Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

Hi Pavel, I have reviewed your patch. Patch looks excellent and code changes match with similar constructs elsewhere. That's great. However, it was not applying with git apply command but able to apply it with patch -p1 with some offsets. make and make install was smooth too. Regression suite di

[HACKERS] System catalog bloat removing safety

Hi all, How safe is it to use the technique described by the link below with system catalog tables to remove bloat? (in a couple of words it is about moving tuples to the beginning of the table with a special way of updating) http://www.depesz.com/2010/10/17/reduce-bloat-of-table-without-longexc

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I agree that unpredictable deadlocks are bad. I think the fundamental >> problem with UPSERT, MERGE, and this proposal is what happens when the >> conflicting tuple is present but not visible to your scan, either >> because it hasn't commit

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

>> >You seem to have forgotten to include the pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql >> >and pg_stat_statements--1.1--1.2.sql in the patch. >> Sorry again. Please find updated patch attached. I did not add pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql. I have added that now and updated the patch again. The patch attached sho

[HACKERS] Patch for typo in src/bin/psql/command.c

Attached. Regards Ian Barwick psql-command-c-typo.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sawada Masahiko >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: I set up synchronous replication with synchronous_transfer

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sawada Masahiko > wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> I set up synchronous replication with synchronous_transfer = all, and then >>> I ran >>> pgbench -i and executed CHECKPOI

Re: [HACKERS] Minor inheritance/check bug: Inconsistent behavior

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Hi Amit. > > I gone through the mail thread discussion regarding this issue and reviewed > you patch. > > -- Patch get applied cleanly on Master branch > -- Make and Make Install fine > -- make check also running cleanly > > In the patch cod

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> I set up synchronous replication with synchronous_transfer = all, and then I >> ran >> pgbench -i and executed CHECKPOINT in the master. After that, when I executed >> CHECKPOINT in

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Samrat Revagade > wrote: >> >>> > syncrep.c: In function ‘SyncRepReleaseWaiters’: >>> > syncrep.c:421:6: warning: variable ‘numdataflush’ set but not used >>> > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >>> > >>> >>> Sorry I

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

On 2013-09-17 12:29:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > But I'm skeptical that you're going to be able to accomplish that, > especially without adversely affecting maintainability. I think the > way that you're proposing to use lwlocks here is sufficiently > different from what the rest of the system d

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names

Hi, On 2013-09-17 16:24:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > On 2013-09-17 10:23:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> What is the use case for this change? > > > > Check > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130225213400.GF3849%40awo

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2013-09-17 16:34:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > Actually, the shared inval code already has that knowledge, doesn't it? > > ISTM all we'd need is have a "sequence number" of SI entries which has > > to be queryable. Then one can simp

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans

On 2013-09-17 11:37:35 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/7/13 12:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >What I was thinking of was to keep track of the oldest xids on pages > >that cannot be marked all visible. I haven't thought about the > >statistics part much, but what if we binned the space between > >[Re

Re: [HACKERS] Updatable view columns

On 2013-09-17 12:53, Dean Rasheed wrote: Thanks for the review. Those changes all look sensible to me. Here's an updated patch incorporating all your fixes, and rebased to apply without offsets. Looks good to me. Marking this one ready for committer. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja -- Sent via pg

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

Erik Rijkers wrote: > On Tue, September 17, 2013 23:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > [minmax-1.patch. + minmax-2-incr.patch. (and initdb)] > > > The patches apply and compile OK. > > I've not yet really tested; I just wanted to mention that make check gives > the following differences: Oops,

Re: [HACKERS] Assertions in PL/PgSQL

On 2013-09-16 21:24, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2. a failed assert should to raise a exception, that should not be handled by any exception handler - similar to ERRCODE_QUERY_CANCELED - see exception_matches_conditions. I'm not sure what I think about that idea. I see decent arguments for it workin

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

Thom Brown wrote: > Hit another issue with exactly the same procedure: > > pgbench=# create index minmaxtest on pgbench_accounts using minmax (aid); > ERROR: lock 176475 is not held That's what I get for restructuring the way buffers are acquired to use the FSM, and then neglecting to test crea

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-08-29 10:39:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I have been of the opinion for some time now that the >> shared-invalidation code is not a particularly good design for much of >> what we need. Waiting for an old snapshot is often a prox

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On Tue, September 17, 2013 23:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > [minmax-1.patch. + minmax-2-incr.patch. (and initdb)] The patches apply and compile OK. I've not yet really tested; I just wanted to mention that make check gives the following differences: *** /home/aardvark/pg_stuff/pg_sandbox/p

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

Thom Brown wrote: Thanks for testing. > Thanks for the patch, but I seem to have immediately hit a snag: > > pgbench=# CREATE INDEX minmaxtest ON pgbench_accounts USING minmax (aid); > PANIC: invalid xlog record length 0 Silly mistake I had already made in another patch. Here's an incremental

Re: [HACKERS] relscan_details.h

Robert Haas escribió: > Personally, I'm not particularly in favor of these kinds of changes. > The changes we made last time broke a lot of extensions - including > some proprietary EDB ones that I had to go fix. I think a lot of > people spent a lot of time fixing broken builds, at EDB and elsew

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On 17 September 2013 22:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thom Brown wrote: > > Thanks for testing. > > > Thanks for the patch, but I seem to have immediately hit a snag: > > > > pgbench=# CREATE INDEX minmaxtest ON pgbench_accounts USING minmax (aid); > > PANIC: invalid xlog record length 0 > > Silly

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-17 10:23:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund >> wrote: >> >> a) allow repeatedly qualified names like a.b.c >> > >> > The attached patch does a) >> >> What is the use case for this chan

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql.print_strict_params

Hi, Attached is a patch with the following changes: On 16/09/2013 10:57, I wrote: On 9/16/13 8:04 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote: However the sample function provided in the documentation throws a runtime error due to a missing FROM-clause entry. Ugh. I'll look into fixing that. Fixed.

Re: [HACKERS] relscan_details.h

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> -1 on header restructuring in the absence of noteworthy compile-time >> benchmark >> improvements. Besides the obvious benchmark of full-build time, one could >> exercise the benefit of fewer header dependencies by modelling the series of

Re: [HACKERS] patch: add MAP_HUGETLB to mmap() where supported (WIP)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Robert, do you remember why you put the "pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);" > call in the new mmap() shared memory allocator? Hmm, no. Unfortunately, I don't. We could try ripping it out and see if the buildfarm breaks. If it is need

Re: [HACKERS] relscan_details.h

Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:02:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > relscan.h is a bit of an unfortunate header because it requires a lot of > > other headers to compile, and is also required by execnodes.h. This > > Not in my copy of the source tree. execnodes.h uses the cor

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)

> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes: >> Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so >> that building with -Werror works. Robert> I don't get a warning there. Can you be more specific about Robert> the problem? bgworker.c: In function 'WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup': b

Re: [HACKERS] Freezing without write I/O

Heikki Linnakangas escribió: > Here's a rebased version of the patch, including the above-mentioned > fixes. Nothing else new. Nice work. I apologize for the conflicts I created yesterday. I would suggest renaming varsup_internal.h to varsup_xlog.h. You added a FIXME comment to HeapTupleHeader

Re: [HACKERS] relscan_details.h

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:02:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > relscan.h is a bit of an unfortunate header because it requires a lot of > other headers to compile, and is also required by execnodes.h. This Not in my copy of the source tree. execnodes.h uses the corresponding typedefs that app

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans

On 9/7/13 12:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote: What I was thinking of was to keep track of the oldest xids on pages that cannot be marked all visible. I haven't thought about the statistics part much, but what if we binned the space between [RecentGlobalXmin, ->nextXid) into 10 bins and counted the num

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Note that today there is no guarantee that the original waiter for a > duplicate-inserting xact to complete will be the first one to get a > second chance, so I think it's hard to question this on correctness > grounds. Even if they are rel

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 17 September 2013 14:37, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Thom Brown wrote: >> > On 17 September 2013 07:20, Jaime Casanova >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> > On

Re: [HACKERS] pg_system_identifier()

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-17 10:57:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: >> > How about adding new system view with new function which returns >> > a single pg_controldata value in text type, and using a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:48 PM, samthakur74 wrote: > > > > > >You seem to have forgotten to include the pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql > >and pg_stat_statements--1.1--1.2.sql in the patch. >> >> >> Sorry again. Please find updated patch attached. pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql is missing. Could you c

Re: [HACKERS] pg_system_identifier()

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > How about adding new system view with new function which returns > a single pg_controldata value in text type, and using a cast for > each column in the view definition? > > CREATE VIEW pg_catalog.pg_controldata AS > SELECT pg_controldat

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Is it necessary to rewrite table while increasing the scale of datatype numeric？

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > But note that the current behavior is worse in this regard. If you specify > a scale of 4 at the column level, than it is not possible to distinguish > between 5.000 and 5. on a per-value basis within that column. If the > scale at the col

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

Pavel Stehule escribió: > fixed - see attached patch There's a typo "tange" in some error messages, which has found its way to the regression tests. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hacker

Re: [HACKERS] pg_system_identifier()

On 2013-09-17 10:57:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > How about adding new system view with new function which returns > > a single pg_controldata value in text type, and using a cast for > > each column in the view definition? > > > > CREA

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names

On 2013-09-17 10:23:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> a) allow repeatedly qualified names like a.b.c > > > > The attached patch does a) > > What is the use case for this change? Check http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/2013022521340

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> a) allow repeatedly qualified names like a.b.c > > The attached patch does a) What is the use case for this change? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers ma

Re: [HACKERS] json docs fixup

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > While writing slides for pgopen next week, I noticed that the JSON docs on > json_populate_record and json_populate_recordset contain this sentence: > >A column may only be specified once. > > > IIRC we removed that restriction during d

[HACKERS] output/security_label.source referring to abs_builddir instead of libdir

In make check, there are 4 shared libraries that are loaded for test cases from the src/test/regress folder. Whereas, output of other libraries contain @libdir@ tag, the output file for security_label (dumm_seclabel) contains a tag for @abs_builddir@ in the output/security_label.source file. I bel

Re: [HACKERS] unaccent module - two params function should be immutable

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I have developed the attached patch based on your suggestion. I did not >> see anything in the code that would make it STABLE, except a lookup of a >> dictionary library: >> >> dictOid = get_ts_dict_oid(stringToQualifiedNameList("un

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Peter> Please fix compiler warnings: > > Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so that > building with -Werror works. I don't get a warning there. Can you be more specific about the problem? -- Robert Haas Enterpri

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

Kevin Grittner writes: >   =  equals (but doesn't necessarily look the same as) >   ===    IS NOT DISTINCT FROM as an operator >      reserved for "has no user-visible differences from" >   =  stored image is the same I understand the need for more than one equality operator and my pr

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

>You seem to have forgotten to include the pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql >and pg_stat_statements--1.1--1.2.sql in the patch. > > Sorry again. Please find updated patch attached. > > > > NAML

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

On 9/15/13 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-15 11:20:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Attached you can find the newest version of the logical changeset >>> generation patchset. >> >> You probably have bigger things to worry

Re: [HACKERS] Freezing without write I/O

On 2013-09-17 09:41:47 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/16/13 9:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Here's a rebased version of the patch, including the above-mentioned > > fixes. Nothing else new. > > It still fails to apply. You might need to rebase it again. FWIW, I don't think it's too

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On 17 September 2013 14:37, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > > On 17 September 2013 07:20, Jaime Casanova > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > >> > On 15 September 2013 01:14, Alvaro Herrera > >> > wrote: > >> >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Freezing without write I/O

On 9/16/13 9:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Here's a rebased version of the patch, including the above-mentioned > fixes. Nothing else new. It still fails to apply. You might need to rebase it again. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to y

Re: [HACKERS] New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > (2013/09/10 22:48), Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 9/10/13 3:37 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: >>> Thanks for checking. Revised one attached. >> >> Please fix compiler warning: >> >> walwriter.c: In function ‘WalWriterMain’: >> walwriter.c:29

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 17 September 2013 07:20, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote: >> > On 15 September 2013 01:14, Alvaro Herrera >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Here's a reviewable version of what I've dubbed

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

On 09/17/2013 12:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-16 15:26:08 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> I can understand claiming that the risk is acceptable but arguing >>> it's not there seems extremly strange to me. >> It's not a risk. It's why the operator exists. > Pft. It's fine if the mater

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

On 09/17/2013 02:46 PM, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Kevin Grittner > wrote: > > > Of course, that begs the question of whether == is already "taken". > If not, we could knock one '=' off of everything above except for > "equals". What

Re: [HACKERS] Fix picksplit with nan values

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > > "Alexander" == Alexander Korotkov writes: > > Alexander> 2) NaN coordinates should be processed in GiST index scan > Alexander> like in sequential scan. > > postgres=# select * from pts order by a <-> '(0,0)' limit 10; > a >

Re: [HACKERS] insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype

On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi >>mailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com>> wrote: >>>On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote: >>>postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz); >>>CREATE TABLE >>>-- Date with year 1000 >>>postgres=#

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Samrat Revagade wrote: > >> > syncrep.c: In function ‘SyncRepReleaseWaiters’: >> > syncrep.c:421:6: warning: variable ‘numdataflush’ set but not used >> > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >> > >> >> Sorry I forgot fix it. >> >> I have attached the patch which I modified

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Of course, that begs the question of whether == is already "taken". > If not, we could knock one '=' off of everything above except for > "equals". What existing uses are known for == ? > == is already taken as a common typo in plpgsql

Re: [HACKERS] UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues.

>-Original Message- >From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- >ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of MauMau > >Hello, > >I think it would be nice for PostgreSQL to support national character types >largely because it should ease migration from other DBMSs. > >[Reasons

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-16 15:26:08 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> I can understand claiming that the risk is acceptable but >>> arguing it's not there seems extremly strange to me. >> >> It's not a risk.  It's why the operator exists. > > Pft. It's fine if the materialized view code

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM, samthakur74 wrote: > > >> >You have added this email to the commit fest, but it contains no patch. >> >> >Please add the email with the actual patch. > > I hope its attached now! You seem to have forgotten to include the pg_stat_statements--1.2.sql and pg_stat_st

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add use of asprintf()

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Asif Naeem wrote: > Hi, > > I did put some time review the patch, please see my findings below i.e. > > 1. It seems that you have used strdup() on multiple places in the patch, > e.g. in the below code snippet is it going to lead crash if newp->ident is > NULL bec

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add use of asprintf()

Hi, I did put some time review the patch, please see my findings below i.e. 1. It seems that you have used strdup() on multiple places in the patch, e.g. in the below code snippet is it going to lead crash if newp->ident is NULL because of strdup() failure ? static EPlan * > find_plan(char *iden

Re: [HACKERS] Minor inheritance/check bug: Inconsistent behavior

Hi Amit. I gone through the mail thread discussion regarding this issue and reviewed you patch. -- Patch get applied cleanly on Master branch -- Make and Make Install fine -- make check also running cleanly In the patch code changes looks good to me. This patch having two part: 1) Allowed Tabl

[HACKERS] Docs fix in advanced.sgml

I think the document in advanced.sgml should be corrected, though I might misunderstand the rules of usage. Attached is a patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita docsfix-20130917.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

[HACKERS] Typo fix in spgtextproc.c

I ran into a typo. Attached is a patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita typofix-20130917.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

On 09/16/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Hannu Krosing wrote: > >> Lots of people were bitten when (undocumented) hash >> functions were changed thus breaking hash-based partitioning. > Nobody can be affected by the new operators in this patch unless > they choose to use them to compare two

Re: [HACKERS] insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi wrote: > *On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:** > > ** ** > > >postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz); > > >CREATE TABLE > > ** ** > > >-- Date with year 1000 > > >postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11 23:58:48 1

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context

Hi Marko, I have reviewed this patch. 1. Patch applies well. 2. make and make install is fine 3. make check is fine too. But as Peter pointed out plperl regression tests are failing. I just did grep on .sql files and found following files which has RAISE statement into it. These files too need

Re: [HACKERS] Minmax indexes

On 17 September 2013 07:20, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > > On 15 September 2013 01:14, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Here's a reviewable version of what I've dubbed Minmax indexes. > >> > > Thanks for the patch, but I seem to hav

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 9.3 beta breaks some extensions "make install"

> > Apt.pgdg got the patch present in postgresql head applyed. > > Erm, isn't apt.postgresql.org supposed to ship the *official* > PostgreSQL versions? Given that this issue affects all distros, I > don't see why Ubuntu/Debian need to be patched separately. Well, the patches are applyed on the de