On 6 April 2017 at 18:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:10:48 +1200, David Rowley
> wrote in
>
>> On 6 April 2017 at 13:05, David Rowley wrote:
>> > I tested with the attached, and it does not seem to hurt planner
>> > performance executing:
>>
>> Here's it again, this time
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 1/18/17 2:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Unless we can find something official, I suppose we should just
> >> display BASE TABLE in that case as we do in other cases. I
On 05/04/17 23:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm
>> somewhat doubtful, but don't have particularly strong feelings.
>
> I don't really want to expose the workings of the plancache at user level.
> The heuristics it
Hello,
I noticed by the following report, PostgreSQL can share the same
directory as tablespaces of two servers with different
pg-versions.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2008148.rxBNyNRHPZ@peanuts2
8.4 checked that the tablespace location is empty, but from 9.0,
the check is replaced wit
On 2017/04/06 16:02, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/17 2:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Unless we can find something official, I suppose we should just
display BASE TAB
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I was thinking the same.
>
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:33:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While testing table sync worker for logical replication I noticed that
>> if the table sync worker of logical replication failed
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We shou
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Attached is a new version. Notable changes since yesterday:
>
> * Implemented the rest of the SASLPrep, mapping some characters to spaces,
> leaving out others, and checking for prohibited characters and bidirectional
> strings.
>
> * Mov
On 6 April 2017 at 11:50, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Attached is a complete series of patches that includes the docs patch.
+ SPI_execute_callback is the same as
+ SPI_execute, except that instead of returning results
+ via SPITupleTable, the user-supplied
callback
+ is used. Unlike
+ SPI_exec
On 6 April 2017 at 15:38, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Notes on the docs aside, I am pretty happy with this and think it's
> reasonable to proceed with it for Pg 10.
Actually, I'm a bit hesitant about returning a static struct that you
expect callers to copy and modify. But it seems to be an issue wit
At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:59:35 +1200, David Rowley
wrote in
> On 6 April 2017 at 18:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:10:48 +1200, David Rowley
> > wrote in
> >
> >> On 6 April 2017 at 13:05, David Rowley
> >> wrote:
> I'm not all that sure why the number of columns in
> Good point. That's wrong, but I'm confused at why you kept the:
>
> + *indexTotalCost += selec * numTuples * cpu_index_tuple_cost;
>
> at all if that's the case. All the BRIN scan is going to do is build a
> bitmap of the matching ranges found.
My mind was not clear when I was working on it a ye
At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > I was thinking the same.
> >
> > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:33:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote in
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> While testing table sync worker for logica
Example:
Find different people using the same website at the same time:
create table session(sessionid text, username text, during tstzrange);
SELECT s1.username, s2.username, s1.during * s2.during
FROM session s1, session s2
WHERE s1.during && s2.during AND s1.username < s2
Hi,
In ExecEvalConvertRowtype(), if the input row doesn't require any
conversion, we simply return that row as is.
2820 /*
2821 * No-op if no conversion needed (not clear this can happen here).
2822 */
2823 if (op->d.convert_rowtype.map == NULL)
2824 return;
If the type o
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Tomas Vondra
>>> I'm probably missing something, but I don't quite understand how these
>>> values actually survive the crash. I mean, what I observed is
On 6 April 2017 at 19:50, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:59:35 +1200, David Rowley
> wrote in
>
>> On 6 April 2017 at 18:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>> > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:10:48 +1200, David Rowley
>> > wrote in
>> >
>> >> On 6 April 2017 at 13:05, David Rowley
On 04/05/2017 05:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 17:22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm
>>> somewhat doubtful, but don't have particularly strong feelings.
>> I don't really want to expose the
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:00:55 PM CEST Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 00:59:49 +0200, Pierre Ducroquet
> wrote in <2008148.rxBNyNRHPZ@peanuts2>
> > But it all gets messy when we want to create a streaming standby server
> > using pg_basebackup. When backuping Pg 9.5, there is n
On April 5, 2017 11:19:04 PM PDT, "Jan Michálek"
wrote:
>2017-04-06 0:55 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2017-04-02 22:28:40 +0200, Jan Michálek wrote:
>> > 2017-03-23 17:26 GMT+01:00 Pierre Ducroquet :
>> > > The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
>> > >
>> >
>> > Corre
At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:55:43 +1200, David Rowley
wrote in
> On 6 April 2017 at 19:50, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:59:35 +1200, David Rowley
> > wrote in
> >
> >> On 6 April 2017 at 18:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> >> wrote:
> >> > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:10:48 +1200, David
Hi,
In relation_excluded_by_constraints(), we do not apply constraint
exclusion if rte->inh is true.
/* Only plain relations have constraints */
if (rte->rtekind != RTE_RELATION || rte->inh)
return false;
Thus every partitioned table will not benefit from the constraint
exclusion,
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson wrote:
>
> I see various issues raised but not properly addressed
>
> 1. we would need to drop support for segment sizes < 16MB unless we
> adopt a new incompatible filename format.
> I think at
Hello,
Thanks a lot for testing and reporting this. Please find attached an
updated patch with the fix. The patch also contains a fix
regarding operator used at the time of creating expression as default
partition constraint. This was notified offlist by Amit Langote.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On
On 5 April 2017 at 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-04-05 17:18:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2017 at 04:19, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> >> I'm much happier with this.
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:e format and expand the range?
>
>
> I don't think me saying it felt a bit slow around 256 MB is a proper
> technical analysis that should lead to the conclusion that that upper
> limit should be 128
At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20170406.170214.263553093.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> > > I was thinki
On 6 April 2017 at 20:01, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Charge a small amount per range tuple which we expect to match to.
>> This
>> + * is meant to reflect the costs of manipulating the bitmap. The BRIN
>> scan
>> + * will set a bit for each page in the range when we find a matching
>> + *
Hello. I found dubious behavior while playing with logical
replication.
When we disable a subscription, replication worker immediately stops.
=# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION s1 DISABLE;
On the other hand even if we enable a subscription, worker
doesn't start immediately. It takes 3 minutes in the worst
ca
Hi Robert,
> Hmm. I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems
> we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and
> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R and
> XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R_ROOT -- in which case I think this patch should go
> a l
On 4/4/17 22:53, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
> The next nitpickings to the last patch. I try to get places with
> lacking of variables' initialization.
> All other things seem good for me now. I'll continue to review the
> patch while you're fixing the current notes.
Committed with your changes (see bel
On 5 April 2017 at 18:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Collect and use multi-column dependency stats
>
> The buildfarm is unhappy about the fact that this changed the API
> for clauselist_selectivity(). I am not convinced that that change
> was a good idea, so before telling FDW auth
Greetings,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2017-04-06 3:34 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost :
> > Having the template not require the row/column place-holders included
> > strikes me as more likely to be confusing. My initial thinking around
> > this was that users who actually want ind
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Arseny Sher wrote:
> Time is short, student's application deadline is on 3rd April. I decided
> to reformulate the project scope myself. Here is the proposal:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvBETE6IJA9AcXd11XJNPsF_
> VPcDhSjy7rlsxj262l8/edit?usp=sharing
>
On 05.04.2017 16:06, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
I'd like to focus on "refevalfunc" and "refnestedfunc" fields as I did
earlier. I think using Oid type for them is a bad approach. "..._fetch"
and "..._assign" functions in catalog is unnecessary movement to me.
User of subscript of his type may think t
Hello, Mark!
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Mark Rofail wrote:
> Kindly find my proposal attached to this email.
>
I'd like to ask what do you mean in research item number 3?
3. Making the full-table sequential scan GIN-indexable instead seems very
> reasonable since GIN is primarily used to
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvBETE6IJA9AcXd11XJNPsF_VPcDhSjy7rlsxj262l8/edit?usp=sharing
> I'd love to see a comment from Andres Freund who is leading executor
> performance improvements.
Note that the final proposal is here:
Hi, Alexey!
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Alexey Kondratov <
kondratov.alek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your responses and valuable comments!
>
> I have written draft proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y4mc_
> PCvRTjLsae-_fhevYfepv4sxaqwhOo4rlxvK1c/edit
>
> It seems that COP
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Generic implementation of pg_atomic_fetch_mask_add_u32() via loop
> > > + * of compare & exchange.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline uint32
> > > +pg_atomic_fetch_mask_a
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Have you done x86 benchmarking?
>>
>> I think unless such benchmarking is done in the next 24h
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote in
> <20170406.170214.263553093.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote in
>> > On Thu, Apr 6
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/04/06 13:08, Keith Fiske wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Keith Fiske wrote:
> >> Only issue I see with this, and I'm not sure if it is an issue, is what
> >> happens to that default constraint clause when 1000s of partitions
Kevin Grittner writes:
> Note that the final proposal is here:
> https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/serve/5874530240167936/
I'm just getting a blank page at that URL?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
Peter,
Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning?
Thanks.
Mark Dilger
tablecmds.c:5984:6: warning: variable 'address' is used uninitialized whenever
'if' condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
if (generatedEl)
^~~
tablecmds.c
Sorry, I didn't notice that this was going to a public list. That URL
is only available to people who signed up as mentors for PostgreSQL
GSoC participation this year. Does the link to the draft work for you?
--
Kevin Grittner
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.o
On 04/05/2017 02:29 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
> I'm going to hold the partition table regression changes for a
> separate patch and include some ORDER BY fixes. Will post tomorrow
>
> In the meantime, attached are the latest and greatest patches.
I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unle
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> In ExecEvalConvertRowtype(), if the input row doesn't require any
> conversion, we simply return that row as is.
Huh. That's been like that for a very long time.
> I tried to create a testcase where this assertion would fail without
> multi-level partitioned table, but
Joe Conway writes:
> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any
> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes
> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and
> comment wording for 0001a.
Looks generally sane, but I noticed a g
On 4/6/17 10:59, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning?
> Thanks.
A potential fix for this has been pushed.
> tablecmds.c:5984:6: warning: variable 'address' is used uninitialized
> whenever 'if' condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitial
On 4/6/17 07:13, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Does the options 16, 64 and 1024 seem good.
> We can remove sizes below 16 as most have agreed and as per the
> discussion, 64MB and 1GB seems favoured. We could probably allow 32MB
> since it was an already allowed size?
I don't see the need to remove any
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/17 10:59, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning?
>> Thanks.
>
> A potential fix for this has been pushed.
It works for me. Thanks again.
Mark Dilger
--
Sent via p
Robert Haas writes:
> ... But the underlying point here is that
> the only thing you really know about the function is that it's got to
> be a strategy-3 operator in some btree opclass; if that guarantees
> strictness, then so be it -- but I wasn't able to find anything in the
> code or documentat
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-30 13:10:41 +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>> b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>> index 5d58f09..a29c108 100644
>> --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>> +++ b/src/back
On 4/5/17 21:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:33:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote in
> <5401fef6-c0c0-7e8a-d8b1-169e30cbd...@2ndquadrant.com>
>> After further thinking, I prefer the alternative approach of using
>> pq_sendcountedtext() as is and sticking the trailing zero b
David Rowley writes:
> + *indexTotalCost += 0.1 * cpu_operator_cost * estimatedRanges *
> + pagesPerRange;
> This is trying to cost up the following code in bringetbitmap()
> if (addrange)
> {
> BlockNumber pageno;
> for (pageno = heapBlk;
> pageno <= heapBlk + opaque->bo_pagesPerRange - 1;
> p
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> It seems pg_stat_progress_vacuum is not supposed to appear in the table
> titled "Collected Statistics Views". It was added by c16dc1aca. Attached
> patch fixes that.
Instead, it should appear in the table of "Dynamic Statistics Views"
beca
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> I noticed by the following report, PostgreSQL can share the same
> directory as tablespaces of two servers with different
> pg-versions.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2008148.rxBNyNRHPZ@peanuts2
> 8.4 checked that the tablespace location is empty, but from 9
On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote:
> But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer.
My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The
right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not
to materialize the list of tuples. Now with t
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks a lot for testing and reporting this. Please find attached an
> updated patch with the fix. The patch also contains a fix
> regarding operator used at the time of creating expression as default
> partition constraint. This was
On 4/4/17 10:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> So is this patch going anywhere?
Not right now. It will take some time to sort out your feedback and do
some refactoring. I will close the patch for now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Rem
On 4/6/17 9:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote:
But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer.
My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The
right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not
t
On 06/04/17 14:24, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hello. I found dubious behavior while playing with logical
> replication.
>
> When we disable a subscription, replication worker immediately stops.
>
> =# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION s1 DISABLE;
>
> On the other hand even if we enable a subscription, worker
>
On 2/1/17 22:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in
separate e
On 06/04/17 16:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote in
>> <20170406.170214.263553093.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>>> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:33 +0900,
apologies if someone has already reported this.
steps to reproduce.
install PG10 rpms.
create table.
using psql 10 \d the table.
note the error below.
m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text);
CREATE TABLE
m=# \d mytable
ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not exi
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer.
> My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The
> right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not
> to material
mark wrote:
> m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text);
> CREATE TABLE
> m=# \d mytable
> ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not exist
> LINE 8: FROM pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext stat WHERE starelid = '163...
> ^
Ah, what happens is you're using a new psql
Another version attached.
I think this is now in committable state, but there's been a lot of
small changes here and there, so please have one more look over it if
you have a chance. I'm planning to push this tomorrow, after sleeping on it.
The code-organization issue with the utf8 functions,
On 04/06/2017 08:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
If any SCRAM open item is a beta blocker, it's this one. (But SASLprep is
also in or near that status.) Post-beta wire protocol changes are bad,
considering beta is normally the time for projects like pgjdbc and npgsql to
start adapting to such changes.
On 06/04/17 19:05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/06/2017 08:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
If any SCRAM open item is a beta blocker, it's this one. (But
SASLprep is
also in or near that status.) Post-beta wire protocol changes are bad,
considering beta is normally the time for projects like pgj
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> mark wrote:
>> m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text);
>> CREATE TABLE
>> m=# \d mytable
>> ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not exist
> Ah, what happens is you're using a new psql with a pre-10 server. Yeah,
> this is a bug since psql is
On 3/29/17 19:01, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> So this CREATE SUBSCRIPTION priv actually gives you the power to cause
>> the system to open network connections to the outside world. It's not
>> something you give freely to random strangers -- should be guarded
>> moderately tight, because it could be us
On 3/24/17 10:49, 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 reasons and adding option to change that per s
(sorry, I didn't notice your email until after I just sent version 4!)
On 04/06/2017 10:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a new version. Notable changes since yesterday:
* Implemented the rest of the SASLPrep, mapping some char
On 04/06/2017 08:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
D'oh. Here's a new version, with saslprep.h included.
And here it is for real. Sigh.
There is for example this portion in the new tables:
+static const Codepoint prohibited_output_chars[] =
+{
+ 0xD800, 0xF8FF, /* C.3, C.5 */
it would appear that it didn't restart when I thought it had with the
service command.
apologies, I'm not able to reproduce anymore after restarting things.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > mark wrote:
> >> m=# create table mytable (myid serial, my
On 04/06/2017 08:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any
>> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes
>> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and
>> comment wording for 0
2017-04-06 14:47 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost :
> Greetings,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > 2017-04-06 3:34 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost :
> > > Having the template not require the row/column place-holders included
> > > strikes me as more likely to be confusing. My initial thinki
On 4/5/17 19:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 2017-02-28 22:30:16 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-02-28 23:42:45 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 1/26/17 22:46, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2016-09-30 15:24:09 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yeah, I have committed a few
On 4/5/17 12:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 4/5/17 09:58, Robert Haas wrote:
- Maybe add a check to opr_sanity to make sure the default set of
functions is configured the way we want?
>>> That seems like a good idea.
>>
>> patch
2017-04-06 12:30 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> On 04/05/2017 05:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-04-05 17:22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund writes:
> >>> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm
> >>> somewhat doubtful, but don't have particular
On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson wrote:
>>
>> The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is
>> there anything else I have missed?
>
> I see various issues raised but not properly addressed
>
> 1. we would need to drop supp
On 4/6/17 11:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/5/17 21:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> At Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:33:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote in
>> <5401fef6-c0c0-7e8a-d8b1-169e30cbd...@2ndquadrant.com>
>>> After further thinking, I prefer the alternative approach of using
>>> pq_sendcoun
On 04/06/2017 08:36 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:36:13PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I didn't include the last-minute changes to the way you specify this in
pg_hba.conf. So it's still just "scram". I agree in general that we should
think about how to extend that too, but
Hi,
On 2017-04-05 22:31:15 -0700, Serge Rielau wrote:
> Andres,
> Yes, I still want to push this in. However I have not had time to get back to
> it. I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t even know where the comments that
> were issued occurred.
> Cheers Serge
You mean
https://www.postgresql.org/
On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
> allude to. Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
> max_worker_processes_per_user.
>
> Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
> parallel wor
David Rowley writes:
> On 2 April 2017 at 21:21, David Rowley wrote:
>> I've attached an updated patch which updates the regression test output of
>> a recent commit to include the "Unique Inner" in the expected results.
> The patch must've fallen off. Attempt number 2 at attaching.
I'm looking
On 22 March 2017 at 14:58, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Should we reject this interesting project, which based on several years of
> research work of academician group in the institute ? May be better help him
> to reformulate the scope of project and let him work ? I don't know exactly
> if the result
Joe Conway writes:
> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm
> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense
> to do.
I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really
an ABI violation: sepgsql_needs_fmgr_hook is suppos
On 4 April 2017 at 02:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is still one open item pending for SCRAM that has not been
> treated which is mentioned here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b081887e-1712-3aa4-7dbe-e012333d5...@iki.fi
>
> When doing an authentication with SASL, the ser
I'm a little confused on why a SELECT policy fires against the NEW record
for an UPDATE when using multiple FOR policies. The ALL policy doesn't seem
to have that restriction.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t;
CREATE USER simple;
CREATE USER split;
CREATE TABLE t(value int);
grant select, update on table
Simon Riggs writes:
> How would we provide the list of protocols? Surely the protocol is
> defined by pg_hba.conf, which makes it dependent upon username,
> database and ip range. If the list were accurate, it would allow an
> attacker to discover how best to attack. If the list were inaccurate
>
On 06/04/17 22:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs writes:
How would we provide the list of protocols? Surely the protocol is
defined by pg_hba.conf, which makes it dependent upon username,
database and ip range. If the list were accurate, it would allow an
attacker to discover how best to attack
On 6 April 2017 at 16:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps we could turn this around: have the client send (in the connection
> request packet) a list of auth protocols it thinks it is able to handle.
> (I'm envisioning this as being more or less fixed for any one version of
> any one client, since it w
Hi,
I've been looking at this issue today, and so far I don't think it's a
bug in the foreign key estimation. It seems mostly that the 9.5
estimates were hopelessly bad, and the join estimation changes simply
pushed it a tiny bit the wrong direction.
Although maybe there is a bug (or at leas
On 2017-04-06 10:00:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Sure I can do that, In attached patch, I only fixed the problem of not
> > executing the bitmap test. Now, I will add few cases to cover other
> > parts especially rescan and prefetching logi
Hi,
On 2017-04-03 17:11:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> If this is 'make check', then we should have 8 parallel workers
> >> allowed, so if we only do one of these at a time, then I think we're
> >> OK. But if somebody changes that configu
On 2017-04-04 13:49:11 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> static bool
> >> tuplesort_gettuple_common(Tuplesortstate *state, bool forward,
> >> @@ -2091,12 +2092,15 @@ tuplesort_gettuple_common(Tuplesortstate *state,
> >> bool forward,
> >>
On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson wrote:
The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is
there anything else I have missed?
I see various issues raised but not properly addressed
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> If you ask me, I'd just leave:
>>>
>>> + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound ==
>>> DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL)
>>> + {
>>> + /* No point in checking null selectivity, DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL
>>> implies we have no stats */
>>> +
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
