Re: [HACKERS] Enforce creation of destination folders for source files in pg_regress (Was: pg_regress writes into source tree)

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:41 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > This is up to the maintainer of each extension to manage their code > > tree. However I can imagine that some people would be grateful if we > > allow them to not need sql/ and exp

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Rahila Syed > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Attached is a patch which has following changes, > > > > As suggested above block ID in xlog structs has been replaced by chunk > ID. > > Chunk ID is used to distinguish

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump gets attributes from tables in extensions

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > Ok. Looking at above code into getExtensionMembership(). It seems like you > fix you suggested is not correct. I new table with DEFAULT attribute into > dump_test extension and pg_dump with binary-upgrade is failing with > pg_dump: invalid

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump gets attributes from tables in extensions

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Rushabh Lathia > wrote: > > Thanks to the easy handy testcase, was able to replicate the test > scenario > > on my local environment. And yes tbinfo->dobj.ext_member check into > > getTableAttrs() do f

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: add recovery_timeout option to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > So I pushed the patch. > Thank you. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Raspberry PI vs Raspberry PI 2: time to compile backend code

On 2/23/15 6:55 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a purely informational email... > I have put my hands on a Raspberry PI 2, and I have found that it takes > 6 minutes to compile the backend code using the 4 cores of the ARMv7 > processor, and close to 20 minutes on a single core (w

Re: [HACKERS] How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:30:53 -0500, Peter Eisentraut > wrote in <54e647fd.5000...@gmx.net> > > On 2/18/15 3:44 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > > Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this featu

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Gilles Darold wrote: > Looks great to me, I have tested with the postgis_topology extension > everything works fine. > Actually, after looking more in depth at the internals of pg_dump I think that both patches are wrong (did that yesterday night for another patc

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for Numeric

> "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra writes: Tomas> I believe the small regressions (1-10%) for small data sets, Tomas> might be caused by this 'random padding' effect, because that's Tomas> probably where L1/L2 cache is most important. For large datasets Tomas> the caches are probably not as effici

Re: [HACKERS] OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE is useless (or: ALTER TYPE vs ALTER TABLE for composites)

> Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > Please see check_object_ownership(). It checks relation's ownership > > if OBJECT_COLUMN, however, type's ownership is the correct check if > > OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE. > > Hmm. Is there any case where the two are different? > AlterObjectTypeCommandTag()? OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE mak

Re: [HACKERS] OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE is useless (or: ALTER TYPE vs ALTER TABLE for composites)

Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > Please see check_object_ownership(). It checks relation's ownership > if OBJECT_COLUMN, however, type's ownership is the correct check if > OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE. Hmm. Is there any case where the two are different? -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ P

Re: [HACKERS] Reduce pinning in btree indexes

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Robert pointed out that the visibility information >> for an index-only scan wasn't checked while the index page READ >> lock was held, so those scans also still hold the pins. > > Why does an index-only scan need to hold the pin? Supp

Re: [HACKERS] OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE is useless (or: ALTER TYPE vs ALTER TABLE for composites)

Please see check_object_ownership(). It checks relation's ownership if OBJECT_COLUMN, however, type's ownership is the correct check if OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE. -- NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project KaiGai Kohei > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto

Re: [HACKERS] Raspberry PI vs Raspberry PI 2: time to compile backend code

Michael, > This is a purely informational email... > I have put my hands on a Raspberry PI 2, and I have found that it takes 6 > minutes to compile the backend code using the 4 cores of the ARMv7 > processor, and close to 20 minutes on a single core (without ccache). The > test has been done usin

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] LSN Map

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Dunno, but Jim's got a point. This is a maintenance burden to all indexams, > if they all have to remember to update the LSN map separately. It needs to > be done in some common code, like in PageSetLSN or XLogInsert or something. > > A

Re: [HACKERS] How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

Hello, At Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:30:53 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote in <54e647fd.5000...@gmx.net> > On 2/18/15 3:44 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this feature. > > > > 0001-Add-regrole.patch > > 0002-Add-regnamespace.patch > > 0003-Check-new-reg-types-are-not-

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On 24.2.2015 01:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Are you going to add this into the CF? Would be nice to get this into >> 9.5. Strictly speaking it should go to 2015-06 I guess, but I'd consider >> it part of one of the existing sortsupport pat

Re: [HACKERS] deparsing utility commands

Hi, On 2015-02-23 19:48:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Yes, it might be possible to use the same code for a bunch of minor > > commands, but not for the interesting/complex stuff. > > We can clearly rebuild at least CREATE commands for all objects without > access to the parse tree, obviously

Re: [HACKERS] pg_check_dir comments and implementation mismatch

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 07:57:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:48:33PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> If readir() fails and closedir() succeeds, the return will be -1 but > >>> errno will be

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and logical decoding

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> they'd only see a >>> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INSERT when that was the definitive outcome of >>> an UPSERT, or alternatively a REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE when that >>> was the definitive outcome. No need for output plugins to consider >>>

Re: [HACKERS] deparsing utility commands

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2015-02-21 14:51:32 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > It'd be *really* nice to be able to pass an object identifier to some > > function and get back the CREATE (in particular, though perhaps DROP, or > > whatever) command for it. This ge

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Are you going to add this into the CF? Would be nice to get this into > 9.5. Strictly speaking it should go to 2015-06 I guess, but I'd consider > it part of one of the existing sortsupport patches. It's a bugfix, IMV. I guess I should add it

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On 23.2.2015 21:52, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> So while it's true that for the 3rd query we get much worse results >> compared to the other queries (i.e. we don't get >400% speedup but ~3% >> slowdown compared to master), it's true that mast

[HACKERS] Raspberry PI vs Raspberry PI 2: time to compile backend code

Hi all, This is a purely informational email... I have put my hands on a Raspberry PI 2, and I have found that it takes 6 minutes to compile the backend code using the 4 cores of the ARMv7 processor, and close to 20 minutes on a single core (without ccache). The test has been done using ArchLinux

Re: [HACKERS] logical column ordering

Hi, attached is the result of my first attempt to make the logical column ordering patch work. This touches a lot of code in the executor that is mostly new to me, so if you see something that looks like an obvious bug, it probably is (so let me know). improvements The main impro

Re: [HACKERS] POLA violation with \c service=

Here's the real attachment. Previous one was a misguided shell redirection. Meh. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >From 830d41b9d23716af29491cbab59808c35e25ec12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alvar

Re: [HACKERS] POLA violation with \c service=

David Fetter wrote: > My thinking behind this was that the patch is a bug fix and intended > to be back-patched, so I wanted to mess with as little infrastructure > as possible. A new version of libpq seems like a very big ask for > such a case. You'll recall that the original problem was that

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > So while it's true that for the 3rd query we get much worse results > compared to the other queries (i.e. we don't get >400% speedup but ~3% > slowdown compared to master), it's true that master performs > exceptionally well for this query wi

Re: [HACKERS] Precedence of NOT LIKE, NOT BETWEEN, etc

I wrote: > I'm not seeing any terribly pleasing ways to fix this. Aside from > the option of doing nothing, it seems like these are the choices: > 1. We could hack base_yylex() to reduce NOT LIKE to a single token > which could be given the same precedence as LIKE. Ditto for the other > four cas

Re: [HACKERS] Reduce pinning in btree indexes

On 02/15/2015 02:19 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Interestingly, the btree README points out that using the old TID with a new tuple poses no hazard for a scan using an MVCC snapshot, because the new tuple would not be visible to a snapshot created that long ago. The first question is: Do we really

[HACKERS] Precedence of NOT LIKE, NOT BETWEEN, etc

While fooling around with testing operator precedence warnings, I discovered that there's some existing precedence behavior that's not at all what I expected. Consider these examples (all done in 9.4; this is longstanding behavior): regression=# SELECT 1 < '(3,4)'::point LIKE 42.0; ERROR: operat

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On 23.2.2015 19:22, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> The durations are much higher than without the single unsorted row added >> at the end. Queries often take 20x longer to finish (on the same code), >> depending on the scale. > > I knew this wou

[HACKERS] OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE is useless (or: ALTER TYPE vs ALTER TABLE for composites)

I found that the OBJECT_ATTRIBUTE symbol is useless. I can just remove it and replace it with OBJECT_COLUMN, and everything continues to work; no test fails that I can find. I thought we had a prohibition against ALTER TABLE when used on composites, but it's not as severe as I thought. The follo

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > The durations are much higher than without the single unsorted row added > at the end. Queries often take 20x longer to finish (on the same code), > depending on the scale. I knew this would happen. :-) > What's interesting here is that som

Re: [HACKERS] json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak

by the way - this feature is undocumented - I though so only value used as type holder is not used. Should be documented better, - if I understand - it is base stone for implementation #= hstore operator some nice example postgres=# select json_populate_record('(10,20)'::pt, '{"a":30}'); json_p

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

On 15 February 2015 at 03:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Attached is a patch to provide a number of very useful facilities to jsonb > that people have asked for. These are based on work by Dmitry Dolgov in his > jsonbx extension, but I take responsibility for any bugs. > > The facilities are: > >

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] LSN Map

On 01/13/2015 01:22 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: Il 08/01/15 20:18, Jim Nasby ha scritto: On 1/7/15, 3:50 AM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: The current implementation tracks only heap LSN. It currently does not track any kind of indexes, but this can be easily added later. Would it make sense to do

Re: [HACKERS] SSL renegotiation

Renegotiation should be a best practice. Trouble is it's been broken (at the protocol level) three times in the last few years so it's a massive hole in practice. Ideally we should leave the renegotiate in, and only remove it if configure detects a broken version of TLS. Personal email. hbh..

[HACKERS] json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak

Hi When I tested json_populate_function in test http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7711432/how-to-set-value-of-composite-variable-field-using-dynamic-sql/28673097#28673097 I found a small issue create type pt as (a int, b int); postgres=# select json_populate_record('(10,20)'::pt, '{}'); WARNING

Re: [HACKERS] SSL renegotiation

On 2015-02-23 15:15:31 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 02/22/2015 02:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-02-22 01:27:54 +0100, Emil Lenngren wrote: > >> I honestly wonder why postgres uses renegotiation at all. The motivation > >> that cryptoanalysis is easier as more data is sent seems quite

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

Hi, Petr, thanks for the review. >>> I think it would be better if the ident printing didn't put the start of array ([) and start of dictionary ({) on separate line Did you mean this? [ { "a": 1, "b": 2 } ] I tried to verify this in several ways (h

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump

Le 17/02/2015 14:44, Michael Paquier a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Gilles Darold > wrote: >> Le 19/01/2015 14:41, Robert Haas a écrit : >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Gilles Darold >>> wrote: I attach a patch that solves the issue in pg_dump, let me know if it might >>

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

On 23 February 2015 at 16:53, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-02-23 15:48:25 +, Thom Brown wrote: > > On 23 February 2015 at 15:42, Andres Freund > wrote: > > > > > On 2015-02-23 16:38:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > I unfortunately don't remember enough of the thread to reference it >

Re: [HACKERS] Redesigning checkpoint_segments

On 02/23/2015 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-02-22 21:24:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: I am wondering a bit about interaction with wal_keep_segments. One thing is that wal_keep_segments is still specified in number of segments and no

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

On 2015-02-23 15:48:25 +, Thom Brown wrote: > On 23 February 2015 at 15:42, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2015-02-23 16:38:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I unfortunately don't remember enough of the thread to reference it > > > here. > > > > Found the right keywords. The threads below >

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for Numeric

Hi, On 23.2.2015 11:59, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra writes: > > Tomas> Interesting, but I think Gavin was asking about how much > Tomas> variation was there for each tested case (e.g. query executed on > Tomas> the same code / dataset). And in those cases the padding /

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix

Hi, On 22.2.2015 22:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> In short, this fixes all the cases except for the ASC sorted data. I >> haven't done any code review, but I think we want this. >> >> I'll use data from the i5-2500k, but it applies to the X

Re: [HACKERS] Query Rewrite with Postgres' materialized views

Thank you for your answers. I am very eager to contribute to Postgres, especially in the materialized views area. I have created a thread proposing to work on it as my Google Summer of Code pro

Re: [HACKERS] Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > > It seems to me that SQL Server also uses similar mechanism to > > avoid the bloat in version store (place to store previous > > versions or record). > > > I think if other leading databases provide a way to contr

Re: [HACKERS] pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

On 2/18/15 10:25 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/18/15 6:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> The pg_audit doesn't log BIND parameter values when prepared statement is >> used. >> Seems this is an oversight of the patch. Or is this intentional? > > It's actually intentional - following the model I talked

Re: [HACKERS] Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)

Hi Stephen, Thanks for your review. All fixed except for comments below: On 2/17/15 10:34 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> +/* >> + * Check privileges granted indirectly via role memberships. We do this >> in >> + * a separate pass to minimize expensive indirect membership tests. In >>

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

On 23 February 2015 at 15:42, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-02-23 16:38:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > I unfortunately don't remember enough of the thread to reference it > > here. > > Found the right keywords. The threads below > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/369698E947874884A

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

Hi, On 2014-07-26 18:16:01 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-07-26 11:32:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > "MauMau" writes: > > > [ sinval catchup signal -> ProcessCatchupEvent -> WaitLatch -> deadlock ] > > > > Ugh. > > > > One line of thought is that it's pretty unsafe to be doing anything >

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

On 23 February 2015 at 15:38, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-02-23 15:25:57 +, Thom Brown wrote: > > I've noticed that if the primary is started and then a base backup is > > immediately taken from it and started as as a synchronous standby, it > > doesn't replicate and the primary ha

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

On 2015-02-23 16:38:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > I unfortunately don't remember enough of the thread to reference it > here. Found the right keywords. The threads below http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/369698E947874884A77849D8FE3680C2%40maumau and http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/

Re: [HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

Hi, On 2015-02-23 15:25:57 +, Thom Brown wrote: > I've noticed that if the primary is started and then a base backup is > immediately taken from it and started as as a synchronous standby, it > doesn't replicate and the primary hangs indefinitely when trying to run any > WAL-generating stateme

Re: [HACKERS] "multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1"

On 2015-02-17 13:14:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, good point. On the other hand, should we worry about the possibility > of a lost signal? Moving the flag-clearing would guard against that, > which the current code does not. But we've not seen field reports of such > issues AFAIR, so this migh

[HACKERS] Primary not sending to synchronous standby

Hi, I've noticed that if the primary is started and then a base backup is immediately taken from it and started as as a synchronous standby, it doesn't replicate and the primary hangs indefinitely when trying to run any WAL-generating statements. It only recovers when either the primary is restar

Re: [HACKERS] SSL renegotiation

Florian Weimer wrote: > On 02/22/2015 02:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2015-02-22 01:27:54 +0100, Emil Lenngren wrote: >>> I honestly wonder why postgres uses renegotiation at all. The motivation >>> that cryptoanalysis is easier as more data is sent seems quite >>> far-fetched. >> >> I don't t

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump gets attributes from tables in extensions

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Thanks to the easy handy testcase, was able to replicate the test scenario > on my local environment. And yes tbinfo->dobj.ext_member check into > getTableAttrs() do fix the issue. > > Looking more into pg_dump code what I found that, genera

Re: [HACKERS] SSL renegotiation

On 02/22/2015 02:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-02-22 01:27:54 +0100, Emil Lenngren wrote: >> I honestly wonder why postgres uses renegotiation at all. The motivation >> that cryptoanalysis is easier as more data is sent seems quite >> far-fetched. > > I don't think so. There's a fair numbe

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery

Hi, On 2015-02-23 15:00:35 +0100, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > Andres asked me on IRC to report this here. Since we upgraded our standby > servers to 9.1.15 (though the master is still running 9.1.14), we've seen > the error in $SUBJECT a number of times. FWIW, I think this is just as borked in 9.1.1

[HACKERS] ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery

Hi, Andres asked me on IRC to report this here. Since we upgraded our standby servers to 9.1.15 (though the master is still running 9.1.14), we've seen the error in $SUBJECT a number of times. I managed to reproduce it today by running the same query over and over again, and attached is the

Re: [HACKERS] Enforce creation of destination folders for source files in pg_regress (Was: pg_regress writes into source tree)

> On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:41 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > This is up to the maintainer of each extension to manage their code > tree. However I can imagine that some people would be grateful if we > allow them to not need sql/ and expected/ containing only one single > .gitignore file ignoring e

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

> Amit and I had a long discussion about this on Friday while in Boston > together. I previously argued that the master and the slave should be > executing the same node, ParallelSeqScan. However, Amit argued > persuasively that what the master is doing is really pretty different > from what the

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hello, > > Attached is a patch which has following changes, > > As suggested above block ID in xlog structs has been replaced by chunk ID. > Chunk ID is used to distinguish between different types of xlog record > fragments. > Like, > XLR_CHUNK

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: add recovery_timeout option to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] Redesigning checkpoint_segments

On 2015-02-22 21:24:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > I am wondering a bit about interaction with wal_keep_segments. > > One thing is that wal_keep_segments is still specified in number of segments > > and not size units, maybe it would be wor

Re: [HACKERS] Abbreviated keys for Numeric

> "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra writes: Tomas> Interesting, but I think Gavin was asking about how much Tomas> variation was there for each tested case (e.g. query executed on Tomas> the same code / dataset). And in those cases the padding / Tomas> alignment won't change, and thus the effects y

Re: [HACKERS] __attribute__ for non-gcc compilers

23.02.2015, 04:31, Robert Haas kirjoitti: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: >> 15.01.2015, 21:58, Robert Haas kirjoitti: >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Andres Freund >>> wrote: I think I'd for now simply not define pg_attribute_aligned() on platforms wher

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump gets attributes from tables in extensions

Thanks to the easy handy testcase, was able to replicate the test scenario on my local environment. And yes tbinfo->dobj.ext_member check into getTableAttrs() do fix the issue. Looking more into pg_dump code what I found that, generally PG don't have tbinfo->dobj.ext_member check to ignore the obj

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes

Hello, Attached is a patch which has following changes, As suggested above block ID in xlog structs has been replaced by chunk ID. Chunk ID is used to distinguish between different types of xlog record fragments. Like, XLR_CHUNK_ID_DATA_SHORT XLR_CHUNK_ID_DATA_LONG XLR_CHUNK_BKP_COMPRESSED XLR_CH