On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Andrew Borodin wrote:
> Hi!
>
Thanks a lot for your review.
> Just in case you'd like to include sleepsort as a test, here it is
> wrapped as a regression test(see attachment). But it has serious
> downside: it runs no less than 5 seconds.
>
> Also I'll list her
Hi,
On 2016/12/13 2:45, Dmitry Ivanov wrote:
> Huh, this code is broken as well. We have to ignore partitions that don't
> have any subpartitions. Patch is attached below (v2).
Good catch and thanks a lot for the patch! I have revised it a bit and
added some explanatory comments to that functio
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Few assorted comments:
Thanks for the review
>
> 1.
> + else if (needWait)
> + {
> + /* Add ourself to wait queue */
> + ConditionVariablePrepareToSleep(&pbminfo->cv);
> + queuedSelf = true;
> + }
>
> With the committed version of condition v
Hi,
I propose to append an error message when index name and table name are
same.
example:
postgres@postgres=# create table t (a int not null, constraint t primary
key (a));
ERROR: relation "t" already exists
End users will confusing pretty, because if users meet this message,
users w
Hello, I looked on this closer.
The attached is the revised version of this patch.
At Mon, 05 Dec 2016 19:29:54 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20161205.192954.12189.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Apart from the aboves, I have some trivial comments on the new
>
On 13/12/16 03:26, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 13/12/16 02:41, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-12-10 08:48:55 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> +static List *
>>> +OpenTableList(List *tables)
>>> +{
>>> + List *relids = NIL;
>>> + List *rels = NIL;
>>> + ListCell *lc;
>>> +
>>> +
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this:
Looking at what we have now, in the branch...
>> * Use SASLPrep for passwords.
SASLPrep is defined here:
The attached patch addresses the complaint raised in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHt_Luuao4gd6De61GryK=2ff-mtghzjqffdjz02usdvqym...@mail.gmail.com
namely, that if you have an index on, say, integer columns i and j,
then the planner will figure out that it can use an indexscan with
no ad
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Sat, 5 Nov 2016 21:18:42 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>
>> > I don't see any problem on the state-transition of
>> > exclusiveBackupState. For the following part
>> >
>> > @@ -10217,7 +10255,7 @@ do_pg_start_backup(
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
Few comments:
>>>
>>> Thank you for reviewing.
>>>
On 12/12/16 16:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>> On 12 Dec. 2016 21:55, "Robert Haas" wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Borodin
>> wrote:
>>> 1. As far as I can see, we connot use COPY FROM STDIN in bg session?
>>> Since one of pu
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> For Q1 I think the bigger win is JITing the transition function
> invocation in advance_aggregates/transition_function - that's IIRC where
> the biggest bottleneck lies.
>
Yeah, we bundle the agg core into our expr work... no point other
On 13/12/16 02:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-10 08:48:55 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
>> b/src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..e3560b7
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_publicati
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> With above fixes, the test ran successfully for more than a day.
>
> Instead of doing this:
>
> +_hash_chgbufaccess(rel, bucket_buf, HASH_WRITE, HASH_NOLOCK);
> +_hash_chgbufacc
Hi,
On 2016-12-12 18:11:13 -0800, CK Tan wrote:
> Andres,
> > dev (no jiting):
> > Time: 30343.532 ms
>
> > dev (jiting):
> > SET jit_tuple_deforming = on;
> > SET jit_expressions = true;
> >
> > Time: 24439.803 ms
>
> FYI, ~20% improvement for TPCH Q1 is consistent with what we find when we
>
Andres,
> dev (no jiting):
> Time: 30343.532 ms
> dev (jiting):
> SET jit_tuple_deforming = on;
> SET jit_expressions = true;
>
> Time: 24439.803 ms
FYI, ~20% improvement for TPCH Q1 is consistent with what we find when we
only jit expression.
Cheers,
-cktan
On 13 December 2016 at 09:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> We should probably expose a proc_type or something, with types:
>>
>> * client_backend
>> * bgworker
>> * walsender
>> * autovacuum
>> * checkpointer
>> * bgwriter
>
> A text field is a
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this:
>
> 1. We don't use SASLPrep to scrub username's and passwords. That's by
> choice, for usernames, because historically in PostgreSQL usernames can be
> stored in any en
On 2016-12-10 08:48:55 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
> b/src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..e3560b7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
> +
> +Datum pg_get_publication_tables(PG_FUN
On 12 December 2016 at 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> * Throw an error if an "authorization identity" is given. ATM, we just
> ignore it, but seems better to reject the attempt than do something that
> might not be what the client expects.
Yeah. That might be an opportunity to make admins' a
On 13/12/16 01:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 12/12/2016 11:39 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 12/12/2016 05:05 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be happy with this patch now (as in committer ready) except that it
>>> does have some merge conflicts after the recent commits, so rebase is
>>> needed.
>
On 12 December 2016 at 23:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>> On 12 Dec. 2016 21:55, "Robert Haas" wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Borodin
>> wrote:
>>> 1. As far as I can see, we connot use COPY FROM STDIN in bg session?
>>> Sin
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I didn't realise Pg's use of ? was that old, so thanks. That makes
>> offering alternatives much less appealing.
>
> One option might be for Postgres to define duplicate operator names
> usi
On 13 December 2016 at 01:17, Andrew Borodin wrote:
> 6. Cancelation: a way to signal to background query that it's time to
> quit gracefully.
That at least should be fuss-free. SIGTERM it, and make sure the
worker does CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in regularly-hit places and loops.
Ensure the worker
On 2016/12/12 23:14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/7/16 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've committed 0001 - 0006 with that correction and a few other
>> adjustments. There's plenty of room for improvement here, and almost
>> certainly some straight-up bugs too, but I think we're at a point
>> w
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We should probably expose a proc_type or something, with types:
>
> * client_backend
> * bgworker
> * walsender
> * autovacuum
> * checkpointer
> * bgwriter
A text field is adapted then, more than a single character.
> for simpler filtering
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Hmm, so it seems my initial guess that we didn't need to bother
> generating such paths was wrong. Oops.
>
> This patch is hard to read because it is reorganizing a bunch of code
> as well as adding new functionality. Perhaps you could sep
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> It also fixes the following errors/inconsistencies caused by lost quoting of
> string json values:
>
> [master]=# select * from json_to_record('{"js": "a"}') as rec(js json);
> ERROR: invalid input syntax for type json
> DETAIL: Token "a"
On 13 December 2016 at 01:45, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-12-12 13:26:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>
1. Show all processes that have a PGPROC in pg_stat_activity,
>
2. Add a second view, say pg_stat_
On 13/12/16 01:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> HJi,
>
> On 2016-12-12 09:18:48 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 12/8/16 4:10 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> On 08/12/16 20:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 12/6/16 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/5/16 6:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
On 12/12/2016 11:39 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:05 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I'd be happy with this patch now (as in committer ready) except that it
does have some merge conflicts after the recent commits, so rebase is
needed.
Attached is a rebased version of the patch, resolving
Hi.
The first attached patch implements recursive processing of nested
objects and arrays in json[b]_populate_record[set](),
json[b]_to_record[set](). See regression tests for examples.
It also fixes the following errors/inconsistencies caused by lost
quoting of string json values:
[master
HJi,
On 2016-12-12 09:18:48 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/8/16 4:10 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > On 08/12/16 20:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On 12/6/16 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> On 12/5/16 6:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I think that the removal of changes to Replicat
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> And now I'm noticing that Michael Paquier previously started a thread
> on this problem which I failed to note before starting this one:
>
> http://postgr.es/m/CAB7nPqSYN05rGsYCTahxTz+2hBikh7=m+hr2JTXaZv_Ei=q...@mail.gmail.com
Yes. I already h
On 12/12/16 23:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-12 23:27:30 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 12/12/16 22:42, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2016-12-10 23:10:19 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Hi,
First one is outright bug, which has to do with how we track running
transactio
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> As you can see, this generated a serialization failure.
>>
>> That was on 9.6. On earlier versions it does indeed al
Jeff Janes writes:
> I have a test case where I made the fdw connect back to itself, and
> stripped out all the objects that I could and still reproduce the case. It
> is large, 21MB compressed, 163MB uncompressed, so I am linking it here:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzqrh1SO9FcEZkpPM0JwU
On 12/12/2016 05:05 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I'd be happy with this patch now (as in committer ready) except that it
does have some merge conflicts after the recent commits, so rebase is
needed.
Attached is a rebased version of the patch, resolving the Makefile merge
conflicts.
regards
--
On 2016-12-12 23:27:30 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 12/12/16 22:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2016-12-10 23:10:19 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> First one is outright bug, which has to do with how we track running
> >> transactions. What snapbuild basically does while do
On 12/12/16 22:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-12-10 23:10:19 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi,
>> First one is outright bug, which has to do with how we track running
>> transactions. What snapbuild basically does while doing initial snapshot
>> is read the xl_running_xacts record, sto
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> As you can see, this generated a serialization failure.
>
> That was on 9.6. On earlier versions it does indeed allow the
> transaction on connection 2 to commit, yielding a non-
Hi,
On 2016-12-10 23:10:19 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Hi,
> First one is outright bug, which has to do with how we track running
> transactions. What snapbuild basically does while doing initial snapshot
> is read the xl_running_xacts record, store the list of running txes and
> then wait until
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Committed 0001.
Thanks.
I should have already specifically pointed out that the original
discussion on what became 0002-* is here:
postgr.es/m/7256.1476711...@sss.pgh.pa.us
As I said already, the general idea seems uncontroversial.
--
Pet
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The reason for this and the similar error in vacuum was that in one of
> the corner cases after freeing the overflow page and updating the link
> for the previous bucket, we were not marking the buffer as dirty. So,
> due to concurrent activit
On 12/12/2016 09:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/12/2016 03:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Or should we at least get pg_regress to try to shut down the
postmaster if it can't connect after 120 seconds?
I think that makes a lot of sense, independently of this random stuff.
I will ad
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think this patch might have a bug. In the existing code,
>> tuplesort_gettupleslot sets should_free = true if it isn't already
>> just before calling ExecStoreMinimalTuple((MinimalT
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> There's too many "I"s in that para. I've not presented this as a
> defect, nor is there any reason to believe this post is aimed at you
> personally.
Well, actually, there is. You said in your original post that
something was "not correct" an
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Add support for temporary replication slots
> Doesn't this need catversion bump?
Yes, absolutely, because of the ABI break for the affected functions.
Pushed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
On 12 December 2016 at 18:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
d
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this patch might have a bug. In the existing code,
> tuplesort_gettupleslot sets should_free = true if it isn't already
> just before calling ExecStoreMinimalTuple((MinimalTuple) stup.tuple,
> slot, should_free), so it seems that ExecS
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> As you can see, this generated a serialization failure.
That was on 9.6. On earlier versions it does indeed allow the
transaction on connection 2 to commit, yielding a non-serializable
result. This makes a pretty strong case for back-pa
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found a minor typo at
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/catalog-pg-am.html.
>
> pg_catalog.pg_am. amhandler is of type "oid" according to the
> documentation, but it's actually of type "regproc" in reality.
>
> Compare wi
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I would like to propose a patch for parallelizing merge join path.
> This idea is derived by analyzing TPCH results.
>
> I have done this analysis along with my colleagues Rafia sabih and Amit
> kaplia.
>
> Currently we already have infrastruc
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI the documented behavour is that "every set of successful
> transactions is serialisable".
Well, in context that is referring to serializable transactions.
No such guarantee is provided for other isolation levels.
By the way, existing be
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
>>> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that
Huh, this code is broken as well. We have to ignore partitions that don't
have any subpartitions. Patch is attached below (v2).
--
Dmitry Ivanov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/catalog/partition.c b/src/backend/catalog/partition
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-12 13:26:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 1. Show all processes that have a PGPROC in pg_stat_activity,
>>> 2. Add a second view, say pg_stat_system_activity,
>> I vote 1.
>
> +1
+1
--
Kevin Grittner
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached patch 0001-* removes all should_free arguments. To reiterate,
> this is purely a refactoring patch.
I think this patch might have a bug. In the existing code,
tuplesort_gettupleslot sets should_free = true if it isn't already
just
Hi!
Just in case you'd like to include sleepsort as a test, here it is
wrapped as a regression test(see attachment). But it has serious
downside: it runs no less than 5 seconds.
Also I'll list here every parallelism feature I managed to imagine. It
is not to say that I suggest having some of thes
Hi guys,
Looks like I've just encountered a bug. Please excuse me for the messy
email, I don't have much time at the moment.
Here's the test case:
create table test(val int) partition by range (val);
create table test_1 partition of test for values from (1) to (1000)
partition by range(val)
On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
>> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
>> two stages.
>
> Well, I replied to that emai
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Since:
>> commit f0e44751d7175fa3394da2c8f85e3ceb3cdbfe63
>> Author: Robert Haas
>> Date: Wed Dec 7 13:17:43 2016 -0500
>>
>> Implement table partitioning.
>>
>> If I use p
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
> two stages.
Well, I replied to that email to say that I didn't agree with your
analysis. I think
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
> basically two ways to fix this:
>
> 1.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
> basically two ways to fix this:
>
> 1.
On 2016-12-12 13:26:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
> > process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
> > see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
> > basicall
Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
two stages.
Now I notice that the Wait Event system doesn't handle waiting for
recovery conflicts at all, though it does access ProcArrayLock
multiple times.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
>> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
>> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
>> basically two ways to fix this:
>>
>> 1. S
Robert Haas wrote:
> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
> basically two ways to fix this:
>
> 1. Show all processes that have a P
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
wrot
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> The rest looks good to me. Thanks for the feedback and the time!
>
> Thanks for the fixes. I committed this with an additional compile
> fix, but the buildfarm turned up a few more p
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 12/12/2016 03:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Should one or more of these errors be fatal? Or should we at least get
>> pg_regress to try to shut down the postmaster if it can't connect after
>> 120 seconds?
> Making it fatal, i.e. bringing down the server, doesn't
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 12 Dec. 2016 21:55, "Robert Haas" wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Borodin
> wrote:
>> 1. As far as I can see, we connot use COPY FROM STDIN in bg session?
>> Since one of purposes is to orchestrate transactions, may be t
On 12/12/2016 07:37 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 2016/12/12 10:02, Tomas Vondra wrote:
2) I'm wondering whether having 'table' in the catalog name (and also in
the new relkind) is too limiting. I assume we'll have partitioned indexes
one day, for example - do we expect to use the same
On 12 Dec. 2016 21:55, "Robert Haas" wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Borodin
wrote:
> 1. As far as I can see, we connot use COPY FROM STDIN in bg session?
> Since one of purposes is to orchestrate transactions, may be that
> would be valuable.
A background worker has no client co
On 12 Dec. 2016 22:22, "Merlin Moncure" wrote:
If we really wanted to fix this, maybe the right way
to think about the problem is a highly reduced character set and a
pre-processor or an extension.
I'm pretty OK with expecting client drivers not to be stupid and offer
escape syntax for their p
Kevin Grittner writes ("Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry
on constraint violation"):
> If I recall correctly, the constraints for which there can be
> errors appearing due to concurrent transactions are primary key,
> unique, and foreign key constraints. I don't remember seei
A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this:
1. We don't use SASLPrep to scrub username's and passwords. That's by
choice, for usernames, because historically in PostgreSQL usernames can
be stored in any encoding, but SASLPrep assumes UTF-8. We dodge that by
passing an em
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Add support for temporary replication slots
>
> This allows creating temporary replication slots that are removed
> automatically at the end of the session or on error.
>
> From: Petr Jelinek
>
> Branch
> --
> master
>
> Details
> --
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> PgJDBC allows you to write ??, which is ugly, but tolerable, since the
> JDBC spec doesn't have an escape syntax for it.
This is the core problem; *JDBC* is busted. SQL reserves words but
not punctuation marks so any assumption by client si
On 12/8/16 4:10 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 08/12/16 20:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 12/6/16 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 12/5/16 6:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I think that the removal of changes to ReplicationSlotAcquire() that you
did will result in making it impossible
On 12/7/16 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've committed 0001 - 0006 with that correction and a few other
> adjustments. There's plenty of room for improvement here, and almost
> certainly some straight-up bugs too, but I think we're at a point
> where it will be easier and less error-prone to comm
On 12/12/2016 03:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Or should we at least get pg_regress to try to shut down the
postmaster if it can't connect after 120 seconds?
I think that makes a lot of sense, independently of this random stuff.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p
On 12/12/2016 03:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/12/2016 02:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
jascana (mingw, 64 bit compiler, no openssl) is currently hung on "make
check". After starti
For the record: I tested the patch by Tom Lane in our setup (python
2.7.3-0ubuntu3.8) and works like a charm.
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=9cda81f0056ca488dbd6cded64db1238aed816b2
Also in 9.5 and 9.6 series. My request in commitfest queue can be closed.
Cheers!
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote:
> 1. As far as I can see, we connot use COPY FROM STDIN in bg session?
> Since one of purposes is to orchestrate transactions, may be that
> would be valuable.
A background worker has no client connection, so what would COPY FROM STDIN do?
-
Hello.
Currently doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml states:
```
When timestamp values are stored as eight-byte integers
(currently the default), microsecond precision is available over
the full range of values. When timestamp values are
stored as double precision floating-point numbers i
On 12/12/2016 02:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
jascana (mingw, 64 bit compiler, no openssl) is currently hung on "make
check". After starting the autovacuum launcher there are 120
messa
On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I didn't realise Pg's use of ? was that old, so thanks. That makes
> offering alternatives much less appealing.
One option might be for Postgres to define duplicate operator names
using ¿ or something else. I think ¿ is a good choice because it'
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Removed that, did some further cosmetic changes, and pushed. I renamed a
> bunch variables and structs, so that they are more consistent with the
> similar digest stuff.
That definitely makes sense this way, thanks for the commit.
--
M
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleane
Hi Tomas,
On 2016/10/30 4:23, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is v20 of the multivariate statistics patch series, doing mostly
> the changes outlined in the preceding e-mail from October 11.
>
> The patch series currently has these parts:
>
> * 0001 : (FIX) teach pull_varno about Restri
On 12/09/2016 01:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/09/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
One thing is: when do we look up at pg_authid? After receiving the
first message from client or before beginning the exchange? As th
Le 11/12/2016 à 04:38, Karl O. Pinc a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:41:21 -0600
> "Karl O. Pinc" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:36:12 -0600
>> "Karl O. Pinc" wrote:
>>
>>> Instead I propose (code I have not actually executed):
>>> ...
>>> charlbuffer[MAXPGPATH];
>>> char*log_format
On 12/12/2016 07:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
Thanks for looking at the patch. Looking forward to hearing more!
Here is an updated patch based on which reviews should be done. I have
fixed the issue you have reported, and upon additiona
Thank you! Glad to see that the report was useful.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Rafa de la Torre writes:
> >> exc = PyErr_NewException(exception_map[i].name, base,
> dict);
> >> +Py_INCREF(exc);
> >> PyModule_AddObject(mod,
97 matches
Mail list logo
