On 08/01/2017 06:35 PM, Remi Colinet wrote:
> Does anyone use these formats (XML, JSON, YAML) for EXPLAIN output?
Yes : http://tatiyants.com/pev/#/plans :)
--
Adrien NAYRAT
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decide
On 2017/07/29 2:45, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 28 July 2017 at 20:10, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I checked that we get the same result relation order with both the
>>> patches, but I would like to highlight a notable difference here between
>>> t
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Abbas Butt
> wrote:
> > Can anyone point out to a tutorial or a list of steps required to run PG
> TAP
> > tests on windows?
>
> Only MSVC has a special handling:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sta
Commit: 3f88672a4e4d8e648d24ccc65937da61c7660854 add "security label on
domain"
in "gram.y", and set "objtype" to "OBJECT_TYPE".
Is this a typo?
--
GaoZengqi
pgf...@gmail.com
zengqi...@gmail.com
I applied the patch on latest master sources and the patch applies cleanly.
The documentation is built without errors.
We do not support following syntax for 'do nothing':
postgres=# insert into parted_conflict_test values (1, 'a') on conflict (b)
do nothing;
ERROR: there is no unique or exclusi
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> WRT the main patch:
Thanks for the review. I will respond soon, but for now I just wanted
to post a rebased version (no changes) because v16 no longer applies.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
parallel-hash-v17.patchset.tgz
De
I have made few more changes with the new patch.
1. Ran pgindent.
2. Instead of an atomic state variable to make only one process cache
the snapshot in shared memory, I have used conditional try lwlock.
With this, we have a small and reliable code.
3. Performance benchmarking
Machine - cthulhu
==
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
Sorry, there was an unnecessary header included in proc.c which should
be removed adding the corrected patch.
--
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Cache_data_in_GetSnapshotData_POC_04.patch
Description: Bina
On 2 August 2017 at 14:38, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/29 2:45, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> On 28 July 2017 at 20:10, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
I checked that we get the same result relation order with both the
patches, but I would lik
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I too dislike the shape of attachRel. How about we rename attachRel to
> attachrel? So, attachrel_children, attachrel_constr, etc. It's still
> long though... :)
OK, I can live with that, I guess.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.e
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
> remote table that the foreign table points to has some rows which will
> violet the constraint. So,
What problem exactly you are seeing in the clog, is it the contention
around CLOGControlLock or generally accessing CLOG is slower. If
former, then we already have a patch [1] to address it.
It's the contention around CLogControlLock. Thank you for the pointer,
next time I'll try it with the gro
Hello,
Thank you for the reviewing.
If it's not too much trouble perhaps you could write a few more test
so
we would have 100% test coverage for rbtree, could modify it safely
and
be sure that it actually works when someone will need the rest of its
functionality?
Done. Now all of the functi
I forgot to attach the patch. Sorry.
Here it is.
--
--
Victor Drobny
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/test/modules/Makefile b/src/test/modules/Makefile
index 3ce9904..b7ed0af 100644
--- a/src/test/modules/Makefile
+++ b/src/test/mod
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:04 AM, 高增琦 wrote:
> Commit: 3f88672a4e4d8e648d24ccc65937da61c7660854 add "security label on
> domain"
> in "gram.y", and set "objtype" to "OBJECT_TYPE".
>
> Is this a typo?
Looks like it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I found an error message in pgbench is quite confusing.
>
> pgbench -S -M extended -c 1 -T 30 test
> query mode (-M) should be specified before any transaction scripts (-f or -b)
>
> Since there's no -f or -b option is specified, users will be
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'd like to propose a new option -I for pgbench command which skips
> the creating primary keys after initialized tables. This option is
> useful for users who want to do bench marking with no index or indexes
> other than btree primary inde
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new option -I for pgbench command which skips
>> the creating primary keys after initialized tables. This option is
>> useful for users who want to do bench markin
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new option -I for pgbench command which skips
>> the creating primary keys after initialized tables.
> I support adding an option for this, but I propose that we just make
> it a long-form optio
> I think we could probably do without this ... if you want a non-default
> test setup, why do you need to use "pgbench -i" to create it?
>
> It's not that there's anything greatly wrong with this particular idea,
> it's just that pgbench has too many switches already, and omitting random
> subset
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose a new option -I for pgbench command which skips
>>> the creating primary keys after initialized tables.
>
>> I support adding an option for
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Looking at the dbObjectTypePriority comments that seems like data
> restoration
> will *absolutely always* follow all CREATE TABLE commands.
Hmm. I wasn't very convinced by those comments, but Tom's commit
a1ef01fe163b304760088e3e30eb220369
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, it does, although I'm not sure how intuitive it is that the
> parentheses are significant ...
>
> regression=# select fdc.* from fdc();
> fdc
> ---
> (1,2)
> (1 row)
>
> regression=# select (fdc).* from fdc();
> r | i
> ---+---
> 1
Robert Haas writes:
> I've actually wanted this exact thing multiple times: most recently,
> to make a non-unique btree index instead of a unique one, and to make
> a hash index instead of a btree one. I don't object to a modest
> effort at coming up with a more general mechanism here, but I also
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> scanned_tuples variable in LVRelStats is introduced by commit b4b6923e
> but it seems to me that it's actually not used. We store num_tuples
> into vacrelstats->scanned_tuples after scanned all blocks, and the
> comment mentioned that savin
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sure, but "no indexes at all" is hardly ever the real goal, is it?
Right.
> So the switch as proposed is only solving part of your problem.
> I'd rather see a solution that addresses a larger range of desires.
That's reasonable.
> Or in other
On 8/2/17 08:21, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:04 AM, 高增琦 wrote:
>> Commit: 3f88672a4e4d8e648d24ccc65937da61c7660854 add "security label on
>> domain"
>> in "gram.y", and set "objtype" to "OBJECT_TYPE".
>>
>> Is this a typo?
>
> Looks like it.
Fix committed to master. I don't in
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Thanks Neha. It's be best to post the back trace and if possible
> print oldestXact and ShmemVariableCache->oldestXid from the stack
> frame for TruncateCLOG.
>
> The failing assertion in TruncateCLOG() has a comment that says
> "vac_truncate
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>> I noticed, that
>> after we introduced RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE, we required to change a
>> number of conditions to include this relkind. We missed some places in
>> initial commits and fixed those later. I am wondering whether we
>> shoul
Hello Tatsuo-san,
I found an error message in pgbench is quite confusing.
pgbench -S -M extended -c 1 -T 30 test
query mode (-M) should be specified before any transaction scripts (-f or -b)
Since there's no -f or -b option is specified, users will be
confused.
Indeed.
Actually the error o
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Yes, I also think the same idea can be used, in fact, I have mentioned
>>> it [1] as soon as you have committed that patch. Do we want to do
>>> anything at this stage for PG-10? I don't think we should attempt
>>> something this late unles
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or in other words, this looks to me quite a bit like the hackery
>> that resulted in pgbench's -S and -N options, before we figured out
>> that making it scriptable was a better answer.
> But it's not very clear to me how
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or in other words, this looks to me quite a bit like the hackery
>>> that resulted in pgbench's -S and -N options, before we figured out
>>> that making it scriptable wa
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I'm imagining that "-i" would essentially become a short form
>> of "-b initialize", as already happened for -S and -N, where the script
>> looks something like ...
> I imagine that would be useful for some use cases
On 8/1/17 16:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/1/17 00:21, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:40:34AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Scott Milliken wrote:
Thank you Masahiko! I've tested and confirmed that this patch fixes the
problem.
>>
Robert Haas writes:
> I've thought about this kind of thing, too. But the thing is that
> most of these macros you're proposing to introduce only get used in
> one place.
I think the value would be in having a centralized checklist of
things-to-fix-when-adding-a-new-relkind. There's more than o
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Of course. It's also a heck of a lot more flexible. Adding on another
> ad-hoc option that does the minimum possible amount of work needed to
> address one specific problem is always going to be less work; but after
> we repeat that process five
Robert Haas writes:
> The patch itself looks just fine on a quick glance, modulo the lack of
> documentation, but I think we need to bikeshed the name of the flag.
> --reload-through-root is clear as daylight to me, but I'm not sure
> users will agree. The lack of the word "partition" is perhaps
I think pg_class is a reasonable place to put more generic relkind lists
alongside a matching error message for each, rather than specialized
"does this relkind have storage" macros. What about something like a
struct list in pg_class.h,
{
{
relkinds_r_i_T,
{ 'r', 'i', 'T' },
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
There is no check for (last_reply_timestamp <= 0 || wal_sender_timeout <=
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Dilip Kumar
> >> > wrot
On 8/2/17 13:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think pg_class is a reasonable place to put more generic relkind lists
> alongside a matching error message for each, rather than specialized
> "does this relkind have storage" macros. What about something like a
> struct list in pg_class.h,
>
> {
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think pg_class is a reasonable place to put more generic relkind lists
> alongside a matching error message for each, rather than specialized
> "does this relkind have storage" macros. What about something like a
> struct list in pg_class.h,
I just noticed that this does
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> The patch itself looks just fine on a quick glance, modulo the lack of
>> documentation, but I think we need to bikeshed the name of the flag.
>> --reload-through-root is clear as daylight to me, but I'm not sure
>> users wi
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't find this style of error message optimal anyway. If I do, for
> example
>
> ALTER TABLE someview ADD CONSTRAINT ...
> ERROR: "someview" is not a table, foreign table, whatever
>
> then this information is not helpful. It's not like I'm going to turn
> my view
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly
>> >> send
>>
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> --restore-via-partition-root ?
> I worry someone will think that pg_dump is now restoring stuff, but it isn't.
Well, the point is that the commands it emits will cause the eventual
restore to go through the root. Anyway,
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The actual error, from the perspective of the user, is something like
>> ERROR: "someview" is a view
>> DETAIL: Views cannot have constraints.
> OK. "%s is a %s" is a reasonable set of errors -- we just need one for
> each relkind. So the firs
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> --restore-via-partition-root ?
>
> > I worry someone will think that pg_dump is now restoring stuff, but it
> isn't.
>
> Well, the point is that the commands it emits
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Zeray Kalayu wrote:
> Lastly, I strongly believe that Code is the ultimate truth and being
> able to understand complex and high quality code effectively and
> strategically is of paramount importance.
Documentation to understand how a system works from the user
pr
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or in other words, this looks to me quite a bit like the hackery
>>> that resulted in pgbench's -S and -N options, before we figured out
>>> that making it scriptable was
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> --restore-via-partition-root ?
>
>> I worry someone will think that pg_dump is now restoring stuff, but it isn't.
>
> Well, the point is that the commands it emits will ca
Ashutosh Sharma writes:
> I am getting this warning message when trying to install
> PostgreSQL-v9.5 on Windows with Perl-5.22 and above,
> Unescaped left brace in regex is deprecated, passed through in regex;
> Please note that from perl-5.26 onwards, this is considered as a
> syntax error instea
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Kohn writes:
>> I encountered some unexpected behavior when debugging a query that was
>> taking longer than expected, basically, a volatile function that makes a
>> column in a view is called even when that column is not selected in the
>>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> I found an error message in pgbench is quite confusing.
> Not really objecting, but an even better fix might be to remove the
> restriction on the order in which the options can be specified.
Indeed. It doesn't look
On 8/2/17 13:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice that the option list already includes some references to
> "insert", so maybe "--insert-via-partition-root"? Although you could
> argue that that's confusing when we're using COPY.
"load" could be more general. But I'm also OK with "restore".
--
Pete
On 8/1/17 00:17, Noah Misch wrote:
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us
Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I split it into several patches:
I wish you'd stop splitting error message strings across multiple lines.
I've been trapped by a faulty grep not matching a split error message a
number of times :-( I know by now to remove words until I get a match,
but it seems an unnecessa
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I wish you'd stop splitting error message strings across multiple lines.
> I've been trapped by a faulty grep not matching a split error message a
> number of times :-( I know by now to remove words until I get a match,
> but it seems an unnecessary trap for the unwary.
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I wish you'd stop splitting error message strings across multiple lines.
> > I've been trapped by a faulty grep not matching a split error message a
> > number of times :-( I know by now to remove words until I get a match,
> > b
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> No. The whole approach seems to have been bounced from core. I don't agree
> and continue to think this functionality is desirable but I don't get to
> make that call.
I actually think failover slots are quite desirable, especially now
that w
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> The patch is a kind of straightforward and looks fine for me.
+1 for this change.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg
On 8/1/17 20:20, Andres Freund wrote:
> Well, that's how it is for all bgworkers - maybe a better solution is to
> adjust that message in the postmaster rather than fiddle with the worker
> exist code? Seems like we could easily take pmStatus into account
> inside LogChildExit() and set the log le
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Adding AppendRelInfos to root->append_rel_list as and when they are
> created would keep parent AppendRelInfos before those of children. But
> that function throws away the AppendRelInfo it created when their are
> no real children i.e. in p
Hi,
I think this patch should have a "cover letter" explaining what it's
trying to achieve, how it does so and why it's safe/correct. I think
it'd also be good to try to show some of the worst cases of this patch
(i.e. where the caching only adds overhead, but never gets used), and
some of the be
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Maybe it doesn't need to be logged at all (other than perhaps as DEBUG)?
> A few months ago, people were complaining about too many messages about
> background workers starting. Now we are having complaints about
> messages about backgrou
On 2017-08-02 16:52:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > Maybe it doesn't need to be logged at all (other than perhaps as DEBUG)?
> > A few months ago, people were complaining about too many messages about
> > background workers starting. N
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-08-02 16:52:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I actually don't think it's that unreasonable to get notified when
>> system-wide processes like the autovacuum launcher or the logical
>> replication launcher start or stop. That's stuff somebody might want
>> to know.
On 2017-08-02 17:09:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Even if we fix that, though, I think it is reasonable to downgrade it to
> DEBUG1. We did that already for other standard background processes such
> as the autovac launcher, and it's not apparent to me why the logrep
> launcher should be chattier.
Kunshchikov Vladimir wrote:
> Hello Alvaro,
>
> here goes v4 version: removed unused header.
>
> Compilation of this code snippet with -Wall -Wexter -std=c89 doesn't produce
> any warnings.
Great, thanks! I have pushed this to all branches since 9.4. Would you
please give it a look? Please l
On 2017-02-10 07:52:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Thomas Munro
> > Up until two minutes ago I assumed that policy would leave only two
> > possibilities: you attach to the DSM segment and attach to the
> > SharedBufFileManager successfully or you attach to the DSM s
> Not really objecting, but an even better fix might be to remove the
> restriction on the order in which the options can be specified.
+100 :-)
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-ha
Thank you for the comment.
At Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:27:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Another is getting rid of recursive call to run an execution
> > tree.
>
> That happens to be exactly what Andres did for expression evaluation
>> Not really objecting, but an even better fix might be to remove the
>> restriction on the order in which the options can be specified.
>
> Indeed. It doesn't look that hard: AFAICS the problem is just that
> process_sql_command() is making premature decisions about whether to
> extract paramet
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Forgot the patch set. Here it is.
The commit message for 0005 isn't really accurate given that it
follows 0004. I think you could just flatten 0005 and 0006 into one
patch.
Reviewing those together:
- Existing code does partdesc = Relati
On 8/2/17 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> I actually don't think it's that unreasonable to get notified when
> system-wide processes like the autovacuum launcher or the logical
> replication launcher start or stop.
But we got rid of those start messages recently due to complaints.
--
Peter Eisentrau
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 8/2/17 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I actually don't think it's that unreasonable to get notified when
>> system-wide processes like the autovacuum launcher or the logical
>> replication launcher start or stop.
>
> But we got rid of thos
On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
>> remote table that the foreign table points to has som
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Fix pg_dump's errno checking for zlib I/O
So this broke a few buildfarm members. I'll into it tomorrow.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin
Noah,
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 20:52 Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Noah, all,
> >
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.
> Kindly send
> > > a status update within 2
On 2017/08/01 6:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 7/6/17 03:23, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Here is a comment in ExecFindPartition() in execMain.c:
/*
* First check the root table's partition constraint, if any. No
point in
* routing the tuple it if it doesn't belong in the root tabl
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 15:21, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Thanks Fuita-san and Amit for reviewing.
>
> Sorry, I meant Fujita-san.
Time is growing short here. Is there more review or coding that needs
to be done here?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://w
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that t
On 2017/08/03 12:06, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
On 2017/08/02 15:21, Amit Langote wrote:
Thanks Fuita-san and Amit for reviewing.
Sorry, I meant Fujita-san.
Time is growing short here. Is there more review or coding that needs
to be done here?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Add new files to nls.mk and add translation markers
This reminds me that I noticed a few days ago another really serious
broken piece in pg_upgrade where check_required_directory() is incurring
in the ugliest case of string building I've ever seen. I didn't have
the cour
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:44:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Today, lorikeet failed with a new variant on the bgworker start crash:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lorikeet&dt=2017-06-21%2020%3A29%3A10
>
> This one is even more exciting than the last one, because it sur
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Fix pg_dump's errno checking for zlib I/O
> So this broke a few buildfarm members. I'll into it tomorrow.
I think you forgot to consider the !HAVE_LIBZ case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> It does this:
> pg_fatal("You must identify the directory where the %s.\n"
> "Please use the %s command-line option or the %s
> environment variable.\n",
> description, cmdLineOption, envVarName);
> and the callsites
Thanks Jeevan for looking at this. See comments below.
On 2017/08/02 19:04, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> The patch's job is simple:
>>
>> - Remove the check in the parser that causes an error the moment the
>> ON CONFLICT clause is found.
>>
>> -
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
> I could go either way on that. It's not inconceivable somebody could
> be unhappy
On 2 August 2017 at 11:51, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks Fuita-san and Amit for reviewing.
>
> On 2017/08/02 1:33, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 15:11, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> On 2017/07/31 18:56, Amit Langote wrote:
Yes, that's what's needed here. So we need to teach
ma
On 2017/08/02 20:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I too dislike the shape of attachRel. How about we rename attachRel to
>> attachrel? So, attachrel_children, attachrel_constr, etc. It's still
>> long though... :)
>
> OK, I can live with that, I
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> scanned_tuples variable in LVRelStats is introduced by commit b4b6923e
>> but it seems to me that it's actually not used. We store num_tuples
>> into vacrelstats->scanned_tuples aft
Thanks for the review.
On 2017/08/03 13:54, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 2 August 2017 at 11:51, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/08/02 1:33, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>>> Instead of callers of map_partition_varattnos() reporting error, we
>>> can have map_partition_varattnos() itself report error. Instea
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>> I noticed, that
>>> after we introduced RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE, we required to change a
>>> number of conditions to include this relkind. We missed some places in
>>> initial commi
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I've thought about this kind of thing, too. But the thing is that
>> most of these macros you're proposing to introduce only get used in
>> one place.
>
> I think the value would be in having a centralized checklist of
> t
On 3 August 2017 at 11:00, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 2017/08/03 13:54, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> On 2 August 2017 at 11:51, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/08/02 1:33, Amit Khandekar wrote:
Instead of callers of map_partition_varattnos() reporting error, we
can h
>
> Shay Rojansky writes:
> > Once again, I manged to make the error go away simply by setting the
> > session id context, which seems to be a mandatory server-side step for
> > properly support session tickets.
>
> The fact that you made the error go away doesn't make this a good
> solution. In
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
