On 23/04/16 00:56, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely
it be more likely to flush out race conditions.
Becaus
* Christian Ullrich wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/22/2016 02:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Progress report:
1. My VS 2015 installations (I now have several) all generate
solution file
with:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 12.00
so I propose to set that as t
* Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/22/2016 02:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Progress report:
1. My VS 2015 installations (I now have several) all generate
solution file
with:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 12.00
so I propose to set that as the solution file version.
>>
On 2016-04-22 23:33:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-18 14:33:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Magnus Hagander
> >> wrote:
> >> > The documentation says that the default value is 128Kb on Linux,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-18 14:33:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > The documentation says that the default value is 128Kb on Linux, but the
>> > code says it's 256Kb.
>> >
>> > Not sure which one
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:38:04AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. Without this feature, you can kill sessions or transactions to
> control bloat, but this feature is properly thought of as a way to
> avoid bloat *without* killing sessions or transactions. You can let
> the session live, without ha
On 23 April 2016 at 13:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:36 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> I really don't think that we should print FILTER details in a combine
>> aggregate node. We'd be claiming to be doing something that we're
>> actually not doing. Please see advance_aggregates
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:36 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I really don't think that we should print FILTER details in a combine
> aggregate node. We'd be claiming to be doing something that we're
> actually not doing. Please see advance_aggregates() in nodeAgg.c, and
> compare that to combine_aggrega
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:31:26AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Well, the CopyData message has an Int32 field for the message length.
> > I don't know the FE/BE protocol very well but I suppose each row
> > corresponds to one CopyData
Noah, all,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 05:50:18PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH 4/5] In pg_dump, include pg_catalog and extension ACLs, if
> > changed
> >
> > Now that all of the infrastructure exists, add in the ability to
> > dump out the
Hi,
On 2016-04-22 14:56:44 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The idea we came up with is to have a pg_replication default role which
> essentially replaces the REPLICATION role attribute. Andres didn't see
> it as being terribly valuable to disallow a role with the REPLICATION
> attribute from loggin
Andres Freund writes:
>> pg_strtoi?
> I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then?
I'd go with just "strtoint". We have "strtoint64" elsewhere.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make c
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually
>>> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi
>>> clashes with a non-s
On 2016-04-22 19:25:06 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Since we haven't, maybe nobody cares, so why should we?
I guess it's to a good degree because netbsd has pg packages, and it's
fixed there?
> would rename our function nonetheless FWIW; the name seems far too
> generic to me.
Yea.
> pg_strto
On 2016-04-23 10:12:12 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone
> cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal?
I think we should fix it, I just want to make sure we understand why the
error is appearing now. Since we now do
Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually
> >> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi
> >> clashes with a non
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually
>> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi
>> clashes with a non-standard libc function of the
On 23 April 2016 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. Add a field "bool aggcombine" to args, and set it to true in this
> case. When we see that in deparsing, expect the argument list to be
> one element long, a TargetEntry containing a Var. Use that to dig out
> the partial Aggref to which it poin
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The attached patch basically adds the segment size checks to
> _mdfd_getseg(), and doesn't perform extension, even in recovery, if
> EXTENSION_REALLY_RETURN_NULL is passed.
>
> This fixes the issue for me, both in the originally reported vari
On 23 April 2016 at 06:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. You're using the term "combine agg", but as far as the EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE output is concerned, that's not a thing. There is
> PartialAggregate, Aggregate, and FinalizeAggregate. I think you mean
> FinalizeAggregate when you say "combine aggregate
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 16 April 2016 at 04:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> +1 for the latter, if we can do it conveniently. I think exposing
>>> the names of the aggregate implementation functions would be very
>>> user-unfriendly, as nobody but u
A new option -T --exlude-table for pg_dumpall. This option is then
passed through to the pg_dump which really does the work.
This feature can be used to exclude large tables that are known not
to change from a database backup dump so that only the changing parts
of the database are dumped.
Signed-
Kevin Grittner writes:
> Since I failed to find anything in our docs or C comments, and very
> scant clues in the Wiki and list archives, about when to use
> PGDLLIMPORT and PGDLLEXPORT I figured it might be helpful to
> clarify here, and maybe add something near one of the definitions.
> Based o
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:48:17PM +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> >>Added, see attached patch (based on v3.1)
>> >
>> >With this applied, I am getting a couple errors I have not seen before
>> >after extensive crash recovery testing:
>> >ERROR:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> PGDLLIMPORT is what's needed on any backend global variable that's to
> be referenced by extensions. I already pushed a fix before noticing
> this thread.
Thanks!
Since I failed to find anything in our docs or C comments, and very
scant clues
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> >> I checked in PG 9.6 , if we create an aggregate function with saying -
> >> parallel=safe/restricted/unsafe and then take
> >> a pg_dumpall of the entire cluster , "par
All,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> In particular, the pg_logical_* functions have superuser checks and
> those checks also allow roles who have the replication role attribute.
> That isn't something we can represent with the GRANT system currently.
I chatted with Andres a bit at P
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Check my reasoning: In version 4 I added a remebering of tail of pending
>> list into blknoFinish variable. And when we read page which was a tail on
>> cleanup start then we sets cleanupFinish variable and after cleaning that
>> page we will s
Paul,
* Paul Ramsey (pram...@cleverelephant.ca) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Would you agree that it'd be helpful to have for making the st_union()
> > work better in parallel?
>
> For our particular situation w/ ST_Union, yes, it would be ideal to be
> able
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:57 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> OK, so here's my thoughts. Currently, as mentioned above, I've
> included a PARTIAL prefix for partial aggregates. This is
> syntactically incorrect for the dumping of views etc, but that should
> not matter as partial Aggrefs never come from
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>> Added, see attached patch (based on v3.1)
>>
>>
>> With this applied, I am getting a couple errors I have not seen before
>> after extensive crash recovery testing:
>> ERROR: attempted to delete invisible tuple
>> ERROR: unexpected chunk
On 2016-04-14 11:09:29 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2016-04-12 09:00:57 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > 3) Actually handle the case of the last open segment not being
> > >RELSEG_SIZE properly in _mdfd_getseg
On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I vote to leave this patch in the next commitfest where it is, and
> reconsider if someone shows up with a relevant problem report on large
> systems.
Sounds good!
> Here's a new version of the patch that fixes some stupid bugs. I have
> run r
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:50:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm certainly open to improving these issues now if we agree that they
> > should be fixed for 9.6. If we don't want to include such changes in 9.6
> > then I will propose then for post-9.6
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> This is the problem right here.
>
> We should be shipping for a reasonable production configuration. It is not
> reasonable to assume that someone is going to be running on a Rasberry Pi 2.
> Yes, we can effectively run on that platform t
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How far back are we thinking of supporting VS2015, anyway? I can check
>> and push this as a separate patch.
> My guess is 9.5: HEAD + last stable branch. That's what has been done
> when support for VS2012 or VS2013
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Note that we have not marked them as deprecated. We're just giving warnings
> that they will be deprecated.
But I think that is being said here is that maybe they won't be
deprecated, at least not any time soon. And therefore maybe we
sho
On 04/22/2016 02:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Progress report:
1. My VS 2015 installations (I now have several) all generate solution file
with:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 12.00
so I propose to set that as the solution file version.
I am wondering why it happ
On 04/22/2016 06:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
I'm not re
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> How far back are we thinking of supporting VS2015, anyway? I can check
> and push this as a separate patch.
My guess is 9.5: HEAD + last stable branch. That's what has been done
when support for VS2012 or VS2013 has been added.
--
Michael
--
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we assume that oldstyle functions returning integer are still okay,
>> which the success of the regression test case involving oldstyle_length()
>> seems to prove, then indeed seg's bool-returning functions are the o
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
>>> need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
>
>> I'm not really in favor of that. I mean, a
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
>> need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
> I'm not really in favor of that. I mean, almost all of our default
> settings are optimized for run
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, I could be kinda convinced that it's temporarily ok,
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> >> Oh, I see. I think it's probably not a good idea to skip truncating
> >> those maps, but perhaps the option could be defined as making no new
> >> entries, rather than ignoring them altog
På fredag 22. april 2016 kl. 14:56:33, skrev Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>>:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
>> wrote:
>>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, &
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-19 20:27:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I have your test case running, and it is not immediately
> clear why old rows are not being vacuumed away.
I have not found the reason that the vacuuming is not as aggressive
as it should be with this old_snapshot_threshold, but I left you
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
>> wrote:
>>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely
>>> it be more likely to flush out race conditions.
>
>> Because if we did that, then
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> I observed below in postgres_fdw.
>
> Observation: Update a foreign table which is referring to a local table's
> view (with use_remote_estimate = true) getting failed with below error.
> ERROR: column "ctid" does
Hi,
I observed below in postgres_fdw.
*Observation:* Update a foreign table which is referring to a local table's
view (with use_remote_estimate = true) getting failed with below error.
ERROR: column "ctid" does not exist
CONTEXT: Remote SQL command: EXPL
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While looking at e545281 I bumped into the following thing that has
> visibly been forgotten since VS2013 support has been added:
> --- a/src/port/win32env.c
> +++ b/src/port/win32env.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ pgwin32_putenv(const
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-21 14:25:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On the
On 21 April 2016 at 22:21, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Wouldn't such a solution be just as vulnerable to CRIME as TLS is? I
> thought the reason for removing compression from TLS is to discourage
> people from writing applications which are vulnerable to compression based
> attacks by not proving
Horiguchi-san,
On 2016/04/22 14:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how
> synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the
> behavior.
I certainly had a different (and/or wrong) idea in mind about how this
works. Thanks a lot for clari
> > And the above is called an ad-hominem.
>
> An "ad hominem" attack means against the person rather than on the
> topic of the issue, but I don't think Aleksander did that. I'm not
> sure why you think what he wrote was out of line. It reads OK to me.
Frankly when I re-read my own e-mails som
On 21 April 2016 at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Yeah. I think this should definitely be in the list of things we want
> to add when we do the fabled 4.0 protocol revision (and, indeed, it's
> been in the above-cited list for awhile). Whether we've yet gotten to
> the point of having critical ma
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> And this gives the patch attached, just took the time to hack it.
>
>> I think this is a good idea, but (1) I'm inclined not to restrict it to
>> Windows, and (2) I think we should hold off applying it unt
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> Folks run clusters with ~1000 databases; we previously accepted at least one
> complex performance improvement[1] based on that use case. On the faster of
> the two machines I tested, the present thread's commits slowed "pg_dumpall
> --schema-
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:50:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:02:28PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > > (3) pg_dumpall became much slower around
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The bug theoretically exists in 9.5, but it wasn't until 9.6 (commit
> e95680832854cf300e64c) that free pages were recycled aggressively
> enough that it actually becomes likely to be hit.
In other words: The bug could be in 9.5, but that hasn't
61 matches
Mail list logo
