Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

Hi Michael, Simon, From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier > > Oh, I see. But how does the startup process respond quickly? It seems > that you need to call HandleStartupProcInterrupts() instead of > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] RE: DECLARE STATEMENT setting up a connection in ECPG

Thank you for prompt check! >As per above test steps, it doesn't produce the results and doesn't >generate the error also. I feel this needs to be fixed. >As we are at the end of commitfest, it is better you can move it >to next one commitfest and provide an updated patch to solve the >above prob

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Hello Tom, Patch applies cleanly. Make check ok. Feature still works! Idem for v30. [...] Aside from cosmetic changes, I've made it behave reasonably for cases where \if is used on portions of a query, for instance SELECT \if :something var1 \else var2 \endif FROM table; This is c

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 30 March 2017 at 11:34, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 29 March 2017 at 23:13, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 29 March 2017 at 10:17, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> On 29 March 2017 at 16:44, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> * Split oldestCatalogXmin tracking into separate patch >>> >>> Regarding this, Simon raise

[HACKERS] inconsistent page found on STANDBY server

Hi All, When running make installcheck on a master with wal consistency check enabled, inconsistent page is detected on standby. I could see the following FATAL message in the standby server logfile, 2017-03-30 07:31:10.101 BST [27994] LOG: entering standby mode 2017-03-30 07:31:10.106 BST [2799

Re: [HACKERS] Getting server crash after running sqlsmith

On 03/29/2017 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Hm ... I don't see a crash here, I am getting this issue only on Linux3. but I wonder whether you have parameters set that would cause this query to be run as a parallel query? Because pg_rotate_logfile() is marked as parallel-safe in pg_proc, which se

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:38 PM, vinayak wrote: > > On 2017/03/25 4:30, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:41 AM, vinayak >> wrote: >>> >>> I have updated the patch. >> >> You can't change the definition of AcquireSampleRowsFunc without >> updating the documentation in fdwhandler.

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent page found on STANDBY server

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > RCA: > > After debugging the hash index code for deletion, I could find that > while registering data for xlog record 'XLOG_HASH_UPDATE_META_PAGE' we > are not passing the correct length of data being registered and > therefore, data

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

This should be added to the open items list. I am not able to add it myself, as I don't have "editor" privileges on open items wiki. I have requested for those privileges. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote: > Hello, > > I tried this feature using most recently snapshot. In

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/28/2017 11:07 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> ... >> I think we all agree that we should get rid of nreaders from the >> GatherMergeState and need to do some code re-factor. But if I >> understood correctly that Robert's concern

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/03/30 18:02, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > This should be added to the open items list. I am not able to add it > myself, as I don't have "editor" privileges on open items wiki. I have > requested for those privileges. I am going to shortly, after I reply to Shinoda-san's report. While the cras

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On 2017/03/30 17:39, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:38 PM, vinayak wrote: On 2017/03/25 4:30, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:41 AM, vinayak wrote: I have updated the patch. You can't change the definition of AcquireSampleRowsFunc without updating the documen

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

On 2017/03/29 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Looks correct, so incorporated in the attached updated patch. Thanks. > > This seems like a hacky way to limit the reloptions to just OIDs. > Shouldn't we instead have a new RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONE

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think 0011 is likely to be acceptable in current form. I > can't imagine that we just went to the trouble of getting rid of > AppendRelInfos for child partitioned rels only to turn around and put > them back again. If you just need

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Beena Emerson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> >> At this point, I suggest splitting this patch up into several >> potentially less controversial pieces. >> >> One big piece is that we currently don't support segment sizes la

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

Shinoda-san, Thanks a lot for testing. On 2017/03/30 10:30, Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote: > Hello, > > I tried this feature using most recently snapshot. In case of added > constraint PRIMARY KEY for partition table, INSERT ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING > statement failed with segmentaion fault. > If th

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:59:14 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi > wrote in xwu0j05x_j...@mail.gmail.com> > > Yes, downloaded from the email on Windows and copied across to Linux and > > did "git apply

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Thanks. I think your patch of tracking interesting attributes seems ok too > after the performance issue was addressed. Even though we can still improve > that further, at least Mithun confirmed that there is no significant > regression any

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma >> To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any failures. >> But, then I am not sure if huge_pages

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On 2017/03/30 18:35, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I don't think 0011 is likely to be acceptable in current form. I >> can't imagine that we just went to the trouble of getting rid of >> AppendRelInfos for child partitioned rels only to turn aroun

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amit Kapila > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Amit Kapila > >> wrote: > > > > Then during recheck, we pass already compr

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

Hello, At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:24:16 +0900, Amit Langote wrote in > On 2017/03/29 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote > > wrote: > >> Looks correct, so incorporated in the attached updated patch. Thanks. > > > > This seems like a hacky way to limit the

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

hi Thank you very much for your help . here is the patch fix that issue as you suggest Regards Surafel On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2017-03-28 14:18 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> >> >> 2017-03-28 13:58 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen : >> >>> can you help with fixi

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

The patch applies cleanly, compiles. make check in regress as well as postgres_fdw works fine. Here are few comments local-join should be local join. The comments should explain why. +/* Should be unparameterized */ +Assert(outer_path->param_info == NULL); +Assert(inner_pa

Re: [HACKERS] sequence data type

On 3/29/17, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 3/29/17, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Vitaly Burovoy >> wrote: >>> I think min_value and max_value should not be set to "1" or "-1" but >>> to real min/max of the type by default. >> >> This is the default behavior for ages, s

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Pavan Deolasee >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amit Kapila >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Amit

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

Thanks for the review. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:24:16 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/03/29 23:58, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote >> > wrote: >> >> Looks correct, so incorporated in the attached

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

2017-03-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Moser : > A similar walkthrough for ALIGN will follow soon. > > We are thankful for any suggestion or ideas, to be used to write a > good SGML documentation. The attached README explains the ALIGN operation step-by-step with a TEMPORAL LEFT OUTER JOIN example. That

Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

Hi Ashutosh, On 03/29/2017 09:16 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: This patch needs a rebase. Please try applying these patches on top of [1]. I think you should be able to apply it cleanly. Sorry, I think I forgot to mention this point in my earlier mail. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > How have you verified that? Have you checked that in > heap_prepare_insert it has called toast_insert_or_update() and then > returned a tuple different from what the input tup is? Basically, I > am easily able to see it and even the reas

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > If there's a way to change the verbosity for just those scripts, I'd be > >> > happy to do that, if we're unable to agree on reducing it across the > >> > board.. > >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Michael, > > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> > If there's a way to change the verbosity for just those scripts, I'd be >> >> > happy to do that, if we're una

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

Stephen Frost wrote: > I'd be fine with removing --verbose globally, as your patch does, but > there was some argument that we then would have long 'quiet' periods. > I haven't had a chance to go test if that's really the case yet though. Michael said that a running counter was displayed, which p

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

On 30 March 2017 at 20:57, Michael Paquier wrote: > I don't see much the point to have --verbose enabled by default, but > if that's the consensus I have nothing better to propose than adding > something like that to the command launching the prove command: $(if > $(PG_PROVE_FLAGS),$(PG_PROVE_FLA

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, formally speaking, the RMT declares the onset of feature freeze. > I expressed an opinion that they'd probably do so at the end of March, > but it's their call as to exactly when to do so, and whether to grant > any limited extension

[HACKERS] Typo in libpq

There seems to be a typo in libpq as per attached, “..we will loose error messages” should probably be “..we will lose error messages”. cheers ./daniel typo-libpq-loose.diff Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > B. In tuple sort we can use hash function bucket = hash_key % > num_buckets instead of existing one which does bitwise "and" to > determine the bucket of hash key. This way we will not wrongly assign > buckets beyond max_buckets and sorted hash k

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > I think we can fix that by comparing compressed values. I know you had > raised concerns, but Robert confirmed that (IIUC) it's not a problem today. I'm not sure that's an entirely fair interpretation of what I said. My point was that, whi

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)

On 25 March 2017 at 07:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > As I said in another thread, I pushed parts 0002,0003,0004. Tomas said > he would try to rebase patches 0001,0005,0006 on top of what was > committed. My intention is to give that one a look as soon as it is > available. So we will have n-dist

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: > > I think we can fix that by comparing compressed values. I know you had > > raised concerns, but Robert confirmed that (IIUC) it's not a problem > today. > > I'm not sure that's an

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I agree we need to extend, and not wait until any longer to do it. We > have people at the NYC conference and I don't want their memory of the > conference being that they were stressed trying to work on closing the > commit fest --- that co

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> >> >> How have you verified that? Have you checked that in >> heap_prepare_insert it has called toast_insert_or_update() and then >> returned a tuple different from what the inp

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think we should not consider doing compression and decompression as > free at this point in code, because we hold a buffer lock during > recheck. Buffer locks are meant for short-term locks (it is even > mentioned in storage/buffer/README),

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote: > Attached. * Cleaned up in 3 places * Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c * Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go backwards All else looks good. Comments before commit? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ Postgre

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 2017-03-30 15:26:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > Attached. > > * Cleaned up in 3 places > * Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c > * Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go backwards > > All else looks good. Comments before commit?

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 30 March 2017 at 15:27, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-30 15:26:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> > Attached. >> >> * Cleaned up in 3 places >> * Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c >> * Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go back

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we >> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments >> _and_ announce that a week before each deadline. > Summary of opinions

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On 30/03/17 16:04, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee > mailto:pavan.deola...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I think we can fix that by comparing compressed value

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we > >> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments > >> _and_ announce that a

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

On 30/03/17 16:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> - Alvaro proposes allowing more time next time, but not to change the >> dates for this time. > > FWIW I didn't realize that the NY conference was ongoing, so count me > for postponing the end of the current CF. > +1, the confer

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we > >> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments > >> _and_ anno

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

Robert Haas wrote: > - Alvaro proposes allowing more time next time, but not to change the > dates for this time. FWIW I didn't realize that the NY conference was ongoing, so count me for postponing the end of the current CF. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ Postgre

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think approach B is incorrect. Suppose we have 1536 buckets and > hash values 2048, 2049, 4096, 4097, 6144, 6145, 8192, and 8193. If I > understand correctly, each of these values should be mapped either to > bucket 0 or to bucket 1, and th

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:23:42 +0200, Michael Banck > wrote in <149077.18436.14.ca...@credativ.de> >> Hi, >> >> Am Mittwoch, den 29.03.2017, 15:22 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier: >> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Fujii M

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

Stephen Frost writes: > I'd be fine with removing --verbose globally, as your patch does, but > there was some argument that we then would have long 'quiet' periods. > I haven't had a chance to go test if that's really the case yet though. I've been running it like this lately: make -s check-wor

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2017-03-27 13:59 GMT+02:00 Alexander Korotkov : > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> 2017-03-10 16:00 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov >> >: >>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] Guidelines for GSoC student proposals / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Mengxing Liu wrote: > Thanks, I've updated the proposal. Just one issue: > I agree that we can make skip list a general data structure. But > can we use the fixed-level skip list as a Plan B? Or a quick attempt > before the general data structure ? > Because I am

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

- IDENTITY_P IF_P ILIKE IMMEDIATE IMMUTABLE IMPLICIT_P IMPORT_P IN_P + IDENTITY_P IF_P ILIKE IMMEDIATE IMMUTABLE IMPLICIT_P IMPORT_P IN_P INCLUDE I think your syntax would read no worse, possibly even better, if you just used the existing INCLUDING keyword. It was a discussion in thi

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

I had a look on patch and played with it, seems, it looks fine. I splitted it to two patches: core changes (+bloom index fix) and btree itself. All docs are left in first patch - I'm too lazy to rewrite documentation which is changed in second patch. Any objection from reviewers to push both pa

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Hi, On 2017-03-30 16:43:41 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Looks like OID conflict to me.. Please try rebased set. Pavan, Alvaro, everyone: I know you guys are working very hard on this, but I think at this point it's too late to commit this for v10. This is patch that's affecting the on-disk for

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Fabien COELHO writes: >> [...] Aside from cosmetic changes, I've made it behave reasonably for >> cases where \if is used on portions of a query, for instance > A small issue I see is that I was planning to add such an if syntax to > pgbench (well, at least if I succeed in getting boolean expre

[HACKERS] Re: [pgsql-students] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree"

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Shubham Barai wrote: > My name is Shubham Barai and I am a final year student at Maharashtra > Institute of Technology, Pune, India. I am very interested in contributing > Postgresql this year through GSoC project. Welcome! Sorry I didn't spot this post earlier

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > Thanks, Amit for a detailed review. I think that the macros in hash.h need some more work: - Pretty much any time you use the argument of a macro, you need to parenthesize it in the macro definition to avoid surprises if the macros is called us

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed

> > This proposal was here already - maybe two years ago. The psql command parser doesn't allow any complex syntax - more - the more parameters in one psql commands is hard to remember, hard to read. >>> >>> Could you please provide a link to this discussion. Probably work

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-30 16:43:41 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: >> Looks like OID conflict to me.. Please try rebased set. > > Pavan, Alvaro, everyone: I know you guys are working very hard on this, > but I think at this point it's too late to commit th

[HACKERS] Re: [pgsql-students] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree"

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Shubham Barai wrote: > * Hash Index > currently, I am trying to understand how the splitting of bucket works. > should we acquire predicate lock on every page from an old and new bucket in > case there is a predicate lock on a page of an old bucket? For page le

Re: [HACKERS] PDF build is broken

Hi Peter, On Sun, 2017-03-26 at 15:05 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Fixed.  (Sorry for the late response): Thanks, it builds fine. > But I also suggest that you try out the FOP based builds, > because the jadetex-based builds will probably go away soon. Can you please let me know how I wil

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Hi Teodor, > I had a look on patch and played with it, seems, it looks fine. I splitted > it to two patches: core changes (+bloom index fix) and btree itself. All > docs are left in first patch - I'm too lazy to rewrite documentation which > is changed in second patch. > Any objection from reviewe

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Hello Tom, pgbench (well, at least if I succeed in getting boolean expressions and setting variables, which is just a maybe), but this kind of if in the middle of expression does not make much sense for a pgbench script where "if" must be evaluated at execution time, not parse time. Well, it'

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow vacuums to report oldestxmin

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Masahiko Sawada >>> wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > I had a look on patch and played with it, seems, it looks fine. I splitted > it to two patches: core changes (+bloom index fix) and btree itself. All > docs are left in first patch - I'm too lazy to rewrite documentation which > is changed i

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > One more thought: should this be allowed? > > postgres=# create table mytab (i int) partition by list (i); > CREATE TABLE > postgres=# create table mytab1 partition of mytab for values in (42); > CREATE TABLE > postgres=# create function my_

Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Fabien COELHO writes: >> If it actually is impossible to give pgbench equivalent behavior, we'll >> just have to live with the discrepancy, > Yep. >> but ISTM it could probably be made to work. > Even if it could somehow, I do not see it as a useful feature for pgbench. Perhaps not. > I als

Re: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10

On 03/30/2017 10:59 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> > writes: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > >> I prop

[HACKERS] Use \if ... \elif ... \else ... \endif to simplify alternative in psql scripting.

On 2017-03-30 16:59:39 +, Tom Lane wrote: > Support \if ... \elif ... \else ... \endif in psql scripting. Could we use this to simplify maintenance of some of the larger alternative output files? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your s

Re: [HACKERS] Use \if ... \elif ... \else ... \endif to simplify alternative in psql scripting.

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-03-30 16:59:39 +, Tom Lane wrote: >> Support \if ... \elif ... \else ... \endif in psql scripting. > Could we use this to simplify maintenance of some of the larger > alternative output files? Worth thinking about, for sure. regards, t

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

> @@ -9633,6 +9643,12 @@ xlog_redo(XLogReaderState *record) > SetTransactionIdLimit(checkPoint.oldestXid, > checkPoint.oldestXidDB); > > /* > + * There can be no concurrent writers to oldestCatalogXmin > during > + * recovery, so no need to

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 2017-03-29 08:01:34 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 23:22, Andres Freund wrote: > > >> --- a/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml > >> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml > >> @@ -2034,6 +2034,8 @@ The commands accepted in walsender mode are: > >> > >>Drops a replication slo

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On 29 March 2017 at 21:42, Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> Dave's currently hacking on a new patch based on our discussion, so I'd >> suggest waiting another hour or so anyway until he's done. >> >> Might be a bit longer as he's trying to do it in a

[HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Awhile back in the discussion about the \if feature for psql, I'd pointed out that you shouldn't really need very much in the way of boolean-expression evaluation smarts, because you ought to be able to use a backtick shell escape: \if `expr :foo \> :bar` \echo :foo is grea

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On 29.03.2017 20:14, Arthur Zakirov wrote: I wanted to implement subscripting for ltree or hstore extensions. Subscripting for ltree looks more interesting. Especially with slicing. But I haven't done it yet. I hope that I will implement it tomorrow. ltree - I've implemented fetching ltr

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:04:58PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:56:16PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:43:58PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't think it makes sens

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Logical replication support for initial data copy

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Logical replication support for initial data copy + case T_SQLCmd: + if (MyDatabaseId == InvalidOid) + ereport(ERROR, + (errmsg("not connected to database"))); This error message doesn't seem to follow the error message style in docs. Al

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: > Hmm, With batch mode, after sending COPY command to server(and server > started processing the query and goes into COPY state) , client does not > immediately read the result , but it keeps sending other queries to the > server. By this time, server already en

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On 30 March 2017 at 18:29, Simon Riggs wrote: > Moving to commit this over the next hour. Last chance... Done. Great work Dave, thanks everybody. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.

Thanks Robert, I have tried to fix the comments given as below. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think that the macros in hash.h need some more work: > > - Pretty much any time you use the argument of a macro, you need to > parenthesize it in the macro definition to avoid s

[HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

Hi, While doing some benchmarking, I've ran into a fairly strange issue with OOM breaking LaunchParallelWorkers() after the restart. What I see happening is this: 1) a query is executed, and at the end of LaunchParallelWorkers we get nworkers=8 nworkers_launched=8 2) the query does a Ha

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 30 March 2017 at 18:16, Andres Freund wrote: >> /* >> * Each page of XLOG file has a header like this: >> */ >> -#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD097 /* can be used as WAL version >> indicator */ >> +#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD100 /* can be used as WAL version >> indicator */ > >

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > While doing some benchmarking, I've ran into a fairly strange issue with OOM > breaking LaunchParallelWorkers() after the restart. What I see happening is > this: > > 1) a query is executed, and at the end of LaunchParallelWorkers we g

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 2017-03-30 18:26:05 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Any objection from reviewers to push both patches? > diff --git a/contrib/bloom/blutils.c b/contrib/bloom/blutils.c > index f2eda67..59029b9 100644 > --- a/contrib/bloom/blutils.c > +++ b/contrib/bloom/blutils.c > @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ blhandler(

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Default monitoring roles

Simon Riggs writes: > On 30 March 2017 at 19:31, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> The buildfarm is showing red (the same errors that I get...): >> pgrowlocks.c: In function ‘pgrowlocks’: >> pgrowlocks.c:105:65: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘;’ token >> is_member_of_role(GetUserId(), DEFAULT_ROLE_STAT_SCAN_TA

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

Hi 2017-03-30 13:11 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen : > hi > > Thank you very much for your help . > here is the patch fix that issue as you suggest > The crash is fixed I did a rebase + few more regress tests. Is following use case defined in standard? postgres=# SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2,

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Hi Robert, > Has anybody done some testing of this patch with the WAL consistency > checker? Like, create some tables with indexes that have INCLUDE > columns, set up a standby, enable consistency checking, pound the > master, and see if the standby bails? I've decided to run such a test. It loo

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 30 March 2017 at 18:29, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> Moving to commit this over the next hour. Last chance... > > Done. Great work Dave, thanks everybody. Thanks Simon. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake Enterpr

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

Pavel Stehule writes: > Is following use case defined in standard? > postgres=# SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2, 2 AS b, 0 AS x3, -1 AS x3 >UNION ALL CORRESPONDING BY(a,b) SELECT 4 AS b, 0 AS x4, 3 AS a, > 0 AS x6, -1 AS x6 >UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 0 AS x8, 6 AS a,

Re: [HACKERS] Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki

2017-03-29 20:11 GMT+02:00 Jan Michálek : > > > 2017-03-27 19:41 GMT+02:00 Jan Michálek : > >> >> >> 2017-03-23 17:26 GMT+01:00 Pierre Ducroquet : >> >>> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: >>> make installcheck-world: tested, passed >>> Implements feature:

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

2017-03-30 21:43 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > Is following use case defined in standard? > > > postgres=# SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2, 2 AS b, 0 AS x3, -1 AS x3 > >UNION ALL CORRESPONDING BY(a,b) SELECT 4 AS b, 0 AS x4, 3 AS > a, > > 0 AS x6, -1 AS x6 > >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Default monitoring roles

I wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Weird. make check-world just skipped that directory. I guess for Dave also. > If you just did check-world, it probably didn't build contrib modules that > don't have tests, because the "check" target wouldn't do anything without > tests to run. I wondered why th

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity

Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > I'd be fine with removing --verbose globally, as your patch does, but > > there was some argument that we then would have long 'quiet' periods. > > I haven't had a chance to go test if that's really the case yet though.

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While doing some benchmarking, I've ran into a fairly strange issue with OOM >> breaking LaunchParallelWorkers() after the restart. What I see happening is >> this: >> >> 1)

  1   2   >