Re: [HACKERS] Improving RLS qual pushdown

On 27 April 2015 at 17:33, Stephen Frost wrote: > Dean, > > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: >> I took another look at this and came up with some alternate comment >> rewording. I also added a couple of additional comments that should >> hopefully clarify the code a bit. > > Finall

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Could you please add the tests for the logical decoding code you added? > I presume you have some already/ Most of the tests I used for logical decoding were stress tests (i.e. prominently involved my favorite tool, jjanes_upsert). There is

[HACKERS] ATSimpleRecursion() and inheritance foreign parents

Hi, Following ALTER TABLE actions are applied recursively to inheritance descendents via ATSimpleRecursion() - ALTER COLUMN DEFAULT ALTER COLUMN DROP NOT NULL ALTER COLUMN SET NOT NULL ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE The code at the beginning of ATSimpleRecursion() looks li

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

2015-04-27 22:53 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby : > On 4/27/15 11:47 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Marko Tiikkaja > > wrote: >> >> That sounds weird. log_min_messages are the messages sent to the >> log; client_min_messages are sent to the client

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

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:23 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 4/23/15 5:49 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: >> >> I'm concerned that behaviour of pg_audit has been changed at a few >> times as far as I remember. Did we achieve consensus on this design? > > The original author Abhijit expressed support for t

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I thought we had an ironclad scheme to prevent deadlocks like this, so I'd > like to understand why that happens. Okay. I think I know how it happens (I was always skeptical of the idea that this would be 100% reliable), but I'll be ab

Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't CREATE TABLE LIKE copy the relhasoids property?

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed. Here is an attached patch for 9.6 which works for multiple > LIKE'ed tables with multiple inheritance and index creation. I figured > out why Tom's OID primary key test was failing so I now process the > columns and LIKE first, then the constraints. There is also

Re: [HACKERS] basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe?

At 2015-01-30 21:36:42 +0100, and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > Here's an alternative approach. I think it generally is superior and > > going in the right direction, but I'm not sure it's backpatchable. > > > > It basically consists out of: > > 1) Make GetLockConflicts() actually work. > > alr

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On 04/27/2015 07:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: So, this can still happen, but is now happening less often than before, I believe. On a 16 core server, with continual 128 client jjanes_upsert exclusion constraint only runs, with fsync=off, I started at this time: 2015-04-27 21:22:28 UTC [ 0 ]: LO

Re: [HACKERS] Allow SQL/plpgsql functions to accept record

On 04/27/2015 10:35 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 4/25/15 4:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Well, we already support local variables of type RECORD in plpgsql, so it's not immediately clear to me that function arguments would be much worse. There are a lot of deficiencies with the RECORD-local-variable imple

Re: [HACKERS] Temporal extensions

On 4/27/15 6:08 PM, Dave Jones wrote: (Though, I dislike using timestamps to do change/history tracking, but >that's just me...) I've been playing around with history tracking (in the context of BI, typically with batch loaded reporting databases) for about 7-8 years now and always found timesta

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:22 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 4/27/15 10:31 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: >> Thank you for your review comment! >> The latest patch is attached. > > Looks good overall - a few more comments below: Thank you for your reviewing. Attached v8 patch is latest version. > diff

Re: [HACKERS] Allow SQL/plpgsql functions to accept record

On 4/25/15 4:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Well, we already support local variables of type RECORD in plpgsql, so it's not immediately clear to me that function arguments would be much worse. There are a lot of deficiencies with the RECORD-local-variable implementation: if you try to change the actual

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Given that exclusion constraints can only be used with IGNORE, and > given that this is so hard to recreate, I'm inclined to conclude that > it's acceptable. It's certainly way better than risking livelocks by > not having "deadlock insuran

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * I privately pointed out to Heikki what I'd said publicly about 6 > weeks ago: that there is still a *very* small chance of exclusion > constraints exhibiting "unprincipled deadlocks" (he missed it at the > time). I think that this risk is

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * Don't change the ON CONFLICT spelling. > > * Don't change the names of the pseudo-alias EXCLUDED.* (or the alias > TARGET.*). Those seem fine to me as well. > > * Change the syntax to put the WHERE clause used to infer partial > indexes o

Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't CREATE TABLE LIKE copy the relhasoids property?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:11:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, good point; INHERITS will silently override such a specification: > > regression=# create table base1 (f1 int) with oids; > CREATE TABLE > regression=# create table c2 () inherits (base1) without oids; > CREATE TABLE > regression=# \d

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed, and I like the DO [ UPDATE | NOTHING ] too. Here is what I think I need to do: * Don't change the ON CONFLICT spelling. * Don't change the names of the pseudo-alias EXCLUDED.* (or the alias TARGET.*). Those seem fine to me as well

[HACKERS] PATCH: pgbench - remove thread fork-emulation

This patch removes the pgbench thread fork-emulation code and simplifies things where possible, especially around pthread_create and pthread_join. The stats collection for the report is done directly instead of using an intermediate structure. As a result, if no thread implementation is avai

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > it appears that they are using quite a different syntax. The ON > CONFLICT clause is attached to a constraint, specifying the default > action for that constraint. The INSERT command can then override this > default choice. I think. We

Re: [HACKERS] Temporal extensions

Hi Jim, On 27/04/15 21:48, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/25/15 7:49 PM, Dave Jones wrote: >> I've been working on a conversion of several utilities I wrote for >> another engine, and was wondering if there was any interest in seeing >> any of them added to contrib/ at some point in the vague undefined >

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

On 04/27/2015 12:46 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Another thing I noticed now when reading the code again - you should not be using braces when you only have one command in the code-block. There's one exception I, at least, have to this rule, namely when there's a corresponding compound if or e

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0, parser/executor stuff

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > So, I'm looking. And I've a few questions: > * Why do we need to spread knowledge about speculative inserts that wide? > It's now in 1) Query, 2) ParseState 3) ModifyTable 4) InsertStmt. That > seems a bit wide - and as far as I see not r

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0, parser/executor stuff

On 2015-04-27 16:28:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > * So far, there has been a lack of scrutiny about what the patch does > > in the rewriter (in particular, to support the EXCLUDED.* pseudo-alias > > expression) and optimizer (the whole con

Re: [HACKERS] Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

On 4/25/15 6:30 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 22:36, Jim Nasby mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>> wrote: Instead of adding forcefsm, I think it would be more useful to accept a target block number. That way we can actually control where the new tuple goes. For this partic

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing tuple overhead

On 4/25/15 12:12 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > ... which isn't possible. You can not go from a heap tuple to an index tuple. We will have the access to index value during delete, so why do you think that we need linkage between heap and index tuple to perform Delete operation? I think we need to th

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

On 4/27/15 11:47 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Marko Tiikkaja mailto:ma...@joh.to>> wrote: That sounds weird. log_min_messages are the messages sent to the log; client_min_messages are sent to the client. context_min_messages are not sent to a "context",

Re: [HACKERS] Temporal extensions

On 4/25/15 7:49 PM, Dave Jones wrote: I've been working on a conversion of several utilities I wrote for another engine, and was wondering if there was any interest in seeing any of them added to contrib/ at some point in the vague undefined future? Not in contrib, no, because there's no reason

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On 4/25/15 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Note that the syntax is quite similar to the SQLite > syntax of the same feature, that has ON CONFLICT IGNORE (it also has > ON CONFLICT REPLACE, but not ON CONFLICT UPDATE). I don't know anything about SQLite's syntax, but from the online syntax diagra

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL

On 4/27/15 10:31 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > Thank you for your review comment! > The latest patch is attached. Looks good overall - a few more comments below: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml + + seqno + integer + Sequence number of current vi

Re: [HACKERS] GSSAPI, SSPI - include_realm default

Bruce, all, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:38:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > My comment that include_realm is supported back to 8.4 was because there > > > is an expectation that a pg_hba.conf file can be used unchanged across > > > several major rel

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 09:34:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > On 04/25/2015 12:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > >INSERT ... ON CONFLICT (cola, colb [WHERE predicate_for_partial]) > > >UPDATE|IGNORE > > > > > >My problem with the WHERE being insid

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

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > That sounds weird. log_min_messages are the messages sent to the log; > client_min_messages are sent to the client. context_min_messages are not > sent to a "context", whatever that would mean. Good point. I think it can't be any clear

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

On 18/04/15 20:35, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: Sorry for late reply. Here is a slightly improved version of the patch with the new `h_atoi` function, I hope this implementation will be more appropriate. It's better, but a) I don't like the name of the function b) I don't see why we need the function

Re: [HACKERS] improving speed of make check-world

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 4/23/15 1:22 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> Something about this commit (dcae5faccab64776376d354d) broke "make > >> check" in parallel conditions when started from a clean direct

Re: [HACKERS] Improving RLS qual pushdown

Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > I took another look at this and came up with some alternate comment > rewording. I also added a couple of additional comments that should > hopefully clarify the code a bit. Finally got back to this. Made a few additional changes that made

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

On 4/27/15 6:08 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I reduced this patch, little bit cleaned - now it is based on plpgsql GUC display_context_min_messages - like client_min_messages, log_min_messages. What you think just "context_min_messag

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

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Hi > > I reduced this patch, little bit cleaned - now it is based on plpgsql GUC display_context_min_messages - like client_min_messages, log_min_messages. > What you think just "context_min_messages" ? Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mell

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:40 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 4/4/15 9:21 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: >>> I added documentation changes to patch is attached. >>> Also I tried to use memory context for allocation of guc_file_variable >>> in To

Re: [HACKERS] forward vs backward slashes in msvc build code

On 04/27/2015 08:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 4/27/15 2:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: 2) I noticed that VC builds do not like *at all* file paths with forward slashes, perhaps it could be possible to use a Condition like hasForwardS

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:40 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 4/4/15 9:21 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: >> I added documentation changes to patch is attached. >> Also I tried to use memory context for allocation of guc_file_variable >> in TopMemoryContext, >> but it was failed access after received SIGHU

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0, parser/executor stuff

On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * So far, there has been a lack of scrutiny about what the patch does > in the rewriter (in particular, to support the EXCLUDED.* pseudo-alias > expression) and optimizer (the whole concept of an "auxiliary" > query/plan that share a target RTE

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

2015-04-27 16:05 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson : > Looks good Pavel! > > May I just suggest you add the default case > to src/test/regress/sql/plpgsql.sql > and src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out, to make it easier for the > reviewer to compare the difference between what happens in the default > cas

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

Looks good Pavel! May I just suggest you add the default case to src/test/regress/sql/plpgsql.sql and src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out, to make it easier for the reviewer to compare the difference between what happens in the default case, when not using the raise-syntax and not using the GUCs

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It's make-or-break time for this patch. Please help me get it over the > line in time. Could you please add the tests for the logical decoding code you added? I presume you have some already/ > Heikki is in Northern California this week, and

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [GENERAL] 4B row limit for CLOB tables

On 4/27/15, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/25/15 1:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Note if you are storing a table with rows that exceed 2KB in size >> (aggregate size of each row) then the "Maximum number of rows in a >> table" may be limited to 4 Billion, see TOAST. > > That's not accurat

Re: [HACKERS] collate.linux.utf8 test coverage

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > The patch needed a little adjustment so it runs with the right switches in > the right branch, I think. See > Oops, yes. Updated as well... -- Mich

Re: [HACKERS] forward vs backward slashes in msvc build code

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/27/15 2:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> 2) I noticed that VC builds do not like *at all* file paths with >> forward slashes, perhaps it could be possible to use a Condition like >> hasForwardSlashes but it seems safer to simply enfor

Re: [HACKERS] collate.linux.utf8 test coverage

On 04/27/2015 02:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: The optional buildfarm module that runs this test was broken by commit dcae5faccab64776376d354decda0017c648bb53 Since nobody has res

Re: [HACKERS] forward vs backward slashes in msvc build code

On 4/27/15 2:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > 2) I noticed that VC builds do not like *at all* file paths with > forward slashes, perhaps it could be possible to use a Condition like > hasForwardSlashes but it seems safer to simply enforce the file paths > to use backslashes in the vcproj files. Tha

Re: [HACKERS] Missing importing option of postgres_fdw

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2015/04/27 15:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >>> >>> I noticed that there is no postgres_fdw option to control whether check >>> constraints on remote tables are included in the d

[HACKERS] PATCH: remove nclients/nthreads constraint from pgbench

Remove pgbench constraint that the number of clients must be a multiple of the number of threads, by sharing clients among threads as evenly as possible. Rational: allows to test the database load with any number of client without unrelated constraint. The current setting means for instance

Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [HACKERS] [v9.5] Custom Plan API)

Hi Ashutosh, Thanks for the review. 2015/04/22 19:28、Ashutosh Bapat のメール： > Tests > --- > 1.The postgres_fdw test is re/setting enable_mergejoin at various places. The > goal of these tests seems to be to test the sanity of foreign plans > generated. So, it might be better to reset enable_

Re: [HACKERS] Missing importing option of postgres_fdw

On 2015/04/27 15:51, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I noticed that there is no postgres_fdw option to control whether check constraints on remote tables are included in the definitions of foreign tables imported from a remote PG server when performi