> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > With regard to fixing things up, ISTM the best bet is heap_prune_chain()
> > > so far. That's executed b vacuum and by opportunistic pruning and we
> > > know we have the appropriate locks there. Looks relatively easy to fix
>
Okay, I have pushed all these patches, including the fixes suggested
here and then some.
Hats off to Andres, who handled all the bug analysis, figured out the
test cases that tickled things in all the wrong ways, and came up with
the patches. Whenever we meet again, let's make sure to find a real
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 11/29/2013 06:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've committed this patch. I added a make_native_path() call to fix the
>> slashes-versus-backslashes issue noted by Christian Ullrich, since that
>> was an easy one-line addition.
> I don't mind changing this, but IMNSHO it's n
On 11/29/2013 06:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Rajeev rastogi writes:
OK. Then I am moving it to "ready for committer".
I've committed this patch. I added a make_native_path() call to fix the
slashes-versus-backslashes issue noted by Christian Ullrich, since that
was an easy one-line addition.
I
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> I know of no other ways to check the result of OpenSSL's chain
> validation. The open question (for me) is where are
> SSL_get_verify_result/X509_V_OK checked? Neither show up in the
> Postgres sources.
According to SSL_set_verify m
Rajeev rastogi writes:
> OK. Then I am moving it to "ready for committer".
I've committed this patch. I added a make_native_path() call to fix the
slashes-versus-backslashes issue noted by Christian Ullrich, since that
was an easy one-line addition. I didn't do anything about the
relative-path-
Hi Marko,
Forgive me for cherry picking two of these...
> I think Postgres uses SSL_VERIFY_PEER + SSL_set_verify() callback instead.
> At least for me, the psql -d "dbname=foo sslmode=verify-ca" fails
> when cert does not match.
I can't comment on the use of psql. My apologies for my ignorance.
H
Andres Freund wrote:
> Looking at predicate.c I think I see a bigger problem though: Isn't its
> usage of HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() quite dangerous? It passes
> TransactionXmin to HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum(). But since that's just the
> transaction's own cutoff, not the global cutoff that will ca
Greg Stark writes:
> Also, one of the places GCC warns about optimizing away an overflow
> check (with -fno-wrapv) is inside the localtime.c file from the tz
> library. I fixed it in my patch but in fact I checked and it's already
> fixed upstream so I'm wondering whether you expect to merge in an
On 2013-11-29 22:27:16 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Looking at predicate.c I think I see a bigger problem though: Isn't its
> usage of HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() quite dangerous? It passes
> TransactionXmin to HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum(). But since that's just the
> transaction's own cutoff, not th
On 2013-11-29 13:26:00 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > New versions of all these patches, plus one more patch which
> > removes the behavior that HeapTupleGetUpdateXid checks for
> > aborted updates. (Turns out this was necessary to get freezing
> > right.) My previous
On 2013-11-29 13:14:06 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 15:42:11 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> >> What back-patching will be needed for a fix? It sounds like
> >> 9.3?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> In going over this, I found pre-existing bugs when a tuple was both
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> New versions of all these patches, plus one more patch which
> removes the behavior that HeapTupleGetUpdateXid checks for
> aborted updates. (Turns out this was necessary to get freezing
> right.) My previous patch to avoid InvalidXid as page prune
> point is reverted in
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:21:27PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 02:36:10PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > I haven't really reviewed the windowing-related c
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 02:36:10PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I haven't really reviewed the windowing-related code in depth; I
> > > thought Jeff might jump back in for that part
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 02:36:10PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I haven't really reviewed the windowing-related code in depth; I
> > thought Jeff might jump back in for that part of it. Jeff, is that
> > something you're planning to do?
>
>
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:06:30PM -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> So to summarise:
>
> Plan A: The first patch I attached for pg_upgrade + documentation
> changes, and changing the other places that call PQconndefaults() to
> accept failures on either out of memory, or an invalid PGSERVICE
>
> Plan
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 15:42:11 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> What back-patching will be needed for a fix? It sounds like
>> 9.3?
>
> Yep.
In going over this, I found pre-existing bugs when a tuple was both
inserted and deleted by concurrent transactions, but fixing that is
too
On 2013-11-29 16:30:08 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> As a second bug, heap_freeze_tuple() didn't properly handle multixacts
> that need to be frozen according to cutoff_multi, but whose updater xid
> is still alive. Instead of preserving the update Xid, it just set Xmax
> invalid, which leads to
On 11/29/2013 10:06 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Just as an update I did get gcc to do the wrong thing on purpose. The
only overflow check that the regression tests find missing is the one
for int8abs() ie:
Also, one of the places GCC warns about
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:49 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa <
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Hi Royes,
>
> I'm sorry for my late review...
>
No problem...
> I feel potential of your patch in PG replication function, and it might
be something useful for all people. I check your patch and have som
Reply to mails in pgsql-bugs:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH8yC8mc_2J2UY0Q42WQdWFyaoqT3onG+83Fr=vn46j5+ml...@mail.gmail.com
and
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH8yC8nZVUyCQznkQd8=ELMM4k_=uxjrjt8yf9v22cy2x_d...@mail.gmail.com
* Default ciphersuite
> I would argue nothing
Daniel Wood writes:
> ... Presuming your fix is putting PG_SETMASK(&UnBlockSig)
> immediately before each of the 6 calls to ereport(ERROR,...) I've been
> running the stress test with both this fix and the lock already held fix.
I'm now planning to put it in error cleanup instead, but that's good
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Just as an update I did get gcc to do the wrong thing on purpose. The
> only overflow check that the regression tests find missing is the one
> for int8abs() ie:
Also, one of the places GCC warns about optimizing away an overflow
check (with
On 2013-11-29 16:30:08 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> New versions of all these patches, plus one more patch which removes the
> behavior that HeapTupleGetUpdateXid checks for aborted updates.
> From 0dce0b75da2732ca93f4c451b9bae6d4416794c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alvaro Herrera
> Date:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> c) I want to add regression tests that will ensure that the overflow
>> checks are all working. So far I haven't been able to catch any being
>> optimized away even with -fno-wrapv and -fstrict-overflow.
>
> This does not leave me with a warm f
On 11/29/2013 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 11/28/2013 09:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
On 11/26/13 15:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
What's your plans about GIN now? I tried to rebase packed posting lists
with head. But
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:05:20PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > > David Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > >> In all of these cases we are assuming that the user understands tha
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > David Johnston wrote:
> >
> >> In all of these cases we are assuming that the user understands that
> >> emitting a warning means that something is being logged to disk and
On 11/29/2013 06:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Note that Robert's proposed solution is no solution, because it just
puts you right back in the bind of needing guaranteed non-lossy
storage of a TID set that might be too big to fit in memory.
The solution should work if we could guarantee that a TIDBitm
On 11/29/2013 07:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Karlsson writes:
I decided to look into how much work implementing the todo item about
supporting amgettuple in GIN would be, since exclusion constraints on
GIN would be neat. Robert Haas suggested a solution[1], but to fix it we
also need to look
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wish we'd just left this whole thing well enough alone. It wasn't
> broken, and didn't need fixing.
Well, this started with a complaint that one SET command outside of a
transaction had no effect, and expanded to other SET commands
Greg Stark writes:
> b) I'm concerned these checks depend on INT_MIN/MAX and SHRT_MIN/MAX
> which may not be exactly the right length. I'm kind of confused why
> c.h assumes long is 32 bits and short is 16 bits though so I don't
> think I'm making it any worse.
I think it's something we figured w
Andreas Karlsson writes:
> I decided to look into how much work implementing the todo item about
> supporting amgettuple in GIN would be, since exclusion constraints on
> GIN would be neat. Robert Haas suggested a solution[1], but to fix it we
> also need to look into why the commit message men
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:51:28PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 05:43 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:25:02AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 11:45 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>>I think the default behaviour should be the one we
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:18:49AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 01:11 +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > Attached patch changes the default ciphersuite to
> >
> > HIGH:!aNULL
> >
> > instead of old
> >
> > DEFAULT:!LOW:!EXP:!MD5:@STRENGTH
> >
> > where DEFAULT is a
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:46:01AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:39:18AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Well, then we are actually using two different reasons for patching
> > pg_dumpall and not pg_dump. Your reason is based on the probability of
> > failure, while
On 2013-11-29 12:49:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> + * - xidFullScanLimit (also known as the table freeze age) represents the
> + * minimum Xid age past which a vacuum will be turned into a full-table
> one,
> + * to freeze tuples across the whole table. Vacuuming a table younger than
> +
On 11/29/2013 05:43 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:25:02AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 11:45 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I think the default behaviour should be the one we recommend (which
would be to have the server one be preferred). But I do agre
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:25:02AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 11:45 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I think the default behaviour should be the one we recommend (which
> > would be to have the server one be preferred). But I do agree with the
> > requirement to have a
Sent from my iPad
> On 28-Nov-2013, at 16:13, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I'm not real sure what this'd buy us that wouldn't be done as well or
>> better by creating a view on the remote side. (IOW, there's nothing
>> that says that the remote object backing a foreign tab
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 11:45 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think the default behaviour should be the one we recommend (which
> would be to have the server one be preferred). But I do agree with the
> requirement to have a GUC to be able to remove it
Is there a reason why you would want to turn
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 01:11 +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> Attached patch changes the default ciphersuite to
>
> HIGH:!aNULL
>
> instead of old
>
> DEFAULT:!LOW:!EXP:!MD5:@STRENGTH
>
> where DEFAULT is a shortcut for "ALL:!aNULL:!eNULL".
> Main goal is to leave low-level ciphersuite detai
On 11/29/2013 01:57 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 09:54 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
>> On 11/29/2013 01:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>
>>> When doing partial matching the code need to be able to return the union
>>> of all TIDs in all the matching posting trees in TID order (to be ab
On 26 November 2013, Amit Khandelkar wrote:
>Can you please submit the \COPY patch as a separate patch ? Since these are
>two different issues, I would like to have these two fixed and committed
>separately. You can always test the \COPY issue using \COPY TO followed by
>INSERT.
Please find the
On 29 November 2013 12:00 Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Haribabu kommi
> wrote:
> > On 25 November 2013 10:43 Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Haribabu kommi
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 19 November 2013 10:33 Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> >> If I understood c
Last week's status:
Fri Nov 22
Status Summary. Needs Review: 47, Waiting on Author: 28, Ready for
Committer: 10, Committed: 18, Returned with Feedback: 3, Rejected: 3.
Total: 109.
Current status:
Fri Nov 29
Status Summary. Needs Review: 29, Waiting on Author: 33, Ready for
Committer: 13, Commi
On 11/29/2013 09:54 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
On 11/29/2013 01:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
When doing partial matching the code need to be able to return the union
of all TIDs in all the matching posting trees in TID order (to be able
to do AND and OR operations with multiple search keys lat
On 27 November 2013 09:59, Rajeev rastogi wrote:
> On 26 November 2013, Amit Khandelkar wrote:
>
>
> On 26 November 2013 18:59, Amit Khandekar > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 November 2013 15:25, Rajeev rastogi
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. I have revised the patch as per the discussion.
>>>
>> Could you
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 16:32 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Thanks for the reminder - done (installed the DEB from sid, version
> > 1.78.1).
>
> > This will somehow show up in the snapshot builds, correct? So we
> > (you? :P) can verify
On 11/29/2013 01:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> When doing partial matching the code need to be able to return the union
> of all TIDs in all the matching posting trees in TID order (to be able
> to do AND and OR operations with multiple search keys later). It does
> this by traversing them p
Hi,
Thanks, looks saner than my version ;)
On 2013-11-29 01:00:35 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ! /*
> ! * FIXME this calls TransactionIdDidAbort()
> internally,
> ! * falsifying the claim in the comment at th
52 matches
Mail list logo
