Because of this refactor handing of database objects between
pg_dump and pg_dumpall, the latest pg_dump tap tests are
failing in the following scenarios.
1. CREATE DATABASE postgres
Before this patch, the pg_dump uses to dump the CREATE
DATABASE command of postgres but not by pg_dumpall.
During t
Hi all,
Declarative partitioning is supported in PostgreSQL 10 and work is already
in
progress to support partition-wise joins. Here is a proposal for
partition-wise
aggregation/grouping. Our initial performance measurement has shown 7 times
performance when partitions are on foreign servers and
28.02.2017 00:22, Andrew Dunstan:
OK, here's the whole series of patches.
Patch 1 adds the CallerFInfoFunctionCall{1,2} functions.
Patch 2 adds btree_gist support for their use for non-varlena types
Patch 3 does the same for varlena types (Not required for patch 4, but
better to be consistent,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Seki, Eiji
wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for you review.
>
> I reflected your comment and attach the updated patch.
Thanks for the updated patch.
+/* Use these flags in GetOldestXmin as "flags" */
How about some thing like the following.
/* Use the following flags as
Against an unmodified HEAD (17fa3e8), I got a segfault in the hot standby.
Using the attached files, I start the test case like this:
nice sh do_nocrash_sr.sh >& do_nocrash_sr.err &
And start the replica like:
rm -r /tmp/data2_replica/ ;
psql -p 9876 -c "select pg_create_physical_replication_sl
Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> Declarative partitioning is supported in PostgreSQL 10 and work is already in
> progress to support partition-wise joins. Here is a proposal for
> partition-wise
> aggregation/grouping. Our initial performance measurement has shown 7 times
> performance when partitions are
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Against an unmodified HEAD (17fa3e8), I got a segfault in the hot standby.
>
I think I see the problem in hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid().
It seems to me that we are using different block_id for registering
the deleted items in xlog XLO
Hello,
I want to implement delete functionality for a column store fdw in
postgres. It is similar to file_fdw. I want to use the
“AddForeignUpdateTargets” function to implement this , but the junk filter
shouldn’t be a column present in the table . Is it possible to add a
Expr/Var to the ju
On 2017/03/21 14:59, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> When I run a query like below on a child-less table, the plan comes out to be
>
> explain verbose SELECT * FROM uprt1_l WHERE a = 1 AND a = 2;
> QUERY PLAN
> -
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
As I can see, this bugfix was already discussed and reviewed.
All
Hi,
I like your suggestion and took a look at your patch though I’m not the expert
about psql.
I like the idea taking advantage of linestyle utilities
to implement rst and markdown format efficiently instead of newly developing
pset format things.
But I'm thinking two comments below needs change
Thank you for finishing this.
At Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:02:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20170320190220.ixlaueanxegqd5gr@alvherre.pgsql>
> Here is a closer to final version of the multivariate statistics series,
> last posted at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170316222033.ncdi7nidah
On 2017/03/21 1:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Yes, but on the flip side, you're having to add code in a lot of
>>> places -- I think I counted 7 -- where you turn around and ignore
>>> those AppendRelInfos.
>>
>> Perhaps you were looking at the
On 2017/03/16 22:23, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
2017-02-27 12:40 GMT+03:00 Etsuro Fujita :
I'd like to propose to support parameterized foreign joins. Attached is a
patch for that, which has been created on top of [1].
Can you rebase the patch? It is not applied now.
Ok, will do. Thanks for th
On 2017/03/17 0:37, David Steele wrote:
This patch does not apply cleanly at cccbdde:
Marked "Waiting on Author".
Ok, I'll update the patch. One thing I'd like to revise in addition to
that is (1) add to JoinPathExtraData a flag member to indicate whether
to give the FDW a chance to consi
On 2017/03/17 2:35, Robert Haas wrote:
And ... I don't see anything to complain about, so, committed.
Thanks for committing, Robert! Thanks for reviewing, Ashutosh and David!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
2017-03-21 9:59 GMT+01:00 Ideriha, Takeshi :
> Hi,
>
> I like your suggestion and took a look at your patch though I’m not the
> expert about psql.
>
>
>
> I like the idea taking advantage of linestyle utilities
>
to implement rst and markdown format efficiently instead of newly
> developing pset
2017-03-21 9:59 GMT+01:00 Ideriha, Takeshi :
> Hi,
>
> I like your suggestion and took a look at your patch though I’m not the
> expert about psql.
>
>
>
> I like the idea taking advantage of linestyle utilities
>
> to implement rst and markdown format efficiently instead of newly
> developing pse
Patch rebased to the current master is in attachments.
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
commit 497d52b713dd8f926b465ddf22f21db7229b12e3
Author: Anastasia
Date: Tue Mar 21 12:58:13 2017 +0300
include_columns_10.0_v4.pa
2017-03-21 10:59 GMT+01:00 Jan Michálek :
>
>
> 2017-03-21 9:59 GMT+01:00 Ideriha, Takeshi >:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like your suggestion and took a look at your patch though I’m not the
>> expert about psql.
>>
>>
>>
>> I like the idea taking advantage of linestyle utilities
>>
>> to implement rst and
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Note this:
>
> if (completed || !fcache->returnsSet)
> postquel_end(es);
>
> When the SQL function doesn't return a set, then we can allow
> parallelism even when lazyEval is set, because we'll only call
> ExecutorStart() on
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>> I think it is not just happening for freed overflow but also for newly
>> allocated bucket page. It would be good if we could mark freed
>> overflow page as UNUSED page rather than just initialising it's header
>> portion and leaving
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
I have created some test to cover partition wise joins with
postgres_fdw, also verified make check.
patch attached.
Thanks & Regards,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
QMG, EnterpriseDB Corporation
diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/expected/postgres_
At Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:13:48 +0100, Petr Jelinek
wrote in
> >>> Well the length is necessary to be able to add binary format support in
> >>> future so it's definitely not an omission.
> >>
> >> Right. So it appears the right function to use here is
> >> pq_sendcountedtext(). However, this send
Mmm. I shot the previous mail halfway.
At Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:13:48 +0100, Petr Jelinek
wrote in
> > By the way, I noticed that postmaster launches logical
> > replication launcher even if wal_level < logical. Is it right?
>
> Yes, that came up couple of times in various threads. The logical
>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Note this:
>>
>> if (completed || !fcache->returnsSet)
>> postquel_end(es);
>>
>> When the SQL function doesn't return a set, then we can allow
>> parallelism even when
2017-03-21 11:01 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2017-03-21 10:59 GMT+01:00 Jan Michálek :
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-21 9:59 GMT+01:00 Ideriha, Takeshi > m>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like your suggestion and took a look at your patch though I’m not the
>>> expert about psql.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like the idea t
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Not really -- it's a bit slower actually in a synthetic case measuring
>> > exactly the slowed-down case. See
>> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Not really -- it's a bit slower actually in a synthetic case measuring
>> exactly the slowed-down case. See
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cad__ougk12zqmwwjzim-yyud1y8jmmy6x
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Against an unmodified HEAD (17fa3e8), I got a segfault in the hot standby.
>>
>
> I think I see the problem in hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid().
> It seems to me that we ar
Hi,
I noticed a failure in the inet.sql test while running the regression
tests with parallelism cranked up, and can reproduce it interactively
as follows. After an spgist index is created and the plan changes to
the one shown below, the query returns no rows.
regression=# set force_parallel_mod
Hi,
While working on adding support for parameterized foreign joins to
postgres_fdw, I noticed that commit
e4106b2528727c4b48639c0e12bf2f70a766b910 forgot to modify a test query
for execution of a parameterized foreign scan for a foreign table:
--- parameterized remote path
+-- parameteri
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 21.03.2017, 11:03 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> /*
> + * Try to create a permanent replication slot if one is specified. Do
> + * not error out if the slot already exists, other errors are already
> +
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Hmm, that test case isn't all that synthetic. It's just a single
>> column bulk update, which isn't anything all that crazy, and 5-10%
>> isn't nothing.
>>
>> I'm kinda surprised it made that much difference, though.
>>
>
> I think it is beca
Hi,
Here is a new version of the patch series addressing complaints from
Rafia, Peter, Andres and Robert -- see below.
First, two changes not already covered in this thread:
1. Today Robert asked me a question off-list that I hadn't previously
considered: since I am sharing tuples between backe
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:15 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/20/17 3:40 PM, Jan de Visser wrote:
>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 3:30:49 PM EDT Robert Haas wrote:
>>> That would annoy me, because I use these constantly. I also think
>>> that they solve a problem for users, which is this:
>>>
>>> [rha
Am Dienstag, den 21.03.2017, 12:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> New patches attached.
On second though, there was a superfluous whitespace change in
t/010_pg_basebackup.pl, and I've moved the check-for-hex regex fix to
the second patch as it's cosmetic and not related to changing the --slot
crea
On 17 March 2017 at 23:50, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> 1.
>>
>> + Assert(nnumbers == 1);
>>
>> I think its a bad idea to Assert() this. The stat tuple can come from
>> a plugin which could do anything. Seems like if we need to be certain
>> of that then it should be an elog(ERROR), maybe mention that
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I noticed a failure in the inet.sql test while running the regression
> tests with parallelism cranked up, and can reproduce it interactively
> as follows. After an spgist index is created and the plan changes to
> the one shown below, the qu
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:41 PM, vinayak
wrote:
> Thank you for testing the patch on Windows platform.
>
>
Thanks for the updated patch.
It works good for a normal relation. But for a relation that contains
child tables,
the PROGRESS_ANALYZE_NUM_ROWS_SAMPLED produces wrong results.
How about a
> Not sure what you mean here. I'm not speaking of the brin index am, I
> mean the get_index_stats_hook call which you've added.
I see. Actually this part was from Alvaro. I haven't noticed the
get_index_stats_hook call before, but it is still the same coding as
btcostestimate(). btcostestimate
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> Hmm, that test case isn't all that synthetic. It's just a single
> >> column bulk update, which isn't anything all that crazy, and 5-10%
> >> isn't nothing.
> >>
> >> I'm kinda surpr
Hello,
I want to implement delete functionality for a column store fdw in
postgres. It is similar to file_fdw. I want to use the
“AddForeignUpdateTargets” function to implement this , but the junk filter
shouldn’t be a column present in the table . Is it possible to add a Expr/Var
to t
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I was wondering about doing an explicit test: if the XID being
>>> committed matches the one in the PGPROC, and nsubxids matches, and the
>>> actual list of XIDs matches, then apply the o
PFA an updated patch.
This fixes an issue reported by Tushar internally. Since the patch changes
the way min and max wal_size is stored internally from segment count to
size in kb, it limited the maximum size of min and max_wal_size to 2GB in
32 bit systems.
The minimum required segment is 2 and
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, David Steele wrote:
> > With 16MB WAL segments the filename neatly aligns with the LSN. For
> > example:
> >
> > WAL FILE 0001000100FE = LSN 1/FE00
> >
> > This no longer holds true with this
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
>> Yeah. So what's the deal with this? Is somebody working on figuring
>> out a different approach that would reduce this overhead? Are we
>> going to defer WARM to v11? Or is the intent to just ignore the 5-10%
>> slowdown on a single col
Thank you, pushed. I just make test table permanent.
Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:
Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think it is because heap_getattr() is not that cheap. We have
> noticed the similar problem during development of scan key push down
> work [1].
One possibility to reduce the cost of that is to use whole tuple deform
instead of repeated individual heap_getattr() calls. Si
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
Thank you for the review.
> Unfortunately this is true only for background workers that connect to
> a database. And this would break for bgworkers that do not do that.
> The point to fix is here:
> + if (MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId)
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Attached updated patches.
Committed 0001 after removing a comma.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make cha
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> "pgbench -i -s 50; pgbench -S -j2 -c16 -T900 -P5" freezes consistently on
> Cygwin 2.2.1 and Cygwin 2.6.0. (I suspect most other versions are affected.)
> I've pinged[1] the Cygwin bug thread with some additional detail.
Ouch.
--
Robert Haa
Hello.
I need a little help.
Recently I've decided to run PostgreSQL under Valgrind according to wiki
description [1]. Lots of warnings are generated [2] but it is my
understanding that all of them are false-positive. For instance I've
found these two reports particularly interesting:
```
==00:0
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
>>> Yeah. So what's the deal with this? Is somebody working on figuring
>>> out a different approach that would reduce this overhead? Are we
>>> going to defer WARM to v11? Or is the
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I think that very wide columns and highly indexed tables are not
>> particularly unrealistic, nor do I think updating all the rows is
>> particularly unrealistic. Sure, it's not everything, but it's
>> something. Now, I would agree that all
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I think that very wide columns and highly indexed tables are not
> particularly unrealistic, nor do I think updating all the rows is
> particularly unrealistic.
Ok. But those who update 10M rows in a single transaction, would they
really n
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Sure, we can try that. I think we need to try it with
> > synchronous_commit = off, otherwise, WAL writes completely overshadows
> > everything.
>
> synchronous_commit = off is a much more realistic scenario than fsyn
On 21 March 2017 at 02:21, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 20 March 2017 at 17:33, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Follow timeline switches in logical decoding
>>
>> FWIW, the title doesn't really seem accurate to me.
>
> Yeah, it's not really at the logical decoding layer at all.
>
> "T
Thanks Rajkumar. Added those in the latest set of patches.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>
> I have created some test to cover partition wise joins with
> postgres_fdw, also verified make check.
> patch a
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at
> initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should
> create an "rhaas" database for me, so that this works:
>
> initdb
> pg_ctl start
> psql
>
> I think a
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>>
>>> On a further testing of this patch I find another case when it is
>>> showing regression, the time taken with patch is around 160 secs and
>>> without it is 125 secs.
>>> Ano
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>
>> > Sure, we can try that. I think we need to try it with
>> > synchronous_commit = off, otherwise, WAL writes completely overshadows
>> > everything.
>>
>>
On 3/21/17 9:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, David Steele wrote:
With 16MB WAL segments the filename neatly aligns with the LSN. For
example:
WAL FILE 0001000100FE = LSN 1/FE00
This no longer
On 3/21/17 10:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>>wrote:
Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at
initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should
create an "rhaas" d
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:43 AM, David Steele wrote:
> I suppose it would be too big a change to have psql try the username and
> then fallback to postgres on failure?
It's not so much that the change would be too big as that the
resulting semantics would be confusing, at least IMHO. Imagine:
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-21 07:22:57 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I've been annoyed by these stupid functions and forgetting to update them
>> since I run into them while trying to fix an issue in pg_stat_statement some
>> time ago.
>>
>> I've started to develop a perl script to gener
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2017-03-21 07:22:57 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> I've been annoyed by these stupid functions and forgetting to update them
>>> since I run into them while trying to fix an issue in pg_stat_statement some
>>> time a
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-20 16:06:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... is there a reason why resultnum for EEOP_ASSIGN_* steps is declared
>> size_t and not just int? Since it's an array index, and one that
>> certainly can't be bigger than AttrNumber, that seems rather confusing.
> Not th
Thank you for your suggestions, do not hesitate to ask any questions,
concurrency and GIN both are very interesting topics.
I had a look on patch and found some issue.
Look at ginvacuum.c around line 387, function ginVacuumPostingTreeLeaves():
/*
* All subtree is empty - just
Hi Nikita,
On 3/9/17 8:52 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I take a look to this patchset. My first notes are following.
This thread has been idle for quite a while. Please respond and/or post
a new patch by 2017-03-24 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be
marked "Returned with Feedb
If that can happen, don't we have the same problem in many other places?
Like, all the SLRUs? They don't fsync the directory either.
Right, pg_commit_ts and pg_clog enter in this category.
Implemented as attached.
Is unlink() guaranteed to be durable, without fsyncing the directory? If
not, t
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I attach my V9 of the patch. I came up some stuff for the design of
>> resource management that I think meets every design goal that we have
>> for shared/unified BufFiles:
>
> Com
On 2017-03-21 08:04:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Hmm, that test case isn't all that synthetic. It's just a single
> >> column bulk update, which isn't anything all that crazy, and 5-10%
> >> isn't nothing.
> >>
> >> I'm kinda surprised it
On 16 March 2017 at 10:03, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/03/15 7:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think that eliding the Append node when there's only one child may
>> be unsafe in the case where the child's attribute numbers are
>> different from the parent's attribute numbers. I remember Tom making
>
> IMHO, what would be a lot more useful than something that generates
> {read,equal,copy,out}funcs.c automatically would be something that
> just checks them for trivial errors of omission. For example, if you
> read a list of structure members from the appropriate header files and
> cross-check
On 2017-03-21 19:49:07 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that very wide columns and highly indexed tables are not
> > particularly unrealistic, nor do I think updating all the rows is
> > particularly unrealistic.
>
>
> Ok. But
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >> Against an unmodified HEAD (17fa3e8), I got a segfault in the hot
> standby.
> >>
> >
> > I think I see the
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 March 2017 at 10:03, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/03/15 7:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> I think that eliding the Append node when there's only one child may
>>> be unsafe in the case where the child's attribute numbers are
>>> differen
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> I'd like to share our roadmap for PostgreSQL development, as other companies
> and individuals do in the following page. But this page is for PostgreSQL 10.
>
> PostgreSQL10 Roadmap
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL10_Road
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:25:49AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> > TBH I see many artificial scenarios here. It will be very useful if he can
> > rerun the query with some of these restrictions lifted. I'm all for
> > addressing whatever we can, but I
Hi Michael,
On 3/10/17 9:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/9/17 17:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
Having something like --limit-retained-segments partially addresses
it, as long as there is a way to define an automatic mode, based on
statvfs() obviously.
But that is not portable/usable enough,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:25:49AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Pavan Deolasee
>> > TBH I see many artificial scenarios here. It will be very useful if he can
>> > rerun the query with some of these restricti
Hi Ivan,
On 3/12/17 10:20 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Ivan Kartyshov
wrote:
Here I attached rebased patch waitlsn_10dev_v3 (core feature)
I will leave the choice of implementation (core/contrib) to the discretion
of the community.
Will be glad to hear your suggest
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that's a good question. I previously expressed similar
> concerns. On the one hand, it's hard to ignore the fact that, in the
> cases where this wins, it already buys us a lot of performance
> improvement. On the other hand, as you
Hi,
On 3/13/17 3:25 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
I have reviewed this patch further and here are my comments:
This thread has been idle for over a week. Please respond and/or post a
new patch by 2017-03-24 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be
marked "Returned with Feedback".
Thanks,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think that's a good question. I previously expressed similar
>> concerns. On the one hand, it's hard to ignore the fact that, in the
>> cases where this wins, it already buys us a
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Isn't HEAP2_CLEAN only issued before an intended HOT update? (Which then
>> can't leave the block as all visible or all frozen). I think the issue is
>> here is HEAP2_VISIBLE or HEAP2_FR
Hi Dmitry,
On 3/14/17 7:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes:
[ generic_type_subscription_v7.patch ]
I looked through this a bit.
This thread has been idle for over a week. Please respond and/or post a
new patch by 2017-03-24 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submi
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:04:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I know we have talked about it, but not recently, and if everyone else
> > is fine with it, I am too, but I have to ask these questions.
>
> I think that's a good question. I previously expressed similar
> concerns. On the one hand
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Maybe someone can think of a clever way for an extension to insert a
> wait for a user-supplied LSN *before* acquiring a snapshot so it can
> work for the higher levels, or maybe the hooks should go into core
> PostgreSQL so that the extensio
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:14:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I think that's a good question. I previously expressed similar
> >> concerns. On the one hand, it's hard to ignore
On 21 March 2017 at 16:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 16 March 2017 at 10:03, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/15 7:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
I think that eliding the Append node when there's only one child may
be unsafe in the
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> While I can't see this explained anywhere, I'm
> pretty sur
Hi,
On 3/15/17 9:50 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
What about if somebody does manual vacuum and there are no garbage
tuples to clean, won't in that case also you want to avoid skipping
the lazy_cleanup_index? Another option could be to skip updating the
relfrozenxid if we have skipped the index clean
Hi Thomas,
On 3/15/17 8:38 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 16 March 2017 at 08:02, Thomas Munro wrote:
I agree that these states exist, but we disagree on what 'lag' really
means, or, rather, which of several plausible definitions would be the
most useful here.
My proposal is that the *_lag column
On 3/16/17 11:54 AM, David Steele wrote:
On 2/1/17 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Nikita Glukhov writes:
On 25.01.2017 23:58, Tom Lane wrote:
I think you need to take a second look at the code you're producing
and realize that it's not so c
On 3/16/17 11:56 AM, David Steele wrote:
My recommendation is that we mark this patch "Returned with Feedback" to
allow you time to test and refine the patch. You can resubmit once it
is ready.
This submission has been marked "Returned with Feedback". Please feel
free to resubmit to a futur
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 14 March 2017 at 19:57, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> I'll introduce a new LWLock, ClogTruncationLock, which will be held
>>> from when we advance the new clogOldestXid field through to wh
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 18/03/17 13:31, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 07/03/17 06:23, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> there has been discussion at the logical replication initial copy thread
>>> [1] about making apply work with sync commit off by default for
>>> performance r
Hi, Teodor!
2017-03-21 20:32 GMT+05:00 Teodor Sigaev :
> I had a look on patch
That's great, thanks!
>
> /*
> * All subtree is empty - just return TRUE to indicate that parent
> must
> * do a cleanup. Unless we are ROOT an there is way to go upper.
> */
>
>
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
