On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Rebased version of patch is attached.
FYI, I found an unrelated bug within ruleutils.c (looks like the
targetlist kludge in set_deparse_planstate() isn't sufficiently
general):
postgres=# explain insert into upsert as u values('Bat', 'Bar
Attached patch makes minor tweaks to pg_audit docs.
--
Peter Geoghegan
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/pgaudit.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/pgaudit.sgml
index b8df0d5..915b977 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/pgaudit.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/pgaudit.sgml
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ AUDIT: SESSION,33,2,DDL,CREATE TABLE,TABLE,publ
On 5/16/15 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As exhibited for instance here:
>
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=spoonbill&dt=2015-05-16%2011%3A00%3A07
>
> I've been able to replicate this on a Fedora 21 box: works fine with
> Python 2, fails with Python 3. Seems like we still h
Another thing that I noticed about the new jsonb stuff is that the
concatenate operator is based on the hstore one. This works as
expected:
postgres=# select '{"a":1}'::jsonb || '{"a":2}';
?column?
--
{"a": 2}
(1 row)
However, the nesting doesn't "match up" -- containers are not merged
b
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> For the reasons I mentioned, I'd like to get to a point where
> subquery_planner's output is Paths not Plans as soon as possible. But the
> idea of coarse representation of steps that we aren't trying to be smart
> about might be useful to save
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I implemented this 2-3 years ago, just dropping the WALWriteLock immediately
> before the fsync and then picking it up again immediately after, and was
> surprised that I saw absolutely no improvement. Of course it surely depends
> on the IO st
I'm seeing the following problem on the master branch:
postgres=# select '{"foo":5}'::jsonb - 'bar'; -- okay
?column?
{"foo": 5}
(1 row)
postgres=# select '{"foo":{"bar":5}}'::jsonb - 'foo'; -- okay
?column?
--
{}
(1 row)
postgres=# select '{"foo":{"bar":5}}'::jsonb - '
I've committed first-draft release notes for next week's back-branch
releases. As usual, I've made a section for 9.4.2 that currently
includes items for all branches; I'll subdivide the items tomorrow.
If you wish to review, please send comments in the next 18 hours or so.
Patch is up now at
http
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:21:12PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:06:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > This patch makes pg_upgrade co
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:21:12PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:06:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > This patch makes pg_upgrade controldata checks more consistent, and adds
> > > a missing check for fl
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With feature freeze behind us, I'd like to propose that now is a good
>> time for a pgindent run.
> +1, except I suggest we at least delay it until we have wrapped the new
> minor releases, to make sure we don't confli
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:58:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> With feature freeze behind us, I'd like to propose that now is a good
> time for a pgindent run. It's possible we'd need another one before
> 9.5 is branched off from HEAD, but a run now ought to take care of 95%
> of the cleanup needed.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> With feature freeze behind us, I'd like to propose that now is a good
> time for a pgindent run. It's possible we'd need another one before
> 9.5 is branched off from HEAD, but a run now ought to take care of 95%
> of the cleanup needed. I see
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:06:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This patch makes pg_upgrade controldata checks more consistent, and adds
> > a missing check for float8_pass_by_value.
>
> Sorry, I should have mentioned I applied th
As exhibited for instance here:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=spoonbill&dt=2015-05-16%2011%3A00%3A07
I've been able to replicate this on a Fedora 21 box: works fine with
Python 2, fails with Python 3. Seems like we still have an issue
with reliance on a system-provided s
With feature freeze behind us, I'd like to propose that now is a good
time for a pgindent run. It's possible we'd need another one before
9.5 is branched off from HEAD, but a run now ought to take care of 95%
of the cleanup needed. I see a couple of advantages to doing it now:
1. Patches that ar
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> The dedicated language for multiple sync replication would be more
> extensibility as you said, but I think there are not a lot of user who
> want to or should use this.
> IMHO such a dedicated extensible feature could be extension module,
>
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
>> There was a discussion on support for N synchronous standby servers started
>> by Michael. Refer
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr9c84ig0zuvhmqamq53vqsd4rc82vy
18 matches
Mail list logo
