On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 08:46:03AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2017-08-20 4:17 GMT+02:00 Noah Misch :
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:53:19PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > I am sending some POC - it does support XPATH and XMLTABLE for not UTF8
> > > server encoding.
> > >
> > > In this case,
2017-08-20 9:21 GMT+02:00 Noah Misch :
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 08:46:03AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2017-08-20 4:17 GMT+02:00 Noah Misch :
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:53:19PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > > I am sending some POC - it does support XPATH and XMLTABLE for not
> UTF8
В письме от 25 июня 2017 20:42:58 пользователь Fabien COELHO написал:
> > may be this it because of "end_offset + 1" in expr_scanner_chomp_substring
> > ? Why there is + 1 there?
>
> Thanks for the debug! Here is a v9 which does a rebase after the
> reindentation and fixes the bad offset.
Sorry I
Hi,
We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g. copy.c, which triggered me to
write this email). And I mean outside of accepted "exceptions" like
error messages. And
On 08/20/2017 07:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g. copy.c, which triggered me to
write this email). And I mean outside of a
On 2017-08-20 09:29:39 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 08/20/2017 07:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
> > character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
> > submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g.
Hi,
Pushing 0001, 0002 now.
- rebased after conflicts
- fixed a significant number of too long lines
- removed a number of now superflous linebreaks
I think it'd be a good idea to backpatch the addition of
TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n) to make future backpatching easier. What do
others think?
Tho
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:54:57AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2017-08-20 9:21 GMT+02:00 Noah Misch :
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:53:39PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > > One possible fix - and similar technique is used more
Hello Nikolay,
I've applied the patch to the current master, and it seems that one test now
fails:
Indeed, Tom removed the -M option order constraint, so the test which
check for that does not apply anymore.
Here is a v10 without this test.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/src/bin/pgbench/exprscan.
Hi
> xpath-bugfix.patch affected only xml values containing an xml declaration
> with
> "encoding" attribute. In UTF8 databases, this latest proposal
> (xpath-parsing-error-fix.patch) is equivalent to xpath-bugfix.patch. In
> non-UTF8 databases, xpath-parsing-error-fix.patch affects all xml val
> On 19 Aug 2017, at 23:13, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Munro
> mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Attached is an updated set of patches, rebased on top of master, with bug
>>> fixes
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Pushing 0001, 0002 now.
>
> - rebased after conflicts
> - fixed a significant number of too long lines
> - removed a number of now superflous linebreaks
Thanks! Please find attached a rebased version of the rest of the patch set.
> Thomas,
On 2017/08/19 2:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> 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 other commit is more relevant
On 08/20/2017 09:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-08-20 09:29:39 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 08/20/2017 07:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
submissions,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2017, at 23:13, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> I guess it should have a fallback definition, though I don't know what
>>> it should be.
>>
>> Or maybe the guc should only exist if SSL_LIBRARY is defined?
>
> I think the intended use
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it'd be a good idea to backpatch the addition of
> TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n) to make future backpatching easier. What do
> others think?
+1
That would also provide a way for extension developers to be able to
write code that compi
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think it'd be a good idea to backpatch the addition of
>> TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n) to make future backpatching easier. What do
>> others think?
>
> +1
>
> That would also provide
On 20 August 2017 at 10:10, MauMau wrote:
> From: Chris Travers
> > Why cannot you do all this in a language handler and treat as a user
> defined function?
> > ...
> > If you have a language handler for cypher, why do you need in_region
> or cast_region? Why not just have a graph_search() funct
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote:
> This patch should be sufficient for 10/11 but will need some minor
> changes for 9.6 to remove the reference to wait_for_archive. Note that
> this patch ignores Michael's patch [2] to create WAL history files on a
> standby as this will likel
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
> character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
> submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g. copy.c, which triggered me to
> write this email). And I mean
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
>> character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
>> submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g. cop
On 2017-08-21 11:36:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
> >> character window. But an increasing amount of the
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. Because you're used to it, or because more of them fit on the
> screen?
Both. It's also the default window size on my MacBook.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via
On 21 August 2017 at 10:36, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
> >> character window. But an increasing amount of
Hi all
I've noticed a possible bug / design limitation where shm_mq_wait_internal
sleep in a latch wait forever, and the postmaster gets stuck waiting for
the bgworker the wait is running in to exit.
This happens when the shm_mq does not have an associated bgworker handle
registered because the o
On 2017/08/18 22:41, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 05:10:29PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/17 23:48, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 05:27:05PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/07/11 6:56, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
On 2017/08/19 2:12, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
I think that would be much more efficient than INSERTing tuples into the
remote server one by one. What do you think about that?
I agree, but I wonder if we ought to make it work first using the
exis
On 2017/08/21 9:18, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/19 2:09, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
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 so
On 21 August 2017 at 10:57, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've noticed a possible bug / design limitation where shm_mq_wait_internal
> sleep in a latch wait forever, and the postmaster gets stuck waiting for
> the bgworker the wait is running in to exit.
>
> This happens when the shm_mq does n
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> 0004 patch in partition-wise join patchset has code to expand
>> partition hierarchy. That patch is expanding inheritance hierarchy in
>> depth first manner. Robert commented that ins
>
> xpath-bugfix.patch affected only xml values containing an xml declaration
> with
> "encoding" attribute. In UTF8 databases, this latest proposal
> (xpath-parsing-error-fix.patch) is equivalent to xpath-bugfix.patch. In
> non-UTF8 databases, xpath-parsing-error-fix.patch affects all xml values
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/17 01:06, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Both pg_dump and pg_upgrade tests are passed. Updated patch attached
> > I will add this patch to the next commitfest.
>
> This patch needs to be rebased for th
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here are a few assorted patches I made while working on the stdbool set,
> cleaning up various pieces of dead code and weird styles.
>
> - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers
- (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, q
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here is a patch series with some significant reworking and adjusting of
> how the coverage analysis tools are run. The result should be that the
> "make coverage" runs are faster and more robust, the results are more
> accurate, and the c
On 18 August 2017 at 15:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ildar Musin wrote:
>
>> While we've been developing pg_pathman extension one of the most frequent
>> questions we got from our users was about global index support. We cannot
>> provide it within an extension. And I couldn't find any recent discu
Hi Amit,
On 2017/08/17 21:18, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Anyways, some more comments :
>
> In ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting(), not sure why ptrinfos array is an
> array of pointers. Why can't it be an array of
> PartitionTupleRoutingInfo structure rather than pointer to that
> structure ?
AFAIK,
I've been working on implementing a way to perform plan-time
partition-pruning that is hopefully faster than the current method of
using constraint exclusion to prune each of the potentially many
partitions one-by-one. It's not fully cooked yet though.
Meanwhile, I thought I'd share a couple of p
On 19 August 2017 at 20:54, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:59:18PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Robert Haas writes:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>> Account for catalog snapshot in PGXACT->xmin upd
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> Ah, good catch. While I agree that there is probably no great harm
> from skipping the lock here, I think it would be better to just avoid
> throwing an error while we hold the lock. I thin
39 matches
Mail list logo
