On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> - Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
>> because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
>> experience in this matter, I would like to be certain that nothings breaks
>> in recovery test
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree that adding a hint is good.
> Updated patch is attached with addition of hint message.
>
> 2016-11-03 14:56:28.685 AEDT [7822] ERROR: cannot copy to view "ttt_v"
> 2016-11-03 14:56:28.685 AEDT [7822]
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > COPY command is treated as an UTILITY command, During the query
> > processing, the rules are not applied on the COPY command, and in the
> > execution of COPY command, it just inser
Hi,
It looks like for about 3 years, PL/Java has been calling
InitializeTimeouts before calling RegisterTimeout. Looking over
the callers of InitializeTimeouts in core, though, it appears
that an extension like PL/Java should be able to assume it has
already been called, and in fact would be rude
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On 11/02/2016 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 11/02/2016 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Tomas Vondra writes:
while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
>>> I got confu
Row level security feature implementation in Postgres is through policy and the
row security qualifier is attached as a subquery to the main query before query
planning. The RLS is implemented through ALTER TABLE STATEMENT.
But my doubt is why this feature is not enabled in case of Foreign Table
On 11/02/2016 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 11/02/2016 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
I got confused by that a minute ago, so no you're n
On 2 November 2016 at 21:12, Jean-Paul Jorda
wrote:
> Hi,
> I send this email after reading the xml2 module « Deprecation notice » in
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/xml2.html.
>
> I still use xml2 module for one thing: xslt_process(). We store some
> data in xml fields, and we someti
Hi all
A very common operation that users perform is reloading tables.
Sometimes as part of an ETL process. Sometimes as part of a dump and
reload. Sometimes loading data from external DBs, etc.
Right now users have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do this efficiently:
BEGIN;
TRUNCATE TABLE
On 11/02/2016 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
I got confused by that a minute ago, so no you're not alone. The problem
is even worse in join
>
> There may be some situations where crawling the indexes a row at a
> time will perform better than this by enough to want to retain that
> option.
If an index existed, wouldn't it still be able to use that in the set-based
implementation? Is there something which would make doing the check
se
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> Rest of the suggestions are well-taken. I'll update the patch accordingly.
> I've updated the last submitted patch(v10) with the following changes:
> - added a block level flag BKPIMAG
> 2016-11-02 15:57 GMT+01:00 Kevin Grittner :
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> SPI support would also
>>> allow us to consider using set logic for validating foreign keys,
>>> instead of the one-row-at-a-time approach currently used.
>>
>> Just as a proof of concep
Tomas Vondra writes:
> while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
> confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
I got confused by that a minute ago, so no you're not alone. The problem
is even worse in join cases. For example:
Gather (cost=34
Hi,
while eye-balling some explain plans for parallel queries, I got a bit
confused by the row count estimates. I wonder whether I'm alone.
Consider for example a simple seq scan query, which in non-parallel
explain looks like this:
QUERY PLAN
-
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Ah, nuts. Thanks, good catch. Should be fixed in the attached version.
I repeated the test on new patch, It works fine now, Also did some more
negative tests forcibly failing some internal calls. All tests have passed.
This patch works as des
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> So, we're down to crashes in gin_metapage_info() on ia64 and sparc64.
> My guess is that the raw page data that is passed into the function
> needs to be 8-byte aligned before being accessed as GinMetaPageData.
That's what it looks like to me, too. The "bytea" page ima
On 11/1/16 3:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have also committed the tests
> that I proposed and will work through the failures.
So, we're down to crashes in gin_metapage_info() on ia64 and sparc64.
My guess is that the raw page data that is passed into the function
needs to be 8-byte aligned b
On 11/02/2016 05:52 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 11/01/2016 08:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
The one remaining thing is the strange zig-zag behavior, but that might
easily be a due to schedu
On 11/02/2016 05:52 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 11/01/2016 08:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
The one remaining thing is the strange zig-zag behavior, but that might
easily be a due to schedu
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 08:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>
> The one remaining thing is the strange zig-zag behavior, but that might
> easily be a due to scheduling in kernel, or something el
On 11/01/2016 08:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Damn! You're right of course. Who'd guess I need more coffee this early?
Attached is a fix replacing the flag with an array of flags, indexed by
ParallelMasterBackendId. Hopefully that makes it work
On 11/01/2016 03:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Ok, thanks for your feedback.
Maybe "Returned with Feedback" is more appropriate, as there is still
development left.
I have applied the documentation change that introduced subsections,
which seems quite useful independently. I have also commit
>
> The delete of about one million rows from a "parent" table with no
> matching rows in the "child" table, and no index on referencing
> column in the child table, took 24:17.969 using current triggers
> and 00:03.262 using the set-based triggers. Yes, that reduces
> current run time for that ca
In 9.6, "make installcheck" in contrib/postgres_fdw takes a shade
under 3 seconds on my machine. In HEAD, it's taking 10 seconds.
I am not happy, especially not since there's no parallelization
of the contrib regression tests. That's a direct consumption of
my time and all other developers' time
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> I propose to change the psql \d output a bit, best shown with an example:
>
> \d persons3
> - Table "public.persons3"
> - Column | Type |Modifiers
> -+-+--
> - id | integer | not null
> - n
On 10/24/16 9:22 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I added one more prerequisite patch (the first one) which adds ephemeral
> slots (or well implements UI on top of the code that was mostly already
> there). The ephemeral slots are different in that they go away either on
> error or when session is closed.
2016-11-02 15:57 GMT+01:00 Kevin Grittner :
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>
> > SPI support would also
> > allow us to consider using set logic for validating foreign keys,
> > instead of the one-row-at-a-time approach currently used.
>
> Just as a proof of concept f
26.10.2016, 21:34, Andres Freund kirjoitti:
Any chance that plsh or the script it executes does anything with the file
descriptors it inherits? That'd certainly one way to get into odd corruption
issues.
We processor really should use O_CLOEXEC for the majority of it file handles.
Attached a
Attached is a minor fix to go on top of transition-tsr for issues
found yesterday in testing.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
b/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
index 53bfd4b..2da841e 1006
Hi,
I send this email after reading the xml2 module « Deprecation notice » in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/xml2.html.
I still use xml2 module for one thing: xslt_process(). We store some
data in xml fields, and we sometime need to correct / upgrade the format.
Being able to apply a x
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> SPI support would also
> allow us to consider using set logic for validating foreign keys,
> instead of the one-row-at-a-time approach currently used.
Just as a proof of concept for this I used the attached test case
to create foreign key
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> Rest of the suggestions are well-taken. I'll update the patch accordingly.
I've updated the last submitted patch(v10) with the following changes:
- added a block level flag BKPIMAGE_APPLY to distinguish backup image
blocks which needs to be res
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:55:45 -0500
"Karl O. Pinc" wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:07:34 +0100
> Gilles Darold wrote:
>
> > Please have a look at line 1137 on HEAD of syslogger.c
> Ok. Thanks. Sorry for the confusion.
And yes, we did talk about this before. I should have remembered.
Karl
On 10/29/16 4:31 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> tl;dr: It's critical that you actually do a make install, or at least it
> is if you've set --prefix with configure. If you don't, then even if you
> do make check you'le going to get the *installed* libpq, and not the
> *built* libpq.
I was not able to r
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> What about putting slot reference inside HeapScanDesc ?. I know it
> will make ,heap layer use executor structure but just a thought.
>
> I have quickly hacked this way where we use slot reference in
> HeapScanDesc and directly use
> slot_get
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:07:34 +0100
Gilles Darold wrote:
> Please have a look at line 1137 on HEAD of syslogger.c you will see
> that in case of failure function logfile_open() report a FATAL or LOG
> error with message:
>
> errmsg("could not open log file \"%s\": %m", filename);
Ok. Thanks
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I think we can consider the atomic commit and the atomic visibility
>>> separately, and the atomic visibility can build
On 2016/11/02 2:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Insisting that you can't drop a child without detaching it first seems
>>> wrong to me. If I already made this comment and you responded to it,
>>> please point me back to whatever you said. Howev
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hm... Right. That was broken. And actually, while the record-level
> flag is useful so as you don't need to rely on checking
> wal_consistency when doing WAL redo, the block-level flag is useful to
> make a distinction between blocks that ha
Le 02/11/2016 à 03:51, Karl O. Pinc a écrit :
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:26:27 +0100
> Gilles Darold wrote:
>
>> Le 30/10/2016 à 08:04, Karl O. Pinc a écrit :
>> Attached patch v11 include your patch.
>>
>>> I have some questions about logfile_writename():
>>>
>>> Why does the logfile_open() call f
On 2016/11/02 16:41, Amit Langote wrote:
> Having said all that, I am open to switching to the catalogued partition
> constraints if the arguments I make above in favor of this patch are not
> all that sound.
One problem I didn't immediately see a solution for if we go with the
catalogued partitio
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> IMHO, your rewrite of this patch was a bit heavy-handed.
>>
>> OK... Sorry for that.
>>
>>> I haven't
>>> scrutinized the cod
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> IMHO, your rewrite of this patch was a bit heavy-handed.
>
> OK... Sorry for that.
>
>> I haven't
>> scrutinized the code here so maybe it was a big improvement, and if so
>> fine, but
On 2016/11/02 2:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> [ new patches ]
>
> Reviewing 0006:
Thanks for the review!
> This patch seems scary. I sort of assumed from the title -- "Teach a
> few places to use partition check quals." -- that this was an o
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Add make rules to download raw Unicode mapping files
>
> This serves as implicit documentation and is handy if someone wants to
> tweak things. The rules are not part of a normal build, like this
> entire directory.
If the goal is to pre
Hi,
I have started with the review for this patch and would like to share
some of my initial review comments that requires author's attention.
1) I am getting some trailing whitespace errors when trying to apply
this patch using git apply command. Following are the error messages i
am getting.
[
47 matches
Mail list logo
