Re: [HACKERS] WIP: index support for regexp search

On 23.01.2013 09:36, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hi! Some quick answers to the part of notes/issues. I will provide rest of answers soon. On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: The biggest problem is that I really don't care for the idea of contrib/pg_trgm being this cozy with the in

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage

2013/1/23 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: >> what should be result of concat(variadic NULL::int[]) >> I enabled this use case, but what should be result? > > I think there are two somewhat defensible theories: > > (1) punt, and return NULL overall. So in this case the variadic > function would

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On 01/23/2013 12:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Would a committer be willing to pop some entries in .gitignore for Windows native build outputs? *.sln We already exclude pgsql.sln - what others are built? None that I can see. *.vcproj *.vcxproj These all go in the top dir, no? So I th

Re: [HACKERS] dividing privileges for replication role.

Hi, Tom Thank you for comments. > Tomonari Katsumata writes: > >> Why is it better to do this with a privilege, rather than just using > >> pg_hba.conf? > > > > You are right. > > Handling with pg_hba.conf is an easy way. > > > But I think many users think about switch over, so > > the pg_hba.co

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On 01/23/2013 03:15 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/23/2013 12:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Would a committer be willing to pop some entries in .gitignore for Windows native build outputs? *.sln We already exclude pgsql.sln - what others are built? None that I can see. *.vcproj *.

Re: [HACKERS] dividing privileges for replication role.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Tomonari Katsumata < t.katsumata1...@gmail.com> wrote: > ex: > > primary_conninfo = 'port=5432 standby_mode=master-cascade' > primary_conninfo = 'port=5432 standby_mode=master-only' > primary_conninfo = 'port=5432 standby_mode=cascade-only' > > I think it wil

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On 01/23/2013 04:47 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>> *.vcproj >>> *.vcxproj > > Actually, I see we already have the first pattern. So I've added the > second. > Great, thanks. Anchoring them is probably slightly safer, but I can't really imagine that ever being an issue for a pattern like *.vcxpr

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables vs. GIST

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> I think that might be acceptable from a performance point of view - > >> after all, if the index is unlogged, you're saving the cost of WAL - > >> but I guess I st

Re: [HACKERS] Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul

On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version of the > patch) If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a rejected patch doesn't help, its just relighting a fire that shouldn't ever have been lit.

[HACKERS] pg_basebackup with -R option and start standby have problems with escaped password

Test scenario to reproduce: 1. Start the server 2. create the user as follows ./psql postgres -c "create user user1 superuser login password 'use''1'" 3. Take the backup with -R option as follows. ./pg_basebackup -D ../../data1 -R -U use

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14 PM Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Fujii Masao > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:10 PM Zoltán Böszörményi wrote: > >>> 2013-01-22 13:32 keltezéssel, Amit kapila írta: >

Re: [HACKERS] dividing privileges for replication role.

Hi, Michael 2013/1/23 Michael Paquier > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Tomonari Katsumata < > t.katsumata1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ex: >> >> primary_conninfo = 'port=5432 standby_mode=master-cascade' >> primary_conninfo = 'port=5432 standby_mode=master-only' >> primary_conninfo = '

Re: [HACKERS] Event Triggers: adding information

Robert Haas writes: > I think these new regression tests are no good, because I doubt that > the number of recursive calls that can fit into any given amount of > stack space is guaranteed to be the same on all platforms. I have > committed the bug fixes themselves, however. Thanks for commiting

Re: [HACKERS] Re: patch submission: truncate trailing nulls from heap rows to reduce the size of the null bitmap [Review]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:30 AM Jameison Martin wrote: > Sorry for the late response, I just happened to see this yesterday. > Running a general benchmark against the patch as Keven suggests is a good idea.  > Amit, can you supply the actual values you saw when running pgbench (the 3 valu

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] unified frontend support for pg_malloc et al and palloc/pfree mulation (was xlogreader-v4)

For the record, on MSVC we can use __assume(0) to mark unreachable code. It does the same as gcc's __builtin_unreachable(). I tested it with the same Pavel's palloc-heavy test case that you used earlier, with the one-shot plan commit temporarily reverted, and saw a similar speedup you reported

Re: [HACKERS] Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul

On 2013/01/23, at 18:12, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version of the >> patch) > > If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a > rejected patch doesn't help, its

Re: [HACKERS] Review : Add hooks for pre- and post-processor executables for COPY and \copy

psql# \copy pgbench_accounts TO PROGRAM '../compress.sh pgbench_accounts4.txt' > 2) When "\copy" command is in progress then program/command is killed/"crashed due to any problem" >psql is exiting. This is a headache. I

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage

2013/1/23 Pavel Stehule : > 2013/1/23 Tom Lane : >> Pavel Stehule writes: >>> what should be result of concat(variadic NULL::int[]) >>> I enabled this use case, but what should be result? >> >> I think there are two somewhat defensible theories: >> >> (1) punt, and return NULL overall. So in this

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v4

On 2013-01-19 23:42:02 -0500, Steve Singer wrote: > >5) Currently its only allowed to access catalog tables, its fairly > >trivial to extend this to additional tables if you can accept some > >(noticeable but not too big) overhead for modifications on those tables. > > > >I was thinking of making t

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

Tom Lane writes: > I'm thinking that the main argument for trying to do this is so that we > could say "plan caching is transparent", full stop, with no caveats or > corner cases. But removing those caveats is going to cost a fair > amount, and it looks like that cost will be wasted for most usag

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-01-20 00:15 keltezéssel, Andrew Dunstan írta: On 01/19/2013 02:51 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: Yes it rings a bell. See I wanted to add a comment to this blog entry but it wa

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-01-19 21:15 keltezéssel, Andrew Dunstan írta: On 01/19/2013 02:36 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: Cross-compiling is not really a supported platform. Why don't you just build natively? This is know to work as shown by the buildfarm animals doing it successfully. Because I don't have a

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:05:12PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Would a committer be willing to pop some entries in .gitignore for >> Windows native build outputs? >> >> *.sln >> *.vcproj >> *.vcxproj >> >> It'd make life easier

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On 01/23/2013 08:47 AM, Phil Sorber wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, David Fetter wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:05:12PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Would a committer be willing to pop some entries in .gitignore for Windows native build outputs? *.sln *.vcproj *.vcxproj It'

Re: [HACKERS] .gitignore additions

On Jan 23, 2013 8:59 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote: > > > On 01/23/2013 08:47 AM, Phil Sorber wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, David Fetter wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:05:12PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Would a committer be willing to pop some en

Re: [HACKERS] Event Triggers: adding information

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think > you're right, but then I can't see how to include such a test. Maybe you > could add the other one, though? Can you point me specifically at what you have in mind so I

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > After reflecting on this a bit, I think that the problem may come from > drawing an unjustified analogy between views and prepared statements. > The code is certainly trying to treat them as the same thing, but > perhaps we shouldn't do that. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Really, live DDL is not that frequent, and when you do that, you want > transparent replanning. I can't see any use case where it's important to > be able to run DDL in a live application yet continue to operate with > the old (and in case

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: >> what should be result of concat(variadic NULL::int[]) >> I enabled this use case, but what should be result? > > I think there are two somewhat defensible theories: > > (1) punt, and return NULL overall. So in this case

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v4

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > With the (attached for convenience) patch applied you can do > # ALTER TABLE replication_metadata SET (treat_as_catalog_table = true); > > to enable this. > What I wonder about is: > * does anybody have a better name for the reloption? IMHO,

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v4

On 2013-01-23 10:18:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > With the (attached for convenience) patch applied you can do > > # ALTER TABLE replication_metadata SET (treat_as_catalog_table = true); > > > > to enable this. > > What I wonder about is:

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: index support for regexp search

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 23.01.2013 09:36, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The biggest problem is that I really don't care for the idea of >>> contrib/pg_trgm being this cozy with the innards of regex_t. >> The only option I see now is to

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables vs. GIST

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Yes. > > I guess my earlier patch, which was directly incrementing > ControlFile->unloggedLSN counter was the concern as it will take > ControlFileLock several times. > > In this version of patch I did what Robert has suggested. At start of t

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PQping Docs

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: > Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that > appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbname to PQping > or PQpingParams. > > This was requested in the pg_isready thread. Can I counter-propose the attached,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:25 PM Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:10 PM Zoltán Böszörményi wrote: >> >> 2013-01-22 13:32 keltezéssel, Amit kapila írta: >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PQping Docs

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >> Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that >> appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbname to PQping >> or PQpingParams. >> >> This was requested in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PQping Docs

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Phil Sorber wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >>> Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that >>> appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbnam

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: > Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in > progress nor is it pg_ping anymore. OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a -c or -t option that sets the connect_timeou

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

2013/1/23 Robert Haas : > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > wrote: >> Really, live DDL is not that frequent, and when you do that, you want >> transparent replanning. I can't see any use case where it's important to >> be able to run DDL in a live application yet continue to oper

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14 PM Fujii Masao wrote: >> When I removed postgresql.auto.conf and restarted the server, >> I got the following warning message. This is not correct because >> I didn't remove "auto.conf.d" from postgresql.conf.

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

Robert Haas writes: > I agree with that, but I think Tom's concern is more with the cost of > too-frequent re-planning. The most obvious case in which DDL might be > frequent enough to cause an issue here is if there is heavy use of > temporary objects - sessions might be rapidly creating and dro

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the > connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here: > based on the amount of time I've had to spend fixing bugs over the past > five months, 9.2 was our w

Re: [HACKERS] Prepared statements fail after schema changes with surprising error

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, that is probably the major hazard IMO too. The designs sketched > in this thread would be sufficient to ensure that DDL in one session's > temp schema wouldn't have to invalidate plans in other sessions --- but > is that good enough? > > Y

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage

Pavel Stehule writes: > next related example > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.myleast(VARIADIC integer[]) > RETURNS integer > LANGUAGE sql > AS $function$ > select min(v) from unnest($1) g(v) > $function$ The reason you get a null from that is that (1) unnest() produces zero rows out for ei

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit: -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be applied to the nullable side of an outer join"))); +

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset

Hello, Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed. I would like to fix other bugs related to postgres localization, but I am not sure yet how to do it. Thanks in advance, Alexander 18.10.2012 19:46, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On 2013-01-23 11:44:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the > > connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here: > > based on the amount of time I've had to spe

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking > > This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit: > > -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >> Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in >> progress nor is it pg_ping anymore. > > OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would > be a

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:04:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: > >> IMHO that's the single most important task of a review. > > > Really? I'd say the most important task for a review is "does the patch > > do what it says it does?". That is, if the patch is supposed to > > impl

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

Phil Sorber writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com >> > Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if > specified at the command line? +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset

Alexander Law writes: > Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix > (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed. It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO. (FWIW, I have no objection to the patch as given, but I am unqualified to

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Add Makefile dep in bin/scripts for libpgport

I get the following error when I try to compile just a specific binary in src/bin/scripts: gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard reindexdb

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit: >> >> -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be applied to >> the nullable side of an outer join"))); >> +

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

On 23 January 2013 17:15, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking >> >> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit: >> >> -

Re: [HACKERS] My first patch! (to \df output)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Jon Erdman wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Done. Attached. > - -- > Jon T Erdman (aka StuckMojo) > PostgreSQL Zealot > > On 01/22/2013 11:17 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jon Erdman >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On 01/23/2013 09:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-23 11:44:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the >>> connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here:

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage

2013/1/23 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: >> next related example > >> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.myleast(VARIADIC integer[]) >> RETURNS integer >> LANGUAGE sql >> AS $function$ >> select min(v) from unnest($1) g(v) >> $function$ > > The reason you get a null from that is that (1) unne

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking > > This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit: > > -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be > applied to the nullable side

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset

Tom Lane escribió: > Alexander Law writes: > > Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix > > (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed. > > It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO. > (FWIW, I have no objection to the patch as

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: clean up addRangeTableEntryForFunction

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:02:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter writes: > > I've been working with Andrew Gierth (well, mostly he's been doing > > the work, as usual) to add WITH ORDINALITY as an option for > > set-returning functions. In the process, he found a minor > > opportunity to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY

David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > > Folks, > > > > Please find attached a patch which implements the SQL standard > > UNNEST() WITH ORDINALITY. > > Added to CF4. Surely you meant CF 2013-Next (i.e. first commit of 9.4 cycle). -- Álvaro Herrer

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > > > Please find attached a patch which implements the SQL standard > > > UNNEST() WITH ORDINALITY. > > > > Added to CF4. >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup with -R option and start standby have problems with escaped password

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Hari Babu wrote: > Test scenario to reproduce: > 1. Start the server > 2. create the user as follows > ./psql postgres -c "create user user1 superuser login > password 'use''1'" > > 3. Take the backup with -R option as follo

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset

On 01/23/2013 01:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane escribió: Alexander Law writes: Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed. It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO. (FWIW, I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

Fujii Masao escribió: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Is it safe to write something in the directory other than data > >> directory > >> via SQL? > >> > >> postgres user usually has the write permission for the configuration > >> directory like /etc/postgresql? > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On 01/23/2013 09:51 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: The only way to fix increasing bug counts is through more-comprehensive regular testing. Currently we have regression/unit tests which cover maybe 30% of our code. Performance testing is largely ad-hoc. We don't require comprehensive acceptance test

Re: [HACKERS] foreign key locks

I just pushed this patch to the master branch. There was a corresponding catversion bump and pg_control version bump. I have verified that "make check-world" passes on my machine, as well as isolation tests and pg_upgrade. Tom Lane said at one point "this is too complex to maintain". Several ti

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2013-01-15 18:16:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK. I am back to this patch after a too long time. Dito ;) > > > > * would be nice (but thats probably a step #2 thing) to do the > > > > individual steps of concurrent reindex over multiple relations to > > > > avoid too much overall wai

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus > before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think. For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before submitting patches is, in itself, a problem. The

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Andres Freund escribió: > I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent > here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) , > but I don't see any other naming being better. REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY? -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2n

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 24/01/13 07:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andres Freund escribió: I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) , but I don't see any other naming being better. REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY? REINDEX

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl idempotent option

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut writes: > >> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the > >>> default behavior, which is not w

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Phil Sorber writes: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com > >> > > > Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if > > specified at the command li

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl idempotent option

On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would we be breaking backward compatibility? There might be scripts, (being already used), which depend upon the current behavi

[HACKERS] COPY FREEZE has no warning

As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if the freezing does not happen: Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command. This is intended as a performance option for initial data loading

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl idempotent option

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >>anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would > >>we be breaking backward compatibility? Ther

Re: [HACKERS] bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements

2013/1/14 Tom Lane : > Robert Haas writes: >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So far as I can tell, get_create_function_cmd (and lookup_function_oid >>> too) were intentionally designed to not show their queries, and for that >>> matter they go out of their way to produce te

Re: [HACKERS] Visual Studio 2012 RC

On 01/23/2013 02:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: How have you been testing VS2012 builds? In what environment? When I tested this patch the last time I've been using Windows 8 RTM (Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation - 6.2.9200 Build 9200) and Microsoft Visual Studio Express 2012 für Windows

Re: [HACKERS] Event Triggers: adding information

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > wrote: > > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think > > you're right, but then I can't see how to include such a test. Maybe you > > could add the other one

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:15:27AM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > Please find attached a patch which implements t

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:40:45PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:15:27AM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > David Fetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Phil Sorber writes: >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas >> > wrote: >> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com >> >> >> >> > Do you think we should have a

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two

Kevin Grittner wrote: > Applied with trivial editing, mostly from a pgindent run against > modified files. Applied back as far as 9.0. Before that code didn't match well enough for it to seem safe to apply without many hours of additional testing. I have confirmed occurences of this problem at l

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:01PM -0500, Phil Sorber wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Phil Sorber writes: > >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas > >> > wrote: > >> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ p

Re: [HACKERS] Event Triggers: adding information

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine >> wrote: >> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think >> > you're right, but then I can't see how

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE has no warning

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if > the freezing does not happen: > > Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they > would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command. >

Re: [HACKERS] Event Triggers: adding information

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:01PM -0500, Phil Sorber wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Phil Sorber writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus >> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think. > > For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-fin

[HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On 2013-01-22 12:32:07 +, Amit kapila wrote: > This closes all comments raised till now for this patch. > Kindly let me know if you feel something is missing? I am coming late to this patch, so bear with me if I repeat somethign said elsewhere. Review comments of cursory pass through the patc

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus >>> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

On 23.01.2013 20:44, Stephen Frost wrote: * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think. For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before submitti

[HACKERS] Potential TODO: schema in ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES?

Folks, As you know, there's a lot of people these days using SCHEMA for multi-tenant application partitioning. One of them pointed out to me that "schema" is missing from ALTER DEFAULT PRIVS; that is, there's no way for you to set default permissions on a new schema. For folks using schema for

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking

On 01/23/2013 12:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 23 January 2013 17:15, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head

Re: [HACKERS] [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label

On 17.01.2013 23:20, Kohei KaiGai wrote: 2013/1/16 Robert Haas: This looks OK on a quick once-over, but should it update the documentation somehow? Documentation does not take so much description for type_transition rules, so I just modified relevant description a bit to mention about type_tra

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote: > FWIW, here's how I feel about some the patches. It's not an exhaustive list. Thanks for going through them and commenting on them. > "Event Triggers: Passing Information to User Functions (from 2012-11)" > I don't care about this wh

Re: [HACKERS] Potential TODO: schema in ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES?

Josh, * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: > As you know, there's a lot of people these days using SCHEMA for > multi-tenant application partitioning. One of them pointed out to me > that "schema" is missing from ALTER DEFAULT PRIVS; that is, there's no > way for you to set default permissio

Re: [HACKERS] CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

Hello > > I do that pretty often. A better approach, imv, would be making psql a > bit more of a 'real' shell, with loops, conditionals, better variable > handling, etc. > after a few years prototyping on this area I am not sure so this is good idea. Maybe better to start some new console from s

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #7815: Upgrading PostgreSQL from 9.1 to 9.2 with pg_upgrade/postgreql-setup fails - invalid status retrieve

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 09:56:48PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > (But, at least with the type of packaging I'm using in Fedora, he would > > first have to go through a package downgrade/reinstallation process, > > because the packaging provides no simple scripted way of manually > > starting the

  1   2   >