On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > The base rel's consider_parallel flag won't be percolated to childrels,
so
> > even
> > if we mark base rel as parallel capable, while generating the path it
won't
> > be considered. I
On 7 November 2015 at 02:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wonder if we need to think about inventing some new error codes. I
> can sort of understand that "feature not supported" is something that
> can come in a large number of different contexts and mean pretty much
> the same all the time, but I'm
On 9 November 2015 at 12:40, Adam Brightwell
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While working on an auth hook, I found that I was unable to access the
> pg_shseclabel system table while processing the hook. I discovered
> that the only tables that were bootstrapped and made available at this
> stage of the the
On 7 November 2015 at 04:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I really wonder why we're not happy with the ability to substitute
> out just the host and IP.
I tend to agree. That solves 95% of the problem and doesn't foreclose
solving the other 5% some other way if someone really cares later.
I'd rathe
On 9 November 2015 at 07:04, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-10-19 21:43:32 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Patch revision 3 attached. It's a one-liner, with just the fix, and an
>> explanatory note in the patch header.
>
> Pushed to 9.5 and master.
>
> Thanks for noticing the issue,
Thanks
On 25 June 2015 at 00:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree that we can do much better at testing than we traditionally
> have done, and I think pretty much everyone in the room for the
> developer unconference session on testing at PGCon was also in
> agreement with that. I really like the idea of t
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > The previous patch would not compile on the latest HEAD. Here's updated
> > patch.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't apply any more. But we have
> bigger things to worry abo
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
> To add an ability to construct 'Infinity' TIMESTAMPTZ via
> "to_timestamp" call, there are two ways:
> 1. Rewrite the function "pg_catalog.to_timestamp(double precision)" as
> an internal one. It's the easiest way, because it allows to avoid
> usage of INTERVAL as a helpe
Hello everyone!
Continuing the topic of extracting EPOCH from 'Infinity'::TIMESTAMPTZ
and according to an item "converting between infinity timestamp and
float8" in the TODO list...
Even when "SELECT extract(EPOCH FROM TIMESTAMPTZ 'Infinity')" results
'Infinity'::float, there is still trouble to
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Lock manager is one of the tasks we are currently working on.
> There are still a lot of open questions:
> 1. Should distributed lock manager (DLM) do something else except
> detection of distributed deadl
> >
> > @@ -85,6 +86,18 @@ ForeignRecheck(ForeignScanState *node, TupleTableSlot
> *slot)
> >
> > ResetExprContext(econtext);
> >
> > + /*
> > +* FDW driver has to recheck visibility of EPQ tuple towards
> > +* the scan qualifiers once it gets pushed d
Hi All,
While working on an auth hook, I found that I was unable to access the
pg_shseclabel system table while processing the hook. I discovered
that the only tables that were bootstrapped and made available at this
stage of the the auth process were pg_database, pg_authid and
pg_auth_members.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>> I've however also noticed that all the 'like' procedures are marked as not
>>> leak proof, which is a bit unfortunate because that's the example from
>>> Jeff's e-m
On 2015/11/09 9:26, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I think ForeignRecheck should first call ExecQual to test
fdw_recheck_quals. If it returns false, return false. If it returns
true, then give the FDW callback a chance, if one is defined. If that
returns false, return false. If we haven't yet returned
> -Original Message-
> From: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:38 AM
> To: 'Robert Haas'
> Cc: Etsuro Fujita; Tom Lane; Kyotaro HORIGUCHI; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org;
> Shigeru Hanada
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
>
> > On Fri, Nov
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 8 November 2015 at 16:59, Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coord
On 10/15/2015 05:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
All other issues raised by Álvaro and Steve have been addressed,
except for this one, which I will argue against:
I've been looking through the updated patch
In snapmgr.c
+ * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64 value to be atomic, we can
s
Hi,
On 2015-10-19 21:43:32 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Patch revision 3 attached. It's a one-liner, with just the fix, and an
> explanatory note in the patch header.
Pushed to 9.5 and master.
Thanks for noticing the issue,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:39:36PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I am happy to finish it, but I am no less happy if you finish it. Which do
> > you prefer?
>
> Please go ahead and commit.
>
> > Should the back-branch commits mirror the master branch? A more-cautious
> > alternative would be t
and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
>> In some cases, it is possible for pdfjadetex to error out even with
>> expanded texmf.cnf settings. The sign of this is that jadetex is able
>> to process the file, but pdfjadetex isn't. The upstream maintainer,
>> Sebastian Rahtz, had this to say:
>>
On 2015-11-08 16:29:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
> > While taking pretty short of forever, postgres-US.pdf seems to build on
> > my debian unstable as of 8d7396e509 + some additional docs. Is this
> > dependant of what version of text you're using (plain te
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Since the start-pos is recorded in the array, I wonder if it's worth
>> supporting negative indexing for arrays with the default 1-indexed
>> element numbering, and just ERRORing for others. Does anyone really
>> use anything else?
>
> I'd prefer
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> After looking at the generated html version, I find that the "1/param" and
> "2/param" formula are very simple and pretty easy to read, and they would
> not be really enhanced with additional spacing.
>
> ISTM that adaptative spacing (no spaci
and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
> While taking pretty short of forever, postgres-US.pdf seems to build on
> my debian unstable as of 8d7396e509 + some additional docs. Is this
> dependant of what version of text you're using (plain tex, pdftex,
> xetex, whatnot)?
> postgres-US.log conta
On 2015-11-08 13:34:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> $ cd doc/src/sgml
> $ make postgres-US.pdf
> ... lots of crap later ...
> ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [number of strings=245828].
> We ran into a very similar issue back around 9.0, and solved it with an
> ugly style-sheet hack, see thread here:
>
Jeff Janes writes:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> I've however also noticed that all the 'like' procedures are marked as not
>> leak proof, which is a bit unfortunate because that's the example from
>> Jeff's e-mail that started this thread.
> Is there a reason they a
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/07/2015 02:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
I think LEAKPROOF is probably fine for this. How would the new thing
be different?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so - A
On November 8, 2015 11:52:05 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:11:42AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch
>wrote:
>>
>> >I have pushed a stack of branches to
>> >https://github.com/nmisch/postgresql.git:
>> >
>> >mxt0-revert - rever
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:11:42AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> >I have pushed a stack of branches to
> >https://github.com/nmisch/postgresql.git:
> >
> >mxt0-revert - reverts commits 4f627f8 and aa29c1c
> >mxt1-disk-independent - see be
On 8 November 2015 at 16:59, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>>
>>> In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and
>>> currently
>>> is using standard PostgreSQL two pha
On November 8, 2015 12:54:07 AM PST, Noah Misch wrote:
>I have pushed a stack of branches to
>https://github.com/nmisch/postgresql.git:
>
>mxt0-revert - reverts commits 4f627f8 and aa29c1c
>mxt1-disk-independent - see below
>mxt2-cosmetic - update already-wrong comments and formatting
>mxt3-main
$ cd doc/src/sgml
$ make postgres-US.pdf
... lots of crap later ...
[3253.0.51
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [number of strings=245828].
\endgroup \set@typeset@protect
l.1879198 {1}}
\Node%
! ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced!
Transcript wr
On 11/08/2015 02:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and currently
is using standard PostgreSQL two phase commit:
Code in GO performing two phase commit:
exec(conn1, "
On 10/14/15 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Amir Rohan wrote:
>>
>>> it does fail the "dependent options" test:
>>> $ postgres -C "archive_mode"
>>> on
>>> $ postgres -C wal_level
>>> minimal
>>>
>>> no errors, great, let's try
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:00 AM, kolo hhmow wrote:
> Ok.
> Thak you all!
This patch was listed twice in the CF app. I removed the duplicated
entry and let this one alive:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/392/
Could you add your name as an author please?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I thought about something like that at some point by saving a minimum
> activity pointer in XLogCtl, updated each time a segment was forcibly
> switched or after inserting a checkpoint record. Then the bgwriter
> looked at if the current inse
On 7 November 2015 at 16:53, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> On 11/07/2015 05:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> Today, while studying your proposal and related material, I noticed
> that in both the approaches DTM and tsDTM, you are talking about
> committing a transaction and acquiring the snapshot
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> Apple says that the more people file bugs, the more likely the issue is to
>> get attention. So by all means, please file radars about this. You can
>> reference 21732670 as the bug you’re duping (they marked mine a
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> In tsDTM approach two phase commit is performed by coordinator and currently
> is using standard PostgreSQL two phase commit:
>
> Code in GO performing two phase commit:
>
> exec(conn1, "prepare transaction '" + gtid + "'")
>
On 07.11.2015 17:20, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
It seems to have something to do with the order of the affixes. It
works, if I move affix 2646 to the beginning of the list.
[1] https://tr-spell.googlecode.com/files/dict_aff_5000_suffix_113_words.zip
Thank you for reply.
This was because of the
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On October 29, 2015 7:59:03 AM GMT+01:00, Noah Misch
> wrote:
> >That helps; thanks. Your design seems good. I've located only insipid
> >defects.
>
> Great!
>
> > I propose to save some time by writing a patch series
> >elimina
unsubscribe pgsql-hackers
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
42 matches
Mail list logo
