Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

Simon Riggs wrote: The most consistent negative feedback I receive about Postgres is that we make minor changes from release to release that make it extremely difficult to upgrade without re-testing the applications. So we write great software, then make it difficult for people to upgrade to it.

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer writes: >> As far as I can tell, the community feels interested in the >> feature set; but relatively unable to contribute since none >> of the people have that much of a security background. It >> seems the best way to fix that would be to get more people >> with a se

[HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1710)

Heikki, it is the list of updated patches: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-core-8.4devel-r1710.patch http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-utils-8.4devel-r1710.patch http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-policy-8.4devel-r1710.patch http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgs

Re: [HACKERS] V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4

that from the previous patch version. >> >> Oh, sorry for the mistake. I changed one of Suzuki-san's patches >> to be rebased to HEAD again (readahead-20090310.patch). >> The other (addShBufCheck-20090120.patch) is not changed. >> >> Comment: >> we migh

Re: [HACKERS] Sampling Profler for Postgres

"Dickson S. Guedes" wrote: > > > 2) I couldn't find a clear way to disable it. There is one in this patch > > > or are you planning this to future? > > > > Ah, I forgot sampling should be disabled when track_activities is off. > > I'll fix it in the next patch. Also, I'd better measure overhead

Re: [HACKERS] About the new %sdt macro in F-11 package

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> As of CVS HEAD, I see that we got rid of that, and pg_trace.h is now > >> included only by the .c files that actually need it. ISTM that we > >> should make 8.3 do likewise. > > > Here's a patch for this. > > Oh, thanks, I was ju

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Hannu Krosing wrote: >> If we compile it with --enable-selinux, it has two working modes >> controled by a guc option: sepostgresql (bool). >> If it is disabled, all the sepgsql() invocations returns at >> the head of themself without doing anything. >> >> I believe this behavior follows the pr

Re: [HACKERS] About the new %sdt macro in F-11 package

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> As of CVS HEAD, I see that we got rid of that, and pg_trace.h is now >> included only by the .c files that actually need it. ISTM that we >> should make 8.3 do likewise. > Here's a patch for this. Oh, thanks, I was just about to go off and do that mys

Re: [HACKERS] About the new %sdt macro in F-11 package

Tom Lane wrote: > As of CVS HEAD, I see that we got rid of that, and pg_trace.h is now > included only by the .c files that actually need it. ISTM that we > should make 8.3 do likewise. Here's a patch for this. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ Post

Re: [HACKERS] About the new %sdt macro in F-11 package

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= writes: > I was trying to make a scratch build in Koji for orafce package, and it > failed: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1235602&name=build.log > I consulted #fedora-devel @ Freenode, and the conclusion was this: > devrimgunduz: the dev

Re: [HACKERS] parallel restore fixes

Andrew Dunstan writes: > OK, here 'tis. Looks fairly reasonable to me, but of course I haven't tested it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgs

Re: [HACKERS] parallel restore fixes

Tom Lane wrote: How about this: by default, fmtId uses the same logic as now (one static PQExpBuffer). If told to by a call of init_parallel_dump_utils(), which need only be called by pg_restore during its startup, then it switches to using per-thread storage. init_parallel_dump_utils can be

Re: [HACKERS] libxml incompatibility

Andrew Dunstan writes: > David Lee Lambert wrote: >> Is it supposed to be OK to call xmlCheckVersion() more than once? > You are certainly not supposed to call xmlInitParser more than once - > see No, what that says is that it can't be

Re: [HACKERS] problem inserting in GIN index

Emanuel Calvo Franco escribió: > 2009/3/10 Teodor Sigaev : > >> Apparently there's a crash involved ... > > > > Are other indexes on that table broken? ( Just count(*) with only index scan > > enabled ) > Yes, there are some btree indexes broken. > Alvaro asked him if the option fsync is off. We

Re: [HACKERS] Sampling Profler for Postgres

Hi! Tom Lane writes: > I'm not at all convinced that we should be putting effort into a > homegrown, partial substitute for DTrace. In my opinion providing DTrace as the only means of profiling would except a number of users from the tuning benefits. DTrace seems to rely on specific kernel opti

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:44 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > We would do the same thing with SE-Postgres. No, no. I already experienced this with --integer-datetimes sets, and I don't ever want to maintain another set. It is horrible. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Ron Mayer writes: > As far as I can tell, the community feels interested in the > feature set; but relatively unable to contribute since none > of the people have that much of a security background. It > seems the best way to fix that would be to get more people > with a security background more

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Which is exactly why we have two types of RPMS, --integer-datetimes > and > > not. > > Maybe Devrim is doing that, but nobody else is. It is only available *if* yum repo conf file is specially configured and if the distro is Fedora 10 an

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> You're just putting the hard decision onto packagers, who have no more > >> knowledge than you do about what their users want, and (probably) > >> considerably

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> You're just putting the hard decision onto packagers, who have no more >> knowledge than you do about what their users want, and (probably) >> considerably less understanding of the benefits/risks of some new >> conf

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> It was said upthread that SEPostgres is already packaged for Fedora. > > You're just putting the hard decision onto packagers, who have no more > knowl

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 10:49 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > It was said upthread that SEPostgres is already packaged for Fedora. > > Yes for but not by, AFAIK it is not actually included with Fedora. It is, with the names "sepostgresql*". > Essentially it is packaged like the PGSQLRPMS are pa

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >> I know we are a little uncomfortable here but KaiGai-San (forgive me if >> I type that wrong) has proven to be a contributor in his own right, > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but: no, he hasn't. Show me one > significant patch he's contribute

Re: [HACKERS] problem inserting in GIN index

2009/3/10 Teodor Sigaev : >> Apparently there's a crash involved ... > > Are other indexes on that table broken? ( Just count(*) with only index scan > enabled ) > -- > Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru >                                                   WWW:

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> It was said upthread that SEPostgres is already packaged for Fedora. > Yes for but not by, AFAIK it is not actually included with Fedora. "Included with Fedora" is an extremely loose concept. You can get it

Re: [HACKERS] problem inserting in GIN index

Apparently there's a crash involved ... Are other indexes on that table broken? ( Just count(*) with only index scan enabled ) -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] problem inserting in GIN index

A guy just reported on pgsql-es-ayuda that he's getting ERROR: item pointer (543108,2) already exists It will be fine to get test case... Apparently this message only occurs on GIN, in insertItemPointer Reading that routine I can

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake escribió: > > > Yes but I am also offering an opportunity for others to show up. Which > > denying the patch does not do. If we provide SE support (even with > > marking it experimental), I would wager that some Linux distr

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Joshua D. Drake escribió: > Yes but I am also offering an opportunity for others to show up. Which > denying the patch does not do. If we provide SE support (even with > marking it experimental), I would wager that some Linux distributions > would begin to test it themselves which would allow us i

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Other than some experiments in getting it to load on 8.2, there hasn't > been any serious work done on it since May 2005, which is when it was > presented (and shot down) on -hackers. If memory serves (and it may not - I'm practically brain

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 13:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > I think you misunderstand me. I have watched this thread very closely > > because it has specific strategic interest. For the record: > > > * This patch does scare me > > * With great risk comes great reward > >

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

> "Joshua" == Joshua D Drake writes: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 15:02 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Yeh Andrew said. That I never noticed in the last 3+ years makes >> me think there's not many people using it... The fact that it never got beyond an early incomplete alpha version is a big fac

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > I think you misunderstand me. I have watched this thread very closely > because it has specific strategic interest. For the record: > * This patch does scare me > * With great risk comes great reward ... or great failure. My key concern is that we are setting ourse

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 15:02 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 07:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > > Would it be better to publish them as an external project? > > > > It's been an external project, newsysviews, since before 8.1 came out. > > I think it's time to bring it in fro

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > I know we are a little uncomfortable here but KaiGai-San (forgive me if > > I type that wrong) has proven to be a contributor in his own right, > > Perhaps it would help you calibrate the problem if I stated that

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql.conf: patch to have ParseConfigFile report all parsing errors, then bail

Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 07:30 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote: A thing that could be added, however, is reporting of all invalid (as opposed to valid, but requires a restart to apply) parameters before exiting. This change requires refactoring ProcessConfigFile() more significa

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql.conf: patch to have ParseConfigFile report all parsing errors, then bail

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 07:30 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > > Is it possible to check for parameters that have been changed, yet will > > not be applied at reload? > > This was already implemented! :) For example: > > LOG: attempted change of parameter "shared_buffers" ignored > DETAIL: Thi

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 07:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > Would it be better to publish them as an external project? > > It's been an external project, newsysviews, since before 8.1 came out. > I think it's time to bring it in from the cold. Call the new schema > pg_sysviews, plop it in there,

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:02:05PM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Please wait for a while. With all due respect to your hard work, waiting for this patch, even one more hour, is exactly what we shouldn't do for 8.4. Sad as it is, even if this patch were causing no controversy in its design, it woul

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql.conf: patch to have ParseConfigFile report all parsing errors, then bail

Hi! Simon Riggs wrote: On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 16:27 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote: ParseConfigFile currently exits on the first parsing error. Changed guc_file.l to report all parsing errors before exiting: * Moved parse_error: block inside while() loop * Removed cleanup_exit: and associated 'g

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:46:28AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:27 +, Andrew Gierth wrote: > > > Now, of course, counting the upcoming 8.4 there have been three (and a > > bit - the original design predates 8.1, though it did anticipate some > > 8.1 features) new rel

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

> "Simon" == Simon Riggs writes: >> Now, of course, counting the upcoming 8.4 there have been three >> (and a bit - the original design predates 8.1, though it did >> anticipate some 8.1 features) new releases against which the >> original concept can be tested. And, guess what, nothing i

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > If we drop the goal of trying to restrict what a superuser can do, is > the patch still useful? > One idea is to add a single "is superuser" permission to sepgsql. The agreement back in January was that what we'd consider for 8.4 is a patch that adds SELinux-driven

Re: [HACKERS] Sampling Profler for Postgres

Simon Riggs writes: > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not at all convinced that we should be putting effort into a >> homegrown, partial substitute for DTrace. > I was, but I'm not anymore. > Do you think we will be able to enable this in builds for 8.4? The bugzilla e

Re: [HACKERS] V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4

again (readahead-20090310.patch). The other (addShBufCheck-20090120.patch) is not changed. Comment: we might reach consistent recovery state *before* redoing the safe starting point, because readahead slightly delays the actual redo. Is this safe? No. If you haven't replayed all the WAL records

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

KaiGai Kohei writes: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> If we drop the goal of trying to restrict what a superuser can do, is the >> patch still useful? > > I want to keep permission checks on files specified by users, because > the "superuser" permission affects very wide scope, and all or nothing >

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: This seems to be a recurring theme with this patch. We stripped row-level permissions, now we have SET/SHOW and the "function installation" permissions. And the read/write file permissions. To make progress, we need to consider each new feature like that separately, as

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Stephen Frost wrote: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: KaiGai Kohei wrote: As I promised last week, SE-PostgreSQL patches are revised here: The patch adds permission checks to SET/SHOW. If that's useful functionality, it would be nice to see that as a separate

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

Hannu Krosing wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:56 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: > ... >>> Is there any possibility of having it be enabled at compile time? The >>> default would be know but those distributions that would like to make >>> use of it could? >> It was the design

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql.conf: patch to have ParseConfigFile report all parsing errors, then bail

On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 16:27 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > ParseConfigFile currently exits on the first parsing error. Changed > guc_file.l to report all parsing errors before exiting: > * Moved parse_error: block inside while() loop > * Removed cleanup_exit: and associated 'goto' > * Added er

Re: [HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:56 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: ... > > Is there any possibility of having it be enabled at compile time? The > > default would be know but those distributions that would like to make > > use of it could? > > It was the design a half year ago, but Br

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:27 +, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Now, of course, counting the upcoming 8.4 there have been three (and a > bit - the original design predates 8.1, though it did anticipate some > 8.1 features) new releases against which the original concept can be > tested. And, guess what

Re: [HACKERS] One less footgun: deprecating pg_dump -d

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:02 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> "Kevin Grittner" writes: > >> > >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > but maybe it's better to use -i and -I, and thus change them both? > > >> > >> > >>> That's already u

Re: [HACKERS] Sampling Profler for Postgres

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > ITAGAKI Takahiro writes: > > For resource-based profilers, we have DTrace probes[1] and continue to > > extend them[2], but unfortunately DTrace only works on Solaris and limited > > platforms. > > FWIW, the systemtap guys are really, really c

Re: [HACKERS] Prepping to break every past release...

On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:32 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Something that continues to grind my teeth about our software is that we > are horribly inconsistent with our system catalogs. Now I am fully and > 100% aware that changing this will break things in user land but I want > to do it anyway

Re: [HACKERS] One less footgun: deprecating pg_dump -d

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 09:02:01PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> "Kevin Grittner" writes: > >> > >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > but maybe it's better to use -i and -I, and thus change them both? > >> > >>> That's already used: > >> > >