On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:49 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> On 2/28/17 2:55 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2017-02-28 20:08 GMT+01:00 Oleg Bartunov >
> > Attached patch is an implementation of SQL/JSON data model from
> > SQL-2016 standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2:2016(E)), which was publis
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> +/* Can't do anything else if inner path needs to be unique'd */
> +if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
> +return;
>
> Right after this, you should try_partial_mergejoin_path() with the
> result of get_cheapest_parallel_safe_
On 02/20/2017 01:51 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Currently I don't see any significant flaws in these patches. However I
would like to verify that implemented algorithms are compatible with
algorithms implemented by third party.
Yes, that's very important.
For instance, for user 'eax' and p
On 7 March 2017 at 10:01, David Rowley wrote:
> 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 AccessExclu
Hi Kuntal,
Patches apply and compile fine. Works as advertised.
Some minor comments on the patches themselves.
In 0001:
- * pgstat_bestart() -
+ * pgstat_procstart() -
+ *
+ * Initialize this process's entry in the PgBackendStatus array.
+ * Called from InitPostgres and AuxiliaryProcessMain.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Dear Sawada-san,
>
>> This cause is that the "begin transaction" is issued automatically
>> before executing COMMIT PREPARED if we're not in auto commit. The
>> Commit 816b008eaf1a1ff1069f3bafff363a9a8bf04a21 fixed bug of
>> incorrect
>> stat
Hi,
2017-03-07 1:40 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
> > This is actually a problem if a new TSDictionary is created, in a
> different
> > schema specified by the dumped search_path setting.
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you have a concrete test case where it failed
> that way? AFAICS the emitted SQL would
On 7 March 2017 at 17:31, David Rowley wrote:
> On 2 March 2017 at 16:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Few comments on the patch:
>> 1.
>> +/*
>> + * Number of buckets to split RecoveryLockTable into.
>> + * This must be a power of two.
>> + */
>>
>> +#define RECOVERYLOCKTABLE_SIZE 1024
>>
>> On what ba
On 7 March 2017 at 23:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 March 2017 at 10:01, David Rowley wrote:
>> 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
>
Rebase done.
Meanwhile I made some more changes.
Changes
===
1) WAITLSN is now implemented as an extension called "pg_waitlsn"
2) Call new hook "lsn_updated_hook" right after xact_redo_commit (xlog.c)
3) Corresponding functions:
pg_waitlsn('0/693FF800', 1) - wait 10 seconds
pg_waitlsn_
On 7 March 2017 at 19:22, David Rowley wrote:
>>> That may need tweaking. Likely it could be smaller if we had some sort
>>> of bloom filter to mark if the transaction had obtained any AEL locks,
>>> that way it could skip. Initially I really didn't want to make the
>>> patch too complex. I had t
Hi Amit,
Thanks for adding testcases. Overall the testcases look good.
The testcase is using ALTER TABLE to modify foreign table schema.
Though this works, I think a better option is to use ALTER FOREIGN
TABLE.
Something not related to this patch but
-- no attach partition validation occurs for f
On 03/02/2017 08:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Attached is a new patch set. I have combined SASLprep with the rest
and fixed some conflicts. At the same time when going through NFKC
this morning I have noticed that the implementation was doing the
canonical decomposition and reordered the charact
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> 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 accu
On 28 February 2017 at 12:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a small patch to make a BRIN page range unsummarized. This is
> useful if data has been deleted, and the heap pages are now used for
> completely different data.
We currently have a manual interface for summarize new values, so it
mak
FWIW, +1 on improving matters here.
Andres Freund wrote:
> The best I can come up so far is a toplevel target that creates the temp
> install, starts a cluster and then runs the 'installcheck-or-check'
> target on all the subdirectories via recursion. Individual makefiles can
> either use the pre
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Both fixed, thanks for the review! Version 3 attached.
It looks good to me.
Stephen Frost is also reviewer on the patch, so I'm moving the
status back to "Needs review" at
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/973/
and let him proceed.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vé
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Ivan Kartyshov
wrote:
> Rebase done.
Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> Meanwhile I made some more changes.
>
> Changes
> ===
> 1) WAITLSN is now implemented as an extension called "pg_waitlsn"
I've read the discussion so far but I didn't see the reason wh
On 7 March 2017 at 20:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> FWIW, +1 on improving matters here.
+1 also.
I don't see what's wrong with relying on buildfarm though; testing is
exactly what its there for.
If we had a two-stage process, where committers can issue "trial
commits" as a way of seeing if the b
On 24 January 2017 at 06:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Rebased series attached, on top of current master (which includes
> logical replicaiton).
>
> I'm inclined to think I should split out a few of the changes from
> 0005, roughly along the lines of the bullet points in its commit
> message. Anyone f
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 7 March 2017 at 20:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> FWIW, +1 on improving matters here.
>
> +1 also.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with relying on buildfarm though; testing is
> exactly what its there for.
>
> If we had a two-stage process, where committers can issue "trial
* Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org) wrote:
> Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> > Both fixed, thanks for the review! Version 3 attached.
>
> It looks good to me.
>
> Stephen Frost is also reviewer on the patch, so I'm moving the
> status back to "Needs review" at
> https://commitfest.postgres
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've now committed the bulk of these patches. Many thanks to everyone
> involved, and especially you, Michael, for your persistence!
Thanks!
> There are a bunch of loose ends, like the SASLprep thing. But the core of
> this patch has be
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I think I see the problem that you're trying to solve, but I agree
> that this doesn't seem all that elegant. The reason why we have that
> numberTuples check is because we're afraid that we might be in a
> context like the extended-query pr
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I am confused about whether to call
> "get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner" with
> innerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths like we do in case of
> hash_inner_and_outer or with
> innerrel->pathlist. The reason behind I am calling this with com
On 03/07/2017 12:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
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 whoppi
I think we have consensus to go ahead with this, and the patches are
mostly mechanical, so I only have a few comments on style and one
possible bug below:
0001-Move-contrib-seg-to-only-use-V1-calling-conventions.patch
static int restore(char *s, float val, int n);
-
/*
On 03/07/2017 07:58 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 March 2017 at 20:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> FWIW, +1 on improving matters here.
> +1 also.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with relying on buildfarm though; testing is
> exactly what its there for.
>
> If we had a two-stage process, where commit
Hi,
When I logged in PostgreSQL as non-superuser and ran
ALTER PUBLICATION command, I got a segmentation fault.
The code checking the owner of publication might have a bug.
=# CREATE ROLE foo NOSUPERUSER LOGIN
=# \c - foo
=> \dRp
List of publications
Name | Owner | Inserts | Up
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Sure, if you think both Writes and Reads at OS level can have some
> chance of blocking in obscure cases, then we should add a wait event
> for them.
I think writes have a chance of blocking in cases even in cases that
are not very obscure at a
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> My benchmarking script first prewarms the whole database, then runs the
> tpch queries in sequence, repeated three times, and compares the shortes
> execution time:
Those numbers are stupendous.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.ente
Ashutosh,
* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> Here are patches for follwing
> 1. pg_explain_plan_time_v3 adds SUMMARY option which behaves as:
> SUMMARY when ON prints planning time. With ANALYZE ON, it also prints
> execution time. When user explicitly uses SUMMARY OFF, it
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Rader, David wrote:
> Revised doc patch attached with various parameters.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make change
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 0002 wasn't quite careful enough about the placement of #ifdef
>> USE_PREFETCH, but otherwise looks OK. Committed after changing that
>> and getting rid of the local variable prefetch_iter
On 3/6/17 17:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> What if we told pg_receivewal (or pg_receivexlog, whatever that is) a
> maximum number of segments to retain before removing old ones? Like
> pg_receivewal --limit-retained-segments=50GB, or something like that.
That would be doable, but would it solve anyone
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> + if (DsaPointerIsValid(node->pstate->tbmiterator))
> + tbm_free_shared_area(dsa, node->pstate->tbmiterator);
> +
> + if (DsaPointerIsValid(node->pstate->prefetch_iterator))
> +
On 3/6/17 16:33, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I think it would be better not to maintain so much duplicate code
>> between bt_page_items(text, int) and bt_page_items(bytea). How about
>> just redefining bt_page_items(text, int) as an SQL-language function
>> calling bt_page_items(get_raw_page($1, $2))?
(On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 0001- same as previous with some changes for freeing the shared memory stuff.
+if (--ptbase->refcount == 0)
+dsa_free(dsa, istate->pagetable);
+
+if (istate->spages)
+{
+ptpages = dsa_get_address(dsa, istate->spag
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> + if (DsaPointerIsValid(node->pstate->tbmiterator))
>> + tbm_free_shared_area(dsa, node->pstate->tbmiterator);
>> +
>> + if (DsaPointerI
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/6/17 17:16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What if we told pg_receivewal (or pg_receivexlog, whatever that is) a
>> maximum number of segments to retain before removing old ones? Like
>> pg_receivewal --limit-retained-segments=50GB, or someth
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks. I noticed that 'and' is duplicated in a line added by the commit
> to analyze.sgml. Attached 0001 fixes that. 0002 and 0003 same as the
> last version.
Oh, rats. Thanks for noticing. Committed 0001.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:10:52AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> > 3. Handling adding a new partition to a partitioned table
> >with default partition.
> >This will require moving tuples from existing default partition to
> > newly creat
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I mean, IIUC, the call to PrefetchBuffer() is not done under any lock.
> And that's the slow part. The tiny amount of time we spend updating
> the prefetch information under the mutex should be insignificant
> compared to the cost of actually r
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rahila Syed
> wrote:
> > 3. Handling adding a new partition to a partitioned table
> >with default partition.
> >This will require moving tuples from existing default partition to
> > newly created par
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> 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 intenti
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I mean, IIUC, the call to PrefetchBuffer() is not done under any lock.
>> And that's the slow part. The tiny amount of time we spend updating
>> the prefetch information under the mutex sh
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> You're right to be confused, because that seems to be a bug in the
> existing code. There seems to be no guarantee that the cheapest
> parallel-safe path will be in the cheapest_parameterized_paths list.
> I'll go fix that.
Okay, Done the simm
On 3/4/17 01:46, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So I think we should do it, but it needs to be configurable, my original
>> patch added GUC for it, Peter wanted it to be configurable per
>> subscription. I guess we could add it as another option to the list of
>> WITH (...) options for CREATE and ALTER SUBS
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Amit Kapila 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 Parallel Ap
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> While I can't see this explained anywhere, I'm
>> pretty sure that that's supposed to be impossible, which this patch
>> changes.
>>
>
> What makes you think that patch will allow pg_class.relfrozenxid to be
> advanced past opaque->btpo.xact wh
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 3/4/17 01:46, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> So I think we should do it, but it needs to be configurable, my original
>>> patch added GUC for it, Peter wanted it to be configurable per
>>> subscription. I guess we could add it as another option
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It's not about speed. It's about not forgetting to prefetch. Suppose
> that worker 1 becomes the prefetch worker but then doesn't return to
> the Bitmap Heap Scan node for a long time because it's busy in some
> other part of the plan tree.
Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> Yes, I have created a new patch entry into the commitfest 2017-03 and
> attached the latest patch with this e-mail.
Please find attached a companion patch implementing the batch API in
pgbench, exposed as \beginbatch and \endbatch meta-commands
(without docum
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I logged in PostgreSQL as non-superuser and ran
> ALTER PUBLICATION command, I got a segmentation fault.
> The code checking the owner of publication might have a bug.
>
> =# CREATE ROLE foo NOSUPERUSER LOGIN
> =# \c - foo
> => \dR
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You're right to be confused, because that seems to be a bug in the
>> existing code. There seems to be no guarantee that the cheapest
>> parallel-safe path will be in the cheapest_paramete
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Apart from this, there was one problem in match_unsorted_outer (in
>> v10), Basically, if inner_cheapest_total was not parallel_safe then I
>> was always getting parallel safe inner. But, we should not do anything
>> if jointype was JOIN_UNIQU
Hi,
On 2017-03-08 00:15:05 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> -static List *RecoveryLockList;
> +/*
> + * RecoveryLockTable is a poor man's hash table that allows us to partition
> + * the stored locks. Which partition a lock is stored in is determined by the
> + * xid which the lock belongs to. The has
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> 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.
Reviewing 0002:
This patch seems to have falsified the header comments for
expand_inherited_rte
Andres Freund writes:
>>> On 2017-02-24 18:04:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Concretely, something like the attached. This passes regression tests
but I've not pushed on it any harder than that.
> I think we should go forward with something like this patch in all
> branches, and only use To
On 2017-03-07 13:06:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> >>> On 2017-02-24 18:04:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Concretely, something like the attached. This passes regression tests
> but I've not pushed on it any harder than that.
>
> > I think we should go forward with so
Amit, Rafia,
nodeIndexscan.c, unlike nodeSeqscan.c, thinks that a parallel-aware
scan will always be executed in parallel mode. But that's not true:
an Execute message with a non-zero row count could cause us to abandon
planned parallelism and execute the plan serially. I believe this
would cau
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Ivan Kartyshov
> wrote:
>> Rebase done.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
>>
>> Meanwhile I made some more changes.
>>
>> Changes
>> ===
>> 1) WAITLSN is now implemented as an extension called "pg_w
Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
It looks rather out of place considering that seven of the eight
pre-existing relkind codes are lower case. (And no, I don't especially
approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to
change that.) Also, i
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
> It looks rather out of place considering that seven of the eight
> pre-existing relkind codes are lower case. (And no, I don't especially
> approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being '
Hi
I am sending a review of this interesting feature.
I found following issues, questions:
1. unclosed tags in documentation
2. bad name "changeTargetEntry" - should be makeTargetEntry?
3. Why you removed lot of asserts in prepunion.c? These asserts should be
valid still
4. make_coresponding_ta
Hi,
On 2017-03-07 12:21:59 +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On 2017-03-03 15:49:38 -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > I propose we move this patch to the 2017-07 CF so further development
> > and review can be done without haste and as the standard becomes more
> > accessible.
+1
> I wanted to have on
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> I have split the patch into two, one is to allow optimiser to select a
> parallel plan for queries in PL functions
> (pl_parallel_opt_support_v1.patch), wherein CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK is passed
> at required places.
>
> Next, the patch for allow
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 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, vinayak wrote:
>> > > The view provides the information of analyze command progress details as
>> > >
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> 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_pa
On 1/30/17 20:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Two things I forgot in this patch:
>> - documentation for the new wait event
>> - the string for the wait event or this would show up as "???" in
>> pg_stat_activity.
>> There are no default cl
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> On 2017-02-28 19:12:03 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> > Since VM bits are only set during VACUUM which conflicts with CIC on the
>> > relation lock, I don't see any risk of incorrectly skipping p
Hello,
EDB Oracle compatibility proposes edb_stmt_level_tx parameter,
psql uses ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK = 'on',
ODBC has a parameter for this
JDBC has nothing and developers has to play with savepoint as described
http://blog.endpoint.com/2015/02/postgres-onerrorrollback-explained.html
This feature (a
On 07.03.2017 03:21, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
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.
Good to know. Could you explain what you mean by "cachi
On 2/7/17 03:11, Okano, Naoki wrote:
> I tried to cretae a patch for CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER.
I have a feeling that this was proposed a few times in the ancient past
but did not go through because of locking issues. I can't find any
emails about it through. Does anyone remember? Have you thou
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:49:29PM -0700, legrand legrand wrote:
> JDBC has nothing and developers has to play with savepoint as described
> http://blog.endpoint.com/2015/02/postgres-onerrorrollback-explained.html
JDBC has it since 9.4.1210 (2016-09-07), unless I am mistaken:
https://github.com/
On 8 March 2017 at 09:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> Committed.
Thanks!
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> >> On 2017-02-28 19:12:03 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> >> > Since VM bits are only set during VACUUM which conflicts with CIC on the
> >>
On 7 March 2017 at 16:18, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:49:29PM -0700, legrand legrand wrote:
> > JDBC has nothing and developers has to play with savepoint as described
> > http://blog.endpoint.com/2015/02/postgres-onerrorrollback-explained.html
>
> JDBC has it since 9.4.1210
Hi,
On 2017-03-07 02:57:30 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I'm not sure why nodeHashjoin.c is doing raw batchfile read/write
> operations anyway; why not use tuplestore.c for that (as
> tuplestore.c's comments incorrectly say is the case)?
Another reason presumably is that using tuplestores would ma
Hi,
about the datetime issue: as far as I know, JSON does not define a
serialization format for dates and timestamps.
On the other hand, YAML (as a superset of JSON) already supports a
language-independent date(time) serialization format
(http://yaml.org/type/timestamp.html).
I haven't had
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
On my MacBook, `make check-world` gives differences in the contrib module
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> On my MacBook, `make check-world` gives differences in the contrib modules:
I get the same (or similar -- didn't check) regression failure on CentOS, so
this
doesn't appear to be MacBook / hardware specific.
Mark Dilger
--
Sent via pgsql-
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
On linux/gcc the patch generates a warning in nodeAgg.c that is fairly ea
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Yeah, actually those were added later in Enable-WAL-for-Hash* patch,
>> but I think as this patch is standalone, so we should not remove it
>> from their existing usage, I have added those
Hi all!
Does anyone know of a simple, example Custom Scan Provider implementation
for 9.6+?
I found pg_strom by searching GitHub. Its gpuscan.c looks like maybe it
implements a pattern similar to what I want to do, but there's a lot of
extraneous (to me) stuff to parse through.
I'm kinda surpri
You have to turn it on using the autosave parameter. it's not on by
default, and apparently not documented
Dave Cramer
da...@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com
On 7 March 2017 at 17:15, legrand legrand
wrote:
> Thanks !
>
> that's a very good new !
>
>
> I'm still receiving the famous
>
>
Thanks !
that's a very good new !
I'm still receiving the famous
"current transaction is aborted" error
when usingversion 42.0.0 with
jdbc:postgresql://localhost:5432/postgres?autosave=always
But I will see that with pgjdbc team ;o)
Regards
PAscal
--
View this message in conte
legrand>when usingversion 42.0.0 with
legrand> jdbc:postgresql://localhost:5432/postgres?autosave=always
The pitfall there is the value should be written with upper case like
autosave=ALWAYS.
I've filed https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/769 to improve that at
some point.
Vladimir
On 2017-03-06 11:27, Petr Jelinek wrote:
0001-Reserve-global-xmin-for-create-slot-snasphot-export.patch +
0002-Don-t-use-on-disk-snapshots-for-snapshot-export-in-l.patch+
0003-Prevent-snapshot-builder-xmin-from-going-backwards.patch +
0004-Fix-xl_running_xacts-usage-in-snapshot-builder.patch
Please disregard my previous message.
pgjdbc is already doing upcase conversion, so I would like to see a test
case that reproduces the error.
Alternatively, could you please capture and share TRACE log? (
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/logging.html#configuration )
Vladimir
ср, 8
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
> I can't muster a lot of outrage about this one way or another. One
> possible advantage of 'P' is that there are fewer places where 'P' is
> mentioned
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi Peter,
I like the patch so far, and it passes all the regression test
On 3/7/17 12:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
I was confused about this too. If there is no argument against it, I
would favor changing it.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support
On 03/02/2017 07:13 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 2/25/17 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 25 February 2017 at 13:58, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - trigger_file is removed.
>>> FWIW, my only complain is about the removal of trigger_file, this is
>>> useful to detect a trigger
Mark Dilger writes:
> You appear to be using a #define macro to wrap a function of the same name
> with the code:
> #define copyObject(obj) ((typeof(obj)) copyObject(obj))
> I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it struck me as a bit odd,
> and
> grep'ing through the sources, I don'
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Yeah, actually those were added later in Enable-WAL-for-Hash* patch,
>>> but I think as this patch is standalone, so we should not re
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
>
>> I can't muster a lot of outrage about this one way or another. One
>> possible advantage of 'P'
I looked over
0001-Add-expression-dependencies-on-composite-type-whole-.patch. That
seems useful independent of the things you have following.
Even though it is presented more as a preparatory change, it appears to
have noticeable user-facing impact, which we should analyze. For
example, in the
I see it is already addressed in master. Thanks.
Regards,
Neha
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
