On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:53:49PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > - Call VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_NOACCESS() on a shared buffer when its local
> > > pin
> > > count falls to zero. Under CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY, wipe
Hello Heikki,
As soon as we add more functions, the way they are documented needs to be
reworked too; we'll need to add a table in the manual to list them.
Here is a v8 with "abs", "min", "max", "random", "gaussian" et
"exponential".
[...]
There is no real doc, WIP...
Here is a v9 with a
On 2015-07-24 09:53:49 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 02:10 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >This looks like a good way to address this until the more significant
> >work can be done.
> >
> >I'm not a fan of "RBM_ZERO_NO_BM_VALID"; how about RBM_ZERO_BM_INVALID?
> >or BM_NOT_VALID? Or mayb
Hi,
when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
the following three assertions. Someone more knowledgeable might want
to take a look at them...
-- FailedAssertion("!(outer_rel->rows > 0)", File: "indxpath
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
> when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
> regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
> the following three assertions. Someone more knowledgeable might want
> to take a look at them.
Michael Paquier writes:
>> Footnotes:
>> [1] https://github.com/anse1/sqlsmith
>
> This is really interesting stuff. I think that it would be possible to
> extract self-contained test cases from your tool and those queries to
> reproduce the failures. It is written that this tools connects to a
>
Andreas Seltenreich writes:
> when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
> regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
> the following three assertions.
Very very cool tool! Please keep doing that testing.
The first two seem to be planner problem
On 2015-07-17 11:37:26 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> However I wonder why we are supporting GROUPING SETS inside GROUPING SETS.
> On Oracle, it is throwing an error.
> We are not trying to be Oracle compatible, but just curious to know.
The SQL specification seems to be pretty unambigous about sup
On 25 July 2015 at 19:12, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/22/2015 02:17 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> Hmm, I think it probably ought to do more, based on whether or not RLS
>> is being bypassed or in force-mode -- see the first few checks in
>> get_row_security_policies(). Perhaps a new SQL-callable functi
Hello,
Under the investigation of ParallelAppend, I noticed here is a few
problems in CustomScan, that prevents to reproduce an equivalent
plan node on the background worker from serialized string.
1. CustomScanMethods->TextOutCustomScan callback
T
chipmunk failed last night
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=chipmunk&dt=2015-07-26%2007%3A36%3A32
like so:
== pgsql.build/src/test/regress/regression.diffs
===
***
/home/pgbfarm/buildroot/REL9_3_STABLE/pgsql.build/src/test/regress/expected/c
On 07/26/2015 07:19 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I'm not convinced about exporting convert_table_name() from acl.c,
> particularly with such a non-descriptive name. It's only a couple of
> lines of code, so I think they may as well just be included directly
> in the new function, as seems to be common
Hi,
On 2015-07-26 10:56:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> CREATE INDEX tenk2_unique1 ON tenk2 USING btree(unique1 int4_ops);
> + WARNING: could not send signal to process 30123: No such process
> What's evidently happened here is that our session tried to boot an
> autovacuum process off a table loc
Hello,
Attached is very minor v5 update which does a rebase & completes the
cleanup of doing a full sort instead of a chuncked sort.
Attached is an updated version of the patch which turns the sort option
into a boolean, and also include the sort time in the checkpoint log.
There is still
> "Jeevan" == Jeevan Chalke writes:
Jeevan> Hi
Jeevan> It looks like we have broken the ROW expression without
Jeevan> explicit ROW keyword in GROUP BY.
Andres has given the short version, but here's the long version:
In the spec, GROUP BY ROW(a,b) is an error, while GROUP BY (a,b) is
ex
On 2015-07-17 19:57:22 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Attached is the current version of my fix (with Jeevan's regression
> tests plus one of mine).
Pushed, thanks for the report and fix!
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 2015-07-14 14:51:09 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> Fix this by adding GroupingFunc node in this walker. We do it correctly in
> contain_aggs_of_level_walker() in which we have handling for GroupingFunc
> there.
>
> Attached patch to fix this.
Pushed, thanks for fix!
--
Sent via pgsql-hacker
On 2015-07-24 11:34:22 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes:
>
> Andrew> The other is that in subquery_planner, the optimization of
> Andrew> converting HAVING clauses to WHERE clauses is suppressed if
> Andrew> parse->groupingSets isn't empty. (It is empty if t
Kouhei Kaigai writes:
> Under the investigation of ParallelAppend, I noticed here is a few
> problems in CustomScan, that prevents to reproduce an equivalent
> plan node on the background worker from serialized string.
> 1. CustomScanMethods->TextOutCustomScan callback
> -
Hi,
On 2015-07-17 18:55:52 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> Attached patch which attempts to fix this issue. However I am not sure
> whether it is correct. But it does not add any new issues as such.
> Added few test in the patch as well.
Pushed the fix. Thanks for the report and fix.
- Andres
--
On 07/26/2015 11:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2015-07-26 10:56:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
CREATE INDEX tenk2_unique1 ON tenk2 USING btree(unique1 int4_ops);
+ WARNING: could not send signal to process 30123: No such process
What's evidently happened here is that our session tried to b
On 07/09/2015 12:44 PM, David Rowley wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functions (and a few
other things) match
There's quite a number of aggregates in
On 2015-07-07 13:25:24 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> So, it's starting to look good. Not exactly allowing for a lot of
> confidence yet, but still:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=anole&br=HEAD
Since there have not been any relevant failures since, I'm going to
remove
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 07/26/2015 11:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-07-26 10:56:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to reduce the WARNING to LOG
>> Hm, that doesn't seem like a very nice solution, given that LOG is even
>> more likely to end up in the server log.
>>> and/or s
On 04/01/2015 06:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like
parallel aggregation, aggregate before join, and perhap
Tom Lane wrote:
> + WARNING: could not send signal to process 30123: No such process
> What's evidently happened here is that our session tried to boot an
> autovacuum process off a table lock, only that process was gone by the
> time we issued the kill() call.
> I'm inclined to reduce the WAR
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:14:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Adam Brightwell
> wrote:
> >> I like Noah's proposal of having pg_dump --create reproduce all
> >> database-level state.
> >
> > Should it be enabled by default? If so, then wouldn't it make more
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> (2) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to create a pg_shdepend
> entry for each role in the TO clause. Test case:
Please see the attached patch. Note that I used SHARED_DEPENDENCY_ACL
for this. It seems
Kevin Grittner writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's evidently happened here is that our session tried to boot an
>> autovacuum process off a table lock, only that process was gone by the
>> time we issued the kill() call.
> I think a LOG entry when an autovacuum process is actually canceled
> has
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:14:09PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> > would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
> > enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you
Attached patch removes a reference to an executor README section about
speculative insertion. In fact, the high-level overview of speculative
insertion ended up at the top of execIndexing.c. The executor README
was not touched by the ON CONFLICT patch at all.
I don't think it's necessary to refer
Andreas Seltenreich writes:
> when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
> regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
> the following three assertions.
I've fixed the first two of these --- thanks for the report!
> ,[ git bisect ]
> | first
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Seltenreich writes:
>> when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
>> regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
>> the following three assertions.
>
> Very very cool tool! Please keep doi
> Kouhei Kaigai writes:
> > Under the investigation of ParallelAppend, I noticed here is a few
> > problems in CustomScan, that prevents to reproduce an equivalent
> > plan node on the background worker from serialized string.
>
> > 1. CustomScanMethods->TextOutCustomScan callback
> > ---
> On 04/01/2015 06:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
> >>> patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like
> >>> parallel aggregation, aggregat
Hi
I wonder if it might be worth adding a tiny note to the manual to
point out that the special logic for " IS [ NOT
] NULL" doesn't apply anywhere else that we handle nulls or talk about
[non]-null values in the manual. See attached.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
note-about-row
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Andreas Seltenreich
wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>
> >> Footnotes:
> >> [1] https://github.com/anse1/sqlsmith
> >
> > This is really interesting stuff. I think that it would be possible to
> > extract self-contained test cases from your tool and those querie
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev <
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > Also, the patch should not invent a new array similar but not quite
> > identical to LockTagTypeNames[].
> >
> > This is goofy:
> >
> > +
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Дмитрий Воронин
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 07.07.2015, 18:34, "Michael Paquier" :
> >
> >> Speaking of which, I have rewritten the patch as attached. This looks
> >> way cleaner than the previous version submi
On 27 July 2015 at 04:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 06:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructur
On 27 July 2015 at 12:14, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > The main use case people have been talking about is parallel query, but
> > is there some other case this would be useful right now, without the
> > parallel query feature? You and Simon talked about this case:
> >
> > > 2. Queries such as:
> > >
On 20 July 2015 at 01:18, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-07-15 12:04:40 +0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Andres Freund wrote:
>> > > One thing worth mentioning is that arguably the problem is caused by the
>> > > fact that we're here
On 7 July 2015 at 14:32, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> previous patch was broken, and buggy
>
> Here is new version with fixed upload and more tests
I routinely see people trying to use COPY ... FORMAT binary to export
a single binary field (like an image, for example) and getting
confused by the
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> One thing I noticed that is a bit dismaying is that we don't get a lot
>> of benefit from having more workers. Look at the 0.1 data. At 2
>> workers, if we scaled perfectly, we would
When I caused a crash during the create_index regression test, recovery hit an
assertion failure. Minimal test case:
psql -X
Hello,
> > Attatched is the revised version of this patch.
> >
> > The first patch is not changed from before.
> >
> > The second is fixed a kind of bug.
> >
> > Ths third is the new one to allow backslash continuation for
> > backslash commands.
>
> Ah, thanks:-)
>
> Would you consider adding t
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> When I caused a crash during the create_index regression test, recovery hit an
> assertion failure. Minimal test case:
>
> psql -X < CREATE TABLE t (c text);
> INSERT INTO t SELECT 'P0123456789abcdef' FROM generate_series(1,1000);
> INSERT INTO
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:19:09PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > When I caused a crash during the create_index regression test, recovery hit
> > an
> > assertion failure. Minimal test case:
> >
> > psql -X < > CREATE TABLE t (c text);
> >
On 2015-07-16 PM 04:03, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>>
>> Both. Here's the patch.
>>
>> Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
>> atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
>> w
On 27 July 2015 at 03:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 12:44 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>
>> On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
>>> aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functio
Tom Lane writes:
> Andreas Seltenreich writes:
>> when running my random query generator contraption[1] against the
>> regression database of 9.5 or master, it occasionally triggers one of
>> the following three assertions.
>
> I've fixed the first two of these --- thanks for the report!
I let s
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:44 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley wrote:
>>
>>
>> This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
>> aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functions (and a few
>> other things) match
>> There's quite a
52 matches
Mail list logo
