On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Also, our testing clearly needs to cover logical decoding over walsenders.
Noted.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgs
Hi all
It appears that logical decoding may be broken in 9.5 at the moment.
With HEAD at f6caf5a:
./configure --enable-debug --enable-cassert --prefix=/home/craig/pg/95
CFLAGS="-Og -ggdb -fno-omit-frame-pointer"
make clean install
make -C contrib/test_decoding clean install
PGPORT=5142 PATH
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> >> I don't think you need to do anything that complicated. I'm not
> >> proposing to *run* the initPlan in the workers, just to pass the
> >> parameter values down.
> >
> > Sorry, but I am not able to understand how it will help if just
param
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:49:01PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 02:53:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > While looking at fe-auth.c I noticed quite a few places that weren't
> > bothering to make error messages localizable (ie, missing libpq_gettext
> > calls), and/or were fai
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > REVOKE'ing access *without* removing the permissions checks would defeat
> > the intent of these changes, which is to allow an administrator to grant
> > the ability for a certain set of users to cancel and/or terminate
> > backend
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:29:04PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that authentication_timeout is ineffective for
> replication=true type connections. That's because walsender doesn't
> register a SIGINT handler and authentication_timeout relies on having
> one.
>
> There's n
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 02-04-2015 AM 09:24, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > The other potential advantage (and I have to think this could be a BIG
> > advantage) is extending by a large amount makes it more likely you'll get
> > contiguous blocks on the storage. That's goin
On 02-04-2015 AM 09:24, Jim Nasby wrote:
> The other potential advantage (and I have to think this could be a BIG
> advantage) is extending by a large amount makes it more likely you'll get
> contiguous blocks on the storage. That's going to make a big difference for
> SeqScan speed. It'd be intere
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:46:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0
> > > >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 02:53:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> While looking at fe-auth.c I noticed quite a few places that weren't
> bothering to make error messages localizable (ie, missing libpq_gettext
> calls), and/or were failing to add a trailing newline as expected in
> libpq error messages.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
> > > versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduce
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> While looking at that I noticed two additional issues:
> - In remote mode, the connection string to the promoted standby was
> incorrect when running pg_rewind, leading to connection errors
> - At least in my environment, a sleep of 1 afte
David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
> > versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
> > in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to
On 3/30/15 10:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> If we're able to extend based on page-level locks rather than the global
> relation locking that we're doing now, then I'm not sure we really need
> to adjust how big the extents are any more. The reason for making
> bigger extents is because of the
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on this?
>
If we want to have allocate_recordbuf error out properly on frontend side,
we are going to need a equivalent of MemoryContextAllocExtended for
frontends in the shape of palloc_extended able to take control flags.
That
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:02:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, why not using palloc_extended instead of palloc_noerror that has been
> clearly rejected in the other thread. Now, for palloc_extended we should copy
> the flags of MemoryContextAllocExtended to fe_memutils.h and have the same
On 01/04/15 18:38, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
REPEATABLE is mandated by standard. I did try for quite some time to make it
unreserved but was not successful (I can only make it unreserved if I make
it mandatory but that's not a solution). I haven't b
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
> versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
> in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to have broken
> too many othe
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to have broken
too many other things in the process. Please give the whole thing a
look, preferrabl
I wrote:
> Observe these recent buildfarm failures:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mule&dt=2015-03-21%2000%3A30%3A02
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=guaibasaurus&dt=2015-03-23%2004%3A17%3A01
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:18:35PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've played with trying to find out which minimal set of files I need
> > from the old version to make pg_upgrade work. Interestingly, this
> > includes
Emre Hasegeli writes:
> [ inet-selfuncs-v14.patch ]
After further reflection I concluded that the best way to deal with the
O(N^2) runtime problem for the join selectivity function was to set a
limit on the number of statistics values we'd consider, as was discussed
awhile back IIRC. We can easi
Re: Bruce Momjian 2015-04-01 <20150401160907.gj4...@momjian.us>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I haven't seen a specific number, it might depend on exactly which cipher is
> > negotiated. See for example http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/
> > What-is-the-reas
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 05:06:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, you broke asciidoctor 1.5.2. ;-) LOL
>
> I installed the Asciidoctor Firefox plugin:
Asciidoctor has confirmed they have a bug and hope to fix it in their
next release:
http://discuss.asciidoctor.org/Problem-with-ta
On 03/31/2015 09:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 10:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-31 10:49:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that poi
On 1 April 2015 at 18:37, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As for partitioning, you could do this:
>>
>> create table parent(...);
>> create table child(...) inherits(parent); -- repeat as needed
>> create view v as select * from parent;
>> attach INSTEAD OF
On 04/01/2015 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency
On 3/23/15 12:40 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/23/15 1:31 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>> I'm experimenting with a few approaches to do this without reintroducing
>> switch statements to test every command. That will require core changes,
>> but I think we can find an acceptable arrangement. I'll
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> here is rebased patch.
>> It contains both patches - row_to_array function and foreach array support.
>
> While I don't have a problem with hstore_to_array, I don't think that
> row_to_array is a very good idea; it's basi
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> WHEN won't help; if there are any INSTEAD OF triggers, no insert will
>> happen, whether the triggers actually fire or not.
> Well, right now it doesn't work at all. It seems pretty reasonable to
> define things so that the
Hi Sawada,
On 3/25/15 9:24 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/25/15 7:46 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>> 2.
>> I got ERROR when executing function uses cursor.
>>
>> 1) create empty table (hoge table)
>> 2) create test function as follows.
>>
>> create function test() returns int as $$
>> declare
>>
On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
> >> means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
> >> view, no? So this stil
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
>> means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
>> view, no? So this still seems to me like a wart not a useful feature.
>> I thi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
> >> it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
> >> from the OP, but I guess it would be a reasonable wa
On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
> >> it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
> >> from the OP, but I gue
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
>> it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
>> from the OP, but I guess it would be a reasonable way to go.
> I'm not sure w
On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Without INSTEAD OF you can't, to my knowledge, return a valid tuple from
> > the top level table without also inserting into it. Returni
Denish, all,
Moved over to -hackers to discuss specifics around addressing this.
* Denish Patel (den...@omniti.com) wrote:
> Fair enough but they should be able to achieve their goal to avoid granting
> SUPER to monitoring user. They have to tweak the grant/revoke as desired.
That's correct, but
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
>>> treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
>>> than create a dependency if a value is used in a defau
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 -> 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
> as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> It looked to me that the for
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't see how this helps. The problem with partitioning is that you
>> need a way to redirect the INSERT to another table, and there's no
>> built-in way to do that, so you have to simula
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> REPEATABLE is mandated by standard. I did try for quite some time to make it
> unreserved but was not successful (I can only make it unreserved if I make
> it mandatory but that's not a solution). I haven't been in fact even able to
> find out
On 03/31/2015 11:00 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Hi,
The pg_amproc functions for inet_gist were accidentally added under the
gin heading. I have attached a patch which moves them to the gist
heading where they belong.
Thanks, moved.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac
On 01/04/15 17:52, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from
unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some
time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce errors and tried some ways
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
> treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
> than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
> error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:26:34PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 02:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >I'm thinking that we should add a step to promotion, where we scan
> >pg_xlog for any segments higher than the timeline switch point, and
> >remove them, or mark them with .don
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I haven't seen a specific number, it might depend on exactly which cipher is
> negotiated. See for example http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/
> What-is-the-reason-for-error-quot-SSL-negotiation-failed-error-04075070-rsa-routines-RSA
On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Aliouii Ali wrote:
> I don't see how this helps. The problem with partitioning is that you
> need a way to redirect the INSERT to another table, and there's no
> built-in way to do that, so you have to simulate it
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from
> unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some
> time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce errors and tried some ways
> but didn't find a way to get away
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:47:56AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:53:12PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 04:41:19PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:52:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > This "junk" digit zeroing matches
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Aliouii Ali wrote:
> hi all,
> back in
> 2011(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1305138588.8811.3.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net),
> an question the same as this one was asked
> the anwser was :
>
> I think they're very useful on views, but I
> couldn't think of a use-
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:22:39PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:58:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter writes:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:45AM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
> > >> Previously, zero was rejected, what does it do now? I'm sure it
> > >> re
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
>> patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like
>> parallel aggregation, aggregate before join, and perhaps auto updating
>> materialised views
On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
trending in that direction.
Or in short, obj
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the emails
> it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all, especially
> from Tom and Robert.
>
> I confess I have often wanted regnamespace, particularly,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Well, if we *don't* handle it, we're going to need to insert some hack
>> to ensure that the planner doesn't create plans. And that seems
>> pretty unappealing. Maybe it'll significantly compromise plan
>> quality, and maybe it won't, but at
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> >> It looks to me like the is an InitPlan, not a subplan. There
> >> shouldn't be any problem with a Funnel node having an InitPlan; it
> >> looks to me like all of the InitPlan stuff is
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 03/15/15 16:21, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also did all the other adjustments we talked about up-thread and
>> rebased against current master (there was conflict with 31eae6028).
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I did a review of the version submitted o
On 03/15/15 16:21, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I also did all the other adjustments we talked about up-thread and
rebased against current master (there was conflict with 31eae6028).
Hi,
I did a review of the version submitted on 03/15 today, and only found a
few minor issues:
1) The documentation
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > Patch fixes the problem and now for Rescan, we don't need to Wait
>> > for workers to finish.
>>
>> I realized that there is a problem with this. If an error occurs in
>> one of the workers just as we're deciding to kill them all, then the
>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, suppose we have a plan like this:
>>
>> Append
>> -> Funnel
>> -> Partial Seq Scan
>> -> Funnel
>> -> Partial Seq Scan
>> (repeated many times)
>>
>> In earlier versions of this pat
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> It looks to me like the is an InitPlan, not a subplan. There
>> shouldn't be any problem with a Funnel node having an InitPlan; it
>> looks to me like all of the InitPlan stuff is handled by common code
>> within the executor (grep for initPl
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> >> I think I figured out the problem. That fix only helps in the case
> >> where the postmaster noticed the new registration previously but
> >> didn't start the worker, and then later
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > Apart from that I have moved the Initialization of dsm segement from
> > InitNode phase to ExecFunnel() (on first execution) as per suggestion
> > from Robert. The main idea is that as
Hi,
As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 -> 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
Jeff Janes wrote:
> It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously
> stressed state, would be:
>
> greatest(
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hi, the attached is the v5 patch.
>
> - Do feGetCurrentTimestamp() only when necessary.
> - Rebased to current master
>
>
> At Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:21:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hi,
At Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:50:41 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> I am sure someone will show up quickly and push the fix you provided.
Ok, I'll be a good boy.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> By the way, what should we do about this?
>
> - Waiting for someone's picking up this.
> - Making another thread to attract notice
> - Otherwise..
I am sure someone will show up quickly and push the
By the way, what shoud we do about this?
- Waiting for someone's picking up this.
- Making another thread to attract notice
- Otherwise..
At Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:49:55 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:28 AM
> 31 марта 2015 г., в 23:33, Kevin Grittner написал(а):
>
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 3/27/15 5:15 AM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
>
>>> Master writes this record to xlog in btvacuumscan function after
>>> vacuuming of all index pages. And in case of no pages with
>>> deleted items xlog record would
71 matches
Mail list logo
