Sorry about the absence on this thread.
On 2017/02/14 15:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>> Added more tests in pgstattuple and the new ones for pg_visibility,
>> although I may have overdone the latter.
>
> A bonus idea is also to add tests fo
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Thank you for clarification. Let me check my understanding. IIUC,
>> skipping second index vacuum path (lazy_cleanup_index) can not be
>> cause of leaving page as half-dead state but
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> @@ -496,7 +499,6 @@ do_analyze_rel(Relation onerel, int options,
> VacuumParams *params,
> numrows = (*acquirefunc) (onerel, elevel,
> rows, targrows,
> &totalrow
On 2017/03/07 14:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> Also, I found out that alter_table.sql mistakenly forgot to drop
>> partitioned table "p1". Patch 0002 takes care of that.
>
> While that might or might not have been intentional, I think it's an
> astoundingly bad idea to not leave
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
>>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
>>> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-03 15:33:15 -0500, David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/1/17 1:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2017-03-01 10:20:41 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:45:40AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> >>> On 2/28/17 04:24
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
>> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider
>> it or shall we wait till Par
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> This is the "grand finale" that goes on top of the "DROP FUNCTION of
>> multiple functions" patch set. The purpose is to allow referring to
>> functions without having to spell
Neha Khatri writes:
> I was going through the grammer rule for Character types in gram.y and
> found an optional sub rule in is "opt_charset"
This question seems quite off-topic for pgsql-novice, so I've redirected
it to pgsql-hackers.
> CharacterWithLength: character '(' Iconst ')' opt_charset
Hi,
there has been discussion at the logical replication initial copy thread
[1] about making apply work with sync commit off by default for
performance reasons and adding option to change that per subscription.
Here I propose patch to implement this - it adds boolean column
subssynccommit to pg_
Hi,
I took a look at this patch. Overall, the patch looks good to me.
However, there are some review comments that I would like to share,
1. I think the macro 'PATH_MAX' used in pg_waldump.c file is specific
to Linux. It needs to be changed to some constant value or may be
MAXPGPATH inorder to ma
I see that all the changes by Amit and myself to what was earlier 0003
patch are now part of 0002 patch. The patch looks ready for committer.
Some comments about 0003 patch.
CREATE TABLE syntax seems to allow specifying reloptions for a
partitioned table. But extractRelOptions() and heap_reloptio
Amit Langote writes:
> Also, I found out that alter_table.sql mistakenly forgot to drop
> partitioned table "p1". Patch 0002 takes care of that.
While that might or might not have been intentional, I think it's an
astoundingly bad idea to not leave any partitioned tables behind in
the final stat
On 2017/03/07 10:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/03/07 7:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Kevin Grittner writes:
With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
`make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a star
> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider
> it or shall we wait till Parallel Append is committed.
>
>> I think the problem here is t
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm ok with not immediately doing so, but I think Peter's design isn't
> in line with achieving something like this.
I would be okay with doing this if we had a grab-bag of expensive
checks, that all pretty much require some combination of
Ex
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 21:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita
>>> wrote:
On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
>>>
>>> I looked over yours
On 2 March 2017 at 16:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:32 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> Hackers,
>>
>> I've attached a small patch which aims to improve the performance of
>> AccessExclusiveLock when there are many AccessExclusiveLock stored.
>>
>
> I could see that your idea is q
On 2017/03/06 21:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
I looked over yours and was surprised to see:
+ /* is_foreign_expr might need server and shippable-extension
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> RCA:
>>>
>>> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit
>>> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for the child rel with
>>> zero heap pages. This mean
On 06/03/17 23:40, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2017-03-06 16:10, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> On 2017-03-06 11:27, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> updated and rebased version of the patch attached.
>>>
>>
>> I compiled with /only/ this one latest patch:
>>0001-Logical-replication-support-for-initial
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is good since the information is useful and it is
> a little change.
Thank you for reviewing this patch!
>
> One thing I'm bothered is that even when the number of frozen page is
> one, it will say "1 frozen pages". In ot
On 03/06/2017 05:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I fixed that, and the basic regression tests no longer crash outright with
>> these settings, but I do see half a dozen errors that all seem to be in
>> RLS-related tests.
> Those turned out to all be the same bug in DoCopy. "make check-world
On 7 March 2017 at 15:21, Amit Kapila wrote:
> +1. How about changing the description of
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather to "taken from max_worker_processes,
> limited by max_parallel_workers"?
Thanks for looking.
Seems more accurate to say that it's "taken from
max_parallel_workers", maybe.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:39 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> While scanning over postgresql.conf I happened to notice something
> that didn't ring quite true about max_parallel_workers. The comment
> confuses worker_processes with parallel workers.
>
+1. How about changing the description of
max_parall
On 03/03/2017 10:41 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
What do you think?
I have some thoughts:
1) I do not think we currently allow setting the locale like this
anywhere, so this will introduce a new concept to PostgreSQL. And you
will probably need to add support for caching per locale.
2) As far
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/3/17 20:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks sensible to me to keep "replication" for physical
>> replication, and switch logical replication checks to match a database
>> name in hba comparisons.
>
> I think we are OK to move
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
>> Yes, I thought of adding wait event only for the sync but then recording the
>> wait event for both write and sync. I understand that OS level writes are
>> cheap but it still have som
On 28 February 2017 at 12:27, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> This patch adds a GUC to put a limit to the number of segments
>> that replication slots can keep. Hitting the limit during
>> checkpoint shows a warining and the segments older than the limit
>> are removed.
>>
>>> WARNING: restart LSN of rep
On 2017/03/06 17:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> About autovacuum_* parameters - we currently don't handle partitioned
>> tables in autovacuum.c, because no statistics are reported for them. That
>> is, relation_needs_vacanalyze() will never re
Hi Aleksander,
On 2017/03/07 0:22, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> OK, here is a patch.
>
> Benchmark, before:
>
> ```
> number of transactions actually processed: 1823
> latency average = 1153.495 ms
> latency stddev = 154.366 ms
> tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing)
>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/03/07 7:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner writes:
>>> With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
>>> `make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a start with default
>>> config, `make installcheck`, conn
On 2017/03/07 7:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
>> `make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a start with default
>> config, `make installcheck`, connected to the regression database
>> with psql as the initial
While scanning over postgresql.conf I happened to notice something
that didn't ring quite true about max_parallel_workers. The comment
confuses worker_processes with parallel workers.
The attached aims to put this right.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
On 2017-03-06 19:45:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> >> I'm not quite sure what the best way to attack this is, but I think we
> >> need to do something.
>
> > I tend to agree with this, though I haven't got any great answers,
> >
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Without having actually looked at this patch, I would say that if it added
>> a direct call of fopen() to backend-side code, that was already the wrong
>> thing. Almost always, AllocateFile()
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure what the best way to attack this is, but I think we
>> need to do something.
> I tend to agree with this, though I haven't got any great answers,
> unfortunately.
I don't want to reduce test coverage either
Giuseppe Broccolo writes:
> I've seen that pg_dump execute the dump of an eventual comment of a
> TSDictionary without specifying the namespace where it is defined:
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c#L13542
Yup, this is clearly an error --- thanks for spo
Recap
=
A design goal of parallel tuplesort is that the parallel case be as
close to possible as the serial case is already. Very little new code
is needed in tuplesort.c and logtape.c, most of which is about using a
new lower-level facility which is very well encapsulated. And, even
buffile.c
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> >> Can you provide some references on how other systems provide this feature?
> >
> > Oracle doesn't.
>
> Really?
Sorry, my sentence was misleading.
I meant by "Oracle/MySQL doesn't"
On 2017-03-06 18:59:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The whole performance issue trigger this thread only exists when the
> > hashtable sizes are mis-estimated, right? Turns out that after applying
> > the just-committed changes, that "fixing
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
>> Yes, I thought of adding wait event only for the sync but then recording the
>> wait event for both write and sync. I understand that OS level writes are
>> cheap but it still have som
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The whole performance issue trigger this thread only exists when the
> hashtable sizes are mis-estimated, right? Turns out that after applying
> the just-committed changes, that "fixing" the bad-mixing and/or doing
> iteration that's not enti
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Yes, I thought of adding wait event only for the sync but then recording the
> wait event for both write and sync. I understand that OS level writes are
> cheap but it still have some cost attached to that. Also I thought for the
> monitoring
On 2017-02-13 12:05:21 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Except that the proposed names aren't remotely like that... ;).
> >
> > Revision attached -- V5. We now REVOKE ALL on both funct
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Michael, do you want to add yourself as a reviewer?
Yes, thanks for the reminder.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pg
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not happy with the way this patch can just happen to latch on to a
>> path that's not parallel-safe rather than one that is and then just
>> give up on a merge join in that case. I alre
Hi,
On 2017-02-13 11:52:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > Again, some parts of the code doing something bad isn't a good argument
> >> > for doing again. Releasing locks early is a bad pattern, because backend
> >> > code isn't generally sa
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 3/4/17 02:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Well, that's one reason why I was thinking that having an independent
>>> in-core option to clean up the tail of the oldest segments is
>>>
On 2017-03-02 22:51:09 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Attaches is the last part of the patch series, rebased to current master and
> adopting the new chunk header approach.
Something seems to have gone awry while sending that - the attachement
is a whopping 0 bytes...
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers ma
On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say,
'log'?
I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which
name is picked as long as we get rid off the "pg_" prefix.
Btw, is there a reason for why glo
Hi,
On 2017-03-06 23:32:30 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > The question however is whether this won't make the optimization
> > > pointless.
> > > I also, wonder how much we save by this optimization and how widely it's
> > > used? Can someone point me to some numbers?
> >
> > I don't recall an
On 2017-03-06 16:10, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On 2017-03-06 11:27, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Hi,
updated and rebased version of the patch attached.
I compiled with /only/ this one latest patch:
0001-Logical-replication-support-for-initial-data-copy-v6.patch
Is that correct, or are other patches sti
On 03/06/2017 08:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2017-03-06 19:49:56 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 03/06/2017 07:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-03-06 12:40:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund
Andres,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> There's also some tests simply taking way too long, e.g. the pg_dump
> tests just do largely redundant tests for 30s.
About half of the time in the pg_dump case, at least, appears to be in
010_dump_connstr.pl. I've not looked into it, but bas
Kevin Grittner writes:
> With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
> `make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a start with default
> config, `make installcheck`, connected to the regression database
> with psql as the initial superuser, and ran:
> regression=# vacuu
On 2017-03-06 16:58:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I think DEBUG1 is far too high for something that could occur with
> >> some frequency on a busy system; I'm fairly strongly of the opinion
> >> that you ought to downgrade that by a couple
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/4/17 02:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Well, that's one reason why I was thinking that having an independent
>> in-core option to clean up the tail of the oldest segments is
>> interesting: users don't need to maintain their own infra l
Hi,
Right now check-world, a sensible thing to run before commits that
aren't very narrow, takes a long time. To the point it seems to impact
development velocity enough that it's more sensible to just skip it, and
rely on the buildfarm.
That's not a great solution.
A large amount of the time i
I wrote:
> I fixed that, and the basic regression tests no longer crash outright with
> these settings, but I do see half a dozen errors that all seem to be in
> RLS-related tests.
Those turned out to all be the same bug in DoCopy. "make check-world"
passes for me now with -DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEAS
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Do you want to deal with this whole mess, or shall I have a go at it?
>
> > I'm just about to push the pg_upgrade fixes for large object comments
> > and security labels, followed not to
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think DEBUG1 is far too high for something that could occur with
>> some frequency on a busy system; I'm fairly strongly of the opinion
>> that you ought to downgrade that by a couple of levels, say to DEBUG3
>> or so.
>
> I actually planne
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Do you want to deal with this whole mess, or shall I have a go at it?
> I'm just about to push the pg_upgrade fixes for large object comments
> and security labels, followed not too far behind by the fix for the
> public ACL in pg_
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> RCA:
>>
>> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit
>> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for the child rel with
>> zero heap pages. This means we won't be able to create a partial
>> append path as th
On 03/06/2017 10:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Attached is v2, fixing both issues.
I wonder if
+ bytea *raw_page = PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P(0);
+ uargs->page = VARDATA(raw_page);
is expected to work reliably, without copying the argument to a
diff
With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
`make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a start with default
config, `make installcheck`, connected to the regression database
with psql as the initial superuser, and ran:
regression=# vacuum freeze analyze;
WARNING: relcac
[original message held up for review -- should be along eventualy...]
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> With e434ad39ae7316bcf35fd578dd34ad7e1ff3c25f I did a `make world`,
> `make install-world`, a fresh default initdb, a start with default
> config, `make installcheck`, con
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Giuseppe Broccolo (giuseppe.brocc...@2ndquadrant.it) wrote:
> >> I've seen that pg_dump execute the dump of an eventual comment of a
> >> TSDictionary without specifying the namespace where it is defined:
>
> > Great catch!
>
>
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Attached is v2, fixing both issues.
I wonder if
+ bytea *raw_page = PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P(0);
+ uargs->page = VARDATA(raw_page);
is expected to work reliably, without copying the argument to a
different memory context.
I think it would be better
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Giuseppe Broccolo (giuseppe.brocc...@2ndquadrant.it) wrote:
>> I've seen that pg_dump execute the dump of an eventual comment of a
>> TSDictionary without specifying the namespace where it is defined:
> Great catch!
One of my smarter CS professors taught me that wheneve
On 2017-03-04 11:09:40 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > attached is a patch to address this problem, and the one reported by
> > Dilip. I ran a lot of TPC-H and other benchmarks, and so far this
> > addresses all the performance issues, often be
On 3/4/17 02:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Well, that's one reason why I was thinking that having an independent
> in-core option to clean up the tail of the oldest segments is
> interesting: users don't need to maintain their own infra logic to do
> anything. Now this end-segment command can as wel
2017-03-06 19:45 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut :
> On 3/5/17 05:40, Jan Michálek wrote:
> > jelen=# \pset linestyle rst
> > Line style is rst.
> > jelen=# \pset format wrapped
> > Output format is wrapped.
> > jelen=# SELECT repeat('Goodnight Irene ', 30);
> > +---
Andreas Karlsson writes:
> On 03/01/2017 05:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2/27/17 09:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too
>>> generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better?
>> Well, "log" is pretty well established. Th
On 3/5/17 16:07, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> There is nothing that requires us to materialize the results into an
>> actual list of actual rows. We could wrap the SPI_tuptable into a
>> Python object and implement __getitem__ or __iter__ to emulate sequence
>> or mapping access.
> Would it be possible to
On 03/01/2017 05:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2/27/17 09:51, Tom Lane wrote:
No objection to the basic point, but "log" seems perhaps a little too
generic to me. Would something like "server_log" be better?
Well, "log" is pretty well established. There is /var/log, and if you
unpack a,
On 3/3/17 20:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, it looks sensible to me to keep "replication" for physical
> replication, and switch logical replication checks to match a database
> name in hba comparisons.
I think we are OK to move ahead with this.
Another question would be why only enable conne
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > In my opinion, we expose query id (and dbid, and userid) as the
> > canonical identifier for each pg_stat_statements entry, and have done
> > so for some time. That's the stable API --
Hi,
This issue has bothered me in non-partitioned use-cases recently, so
thanks for taking it up.
On 2017-03-06 18:22:17 +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c b/src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c
> index 2fb9a8bf58..fa906e7930 100644
> --- a/src/backend/po
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Adam Brightwell
wrote:
>>> I wonder if removing the complexity of maintaining two separate lists
>>> for the server and port would be a better/less complex approach. For
>>> instance, why not go with a list of typical 'host:port' strings for
>>> 'radiusservers'?
Hi,
On 2017-03-06 19:49:56 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/06/2017 07:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2017-03-06 12:40:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > The
On 07/03/17 02:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I was going to do it after index and index-only scans and parallel
bitmap heap scan were committed, but I've been holding off on
committing parallel bitm
On 03/06/2017 07:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-03-06 12:40:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
The issue was that on 32bit platforms the Datum returned by some
functions (int2int4_sum in t
On 3/5/17 05:40, Jan Michálek wrote:
> jelen=# \pset linestyle rst
> Line style is rst.
> jelen=# \pset format wrapped
> Output format is wrapped.
> jelen=# SELECT repeat('Goodnight Irene ', 30);
> +-+
> |
On 2/27/17 01:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here is a new patch set that addresses your comments. The structure is
>> still the same, just a bunch of things have been renamed based on
>> suggestions.
> +
> + Drop multiple functions
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
>> On 2/28/17 02:39, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> > I'd like to propose statement-level rollback feature. To repeat m
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Without having actually looked at this patch, I would say that if it added
> a direct call of fopen() to backend-side code, that was already the wrong
> thing. Almost always, AllocateFile() would be a better choice, not only
> because it's tied i
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hm... It may be a good idea to be consistent on the whole system and
> refer to "partitioned table" as a table without storage and used as an
> entry point for partitions. The docs use this term in CREATE TABLE,
> and we would finish with
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Regarding 02, I certainly see that as valuable for the reasons which
> David outlined in his initial email. I can certainly take point on
> getting it committed, but I wouldn't complain if someone else does
> either.
Sold, to the snowman in
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-06 12:40:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > The issue was that on 32bit platforms the Datum returned by some
>> > functions (int2int4_sum in this case) isn't actually a separa
Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, David Steele wrote:
> > Yes, that makes sense. Attached are two patches as requested:
> >
> > 01 - Just marks pg_stop_backup() variants as parallel restricted
> > 02 - Add the wait_for_archive param to pg
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Yes, that makes sense. Attached are two patches as requested:
>
> 01 - Just marks pg_stop_backup() variants as parallel restricted
> 02 - Add the wait_for_archive param to pg_stop_backup().
>
> These apply cleanly on 272adf4.
Committed 01. N
On 2017-03-06 12:40:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The issue was that on 32bit platforms the Datum returned by some
> > functions (int2int4_sum in this case) isn't actually a separately
> > allocated Datum, but rather just something embedded
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The issue was that on 32bit platforms the Datum returned by some
> functions (int2int4_sum in this case) isn't actually a separately
> allocated Datum, but rather just something embedded in a larger
> struct. That, combined with the following
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Perhaps there could be a choice of behaviors. Even if we all agreed
>>> that parameter notation was better in theory, there's something to be
>>> said for maintaining backward compatibili
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>
>> I posted this about 18 months ago but then ran out of steam. [ ] Here
>> is an updated patch. The testing instructions below still apply.
>> Especially welcome would be ideas on how to address some
David Christensen writes:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Here's a review of your patch.
>
> Hi Ilmari, thanks for your time and review. I’m fine with the revised
> version.
Okay, I've marked the patch as Ready For Committer.
Thanks,
Ilmari
--
"The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -
> Hi David,
>
> Here's a review of your patch.
Hi Ilmari, thanks for your time and review. I’m fine with the revised version.
Best,
David
--
David Christensen
End Point Corporation
da...@endpoint.com
785-727-1171
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To ma
Hello,
I would like to work on push-based executor [1] during GSoC, so I'm
writing to introduce myself and start the discussion of the project. I
think I should mention beforehand that the subject is my master's
thesis topic, and I have already started working on it. This letter is
not (obviously)
2017-03-06 16:25 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2017-03-06 16:17 GMT+01:00 Jan Michálek :
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-06 15:19 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-03-06 0:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Michálek :
>>>
2017-03-05 14:02 GMT+01:00 Jan Michálek :
>
>
> 2017-03-05 13
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
