On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:50:53AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:36:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > Hm? Let me try again: If the admin does a ALTER DA
On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so
> doing to create mechanisms that work now but make further upgrades to
> the general lwlock mechanism difficult. I'd like to avoid that.
I'm massively doubtful that re-implementin
On 2015-07-29 20:23:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Backend A has called LWLockWaitForVar(X) on a lock, and is now waiting on
> it. The lock holder releases the lock, and wakes up A. But before A wakes up
> and sees that the lock is free, another backend acquires the lock again. It
> runs LWL
Hi,
Is anyone working on implementing or interested in implementing
automatic updatable view which uses two or more tables involved
(join)? SQL1999 allows it in certain conditions.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/29/2015 07:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We can definitely do
> >
> > SELECT x::any_single_unreserved_word(some_expression) FROM ...
> >
> > because that's actually not something the gramm
Hello,
Just looking at how the 2 differnt methods can be used to set the s_s_names
value.
1. For a simple case where quorum is required for a single group the JSON
could be:
{
"sync_standby_names":
{
"quorum":2,
"nodes":
[ "no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2015 07:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We can definitely do
>
> SELECT x::any_single_unreserved_word(some_expression) FROM ...
>
> because that's actually not something the grammar needs to
> distinguish from type-with-a-typmod; we can deal with t
Qingqing Zhou writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Piotr Stefaniak
> wrote:
>> + Assert(path_rows != 0);
>> if (tuple_fraction >= 1.0)
>> tuple_fraction /= path_rows;
>> }
>>
> This does not sounds right: path_rows only used when tuple_fractions
>> = 1.0. So the new
Michael Paquier writes:
> hamster has not complained for a couple of weeks now, and the issue
> was reproducible every 4~6 days:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=hamster&br=HEAD
> Hence let's consider the issue as resolved.
Nah, I'm afraid not. We are definitely still
Joe Conway writes:
> On 07/29/2015 05:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's possibly more palatable is to introduce some other special
>> notation for "obtain the type of this expression at parse time".
>> I'm thinking for example about
>>
>> SELECT x::pg_typeof(some_expression) FROM ...
> You think
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> And, we get a failure:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hamster&dt=2015-06-20%2017%3A59%3A01
> I am not sure why buildfarm runs makes it more easily reproducible,
> one of the reasons may be the perl scripts run unde
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> What I do not like though is how the path src/test/tables_fk/t/ tells us
> nothing about what features are of PostgreSQL are tested here. For this I
> personally prefer the earlier versions where I think that was clear.
+Simple module use
The behavior of external sorts that do not require any merge step due
to only having one run (what EXPLAIN ANALYZE output shows as an
"external sort", and not a "merge sort") seems like an area that can
be significantly improved upon. As noted in code comments, this
optimization did not appear in T
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If no one weighs in after a few days, I'll mark the patch "rejected"
> in the CF app.
The patch has been marked "rejected" in the CF app. I withdraw it.
Obviously I still think that the patch is worthwhile, but not if that
"while" is dis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2015 02:21 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> While going through this, I spotted another issue --- in a DML
> query with additional non-target relations, such as UPDATE t1 ..
> FROM t2 .., the old code was checking the UPDATE policies of both
> t1 and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2015 05:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's possibly more palatable is to introduce some other special
> notation for "obtain the type of this expression at parse time".
> I'm thinking for example about
>
> SELECT x::pg_typeof(some_expression) FR
I wrote:
> Well, it would depend on how we fixed %TYPE, but my thought is that
> we should teach the core parser to accept variable%TYPE anywhere that
> a suitable "variable" is in scope. The core already allows related
> syntaxes in some utility commands, but not within DML commands.
I poked at
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 10:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> An updated patch is attached.
>>
>>
>> Attached is v9, that fixes conflicts with 01f6bb4 and recent commits
>> that
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> >
> > Hi Amit,
> >
> > Could you tell me the code intention around ExecInitFunnel()?
> >
> > ExecInitFunnel() calls InitFunnel() that opens the relation to be
> > scanned by the underlying PartialSeqScan and setup ss_ScanTupleSlot
> > of it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/14/2015 03:46 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I think the docs for the LEAKPROOF option in create_function.sgml
> ought to mention RLS as well as security barrier views. Also the
> current text is no longer strictly correct in light of commit
> dcbf
On 07/29/2015 02:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Why not just "in policy expressions"? There's no third kind that does
>>> allow these.
>>
>> WFM
>
> Sold! Will do it that way.
Committed/pushed to HEAD and 9.5.
Joe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
On 07/29/2015 02:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Why not just "in policy expressions"? There's no third kind that does
>> allow these.
>
> WFM
Sold! Will do it that way.
Joe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://ww
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> plpgsql raise statement with context
>> Impasse. Everyone wants this feature in some form, but no consensus on
>> whether to do this client-side or server-side.
> +1 for server-side. Does anyone other than you
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway
> wrote:
> > The equivalent message for functions is:
> > ".. are not allowed in functions in FROM"
> >
> > So how does this sound:
> > "... are not allowed in policies in USING and WITH CHECK expressions"
> > or perhaps more sim
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I think this reads a bit funny. What's a "POLICY USING" clause? I
>>> expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as
Merlin Moncure writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Ok, gotcha. So Tom's nearby comment about allowing the
>> "p_rowtype%TYPE" syntax to be used in the CAST is spot on (as usual).
>> In other words, to get a complete solution for you we would need to
>> make both thing
On 07/29/2015 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I think this reads a bit funny. What's a "POLICY USING" clause? I
>> expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
>> single token, and the result is not going to make an
I have reviewed this patch and it compiles runs and the new test case
passes. The code is also clean and the test seems like a useful
regression test.
What I do not like though is how the path src/test/tables_fk/t/ tells us
nothing about what features are of PostgreSQL are tested here. For thi
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/29/2015 09:40 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> Say I've got a table my_partitioned_table (key1 integer, key2
>> integer, metric1 integer, metric2 integer);
>>
>> And I've got many partitions
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Attached fixes a minor typo:
>
> s/custom/foreign/g
Committed, thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To ma
On 07/29/2015 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Really? What aspect of postgis requires mucking with
shared_preload_libraries?
Having to have the libraries in place is what I was getting at, which is
what Andres was also talking about, if
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Um ... wait a second. There is no support in readfuncs for any
> plan node type, and never has been, and I seriously doubt that there
> ever should be.
As KaiGai says, the parallel query stuff contemplates changing this;
how else will we get th
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I think this reads a bit funny. What's a "POLICY USING" clause? I
> expect that translators will treat the two words POLICY USING as a
> single token, and the result is not going to make any sense.
>
> Maybe "in a policy's USING and WITH C
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> A user may set atomic_foreign_transaction to ON to guarantee atomicity, IOW
> it throws error when atomicity can not be guaranteed. Thus if application
> accidentally does something to a foreign server, which doesn't support 2PC,
> the trans
On 7/29/15 8:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> As far as I understand this subthread the goal is to have a
> pg_basebackup that internally creates a slot, so it can guarantee that
> all the required WAL is present till streamed out by -X
> stream/fetch. The problem with just creating a slot is that it'
Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
> > transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
> > You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
> > already used for lot
On 29 July 2015 at 20:36, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
>> transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
>> You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> Can we simplify above with foreign table methods? There are two major
> concerns about this method per previous discussions: security and
> usability. I think the main cause is the sharing foreign table design.
I think foreign data wrappers are great. I do not think that w
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
> transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
> You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
> already used for lots of other expression kinds.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Piotr Stefaniak
wrote:
> + Assert(path_rows != 0);
> if (tuple_fraction >= 1.0)
> tuple_fraction /= path_rows;
> }
>
This does not sounds right: path_rows only used when
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another point is that we decided a long time ago that EXPLAIN's plain-text
> output format is not intended to be machine-parsable, and so objecting to
> a design on the grounds that it makes machine parsing harder is pretty
> wrongheaded. I'd thi
Hi
here is proof concept patch
It should be cleaned, but it demonstrates a work well
[pavel@localhost psql]$ ./psql -C 'select 10 x; select 20 y;' -C "\l"
postgres
x
10
(1 row)
y
20
(1 row)
List of databases
Name| Owner | Encoding |
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> plpgsql raise statement with context
>
> Impasse. Everyone wants this feature in some form, but no consensus on
> whether to do this client-side or server-side.
+1 for server-side. Does anyone other than you even think that the
client
>
> Ok, gotcha. So Tom's nearby comment about allowing the
> "p_rowtype%TYPE" syntax to be used in the CAST is spot on (as usual).
> In other words, to get a complete solution for you we would need to
> make both things work, so you could do this inside plpgsql:
>
> select * from cast(dblink(conn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2015 09:40 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Say I've got a table my_partitioned_table (key1 integer, key2
> integer, metric1 integer, metric2 integer);
>
> And I've got many partitions on that table. My code lets you do
> something like this:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's possible that the problem here is not so much reliance on
> shared_preload_libraries as it is that there's no provision in
> pg_upgrade for dealing with the need to set it. But one way or
> the other, this is a usability fail.
Andres prett
On 07/29/2015 04:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 14:22:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
I'll try. S
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> > I thought that internal API will automatically take care of it,
>> > example for msvc it uses _InterlockedCompareExchange64
>
On 07/29/2015 08:46 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 01:01 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> The CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() changes look OK to me, but the
>> RemovePolicyById() change looks to be unnecessary ---
>> RemovePolicyById() is called only from doDeletion(), which in turned
>> is calle
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/29/2015 08:56 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane > sure why inserting a variable name is so much better than inserting
> > a type name?
>
> > In a
On 29 July 2015 at 16:52, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
>> transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
>> You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
On 07/29/2015 10:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
An updated patch is attached.
Attached is v9, that fixes conflicts with 01f6bb4 and recent commits
that added TAP tests in pg_basebackup series.
Thanks, committed with some more tweaking.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 09:23:32 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> > I've reproduced it again against commit b2ed8edeecd715c8a23ae462.
> >
> > It took 5 hours on a 8 core "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650
On 2015-07-29 09:23:32 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've reproduced it again against commit b2ed8edeecd715c8a23ae462.
>
> It took 5 hours on a 8 core "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650".
>
> I also reproduced it in 3 hours on the same machine with bo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2015-07-19 11:49:14 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > After applying this patch to commit fdf28853ae6a397497b79f, it has
>> survived
>> > testing long enough to convince that
Corey Huinker writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure why inserting a variable name is so much better than inserting a
>> type name?
> In a polymorphic function, I don't know the return type. It's whatever type
> was specified on the function call.
> Say I've wri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2015 08:56 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane sure why inserting a variable name is so much better than inserting
> a type name?
> In a polymorphic function, I don't know the return type. It's
> whatever ty
Stephen Frost writes:
> More generally, I completely agree that this is something which we can
> improve upon. It doesn't seem like a release blocker or something which
> we need to fix in the back branches though.
No, it's not a release blocker; it's been like this since we invented
security la
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Corey Huinker writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >> Let's pursue the "CAST(srf() AS row_rtype)" syntax that Joe suggested
> >> upthread (
> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559a9643.9070...@joecon
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Having to also deal with shared_preload_libraries for some cases doesn't
> > strike me as a huge issue.
>
> I think it is, especially if what we're offering as a workaround is "write
> a custom script and make sure that your pg_up
On 07/29/2015 02:41 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I don't think there is any point in adding the new function
> transformPolicyClause(), which is identical to transformWhereClause().
> You can just use transformWhereClause() with EXPR_KIND_POLICY. It's
> already used for lots of other expression kinds.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Ick! So the dummy_seclabel test more or less only works by accident if I
> > see that correctly. The .so is only loaded because the CREATE EXTENSION
> > in the test triggers a CREATE FUNCTION dummy_seclabel_dummy() ... LANG
> > C.
I set it up that way
On 07/29/2015 01:01 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> The CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() changes look OK to me, but the
> RemovePolicyById() change looks to be unnecessary ---
> RemovePolicyById() is called only from doDeletion(), which in turned
> is called only from deleteOneObject(), which already inv
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Really? What aspect of postgis requires mucking with
>> shared_preload_libraries?
> Having to have the libraries in place is what I was getting at, which is
> what Andres was also talking about, if I understood correctly.
Right,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> >> Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having all .so's
> >> available in the installation seems like a pretty basic
> >> requirement. Security labels are by far not the onl
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-07-29 10:38:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Now as far as dummy_seclabel is concerned, the easy answer is "we don't
> >> care". But on reflection, doesn't this mean that the entire
> >> implementation of SECURITY LABE
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having all .so's
>> available in the installation seems like a pretty basic
>> requirement. Security labels are by far not the only things that'll fail
>> without an extension's .
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-07-29 10:38:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now as far as dummy_seclabel is concerned, the easy answer is "we don't
>> care". But on reflection, doesn't this mean that the entire
>> implementation of SECURITY LABEL is broken? At least to the extent that
>> it can't w
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 10:38:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, there's a larger issue, which is that (a) Andrew's new installation
> > very likely doesn't have dummy_seclabel.so built/installed at all
>
> Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > I thought that internal API will automatically take care of it,
> > example for msvc it uses _InterlockedCompareExchange64
> > which if doesn't work on 32-bit systems or is not defined
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> Could you tell me the code intention around ExecInitFunnel()?
>
> ExecInitFunnel() calls InitFunnel() that opens the relation to be
> scanned by the underlying PartialSeqScan and setup ss_ScanTupleSlot
> of its scanstate.
The
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:36:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Hm? Let me try again: If the admin does a ALTER DATABASE ... SET guc =
>> > ... *before* restoring a backup and the bac
Hello Heikki,
About two patches I submitted:
pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts
Everyone wants the feature, using multi-line SELECTs in pgbench scripts,
but we don't seem to be reaching a consensus on how it should work. I
think we'll need to integrate the lexer, bu
Corey Huinker writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Let's pursue the "CAST(srf() AS row_rtype)" syntax that Joe suggested
>> upthread (
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559a9643.9070...@joeconway.com). For
>> some reason, the discussion went on around the
On 2015-07-29 10:38:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, there's a larger issue, which is that (a) Andrew's new installation
> very likely doesn't have dummy_seclabel.so built/installed at all
Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having all .so's
available in the installation seems like a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/18/2015 01:32 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>> So this patch would result in less C code while still adding 3 new
>> functions. Can anyone think of why that wouldn't be the best way to go?
>>
>
> Let's pursue the "CAST(srf() AS row_r
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-07-29 10:16:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> psql:pg_upgrade_dump_globals.sql:25: ERROR: security label provider
>> "dummy" is not loaded
> Ick! So the dummy_seclabel test more or less only works by accident if I
> see that correctly. The .so is only loaded beca
Hi,
On 2015-07-29 10:16:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> My cross-version upgrade testing tool just threw up this failure, upgrading
> from 9.5 to head:
>
>CREATE ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1";
>CREATE ROLE
>ALTER ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1" WITH NOSUPERUSER INHERIT
>CREATEROLE
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> My cross-version upgrade testing tool just threw up this failure,
> upgrading from 9.5 to head:
> CREATE ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1";
> CREATE ROLE
> ALTER ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1" WITH NOSUPERUSER INHERIT
> CREATEROLE NOCREATEDB LOGIN NOREPLICATION NO
My cross-version upgrade testing tool just threw up this failure,
upgrading from 9.5 to head:
CREATE ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1";
CREATE ROLE
ALTER ROLE "dummy_seclabel_user1" WITH NOSUPERUSER INHERIT
CREATEROLE NOCREATEDB LOGIN NOREPLICATION NOBYPASSRLS;
ALTER ROLE
SECURITY
Hi Amit,
Could you tell me the code intention around ExecInitFunnel()?
ExecInitFunnel() calls InitFunnel() that opens the relation to be
scanned by the underlying PartialSeqScan and setup ss_ScanTupleSlot
of its scanstate.
According to the comment of InitFunnel(), it open the relation and
takes a
On 2015-07-29 22:21:04 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It's not that uncommon to have replicas only access the primary for
> > replication type connections. So it seems completely sensible to use the
> > replication protocol to manage slots
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's not that uncommon to have replicas only access the primary for
> replication type connections. So it seems completely sensible to use the
> replication protocol to manage slots. And that you can't really do with
> psql.
Actually, you ca
On 2015-07-29 22:17:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Here is a patch implementing those things. IMO if-not-exists does not
> make much sense anymore
What? It's rather useful to be able to discern between 'slot was already
there' and 'oops, some error occured'. -1
To me the pg_recvlogical change
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm. pg_receivelogical is basically a debugging tool. I don't think anyone
>> will have it integrated into production scripts etc. So maybe we could just
>> change it.
>
> This s
On 2015-07-29 13:53:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> It makes more sense to create one new utility to issue replication commands
> than to enhance multiple utility commands to have bizarre looking
> additional features and modes.
>
> pg_reputil --create-slot
> pg_reputil --drop-slot
> etc
Logical s
On 2015-07-29 14:22:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
> > after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
>
> I'll try. Shouldn't be too hard.
What do you t
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I would expect that if the current user has permission to bypass RLS,
> >> and they have set row_security to OFF, then it should be off for all
> >> tables that they have access to, r
On 2015-07-29 13:45:22 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So this would be needed when creating a standalone backup that would not be
> persistently connected to the master, yet we want to bring it up as a
> live/writable server in a single command
I'm not understanding what you mean with 'single command
On 29 July 2015 at 12:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In short, I would propose the following:
> - Have --create-slot only create a slot, then exit for both
> pg_recvlogical and pg_receivexlog.
> - Have --drop-slot drop a slot, then exit.
>
It makes more sense to create one new utility to issue re
On 29 July 2015 at 13:00, Andres Freund wrote:
> As far as I understand this subthread the goal is to have a
> pg_basebackup that internally creates a slot, so it can guarantee that
> all the required WAL is present till streamed out by -X
> stream/fetch. The problem with just creating a slot is
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Sawada Masahiko
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 10 July 2015 at 15:11, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
Oops, I had forgotten to add new file heapfuncs.c.
>>>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Beena Emerson
>> wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
The choice between formats is not
solely predicated on whether we have multi-line
Hello, Heikki.
You wrote:
HL> 21 patches remain in Needs Review state, in the July commitfest. Some of
HL> them have a reviewer signed up. I have highlighted some of them below
HL> that worry me the most. What are we going to do about these? For each of
HL> them, I'd like the authors to have som
On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
> after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
I'll try. Shouldn't be too hard.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql
On 07/29/2015 03:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 14:55:54 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
In an earlier email you say:
After the spinlock is released above, but before the LWLockQueueSelf() call,
it's possible that another backend comes i
On 2015-07-29 14:55:54 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >In an earlier email you say:
> >>After the spinlock is released above, but before the LWLockQueueSelf() call,
> >>it's possible that another backend comes in, acquires the lock, changes the
> >
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> The choice between formats is not
>>> solely predicated on whether we have multi-line support.
>>
>>> I still think writing down some actual use cases wo
On 2015-07-29 12:47:01 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 July 2015 at 11:43, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2015-07-29 09:17:04 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On 29 July 2015 at 09:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > The point of using a temporary slot is to not have a
> > > > leftover slot afterwa
On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-15 18:44:03 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
was straightforward because you held the spinl
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
