Hi Keith,
On 2017/01/06 2:16, Keith Fiske wrote:
> Could we get some clarification on the partition_bound_spec portion of the
> PARTITION OF clause? Just doing some testing it seems it's inclusive of the
> FROM value but exclusive of the TO value. I don't see mention of this in
> the docs as of c
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> During the review of Group update Clog patch [1], Dilip noticed an
>> issue with the patch where it can leak the semaphore count in one of
>> the corner case. I have checked and found tha
2017-01-05 18:36 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure :
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > Now, that's not to say we should never break backward compatibility.
> > Sometimes we should. I think the problem with PL/pgsql is that many
> > of the compatibility breaks that people want ar
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
(Though I could not check "make installcheck-world" as passed
> The previous patch was using pageinspect--1.5.sql as a base, and then uses
> pageinspect--1.5-1.6.sql to upgrade to version 1.6.
>
> Removing pageinspect--1.5.sql, and adding pageinspect--1.6.sql with the
> current interface will use pageinspect--1.6.sql directly where as existing
> installations
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> I have re-based the patch to fix one compilation warning
> @_hash_doinsert where variable bucket was only used for Asserting but
> was not declared about its purpose.
>
Few more comments:
1.
}
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Actually, why not just having an equivalent of the SQL
>> command and be able to query parameter values?
>
> This patch only needed the wal_segment_size and hence I made this specifi
2017-01-06 7:01 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your work on this topic.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is significant disagreement in this topic between
>>> us. I see a schema based persistent metadata a catalog based security as
>>> fundamental feature. Editing config file i
>
>>
>> Thank you for your work on this topic.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is significant disagreement in this topic between
>> us. I see a schema based persistent metadata a catalog based security as
>> fundamental feature. Editing config file is not acceptable in any view.
>>
>
> I generally agree
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 5 January 2017 at 13:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 5 January 2017 at 09:19, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>
so here's a rebased series on top of master. No other changes.
>>>
>>> No
Hi,
> using pgbench -M prepared -c 10 -j 10 -T 600 -f test.sql test
>
> crashes after a few minutes with
>
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(LWLockHeldByMeInMode(((LWLock*)
> (&(bufHdr)->content_lock)), LW_EXCLUSIVE))", File: "bufmgr.c", Line: 3781)
Attached v4 patch fixes this assertion failure.
> BTW
Sorry for the delay in my next response. I still haven't exhaustively
gone through all changes, but meanwhile, below are some more points.
On 26 November 2016 at 18:18, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Amit Khandekar
>
On 1/4/17, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> Updated patch attached with added cast function from macaddr8 to
>> macaddr.
>>
>> Currently there are no support for cross operators. Is this required
>> to be this patch only or can be handled later i
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. No need in adding overhead for short-lived locks because the
> milli-second values are going to be meaningless to users. I would be
> happy if we could find some weasel value for non-heavyweight locks.
To avoid a NULL value for waiti
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
>> Your version of the patch looks better than the previous one. Don't you
>> need to consider MEM_LARGE_PAGES in VirtualAllocEx call (refer
>> pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion)? At least that is what is mentioned
>> in MSDN [1]. Anoth
On 5 January 2017 at 20:43, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> Anyway, I can measure WAL space overhead introduced by the GID’s inside
> commit records
> to know exactly what will be the cost of such approach.
Sounds like a good idea, especially if you remove any attempt to work
with GIDs for !2PC commits a
On 6 January 2017 at 08:44, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>(1) private/public visibility (as Oracle does with package vars).
>>this point is enough to implement the presented use case.
Agreed.
>>(2) typing (casting is a pain)
We already have typed GUCs and allow them to be user
On 5 January 2017 at 13:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 5 January 2017 at 09:19, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>>> so here's a rebased series on top of master. No other changes.
>>
>> Now with actual patches.
>
> Looking at the PostgresNode code i
On 12/28/16 3:14 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 28 December 2016 at 12:32, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/27/16 9:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 28 December 2016 at 09:58, Jim Nasby wrote:
I've looked at this some more, and ITSM that the only way to do this
without
some major surgery is to create a new
Herewith a patch for doing grouping sets via hashing or mixed hashing
and sorting.
The principal objective is to pick whatever combination of grouping sets
has an estimated size that fits in work_mem, and minimizes the number of
sorting passes we need to do over the data, and hash those. (Yes, th
From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com]
> In the Microsoft documentation I've seen, the privilege's name is always
> written as "Lock Pages in Memory" (note: "Pages" plural, and with initial
> capital letters). It's quite hard to parse the sentence otherwise! How
> about this?
>
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 03:36:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> In practice, there should never be waits on LWLocks (much less spinlocks)
> that exceed order-of-milliseconds; if there are, either we chose the wrong
> lock type or the system is pretty broken in general. So maybe it's
> sufficient if we
On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy writes:
>> On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> My point is that ideally, any value that can physically fit into struct
>>> Interval ought to be considered valid. The fact that interval_out can't
>>> cope is a bug in interval_out, which ideally we would fix
> Kouhei Kaigai writes:
> > Simplified description of what I did is:
> > fval = makeFloat(psprintf("%.0f", plan_nrows));
> > custom_scan->custom_private = list_make1(fval);
>
> So don't do that. The lexer would never produce T_Float for an
> integer-looking string, so I think it's out of sco
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 07:35:30PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Attached is v4, which fixes a couple of relatively minor bugs. There
> are still things to tackle before this is committable, but coding review
> of the new executor node would be welcome.
>
> The big remaining item is still fittin
Kouhei Kaigai writes:
> Simplified description of what I did is:
> fval = makeFloat(psprintf("%.0f", plan_nrows));
> custom_scan->custom_private = list_make1(fval);
So don't do that. The lexer would never produce T_Float for an
integer-looking string, so I think it's out of scope for nodeRea
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-12-28 10:29:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How about just saying that the existing TIMING option turns this on,
> I don't like this much - I'd like (as previously stated in [1]) to be
> able to have an actual EXPLAIN ANALYZE (COSTS off, TIMING OFF) in tests
> because
Forwarding some comments I neglected to send to the list...
On 1/3/17 9:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/2/17 1:04 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/31/16 10:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out
@@ -80,9
I noticed a strange behavior when T_Float value is serialized, then deserialized
on the worker process for cpu parallel execution.
Simplified description of what I did is:
fval = makeFloat(psprintf("%.0f", plan_nrows));
custom_scan->custom_private = list_make1(fval);
This string expression co
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-01-05 12:55:44 -0600, Jonathon Nelson wrote:
> > Attached please find a patch for PostgreSQL 9.4 which changes the maximum
> > amount of data that the wal sender will send at any point in time from
> the
> > hard-coded value o
On 2016-12-28 10:29:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> How about just saying that the existing TIMING option turns this on,
> if it's specified without ANALYZE? Right now that combination draws
> an error:
>
> regression=# explain (timing on) select 1;
> ERROR: EXPLAIN option TIMING requires
On 1/5/17 4:59 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
- Personnaly, I'm not convinced that a NEW type of session variable is
a good thing as pg already has one, and two is one too many. I would
find it more useful to enhance existing dynamic session variables
with,
by order of im
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote:
> Attaching a patch that renames all 'xlog' functions, keeping aliases for old
> ones (since it looks like majority vote is for keeping them).
OK.
> - OIDs - where do I get numbers from? I was kinda choosing them at random,
> unaware if the
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So, um, how do we know that backend A and backend B have the same idea
> about what tranche id 37 means?
[butting in]
In the particular case of dsa.c, the client has to supply a tranche ID
when creating the DSA area, and then the ID is recorded
On 1/5/17 11:56 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I've seen complaints about it and have seen people changing the
> permissions to be root/root on the .auto.conf file to disallow 'regular'
> superusers from doing ALTER SYSTEM. It's not exactly elegant but it's a
> way to avoid the risk of someone messing
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Better documentation seems required, but really the whole design seems
>> rather wacko. Backends must agree on numeric tranche IDs, but every
>> backend has its own copy of the tranche name? How do we even know what
>> agr
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I suspect you're going to tell me this all needs to be better
>> documented, which is probably a valid criticism. Suggestions as to
>> where such documentation should be added - either as code comments or
>> in a README som
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 10:21:41AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > max_wal_senders=10
> > > max_replication_slots=20
[...]
> > > wal_level=replica
> >
> > This is more problematic
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I think we have run into this kind of issue before. I wonder if
>> there's any way to insert some kind of a guard - e.g. detect at
>> backend startup time that the semaphore has a non-zero value and fix
>> it, issuing a war
Robert Haas writes:
> I think we have run into this kind of issue before. I wonder if
> there's any way to insert some kind of a guard - e.g. detect at
> backend startup time that the semaphore has a non-zero value and fix
> it, issuing a warning along the way... maybe something like:
See the P
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> [win_large_pages_v4.patch]
Just a small suggestion about the wording in this patch:
+This feature uses the large-page support on Windows. To use
the large-page
+support, you need to assign Lock page in memory user right
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
> On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My point is that ideally, any value that can physically fit into struct
>> Interval ought to be considered valid. The fact that interval_out can't
>> cope is a bug in interval_out, which ideally we would fix without
>> artificially restricti
Robert Haas writes:
> I suspect you're going to tell me this all needs to be better
> documented, which is probably a valid criticism. Suggestions as to
> where such documentation should be added - either as code comments or
> in a README somewhere or in doc/src/sgml - will be gratefully
> accept
On 01/05/2017 05:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Tomas,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
It's easy enough to construct a benchmark specifically to show the
difference, but of any actual "normal workload" for it. Typically the
optim
On 5 Jan 2017 2:54 a.m., "Craig Ringer" wrote:
On 2 January 2017 at 22:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Jan. 2017 20:20, "Simon Riggs" wrote:
>
> On 21 December 2016 at 13:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> Fix it up and I'll commit. Thanks for the report.
>
> I was hoping for some more effort from
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> No, I think backend-lifetime is right. The tranche registrations are
>> all backend-local state, so there's no problem with backend A
>> registering a string at one address and backend B registering a string
>> at a differe
Andres,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-04 09:38:42 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote:
> > > > > I think I +1 on this.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> During the review of Group update Clog patch [1], Dilip noticed an
> issue with the patch where it can leak the semaphore count in one of
> the corner case. I have checked and found that similar issue exists
> for Group clear xid (ProcArrayGr
On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy writes:
>> On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We could think about replacing interval2tm's output format with some
>>> other struct that uses a TimeOffset for hours and so cannot overflow.
>>> I'm not sure though how far the effects would propagate; it mig
On 2017-01-04 09:38:42 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Andres,
>
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote:
> > > > I think I +1 on this.
> > > > I've did a github search on these function
Hi,
On 2017-01-05 12:55:44 -0600, Jonathon Nelson wrote:
> Attached please find a patch for PostgreSQL 9.4 which changes the maximum
> amount of data that the wal sender will send at any point in time from the
> hard-coded value of 128KiB to a user-controllable value up to 16MiB. It has
> been pri
Attached please find a patch for PostgreSQL 9.4 which changes the maximum
amount of data that the wal sender will send at any point in time from the
hard-coded value of 128KiB to a user-controllable value up to 16MiB. It has
been primarily tested under 9.4 but there has been some testing with 9.5.
On 04-01-2017 17:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> My next thought is ALTER SYSTEM support for pg_hba.conf, especially
>> since that would make it easier to do a formal test of Haribabu's
>> pg_hba view patch by adding each of the options one by one and then
>> juggling them.
>
> It's
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>> One thing I don't like about this patch is that if a user has increased
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, they need to set
>> max_pred_locks_per_relation to half of that
Robert Haas writes:
> No, I think backend-lifetime is right. The tranche registrations are
> all backend-local state, so there's no problem with backend A
> registering a string at one address and backend B registering a string
> at a different address. It's just important that neither of those
On 01/05/2017 08:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> There's also the question of whether opening up the ability to do
> this sort of thing from the SQL level is a security hazard,
It unquestionably is.
> but we've already gone fairly far down the path of assuming that
> there's not a tremendous amount o
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Not that you mention it, I think I mis-stated the problem in the
>> commit message: the problem is not if the tranche is unregistered, but
>> rather if it is registered but the pointer references an address that
>> is no lon
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
> One thing I don't like about this patch is that if a user has increased
> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, they need to set
> max_pred_locks_per_relation to half of that to retain the current
> behaviour, or they'll suddenly find themselves wit
Robert Haas writes:
> Not that you mention it, I think I mis-stated the problem in the
> commit message: the problem is not if the tranche is unregistered, but
> rather if it is registered but the pointer references an address that
> is no longer valid. Registering the tranche with a fixed string
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> With the old code, a backend that read pg_stat_activity without ever
>> having executed a parallel query might see a backend in the midst of
>> executing one waiting on a DSA LWLock, resulting in a crash. The
>> solution i
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi and happy new year.
>
> The lazy vacuum calls lazy_cleanup_index to update statistics of
> indexes on a table such as relpages, reltuples at the end of the
> lazy_scan_heap. In all type of indexes the lazy_cleanup_index scans
> all index
Robert Haas writes:
> With the old code, a backend that read pg_stat_activity without ever
> having executed a parallel query might see a backend in the midst of
> executing one waiting on a DSA LWLock, resulting in a crash. The
> solution is for backends to register the tranche at startup time,
On 12/31/16 1:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here is a patch to add 'use strict' to all Perl programs (that I could
>> find), or move it to the right place where it was already there. I
>> think that is a pretty standard thing to do n
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Now, that's not to say we should never break backward compatibility.
> Sometimes we should. I think the problem with PL/pgsql is that many
> of the compatibility breaks that people want are likely to lead to
> subtle misbehavior rather than ou
Hi Ashutosh,
On 01/04/2017 06:13 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
Attached is the v3 patch rebased on postgreSQL HEAD and WAL v7 patch.
It also takes care of all the previous comments from Jesper - [1].
With an --enable-cassert build (master / WAL v7 / MV v3) and
-- ddl.sql --
CREATE TABLE test AS
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Generally speaking, an ALTER DATABASE is unlikely to make the cluster
> fail to start. To be clear, I've only seen 1 or 2 cases and I'm not
> sure if, in those cases, they even fully understood how much can be
> changed through ALTER DATABAS
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> The way I proposed makes it a lot easier to work with dynamic names so
> you can differentiate variable numbers of areas; the names would have
> exactly the right extent and they'd get unregistered in each backend
> at just the right time.
Onl
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> One thing I'm kind of happy about is that, as far as I can see, there
> >> hasn't been much backlash against the existing ALTER SYSTEM, either
> >> from a security point of view or a user-conf
Hi
2017-01-04 21:09 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 1/3/17 2:16 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > patch 0001 .. trivial cleaning
> > patch 0002 .. renaming lo_* to be_lo_* -- the prefix "be" is not what I
> > expect - maybe "pg" instead. More because the be-fsstub
Could we get some clarification on the partition_bound_spec portion of the
PARTITION OF clause? Just doing some testing it seems it's inclusive of the
FROM value but exclusive of the TO value. I don't see mention of this in
the docs as of commit 18fc5192a631441a73e6a3b911ecb14765140389 yesterday.
I
On 2017-01-05 09:12:49 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 18:08:36 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10.
On 2017-01-05 18:08:36 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That
> > > leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> If we keep it to superusers then we aren't changing anything, from my
> point of view at least. That does bring up the question of if it'd be
> useful for a non-superuser to be able to control. I'm on the fence
> about that a
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
> On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could think about replacing interval2tm's output format with some
>> other struct that uses a TimeOffset for hours and so cannot overflow.
>> I'm not sure though how far the effects would propagate; it might be
>> more work than we want to
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That
> > leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to change them, whereas
> > 10 can be a bit tight for some not-ou
On 1/5/17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy writes:
>>> I've written a patch which fixes that bug (in attachment).
>>> Should it be registered in the CF?
>
>> Oops. Forgot to attach the patch. Fixed.
>
> I suspect that many of these SAMESIGN() tests you've added are not
> actually adequate/useful
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> That's my whole point of why this needs to be settable at a global level: so
> that people with a lot of legacy code can set the OLD behavior at a global
> level, and deal with the old code over time.
This has the same problem being discussed ne
On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That
> leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to change them, whereas
> 10 can be a bit tight for some not-outrageous installations (8 standbys
> plus backup?).
I'm afraid
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs writes:
> >> My next thought is ALTER SYSTEM support for pg_hba.conf, especially
> >> since that would make it easier to do a formal test of Haribabu's
> >> pg_hba view patch
Robert Haas writes:
> Of course, if there's some sort of commonly-used library out there for
> this sort of thing where we can just link against it and call whatever
> APIs it exposes, that might be a better alternative, or something to
> support in addition, but I don't really know whether there'
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
>> I've written a patch which fixes that bug (in attachment).
>> Should it be registered in the CF?
> Oops. Forgot to attach the patch. Fixed.
I suspect that many of these SAMESIGN() tests you've added are not
actually adequate/useful. That's only sufficient when the outp
Tomas,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >It's easy enough to construct a benchmark specifically to show the
> >difference, but of any actual "normal workload" for it. Typically the
> >optimization applies to things like bulk lo
Attaching a patch that renames all 'xlog' functions, keeping aliases for
old ones (since it looks like majority vote is for keeping them).
Following functions have been renamed:
Name| Replaced by
|--
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> My next thought is ALTER SYSTEM support for pg_hba.conf, especially
>> since that would make it easier to do a formal test of Haribabu's
>> pg_hba view patch by adding each of the options one by one and then
>> juggling them
On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Tomas Vondra
mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
On 01/03/2017 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
...
I'll push results for larger ones once those tests complete
(possibly
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> systemd has support for getting passwords to services without tty.
>
> Oh, that's interesting, I wasn't aware of that.
>
>> So if someone is interested, there is some room for enhancement here.
>
> Agreed.
The first thing that pops into my
On 1/5/17, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
> On 1/4/17, Pantelis Theodosiou wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>>
>>> Bug reference: 14486
>>> Logged by: Per Modin
>>> Email address: web+postgre...@modin.io
>>> Post
On 1/4/17, Pantelis Theodosiou wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference: 14486
>> Logged by: Per Modin
>> Email address: web+postgre...@modin.io
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.6.1
>> Operating system:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> UNDO has to be kept till heap page is marked as all visible. This is
> required to check the visibility of index. Now, I think the page can
> be marked as all visible when we removed corresponding dead entries in
> heap. I think the main poi
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, so this optimization can work only after all the active
> transactions operating on a page are finished. If that is true, in
> some cases such a design can consume a lot of CPU traversing all the
> tuples in a page for un-setting the bit,
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> This patch only needed the wal_segment_size and hence I made this specific
> command.
> How often and why would we need other parameter values in the replication
> connection?
> Making it a more general command to fetch any parameter can be a
2017-01-04 22:17 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 1/4/17 3:35 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > On 1/3/17 2:16 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > patch 0001 .. trivial cleaning
> > > patch 0002 .. renaming lo_* to be_lo_* -- the prefix "be" is not
> what I
>
Good. So we seem to agree that GUCS are transactional?
I'm surprised, I never knew this.
I must admit that it was also a (good) surprise for me.
The documentation says it:
"""
If SET (or equivalently SET SESSION) is issued within a transaction that
is later aborted, the effects of the SET
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
>> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
>> with get_password_type(), without changing th
Tom Lane wrote:
> We could probably fix the specific issue being seen here by passing the
> expression tree through a suitable attno remapping,
Here's a first attempt at fixing this. It makes the test pass, but I
have the feeling that more complex ones might need more work. Have to
leave for a
On 1/4/17 2:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/4/17 9:46 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> How about we default max_replication_slots to -1, which means to use the
>> same value as max_wal_senders?
>
>> But you don't necessarily want to adjust them together, do you? They are
>> both capped
On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
> with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of
> pg_authid.rolpassword. That is hopeful
Hi Ashutosh,
On 01/05/2017 07:13 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
* Readded pageinspect--1.6.sql
In order to have the latest pageinspect interface in 1 file, as we need
something to install from.
I think there should be no problem even if we simply add
pageinspect--1.5--1.6.sql file instead of remo
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 01/03/2017 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> ...
>
>> I'll push results for larger ones once those tests complete (possibly
>> tomorrow).
>>
>>
> I just pushed additional results (from the additional scales) to the git
> reposit
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Your test and results look good, what kind of m/c you have used to
> test this.
I ran it on my Macbook Pro, so nothing fancy. The code was compiled with
simple ./confgure and with no special flags. The only non-default setting
was shared_bu
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
