Re: [HACKERS] Passing values to a dynamic background worker

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 4/17/17 16:19, Keith Fiske wrote: > > I've reached a roadblock in that bgw_main_arg can only accept a single > > argument that must be passed by value for a dynamic bgw. I

Re: [HACKERS] Passing values to a dynamic background worker

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/18 18:12, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > At Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:19:13 -0400, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> So after reading a recent thread on the steep learning curve for PG > >> internals [1], I figured I'

[HACKERS] Passing values to a dynamic background worker

entions, doing so is quite a steep learning curve. Any guidance for a newer internals dev here would be great. 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH%3Dt1kqwCBF7J1bP0RjgsTcp-SaJaHrF4Yhb1iiQZMe3W-FX2w%40mail.gmail.com -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Keith Fiske writes: > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Joe Conway writes: > >>> Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip > normal > >>> acl checks

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: > > Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal > > acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior? > > Yes, this matches normal inheritance behavior. > > regards, t

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables vs GRANT

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > Apparently INSERT and SELECT on the parent partitioned table skip normal > acl checks on the partitions. Is that intended behavior? > > 8<--- > test=# create user part_test; > CREATE ROLE > test=# > test=# create table t1

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks a lot for testing and reporting this. Please find attached an > updated patch with the fix. The patch also contains a fix > regarding operator used at the time of creating expression as default > partition constraint. This was

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/06 13:08, Keith Fiske wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> Only issue I see with this, and I'm not sure if it is an issue, is what > >> happens to that default

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > > > Only issue I see with this, and I'm not sure if it is an issue, is what > happens to that default constraint clause when 1000s of partitions start > getting added? From what I gather the default's constraint

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Rahila Syed > wrote: > >>Could you briefly elaborate why you think the lack global index support > >>would be a problem in this regard? > > I think following can happen if we allow rows satisfying the new > par

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

emoved, there's still an issue of data duplication after the necessary child table is added. So guess it's a matter of deciding which user experience is better for the moment? -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] pg_partman 3.0.0 - real-world usage of native partitioning and a case for native default

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > >>> Thankfully since native partitioning still uses inheritance internally for the most part, pg_partman works pretty well without nearly as much change as I thought I would need.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_partman 3.0.0 - real-world usage of native partitioning and a case for native default

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> I've gotten pg_partman working with native partitioning already so I can >> hopefully have things ready to w

[HACKERS] pg_partman 3.0.0 - real-world usage of native partitioning and a case for native default

nto 10 so users can more easily use this new feature without having to wait for the next major version. Spoke with several core members at PGConf this year and they asked me to send an email to hackers making my case, so here it is! -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

a necessary child due to data being in the default, how can they ever get it out? Just leave it to the user to keep an eye on the default and fix it as necessary. This is what I do in pg_partman. -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Keith Fiske wrote: > > > Was just curious if anyone was able to come up with any sort of method to > > test whether an index was corrupted by this bug, other than just waiting > > for bad query results? We&

Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Kapila writes: > >> Hmm. Consider that the first time relcahe invalidation occurs while > >> computing id_attrs, so now the retry logic will compute the correct > >> set of attrs (co

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

| text | | | | extended | | col3 | timestamp with time zone | | not null | now() | plain| | Partition of: partman_test.time_taptest_table_p2015 FOR VALUES FROM ('2017-03-01 00:00:00-05') TO ('2017-04-01 00:00:00-04') -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

anything in core. Not sure if there's anywhere else this would need to be fixed. -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql b/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql index 4df390a..c3

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

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

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > > Another suggestion I had was for handling when data is inserted that > doesn't > > match any defined child tables. Right now it just errors out, but in > > p

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> Hi Keith, >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: >> > Being that table partitioning is something I'm slightly

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Keith, > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > > Being that table partitioning is something I'm slightly interested in, > > figured I'd give it a whirl. > > > > This example in

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Implement table partitioning. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgs

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> Thomas Munro brought up in #postgresql on freenode

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

64 duration: 60 s number of transactions actually processed: 4341447 latency average: 0.884 ms tps = 72350.152281 (including connections establishing) tps = 72421.831179 (excluding connections establishing) -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] 9.5 make world failing due to sgml tools missing

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/18/15 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Sure; the point is that libxml2 has suddenly been reclassified as a > > documentation build tool, which is at least a surprising categorization. > > libxml2 has been a req

[HACKERS] Allow GRANT TRIGGER privilege to DROP TRIGGER (Re: Bug ##7716)

ing a patch for this, I would appreciate some guidance on how to go about it. Thanks! -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Question about partial functional indexes and the query planner

Scan on partial_functional_index_test (cost=82.67..4805.55 rows=5000 width=0) (actual time=40.704..1282.955 rows=50 loops=1) Recheck Cond: (CASE WHEN ((id % 2) = 1) THEN 0 ELSE id END = id) Heap Blocks: exact=4425 -> Bitmap Index Scan on partial_functional_idx (cost=0.00..81.42 rows=5000 width=0) (actual time=39.657..39.657 rows=50 loops=1) Planning time: 0.127 ms Execution time: 2483.979 ms (7 rows) -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > > > > Andres's changes on June 3rd to > > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commits/master/src/test/regress/expected/create_function_3.out > > ar

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max

est_inet (ipaddress) values ('127.0.0.1'); INSERT 0 1 Time: 1.786 ms keith=# select min(ipaddress) from test_inet; min --- 127.0.0.1 (1 row) Time: 3.371 ms keith=# select max(ipaddress) from test_inet; max - 192.168.1.2 (1 row) Time: 1.104 ms -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump --pretty-print-views

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Keith Fiske writes: > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Applied with corrections. > > > Was this ever committed into core? Apologies, I'm not very familiar with > > looking through

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump --pretty-print-views

h looking through the commit history of the source code and I don't see anything about this option or pretty-print outputs in the pg_dump/restore docs for 9.3. Had someone asking me about this feature for pg_extractor https://github.com/omniti-labs/pg_extractor/issues/28 -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com