Re: [HACKERS] Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block

2013-09-28 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:38:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > I have created the attached patch which issues an error when SET >> > TRANSACTION and SET LOCAL are used outside of transactions: >> > >> > test=> set transaction isola

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.1

2013-09-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Steve Singer wrote: > I'm still encountering an error in the make. > > make clean > . > .make[3]: Entering directory > `/usr/local/src/postgresql/src/bin/pg_basebackup' > rm -f pg_basebackup pg_receivexlog pg_recvlogical(X) \ > pg_basebackup.o pg_receivexlog.o pg_recvlogical.o \ >

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator - Review

2013-09-28 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I think we need to see a patch from Kevin that shows all the row >> comparisons documented and we can see the impact of the >> user-visibile part. First draft attached. > I'm inclined to first submit a proposed documentation patch for the > exist

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6

2013-09-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/27/2013 05:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi Steve, On 2013-09-27 17:06:59 -0400, Steve Singer wrote: I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik commands to add tables to replication (set add tab

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.1

2013-09-28 Thread Steve Singer
On 09/27/2013 11:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote: I'm encountering a make error: Gah. Lastminute changes. Always the same... Updated patch attached. Greetings, Andres Freund I'm still encountering an error in the make. make clean . .make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/postgresql/src/bi

[HACKERS] information schema parameter_default implementation

2013-09-28 Thread Amit Khandekar
On 15 September 2013 01:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Here is an updated patch which fixes the bug you have pointed out. > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:59 +0500, Ali Dar wrote: > > > I checked our your patch. There seems to be an issue when we have OUT > > parameters after the DEFAULT values. > >

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql.print_strict_params

2013-09-28 Thread Marko Tiikkaja
On 2013-09-28 12:31, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote: The patch looks good to me now; does the status need to be changed to "Ready for Committer"? Yes. Thanks for reviewing! Regards, Marko Tiikkaja -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your sub

Re: [HACKERS] appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

2013-09-28 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-09-28 14:11:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote: > >The macro for test 4 was as follows: > >#define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf, > >(s), sizeof(s)-1) > > If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we sh

Re: [HACKERS] appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

2013-09-28 Thread David Rowley
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote: > >> The macro for test 4 was as follows: >> #define appendStringInfoStringConst(**buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf, >> (s), sizeof(s)-1) >> > > If that makes any dif

Re: [HACKERS] appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

2013-09-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote: The macro for test 4 was as follows: #define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf, (s), sizeof(s)-1) If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we should just do: #define appendStringInfoString(buf, s) appendBinarySt

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql.print_strict_params

2013-09-28 Thread Ian Lawrence Barwick
Hi Sorry for the delay on following up on this. 2013/9/18 Marko Tiikkaja : > 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

2013-09-28 Thread David Rowley
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley wrote: > I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was > just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version > 0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing > appendStringInfo(b

[HACKERS] appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

2013-09-28 Thread David Rowley
I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version 0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing appendStringInfo(buf, "%*s", padding, variable); instead of appendStringInfoStrin

Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: [HACKERS] Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])

2013-09-28 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: >> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> I think you're getting way too hung up on the fact that the proposed >>> auto.conf will be stored as a flat file. From your comments upthread, >>> I gather that you'd be r