Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

2015-05-13 7:50 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby : > On 5/12/15 11:32 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I would not to store state on this level - so "at" should be >> implemented on higher level. There is very high number of >> possible strategies, what can be done with failed tasks - and

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

2015-05-12 10:24 GMT+09:00 Kouhei Kaigai : > option-2) > Tom's suggestion. Add a new list field of Path nodes on CustomPath, > then create_customscan_plan() will call static create_plan_recurse() > function to construct child plan nodes. > Probably, the attached patch will be an image of this enhan

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

On 5/12/15 11:32 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I would not to store state on this level - so "at" should be implemented on higher level. There is very high number of possible strategies, what can be done with failed tasks - and I would not to open this topic. I believe

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

2015-05-13 4:08 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > > > On 13 May 2015 at 00:31, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-05-12 11:27 GMT+02:00 hubert depesz lubaczewski : >> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:25:50AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> > create type scheduled_time as (second int[], minute int[], hou

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

Craig Ringer wrote: > Hi all > > For some time I've wanted a way to "SET SESSION AUTHORISATION" or "SET > ROLE" in a way that cannot simply be RESET, so that a connection may be > handed to a less-trusted service or application to do some work with. Some years back, I checked the SQL standard for

Re: [HACKERS] a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space)

At 2015-05-13 03:04:11 +0200, and...@anarazel.de wrote: > > I can live with that, although I'd personally go with > pgstattuple_approx()... I could live with that too. Here's an incremental patch to rename the function. (I'm not resubmitting the whole thing since you said you've made some other ch

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_basebackup -F t now succeeds with a long symlink target

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > You have a memory error in this patch -- clobbered by pfree: > > > Details > > --- > > http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/97e0aa697983cf7f7f79e69f2dc248fdefb7dbf6 >

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

On 2015/05/13 0:55, Stephen Frost wrote: Etsuro, * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: Here is an updated version. In this version, the bug has been fixed, but any regression tests for that hasn't been added, because I'm not sure that the above way is a good idea and don't have

Re: [HACKERS] Default Roles (was: Additional role attributes)

All, This patch gets smaller and smaller. Upon reflection I realized that, with default roles, it's entirely unnecssary to change how the permission checks happen today- we can simply add checks to them to be looking at role membership also. That's removed the last of my concerns regarding any A

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

On 13 May 2015 at 09:55, Stephen Frost wrote: > Craig, > > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 12 May 2015 at 21:10, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > This can be done without protocol-level changes and with no backward > > > > compatibility impact to existing applications. Any objec

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

On 13 May 2015 at 00:31, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-05-12 11:27 GMT+02:00 hubert depesz lubaczewski : > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:25:50AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > create type scheduled_time as (second int[], minute int[], hour int[], >> dow >> > int[], month int[]); >> > (,"{1,1

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

Craig, * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12 May 2015 at 21:10, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > This can be done without protocol-level changes and with no backward > > > compatibility impact to existing applications. Any objections? > > > > I don't particularly object but I'm not enti

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

On 12 May 2015 at 21:10, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > This can be done without protocol-level changes and with no backward > > compatibility impact to existing applications. Any objections? > > I don't particularly object but I'm not entirely sure that it's that > simple to clear out the cookie val

Re: [HACKERS] a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space)

On 2015-05-12 00:42:14 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2015-05-11 19:15:47 +0200, and...@anarazel.de wrote: > > I don't really care how it's named, as long as it makes clear that > > it's not an exact measurement. > > Not having heard any better suggestions, I picked "pgstatapprox" as a > com

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

Hello, I tried to make patches for the three approaches. Please don't think the option-3 serious proposition, however, it is the only solution at this moment unfortunately. In my understanding, we don't guarantee interface compatibility across major version up, including the definitions of non-st

Re: [HACKERS] Final Patch for GROUPING SETS

On 2015-05-12 20:40:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-12 05:36:19 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > > What I dislike so far: > > * Minor formatting things. Just going to fix and push the ones I > > dislike. > > * The Hopcroft-Karp stuff not being separate > > * The increased complexity of g

Re: [HACKERS] Minor ON CONFLICT related fixes

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Could you rebase and adjust your patch? I'd rather have the inference >> structure refactoring separate. > > Sure. Rebased version of patch is attached. -- Peter Geoghegan From cc

[HACKERS] Why does contain_leaked_vars believe MinMaxExpr is safe?

MinMaxExpr is an implicit invocation of a btree comparison function. Are we supposing that all of those are necessarily leakproof? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.pos

Re: [HACKERS] Minor ON CONFLICT related fixes

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Could you rebase and adjust your patch? I'd rather have the inference > structure refactoring separate. Sure. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription

Re: [HACKERS] Minor ON CONFLICT related fixes

On 2015-05-12 23:40:47 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > That's just a straight up bug. expression_tree_walker (called via > ChangeVarNodes) did not know about exclRelTlist, leading to > fix_join_expr() not matching the excluded vars to the excluded > relation/tlist. I've fixed these, and added a mini

Re: [HACKERS] Minor ON CONFLICT related fixes

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> It's not as if I have no idea. ReplaceVarsFromTargetList() is probably >> quite confused by all this, because the passed nomatch_varno argument >> is often rt_index -- but what about EXCLUDED.*? adjustJoinTreeList() >> does not know anything

Re: [HACKERS] Minor ON CONFLICT related fixes

On 2015-05-11 20:16:00 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > You should try to understand why it's failing. Just prohibiting the > > rules, without understanding what's actually going on, could very well > > hide a real bug. > > It's not as if I

Re: [HACKERS] EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns

I wrote: > I did a very basic update of your postgres_fdw patch to test this with, > and attach that so that you don't have to repeat the effort. I'm not sure > whether we want to try to convert that into something committable. I'm > afraid that the extra round trips involved in doing row locking

Re: [HACKERS] mogrify and indent features for jsonb

Yeaha didn't work either on http://jsonprettyprint.net for me. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/mogrify-and-indent-features-for-jsonb-tp5838008p5848933.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/12/2015 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >If in the future, for instance, we come up with a way to store the ipv4 > >plus ipv6 info, we will want to change the page format. If we add a > >page version to the metapage, we can detect the change at pg_upgrade > >tim

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

So, in reading these patches, it came to me that we might want to have pg_upgrade mark indexes invalid if we in the future change the implementation of some opclass. For instance, the inclusion opclass submitted here uses three columns: the indexed value itself, plus two booleans; each of these bo

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

On 05/12/2015 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: If in the future, for instance, we come up with a way to store the ipv4 plus ipv6 info, we will want to change the page format. If we add a page version to the metapage, we can detect the change at pg_upgrade time and force a reindex of the index.

Re: [HACKERS] Final Patch for GROUPING SETS

On 2015-05-12 05:36:19 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > What I dislike so far: > * Minor formatting things. Just going to fix and push the ones I > dislike. > * The Hopcroft-Karp stuff not being separate > * The increased complexity of grouping_planner. It'd imo be good if some > of that could be

Re: [HACKERS] EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns

Etsuro Fujita writes: > On 2015/05/12 7:42, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't much like the division of labor between LockForeignRow and >> FetchForeignRow. In principle that would lead to not one but two >> extra remote accesses per locked row in SELECT FOR UPDATE, at least >> in the case that an EvalP

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > 2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > > > Sync with current CVS > > > > I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only > > substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a > > different coding pattern for the box case than it do

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Robert Haas wrote: > 2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > > Sync with current CVS > > I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only > substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a > different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon > and circle case

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-xacts and our process problem

* Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Another crucial difference between the multixact patch and many other > > patches is that it wasn't a feature you could turn off. For example, > > if BRIN has bugs, you can almost certainly avoid

[HACKERS] Silent Data Manipulation - Time(stamp) w/o Time Zone Literals w/ TZ

​"​In a literal that has been determined to be timestamp without time zone, PostgreSQL will silently ignore any time zone indication. That is, the resulting value is derived from the date/time fields in the input value, and is not adjusted for time zone.​​"​ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/stat

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > In patch 05, you use straight > etc comparisons of point/box values. > All the other code in that file AFAICS uses FPlt() macros and others; I > assume we should do likewise. Oooh, looking at the history of this I just realized that the comments signed "tgl" are actually T

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN range operator class

Emre Hasegeli wrote: > > I pushed patches 04 and 07, as well as adopting some of the changes to > > the regression test in 06. I'm afraid I caused a bit of merge pain for > > you -- sorry about that. > > No problem. I rebased the remaining ones. In patch 05, you use straight > etc comparisons o

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-xacts and our process problem

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think that's rather facile, and I really don't see how you would > know that from looking at those release notes. I thought multixacts > had risk, but obviously nobody came close to predicting how bad things > were going to be. If they had,

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_basebackup -F t now succeeds with a long symlink target

You have a memory error in this patch -- clobbered by pfree: > Details > --- > http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/97e0aa697983cf7f7f79e69f2dc248fdefb7dbf6 here Sorry, couldn't resist. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp:/

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -f and vacuum

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> It's says: > >> > >> starting vacuum ERROR: blah > >> ERROR: blah > >> ERROR: blah > >> done > >> > >> And then continues on. Sure, that'

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

2015-05-12 11:27 GMT+02:00 hubert depesz lubaczewski : > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:25:50AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > create type scheduled_time as (second int[], minute int[], hour int[], > dow > > int[], month int[]); > > (,"{1,10,20,30,40,50}",,,) .. run every 10 minutes. > > (,"{5}",,,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -f and vacuum

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> It's says: > >> > >> starting vacuum ERROR: blah > >> ERROR: blah > >> ERROR: blah > >> done > >> > >> And then continues on. Sure, that'

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -f and vacuum

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> It's says: >> >> starting vacuum ERROR: blah >> ERROR: blah >> ERROR: blah >> done >> >> And then continues on. Sure, that's not the greatest error reporting >> output ever, but what do yo

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -f and vacuum

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > It's says: > > starting vacuum ERROR: blah > ERROR: blah > ERROR: blah > done > > And then continues on. Sure, that's not the greatest error reporting > output ever, but what do you expect from pgbench? I think it's clear > enough what's going

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

Etsuro, * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > Here is an updated version. In this version, the bug has been > fixed, but any regression tests for that hasn't been added, because > I'm not sure that the above way is a good idea and don't have any > other ideas. > > The EXPLAIN ou

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > ... but, personally, I'd favor > trying to do something at the protocol level instead. Me, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac

Re: [HACKERS] Multixid hindsight design

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The main problem with the infamous multixid changes was that it made > pg_multixact a permanent, critical, piece of data. Without it, you cannot > decipher whether some rows have been deleted or not. The 9.3 changes > uncovered pre-exist

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the > > concept > > > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And t

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > Magnus, > > > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the > concept > > > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And then have a

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Magnus, > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the > concept > > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And then have a view that > > brings together a v

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

Stephen Frost wrote: > Magnus, > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the concept > > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And then have a view that > > brings together a view of everything with a specific ta

[HACKERS] Back-branch update releases planned for next week

In view of the multixactid wraparound issues that have gotten fixed over the last week or two, it's time to put out some minor releases. After some discussion among core and the packagers list, we concluded that we should do it next week (before the Memorial Day holiday). As per usual timing, we'

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/12/2015 08:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> Yes, sorry, I had a moment of brain fade yesterday. However, I think we're a bit under-documented on the pg_basebackup page, regarding both tar mode and tablespace_map (which isn't e

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

Magnus, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > We could also use the category that we have now, or even create the concept > of a tag (where you can assign multiple ones). And then have a view that > brings together a view of everything with a specific tag/category, > *regardless* of whi

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION

Craig, All very interesting, but, to be honest, I don't really have time this week to chat about it. :( Apologies for that. A couple comments below. * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > For some time I've wanted a way to "SET SESSION AUTHORISATION" or "SET > ROLE" in a way that canno

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 05/12/2015 08:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yes, sorry, I had a moment of brain fade yesterday. However, I think we're a bit under-documented on the pg_basebackup page, regarding both tar mode and tablespace_map (which isn't even mentioned). And there is this which I noticed this morning:

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-xacts and our process problem

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> it came out that most people had identified fklocks as the highest-risk 9.3 >> patch. Here's an idea. Shortly after the 9.5 release notes draft, let's >> take >> a secret ballot to

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-xacts and our process problem

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:42:16AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > > The "revert or rework" ship had already sailed at that point. I > > > > True. > > > > > don't think we had much choice than just soldier through the bugs > > > after the release. > > > > The problem is we "soldiered on" without ad

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 05/11/2015 11:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: > > > On 05/11/2015 02:02 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan mailto:and...@dunslane.net>

Re: [HACKERS] Let PostgreSQL's On Schedule checkpoint write buffer smooth spread cycle by tuning IsCheckpointOnSchedule?

On 05/12/2015 03:27 AM, digoal zhou wrote: PostgreSQL (<=9.4) trend to smooth buffer write smooth in a checkpoint_completion_target (checkpoint_timeout or checkpoint_segments), but when we use synchronous_commit=off, there is a little problem for the checkpoint_segments target, because xlog w

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK TABLE Permissions

* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Yeah, it might not be bad to have tests for all the different lock types > > and make sure that the permissions match up. I'd probably put those > > tests into 'permissions.sql' instead

Re: [HACKERS] "Bugs" CF?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Now, if we can easily shove stuff back and forth between the main queue > > and the bug-fix queue, maybe that's not such a big deal. But it doesn't > > seem like the current CF app is really amenabl

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:25:50AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > create type scheduled_time as (second int[], minute int[], hour int[], dow > int[], month int[]); > (,"{1,10,20,30,40,50}",,,) .. run every 10 minutes. > (,"{5}",,,) .. run once per hour > Comments, notices? First, please note that

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

2015-05-12 10:45 GMT+02:00 Dave Page : > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > Generic simple scheduler to contrib > > === > > Job schedulers are important and sometimes very complex part of any > > software. PostgreSQL miss it. I propose new

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Generic simple scheduler to contrib > === > Job schedulers are important and sometimes very complex part of any > software. PostgreSQL miss it. I propose new contrib module, that can be used > simply for some

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to improve a few appendStringInfo* calls

On 12 May 2015 at 12:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/11/15 6:25 AM, David Rowley wrote: > > I've attached a small patch which just fixes a few appendStringInfo* > > calls that are not quite doing things the way that it was intended. > > done > > Thank you for pushing. Shortly after I sent the

Re: [HACKERS] Multixid hindsight design

On 05/12/2015 01:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: So the lesson here is that having a permanent pg_multixact is not nice, and we should get rid of it. Here's how to do that: That would be cool, but ... Looking at the tuple header, the CID and CTID fields are only needed, wh

[HACKERS] proposal: contrib module - generic command scheduler

Generic simple scheduler to contrib === Job schedulers are important and sometimes very complex part of any software. PostgreSQL miss it. I propose new contrib module, that can be used simply for some tasks, and that can be used as base for other more richer schedule

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-xacts and our process problem

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > it came out that most people had identified fklocks as the highest-risk 9.3 > patch. Here's an idea. Shortly after the 9.5 release notes draft, let's take > a secret ballot to identify the changes threatening the most damage through > undisco