On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 14 September 2017 at 19:57, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Are you planning to work on the review comments from Robert, Moon
>> Insung and supply the new patch. I just had a quick glance into this
>> mail thread (after a long time) a
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Thanks, but I'm not sure that'll help, at this point. We already know
> > what happened (corrupted memory), we don't know "how". And core files
> > are mostly just "snapshots" so are not very useful in answerin
Robert Haas wrote:
> I haven't really followed this thread in depth, but I'm very nervous
> about the idea that we should ever be examining the raw-xmin of a
> tuple that has been marked HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN for anything other than
> forensic purposes.
Yeah, me too. If you see another way to fix the
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> #1 0x006a52e9 in perform_work_item (workitem=0x7f8ad1f94824) at
> autovacuum.c:2676
> cur_datname = 0x298c740 "no 1 :vartype 1184 :vartypmod -1 :varcollid
> 0 :varlevelsup 0 :varnoold 1 :varoattno 1 :location 146} {CONST :consttype
> 1184 :consttypmod -1
Hi hackers,
While testing parallelism work I've wanted to be able to prevent
gather nodes from running the plan in the leader process, and I've
heard others say the same. One way would be to add a GUC
"multiplex_gather", like in the attached patch. If you set it to off,
Gather and Gather Merge w
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Anyway, can give this patch a try?
I've only compiled postgres once before and this is a production environment
(althought nothing so important that the crashes are a serious concern either).
Is it reasonable to wget the postgres t
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > #1 0x006a52e9 in perform_work_item (workitem=0x7f8ad1f94824) at
> > autovacuum.c:2676
> > cur_datname = 0x298c740 "no 1 :vartype 1184 :vartypmod -1
> > :varcollid 0 :varlevelsup 0 :varno
On 10/17/2017 02:29 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Anyway, can give this patch a try?
>
> I've only compiled postgres once before and this is a production environment
> (althought nothing so important that the crashes are a serious con
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> I propose is to add a new cursor option (PARALLEL), which would allow
> parallel plans for that particular user-defined cursor. Attached is an
> experimental patch doing this (I'm sure there are some loose ends).
I think you would need to do
Hi,
While quering with CTE against PG HEAD , i found that query got killed with
this below error logs
-- Machine Configuration: (d1.xlarge) CUPs : 8 , RAM : 16GB , SIze : 640GB
postgres=# with x as (select 5 c1 from generate_series(1,100) x) select
* from x x1 join x x2 using(c1);
Killed
201
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Anyway, can give this patch a try?
> I've only compiled postgres once before and this is a production environment
> (althought nothing so important that the crashes are a serious concern
> either).
> Is i
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:34:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Eric Radman wrote:
> > This administrative compromise is necessary because the WalReceiver is
> > not resumed after a network interruption until all records are read,
> > verified, and applied from
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
>
While playing around with the patch I have noticed one regression with
the partial partition-wise aggregate.
I am consistently able to reproduce this on my local machine.
Scenario: Group by on non-key column and only one tuple per group.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Eric Radman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:34:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I thought I had observed cases where the WalReceiver was shut down
> without causing XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch to return. If I'm wrong
> about this then there's no reason to
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:34:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Anyway, can give this patch a try?
>
> > I've only compiled postgres once before and this is a production environment
> > (althought nothing s
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:34:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So: where did you get the existing binaries? If it's from some vendor
>> packaging system, what you should do is fetch the package source, add
>> the patch to the probably-nonempty set of patches the vendor is ap
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I'm happy to try the patch, but in case it makes any difference, we have few
> DBs/schemas:
I don't expect that it does.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsq
On 17 October 2017 at 22:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:34:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So: where did you get the existing binaries? If it's from some vendor
>>> packaging system, what you should do is fetch the package source, add
>>> the patch to t
On 17 October 2017 at 21:18, Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While quering with CTE against PG HEAD , i found that query got killed
> with this below error logs
> -- Machine Configuration: (d1.xlarge) CUPs : 8 , RAM : 16GB , SIze : 640GB
>
> postgres=# with x as (select 5 c1 from generate_series(1
On 10/17/2017 03:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> I propose is to add a new cursor option (PARALLEL), which would allow
>> parallel plans for that particular user-defined cursor. Attached is an
>> experimental patch doing this (I'm sure there
Robert Haas wrote:
> Implement table partitioning.
Is it intentional that you can use ALTER TABLE OWNER TO on the parent
table, and that this does not recurse to modify the partitions' owners?
This doesn't seem to be mentioned in comments nor documentation, so it
seems an oversight to me.
Thought
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> cur_datname here seems corrupted -- it points halfway into cur_nspname,
> which is also a corrupt value.
Yeah.
> And I think that's because we're not
> checking that the namespace OID is a valid value before calling
> get_namespace_name on it.
No, because get_namespace_
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > Implement table partitioning.
>
> Is it intentional that you can use ALTER TABLE OWNER TO on the parent
> table, and that this does not recurse to modify the partitions' owners?
> This doesn't seem to be mentioned in comments nor documentation, so it
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jeevan Chalke
> wrote:
> >
> While playing around with the patch I have noticed one regression with
> the partial partition-wise aggregate.
>
> I am consistently able to reproduce this on my local machine.
>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> We're currently blocking writing queries on standby if even they are
> modifying contents of foreign tables. But do we have serious reasons for
> that?
> Keeping in the mind FDW-sharding, making FDW-tables wr
On 10/16/2017 07:31 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 17 October 2017 at 01:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 10/15/2017 07:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
- Get info about master. We should finish merging recovery.conf into
postgresql.conf.
Definitely.
There's a patch from Abhijit Menon-Sen you could
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah, me too. If you see another way to fix the problem, let's discuss
> it.
I doubt that there is a better way.
> I think a possible way is to avoid considering that the relfrozenxid
> value computed by the caller is final.
While that a
On 2017-10-11 18:20:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, it's not that much work to try it and see. I compared results
> of this simplistic test case:
> pgbench -S -c 1 -T 60 bench
> (using a scale-factor-10 pgbench database) on current HEAD and HEAD
> with the attached patch, which just loboto
Hello Masahiko-san,
Attached the updated version patch.
Applies, compiles, make check & tap test ok, doc is fine.
All is well for me: the feature is useful, code is simple and clean, it is
easy to invoke, easy to extend as well, which I'm planning to do once it gets
in.
I switched the pa
On 10/17/2017 08:40 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 07:31 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 17 October 2017 at 01:02, Joshua D. Drake
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2017 07:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
- Get info about master. We should finish merging recovery.conf into
postgresql.conf.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml
index 116f7224da..f1f7cfed5f 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-10.sgml
@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@
This changes pg_basebackup's
- -X/--xlog-method default to
stream.
+ -X/--w
Hi Everyone,
On 2017-05-19 17:25:38 +0530, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> While analysing the performance of TPC-H queries for the newly developed
> parallel-operators, viz, parallel index, bitmap heap scan, etc. we noticed
> that the time taken by gather node is significant. On investigation, as per
> the
On 18 October 2017 at 02:01, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>>
>> We're currently blocking writing queries on standby if even they are
>> modifying contents of foreign tables. But do we have serious reasons for
>> that?
>> Keeping in the m
Hi.
Noticed that a alter table sub-command's name in Description (where it's
OWNER) differs from that in synopsis (where it's OWNER TO). Attached
patch to make them match, if the difference is unintentional.
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_ta
On 2017/10/18 1:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Implement table partitioning.
>>
>> Is it intentional that you can use ALTER TABLE OWNER TO on the parent
>> table, and that this does not recurse to modify the partitions' owners?
>> This doesn't seem to be
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Superficially at least, it sounds like a good idea.
Indeed.
> We should only need a virtual xid when we're working with foreign
> tables since we don't do any local heap changes.
>
> How's it work with savepoints?
That's one thing to worry
A small patch to fix these is attached.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
allpath_typos_fix.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chan
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
>
> I didn't get what you mean by regression here. Can you please explain?
>
> I see that PWA plan is selected over regular plan when enabled on the basis
> of costing.
> Regular planning need a Result node due to which costing increases wher
Hi,
On 2017-10-17 14:39:57 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've spent some time looking into this, and I'm not quite convinced this
> is the right approach. Let me start by describing where I see the
> current performance problems around gather stemming from.
One further approach to several of the
39 matches
Mail list logo
