Hello, Magnus
cc: Andres
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
> I think what you'd need to do is enumerate what privileges the user has
> *before* calling CreateRestrictedToken(), using GetTokenInformation().
> And then
Hi,
I've attached a patch for $subject. Please check it.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
fix_tab_completion_for_alter_sub.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:58:30PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > But just a bit more is needed to make it really a big
> announcement and
> > > > provide real value to (I guess, mostly but very interesting)
> enterprise
> > > > cus
On 04/12/2017 11:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
And which enterprises are using SSL without certificates? And I thought
channel binding required certificates anyway, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_Challenge_Response_
Au
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 11:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> And which enterprises are using SSL without certificates? And I thought
>>> channel binding required certificates anyway,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov <
> a.kuzmen...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>> I would like to propose a patch that speeds up the queries of the form
>> 'select
>> count(*) ... where ...',
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> Yes and I also forgot to update the function prologue to refer to the
>> fpinfo_o/i instead of inner and outer relations. Attached patch
>> corrects it.
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> This seems to
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/11 22:12, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Children can have constraints (including NOT NULL constraints) which
>>> parents lack, and can have a different column order, but m
> "Alexander" == Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
Alexander> Structurally, the patch consists of two major parts: a
Alexander> specialized executor node
Why?
It strikes me that the significant fact here is not that we're doing
count(*), but that we don't need any columns from the bitmap heap s
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 11 April 2017 at 09:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander
> >> wrote:
> >> > Based on that we s
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/17 08:49, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > At the risk of being proven wrong again, won't this affect tags in
> > the old documentation as well? And if so, is that something we actually
> > want?
>
>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > Something like the attached?
>
> Not sure about
>
> + * All methods that have a failure path will set errno on failure.
>
> Given that you've got a getlasterror method, I don't think that's really
> the API invariant
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Alexander" == Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
> Alexander> Structurally, the patch consists of two major parts: a
> Alexander> specialized executor node
> Why?
> It strikes me that the significant fact here is not that we're doing
> count(*), but that we don't need any co
If PostgresNode::psql (from the TAP framework) is called with a
timeout set and a timed_out reference, it will attempt to do bitwise
AND and bitshifts on the $ret value from IPC::Run, which is undef if
the command timed out.
This produces annoying errors in the logs.
Fix attached. Should be appli
Craig Ringer writes:
> With
> make PROVE_FLAGS="--timer -j 9" check
> I don't see much difference with/without caching initdb results -
> saves about 4 seconds, from 74 to 70 seconds, but hard to tell with
> the error margins.
> So if we're going to do anything, defaulting to parallel prove seems
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>
>> However, the worker will
>> never execute such a plan as we don't generate a plan where unsafe
>> sublan/initplan is referenced in the node passed to the worker. If we
>> want to avoid passing parallel-unsafe subplans t
Thank you, Alexander!
This is definitely the example we are looking for!
Hat tip to Dmitry especially for this commit
https://github.com/akorotkov/pgsphere/commit/971d2c5d61f17774a6d8d137ca3ad87e2883048f
Regards,
Sergey Mirvoda
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@po
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > Based on that we seem to agree here, should we add this as an open item?
>> > Clearly if we want to change this,
On 04/12/2017 01:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> BTW, I suggest adding --timer to our default PROVE_FLAGS, so we can
> collect more data from the buildfarm on what takes a while. Sample
> output:
>
I'll add that to the commandline the buildfarm uses in the upcoming release.
cheers
andrew
--
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyone want to draft a patch for this?
> Please find patch attached based on above discussion.
Thanks, I'll look at this later today.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Right now, VACUUM FULL are not reported in pgstat. That seems bad:ish. I can
> see two reasonable ways to proceed:
>
> 1. Start reporting VACUUM FULL as regular vacuums, so they count up
> vacuum_count and last_vacuum in pg_stat_*_tables.
>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>> This buildfarm run as you can see takes 33m32s, and the Tap tests take a
>>> combined 19m52s of that time.
>
>> I don't think it's quite fair to complain about
On 12 April 2017 at 21:45, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> Yes and I also forgot to update the function prologue to refer to the
>>> fpinfo_o/i instead of inner and outer relations. Attache
Sorry, here's the right one.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 12 April 2017 at 21:45, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
>>> wrote:
Yes and I also forgot to update the f
I'd been thinking that staenabled is not the most suitable column name
for storing the types of statistics that are defined for the extended
statistics. For me, this indicates that something can be disabled,
but there's no syntax for that, and even if there was, if we were to
enable/disable the ki
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 1:36:44 PM EDT Robert Haas wrote:
> I apologize for any disruption this may cause, but I'm hopeful that it
> won't be too bad.
Spoken like a true American - apologizing for taking vacation :-)
Enjoy your time off. You probably deserved it, and more than the week you're
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:31:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think that only leaves the change to the javascript code that Bruce sent.
> Let's see if we can figure out a way to do that one without requiring
> javascript, but after that we have covered all listed issues I think?
Well, we ha
Hi,
When I shut down the publisher while I repeated creating and dropping
the subscription in the subscriber, the publisher emitted the following
PANIC error during shutdown checkpoint.
PANIC: concurrent transaction log activity while database system is
shutting down
The cause of this problem i
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I observed $subject when I ran the following steps.
>>
>> 1. start the publisher server
>> 2. start the subscriber server
>> 3. create table with primary key and publication
On 12.04.2017 15:04, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Gierth writes:
"Alexander" == Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
Alexander> Structurally, the patch consists of two major parts: a
Alexander> specialized executor node
Why?
It strikes me that the significant fact here is not that we're doing
count(*), b
Andres mentioned, and I've confirmed locally, that a large chunk of
initdb's runtime goes into regprocin's brute-force lookups of function
OIDs from function names. The recent discussion about cutting TAP test
time prompted me to look into that question again. We had had some
grand plans for gett
Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
> With planner, the changes are more complex. Two things must be done
> there. First, when the tlist is empty, we must use a different cost
> function for bitmap heap scan, because the heap access pattern is
> different. Second, choose_bitmap_and() must use a differe
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander
> >> wrote:
> >> > Based on that we se
On 4/12/17 00:48, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> Perhaps instead of a global last_start_time, we store a per relation
>> last_start_time in SubscriptionRelState?
>
> I was thinking the same. But a problem is that the list of
> SubscriptionRelState is
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> I have looked into the tests and I think we can do some optimization
> without losing much on code coverage. First is we are doing both
> Vacuum Full and Vacuum on hash_split_heap in the same test after
> executing few statements, it seems t
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've attached a patch for $subject. Please check it.
+ COMPLETE_WITH_LIST8("WITH", "CONNECTION", "SET PUBLICATION", "ENABLE",
+ "DISABLE", "OWNER TO", "RENAME TO", "REFRESH PUBLICATION WITH");
"WITH" should be "WITH ("?
Also "REFR
On 4/9/17 22:17, Noah Misch wrote:
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
I'm expecting Petr to post an updated patch by the end of this week.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training
On 12 Apr. 2017 17:27, "Magnus Hagander" wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 11:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> And which enterprises are using SSL without certificates? And I thoug
On 04/12/2017 04:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
1. The best thing would still be to make genbki.pl do the conversion,
and write numeric OIDs into postgres.bki. The core stumbling block
here seems to be that for most catalogs, Catalog.pm and genbki.pl
never really break down a DATA line into fields --- a
On 4/9/17 22:16, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> After thinking about it some more, I think the behavior we want would be
>> that changes to inheritance would reflect in the publication membership.
>> So if you have a partitioned table, addi
On 4/12/17 02:31, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> But I hope you mean to commit these snapbuild patches before the postgres 10
>>> release? As far as I know, logical replication is still very broken without
>>> them (or at least some of that set of 5 patches - I don't know which ones
>>> are essential and w
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So my view of this is that "send the expression to the server" ought
> to be just one option for \if, not the only way to do it.
I heartily agree. There should be some kind of client-side expression
language, and one thing it should allow is call
Logical replication emits logmessages like these:
DETAIL: 90 transactions need to finish.
DETAIL: 87 transactions need to finish.
DETAIL: 70 transactions need to finish.
Could we get rid of that 'need'? It strikes me as a bit off; something
that people would say but not a mechanical messag
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> After thinking about it some more, I think the behavior we want would be
> that changes to inheritance would reflect in the publication membership.
> So if you have a partitioned table, adding more partitions over time
> would automaticall
On 4/12/17 00:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> The change in setup_formatted_log_time seems a bit weird:
>
> - charmsbuf[8];
> + charmsbuf[10];
>
> The associated call is
>
> sprintf(msbuf, ".%03d", (int) (saved_timeval.tv_usec / 1000));
>
> Now a human can see that s
Mithun Cy writes:
> I have tried to optimize the tests maintaining the same coverage we were
> able to get with it.
This patch looks good to me: on my workstation, it reduces the total
runtime of the parallel regression tests from ~20.5 to ~16.5 seconds.
I concur that it doesn't look like it woul
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:13:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >That said, I stand by my comment that I don't think it's the enterprises
> >that need or want the channel binding. If they care about it, they have
> >already put certificate validation in place, and it won't buy them anything.
Erik Rijkers writes:
> Logical replication emits logmessages like these:
> DETAIL: 90 transactions need to finish.
> DETAIL: 87 transactions need to finish.
> DETAIL: 70 transactions need to finish.
> Could we get rid of that 'need'? It strikes me as a bit off; something
> that people would
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/12/17 00:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now a human can see that saved_timeval.tv_usec must be 0..99, so
>> that the %d format item must always emit exactly 3 characters, which
>> means that really 5 bytes would be enough. I wouldn't expect a
>> compiler to know that,
On 3 March 2017 at 00:30, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> 0004 - Changes handling of the xl_running_xacts in initial snapshot
>> build to what I wrote above and removes the extra locking from
>> LogStandbySnapshot introduced by logical decoding.
This seems OK and unlikely to have wider impact.
The "race
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Alright. So I made it into two patches instead: 0001 fixes the bug that
> validateCheckConstraint() tries to scan partitioned tables and 0002 makes
> trying to convert a partitioned table to a view a user error.
Committed together, after up
On 12 April 2017 at 16:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Rijkers writes:
>> Logical replication emits logmessages like these:
>> DETAIL: 90 transactions need to finish.
>> DETAIL: 87 transactions need to finish.
>> DETAIL: 70 transactions need to finish.
>
>> Could we get rid of that 'need'? It str
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:33:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > I think there is no clear agreement here, and no historically consistent
>> > behavior. I'm prepared to let it go and cross it off the list of open
>>
On 04/12/2017 06:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:13:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That said, I stand by my comment that I don't think it's the enterprises
that need or want the channel binding. If they care about it, they have
already put certificate validation in
Dmitry Ivanov writes:
>> Uh, no, construction of a custom plan node is entirely driven by the
>> PlanCustomPath method as far as I can see. You're free to ignore what
>> create_scan_plan did and insert your own tlist.
> Are you sure? Even if it's true, this targetlist should still contain each
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 04/12/2017 06:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> How does it do that?
> Good question, crypto magic? I don't know the details, but the basic
> idea is that you extract a blob of data that uniquely identifies the TLS
> connection. Using some OpenSSL functions, in this
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm coming around to the idea that it'd be better to disable physical
tlists for custom scans.
I've been thinking about this all along, and it seems that this is a decent
decision. However, I've made a tiny bugfix patch which allows CustomScans
to notify the core code that the
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
wrote:
> LOL. Do you really want a half-baked Java programmer writing a patch in
> C for PostgreSQL? I once tried that and Magnus said my code was Java code
> that happened to compile with a C compiler ^_^
>
> Having said that,
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> ... which the user can't tell apart from having fat-fingered the password,
> I suppose? Doesn't sound terribly friendly. A report of a certificate
> mismatch is far more likely to lead people to realize there's a MITM.
We might be able to impro
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 April 2017 at 16:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Erik Rijkers writes:
>>> Logical replication emits logmessages like these:
>>> DETAIL: 90 transactions need to finish.
>>> I would prefer the line to be more terse:
>>> DETAIL: 90 transactions
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyone want to draft a patch for this?
> Please find patch attached based on above discussion.
This patch seems fairly incomplete: you can't just whack around major data
structures like PlannedStmt and PlannerGlobal with
On 12.04.2017 17:24, Tom Lane wrote:
TBH, I'm not sure you need to do any of that work. Have you got evidence
that the planner will fail to choose the right plan regardless? I'm
particularly unconvinced that choose_bitmap_and is a critical problem,
because once you're into having to AND multiple
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> ... which the user can't tell apart from having fat-fingered the password,
>> I suppose? Doesn't sound terribly friendly. A report of a certificate
>> mismatch is far more likely to lead people to realize there's a MITM.
> We mig
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> I don't know why you say that regressions are not addressed. Here are a few
> things I did to address the regressions/reviews/concerns, apart from fixing
> all the bugs discovered, but please let me know if there are things I've not
> addres
On 12/04/17 18:09, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 04/12/2017 06:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How does it do that?
Good question, crypto magic? I don't know the details, but the basic
idea is that you extract a blob of data that uniquely identifies the TLS
connection. Using som
2017-04-11 Robert Haas :
> There's a nasty trade-off here between XID consumption (and the
> aggressive vacuums it eventually causes) and preserving performance in
> the face of errors - e.g. if you make k = 100,000 you consume 100x
> fewer XIDs than if you make k = 1000, but you also have 100x th
On 2017-04-12 11:03:57 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/12/17 02:31, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>> But I hope you mean to commit these snapbuild patches before the postgres
> >>> 10
> >>> release? As far as I know, logical replication is still very broken
> >>> without
> >>> them (or at least som
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Nicolas Barbier
wrote:
> 2017-04-11 Robert Haas :
>> There's a nasty trade-off here between XID consumption (and the
>> aggressive vacuums it eventually causes) and preserving performance in
>> the face of errors - e.g. if you make k = 100,000 you consume 100x
>> f
On 12.04.2017 12:29, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
That's a cool feature for FTS users! Please, register this patch to
the next commitfest.
I've added this to the 2017-07 commitfest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1117/
Also, what is planning overhead of this patch? That's worth
t
On 2017-04-12 10:12:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres mentioned, and I've confirmed locally, that a large chunk of
> initdb's runtime goes into regprocin's brute-force lookups of function
> OIDs from function names. The recent discussion about cutting TAP test
> time prompted me to look into that
On 04/11/2017 02:32 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
So I still see your proposal more awkward and less clear, mixing
things that are separate. But again, your choice :)
So, here's my more full-fledged proposal.
The first patch refactors libpq code, by moving the responsibility of
re
On 12/04/17 18:38, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
wrote:
LOL. Do you really want a half-baked Java programmer writing a patch in
C for PostgreSQL? I once tried that and Magnus said my code was Java code
that happened to compile with a C compi
> On 12 Apr 2017, at 20:23, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Nicolas Barbier
> wrote:
>> 2017-04-11 Robert Haas :
>>> If the data quality is poor (say, 50% of lines have errors) it's
>>> almost impossible to avoid runaway XID consumption.
>>
>> Yup, that seems difficult
On 04/12/2017 08:38 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
- Even though I don't really care about SCRAM, and without having any
prior knowledge about SCRAM, I volunteered some time ago to study SCRAM,
give a lightning talk about SCRAM and later write a client
implementation for the jdbc driver. And
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
> that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is performed using only the
> relkind, which is bogus. Specifying ONLY should cause an error only when
> the table has part
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That is very much appreciated! You writing a second implementation of the
> client-side support (libpq being the first) is very, very helpful, to
> validate that the protocol is sane, unambiguous, and adequately documented.
+1.
> Yes,
2017-04-12 17:05 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So my view of this is that "send the expression to the server" ought
> > to be just one option for \if, not the only way to do it.
>
> I heartily agree. There should be some kind of client-side express
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> I have checked for NULLs too, and the default partition can be created even
> when there are partitions for each TRUE, FALSE and NULL.
>
> Consider the example below:
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE list_partitioned (
> a bool
> ) PARTITION BY
While poking at the question of parallel_safe marking for Plans,
I noticed that max_parallel_hazard_walker() does this:
/* We can push the subplans only if they are parallel-safe. */
else if (IsA(node, SubPlan))
return !((SubPlan *) node)->parallel_safe;
This is 100% wrong. It's
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> I like the idea about having DEFAULT partition for the range partition. With
> the
> way partition is designed it can have holes into range partition. I think
> DEFAULT
> for the range partition is a good idea, generally when the range having
On 2017-04-11 17:42:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, that old behavior matches what you got in the RangeFunction case:
>
> regression96=# select * from int4_tbl, cast(case when f1>0 then
> generate_series(1,2) else null end as int);
> f1 | int4
> -+--
>0 |
On 04/12/2017 05:00 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Looked at this an option 1 seems simple enough if I am not missing
something. I might hack something up later tonight. Either way I think
this improvement can be done separately from the proposed replacement of
the catalog header files. Trying to fi
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> 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 of
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
> > that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is performed using only the
> > relkind, which is bogus. Spec
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> While poking at the question of parallel_safe marking for Plans,
> I noticed that max_parallel_hazard_walker() does this:
>
> /* We can push the subplans only if they are parallel-safe. */
> else if (IsA(node, SubPlan))
> return !(
On 04/12/2017 08:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2017 01:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> BTW, I suggest adding --timer to our default PROVE_FLAGS, so we can
>> collect more data from the buildfarm on what takes a while. Sample
>> output:
>>
>
> I'll add that to the commandline the buildfa
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is 100% wrong. It's failing to recurse into the subexpressions of
>> the SubPlan, which could very easily include parallel-unsafe function
>> calls.
> My understanding (apparently flawed?) is that the parallel_safe f
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> In essence, the patch as it is proposed, doesn't *need* a binary
> search, because the segment list can only grow up to 15 segments at
> its biggest, and that's a size small enough that linear search will
> outperform (or at least perform as
Andrew,
* Andrew Dunstan (andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 08:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 04/12/2017 01:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> BTW, I suggest adding --timer to our default PROVE_FLAGS, so we can
> >> collect more data from the buildfarm on what takes a while.
On 4/12/17 07:31, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Once difference I notice is that for example the "note boxes" are no
> longer centered, but they do now get the new formatting.
I have committed something for that. The issue was that the generated
HTML contained hard-coded style attributes.
--
Peter E
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
>> > that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is perform
On 4/12/17 09:55, Fujii Masao wrote:
> To fix this issue, we should terminate walsender for logical replication
> before shutdown checkpoint starts. Of course walsender for physical
> replication still needs to keep running until shutdown checkpoint ends,
> though.
Can we turn it into a kind of re
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I may have missed something, but there is no intention to ignore known
>> regressions/reviews. Of course, I don't think that every regression will be
>> solvable, like if you run a CPU-bound workload, setting it up in a way such
>> that you r
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I'd been thinking that staenabled is not the most suitable column name
> for storing the types of statistics that are defined for the extended
> statistics.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgre
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm not following what you're getting at here.
>
> There's already a constraint on the table, and ALTER TABLE ONLY doesn't
> say anything about what happens later on (certainly it doesn't make new
> tables created with 'LIKE' have bits omitte
On 12/04/17 19:34, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/11/2017 02:32 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
So I still see your proposal more awkward and less clear, mixing
things that are separate. But again, your choice :)
So, here's my more full-fledged proposal.
The first patch refactors
On 4/10/17 11:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases
> and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension.
>
> Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does
> this, similar to how it emits a script
On 4/11/17 23:41, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/9/17 22:16, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>>
>> Patches have been posted. Discussion is still going on a bit.
>
> By what d
On 4/12/17 15:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/12/17 07:31, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Once difference I notice is that for example the "note boxes" are no
>> longer centered, but they do now get the new formatting.
>
> I have committed something for that. The issue was that the generated
> HTML
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
