not.  At the same time, it may be confusing to have BASE_BACKUP only use the permissions inherited from the data directory, so some input from folks mai

fsync error handling in pg_receivewal, pg_recvlogical

Do we need to review the fsync error handling in pg_receivewal and pg_recvlogical, following the recent backend changes? The current default behavior is that these tools will log fsync errors and then reconnect and proceed with the next data streaming in. As a result, you might then have some fil

Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 10:15:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > I am adding an open item about that. I think I could commit the > patch, but I need to study it a bit more first. So, coming back to this thread, and studying the problem again, it looks that the diagnostic that a non-aggressive,

Re: Inconsistencies in the behavior of CHR() function in PG.

Re: Prabhat Sahu 2019-03-29 > While trying to explore on CHR() function in PG, > I found that few of the ASCII values are returning hex number values(like > '\x08', '\x0B') > and few are executing within SQL (i.e. chr(9) => Horizontal tab, chr(10) > => Line feed) as below example. That's not a

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 2019-03-20 14:42, Magnus Hagander wrote: > But that would be factually incorrect and backwards, so it seems like a > terrible idea, at least when it comes to manual. If you are doing it > manually, it's a lot *easier* to do it right with the non-exclusive > mode, because you can easily keep one

Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()?

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:49 PM David Rowley wrote: > Yeah, analyze, not vacuum. It is a bit scary to add new ways for > auto-vacuum to suddenly have a lot of work to do. When all workers > are busy it can lead to neglect of other duties. It's true that there > won't be much in the way of routi

Re: [GSoC 2019] Proposal: Develop Performance Farm Database and Website

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:10 AM Ila B. wrote: > I am Ilaria Battiston, an aspiring GSoC student, and I would love to have a > feedback on the first draft of my Google Summer of Code proposal. The project > is "Develop Performance Farm Database and Website”. You can find any other > detail in th

Re: Online verification of checksums

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Tomas Vondra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > >> I agree that the current patch might have some corner-cases where it > >> does not guarantee 100% accuracy in

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:27 AM David Steele wrote: > I used your suggestions with minor editing. After some reflection, I > agree that the inline warnings are likely to be more effective than > something at the end, at least for those working on a new implementation. I'm glad we could agree on

[PG 9.6]make is failing for test_decoding contrib module.

Hi, Found by one of the my colleague - Kashif Jeeshan ,  in PG 9.6 - make is failing for test_decoding contrib module. [centos@centos-cpula test_decoding]$ make gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-sec

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:19 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:27 AM David Steele wrote: > > I used your suggestions with minor editing. After some reflection, I > > agree that the inline warnings are likely to be more effective than > > something at the end, at least for those

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > You're right, the previous patches are wrong. Attached the updated > version patches. 0001 looks good now. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 2019-03-29 11:27, David Steele wrote: >> I'll revise the patch if Peter thinks this approach looks reasonable. > > Hopefully Peter's silence can be interpreted as consent. Probably just > busy, though. > > I used your suggestions with minor editing. After some reflection, I > agree that th

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 3/29/19 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 2019-03-20 14:42, Magnus Hagander wrote: But that would be factually incorrect and backwards, so it seems like a terrible idea, at least when it comes to manual. If you are doing it manually, it's a lot *easier* to do it right with the non-exclusiv

Re: House style for DocBook documentation?

On 2019-03-08 15:38, Chapman Flack wrote: > Perhaps: > > o For an internal link, use if you will supply text, else > o For an external link, use with or without link text I have pushed an update to this effect. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Develop

Re: [PG 9.6]make is failing for test_decoding contrib module.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:24 AM tushar wrote: > Found by one of the my colleague - Kashif Jeeshan , in PG 9.6 - make is Kashif Jeeshan? > failing for test_decoding contrib module. > > [centos@centos-cpula test_decoding]$ make > gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith > -Wdeclaration-afte

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 3/29/19 12:25 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:19 PM Robert Haas > wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:27 AM David Steele mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > I used your suggestions with minor editing.  After some reflection, I >

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:45 AM David Steele wrote: > Are we planning to back-patch this? The deprecation was added to the > docs in 9.6 -- I think these clarifications would be helpful. I wasn't planning too, but I guess we could consider it. I'd be more inclined to back-patch the documentatio

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 3/29/19 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:45 AM David Steele wrote: Are we planning to back-patch this? The deprecation was added to the docs in 9.6 -- I think these clarifications would be helpful. I wasn't planning too, but I guess we could consider it. I'd be more

Re: [GSoC 2019] Proposal: Develop Performance Farm Database and Website

On 2019-03-29 13:04, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:10 AM Ila B. wrote: >> I am Ilaria Battiston, an aspiring GSoC student, and I would love to have a >> feedback on the first draft of my Google Summer of Code proposal. The >> project is "Develop Performance Farm Database and Web

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:49 PM David Steele wrote: > On 3/29/19 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:45 AM David Steele > wrote: > >> Are we planning to back-patch this? The deprecation was added to the > >> docs in 9.6 -- I think these clarifications would be helpful. >

Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation

On 2019-03-29 13:54, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is the changes to the messages going to cause issues or weirdness for > translators? That would be a reason not to backpatch it. Without that, > I'm leaning towards backpatching it. Note that the messages refer to recovery.signal, so a backpatch would

Re: fsync error handling in pg_receivewal, pg_recvlogical

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:48:09PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Do we need to review the fsync error handling in pg_receivewal and > pg_recvlogical, following the recent backend changes? The current > default behavior is that these tools will log fsync errors and then > reconnect and proceed w

Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

On 3/29/19 7:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 10:15:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I am adding an open item about that. I think I could commit the >> patch, but I need to study it a bit more first. > So, coming back to this thread, and studying the problem again, it

Re: jsonpath

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:43 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 3/28/19 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > >> On March 28, 2019 9:31:14 AM EDT, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Has anybody gotten through a valgrind run on this code yet? > >> Skink has successfully passed since - but that's x86

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:28 PM Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > You're right, the previous patches are wrong. Attached the updated > > version patches. > > 0001 looks good now. Committed. > Thank you! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TEL

Re: [PG 9.6]make is failing for test_decoding contrib module.

On 03/29/2019 06:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:24 AM tushar wrote: Found by one of the my colleague - Kashif Jeeshan , in PG 9.6 - make is Kashif Jeeshan? :-) , actually he is also working  on logical replication on standbys testing - whenever he has some bandwidth (On/

Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:16 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached updated patches. These patches are applied on top of 0001 > patch on parallel vacuum thread[1]. +bool index_cleanup = true; /* by default */ I think we should instead initialize index_cleanup to the reloption value, if there

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:58 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > constraint is dropped. I can only think of ugly data structure to > support this, and adding enough hooks in dependency.c to support this is > going to be badly received. I don't know why dependency.c doesn't handle this internally. If I

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I ended up revising the dependencies that we give to the constraint in > the partition -- instead of giving it partition-type dependencies, we > give it an INTERNAL dependency. Now when you request to drop the > partition, it says this: > >

Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> I am not sure that "checksum status" is a correct term. It seems to >> me that "same configuration for data checksums as before the tool ran" >> or something like that would be more correct. > > Possibly, I cannot say. I have put

Re: [GSoC 2019] Proposal: Develop Performance Farm Database and Website

Hello, Thanks for the answer. This project is on the official PostgreSQL project list of GSoC 2019, and potential mentors are stated there. I trust mentors’ judgement on outlining the work and the tasks to be done in three months, and there is the previous student’s work to use as example if

Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:11:47AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > +                (errmsg_internal("found vacuum to prevent wraparound of > table \"%s.%s.%s\" to be not aggressive, so skipping", > > This might convey something to hackers, but I doubt it will convey much > to regular users. Perhap

Re: Enable data checksums by default

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:16:11AM +0100, Bernd Helmle wrote: > So between ~7% to 18% impact with checksums in this specific case here. I can't really believe that many people set up shared_buffers at 128kB which would cause such a large number of page evictions, but I can believe that many users

Re: table_privileges view always show object owner as a grantor

Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > I noticed that irrespective of whoever grants privileges on an object, > it's always the object owner who is seen as a grantor in the output of > table_privileges view. > Isn't that a wrong information ? If > incase that isn't wrong then may i k

Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

On 2019-Mar-29, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:11:47AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > +                (errmsg_internal("found vacuum to prevent wraparound of > > table \"%s.%s.%s\" to be not aggressive, so skipping", > > > > This might convey something to hackers, but I do

Re: pg_ctl on windows can't open postmaster.pid: Permission denied

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 12:13:23AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > This is probably a stupid question, but after commit 0ba06e0, > shouldn't pg_ctl.c have fopen defined as pgwin32_fopen by port.h, > because it was included by c.h, because it was included by > postgres_fe.h? Yeah, normally pg_ctl shou

Re: [PG 9.6]make is failing for test_decoding contrib module.

On 03/29/2019 06:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Kashif Jeeshan? Ohh, Please read - Kashif Zeeshan.  Sorry for the typo. -- regards,tushar EnterpriseDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/ The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

unsuscribe

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

On 2019-Mar-29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:58 AM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > constraint is dropped. I can only think of ugly data structure to > > support this, and adding enough hooks in dependency.c to support this is > > going to be badly received. > > I don't know why d

Re: PostgreSQL pollutes the file system

I think that would be amazing! It would be great! On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:01 AM Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Andreas Karlsson writes: > >> On 3/27/19 3:26 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>> That is true, of course. But are there actual examples of such conflicts > >>> in practice? I mean, are there to

clean up pg_checksums.sgml

PFA patch with minor improvements to documentation. Also, what do you think about changing user-facing language from "check checksum" to "verify checksum" ? I see that commit ed308d78 actually moved in the other direction, but I preferred "verify". >From d8e627cf340e5384d59ab4fc3f3d0b4891a5b1c0 M

Re: table_privileges view always show object owner as a grantor

Laurenz Albe writes: > Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> I noticed that irrespective of whoever grants privileges on an object, >> it's always the object owner who is seen as a grantor in the output of >> table_privileges view. The above is demonstrably false ... regression=# create user alice; CREATE R

Re: log bind parameter values on error

Hello and sorry for weeks of silence. Hello Anders and Peter, Thanks for your messages. Please see the new patch version attached. In my testing, I couldn't get this patch to do anything. Could you please share your testing steps? Sure. Provided you're in the postgres checkout and you've ru

Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]

I just noticed that the CLUSTER calls index_build, which my patch modifies to include additional progress metrics; this means that during the index build phase, the metrics set by CLUSTER will be trashed by the ones my patch introduces. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com

Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]

Hi, On 2019-03-29 12:02:18 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I just noticed that the CLUSTER calls index_build, which my patch > modifies to include additional progress metrics; this means that during > the index build phase, the metrics set by CLUSTER will be trashed by the > ones my patch introduce

RE: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

Hi hackers, I tried this great feature for partition index. The first time the REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY statement is executed to the partition, then an error occurs. The second run succeeds but leaves an index with an INVALID status. I think this is not the desired behaviour. # TEST postgres

Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]

On 2019-Mar-29, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I just noticed that the CLUSTER calls index_build, which my patch > modifies to include additional progress metrics; this means that during > the index build phase, the metrics set by CLUSTER will be trashed by the > ones my patch introduces. Indeed: pid

Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]

On 2019-Mar-29, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-03-29 12:02:18 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I just noticed that the CLUSTER calls index_build, which my patch > > modifies to include additional progress metrics; this means that during > > the index build phase, the metrics set by CLUSTE

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 3/28/19 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I ended up revising the dependencies that we give to the constraint in the partition -- instead of giving it partition-type dependencies, we give it an INTERNAL dependency. Now when you request to drop the partition, it says this: create tab

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

On 2019-Mar-29, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Could expand a bit on the change to DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL instead of > DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_PRI / DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_SEC ? The PARTITION dependencies work in a way that doesn't do what we want. Admittedly, neither does INTERNAL, but at least it's less bad.

Re: PostgreSQL pollutes the file system

Re: Tatsuo Ishii 2019-03-29 <20190329.100407.1159785913847835944.t-is...@sraoss.co.jp> > If we were to invent new command names, what about doing similar to > git? I mean something like: > > pgsql createdb That is pretty close to "psql" and it will be utterly confusing for new users. And ev

Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary.

Hi, On 2019-03-29 09:37:11 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > This commit message was quite confusing. It took me a while to realize this > relates to btree index deletes and that what you mean is that we are > calculcating the latestRemovedXid for index entries. That is related to but > not same thing a

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Amit Langote writes: > Here are some comments on v38. Thanks for looking it over! I'll just reply to points worth discussing: > -Assert(rte->rtekind == RTE_RELATION || > - rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY); > -add_appendrel_other_rels(root, rel, rti); > +

Re: Online verification of checksums

Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > >> I agree that the current patch mig

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 3/29/19 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Mar-29, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Could expand a bit on the change to DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL instead of DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_PRI / DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_SEC ? The PARTITION dependencies work in a way that doesn't do what we want. Admittedly, ne

Re: Online verification of checksums

Hi, On 2019-03-29 11:30:15 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:19 PM Tomas Vondra > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:11:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >On 2019-03-28 21:09:22 +0100, Michael

Re: table_privileges view always show object owner as a grantor

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:15 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Laurenz Albe writes: > > Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > >> I noticed that irrespective of whoever grants privileges on an object, > >> it's always the object owner who is seen as a grantor in the output of > >> table_privileges view. > > The above is

  1   2   >