[HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest Manager

I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other volunteers or objections to my offer. I am still ready, eager, and willing! -- -David da...@pgmasters.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [HACKERS] Addition of extra commit fest entry to park future patches

On 3/1/16 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current > > tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" > or > > so

Re: [HACKERS] Addition of extra commit fest entry to park future patches

On 3/1/16 3:35 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest Manager

On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele writes: >> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other >> volunteers or objections to my offer. > >> I am still ready, eager, and willing! > > I haven't heard any other voluntee

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest Manager

On 3/1/16 8:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> David Steele writes: >>>>> I volunteered a

[HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

The 2016-03 commitfest is officially in progress! There are currently a lot of patches waiting for review but with no reviewers: Needs review: 97 Needs *reviewer*: 58 Please check the "needs reviewer" list (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?reviewer=-2) for patches to review. The committers

Re: [HACKERS] More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics

On 3/2/16 11:10 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Tomas Vondra > mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > > I think it'd be useful not to have all the changes in one lump, but > structure this as a patch series with related changes in separate > ch

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer)

On 2/21/16 2:24 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 02/21/2016 07:56 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: >> >> Other than that, the only difference is the ::date part. Is it >> really worth adding extra code just for that? I would say not. >> >> >> I would argue it belongs for the sake of completeness. > >

Re: [HACKERS] (pgaudit) Audit log is not output after the SET ROLE.

On 3/7/16 4:39 AM, Toshi Harada wrote: > > I am testing the pgaudit(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/463/). > (use "http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56b0101b.6070...@pgmasters.net"; > attached patch on 9.6-devel) > > I found strange thing. > > - After SET ROLE, part of the SQL is not the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

Hi Robbie, On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Hello friends, > > Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. It's also > available for viewing on my github: I got this warning when applying the first patch in the set: ../other/v6-0001-Move-common-GSSAPI-code-into-its-own-f

Re: [HACKERS] HINTing on UPDATE foo SET foo.bar = ..;

On 12/23/15 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: Hopefully nobody minds if I slip this to the commit fest that started today? The attached patch should address all the comments from the 9.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

Hi Victor, On 2/1/16 5:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Victor Wagner wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:36:15 -0300 Alvaro Herrera wrote: You're editing the expected file for the libpq-regress thingy, but you haven't added any new lines to test the new capability. I think it'd be good to add some t

Re: [HACKERS] Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both. The exclusion of toast indexes is something w

Re: [HACKERS] statistics for array types

On 1/18/16 11:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Alexander Korotkov wrote: The patch implementing my idea above is attached. What's the status here? Jeff, did you have a look at Alexander's version of your patch? Tomas, does this patch satisfy your concerns? This was marked as "needs review" but

Re: [HACKERS] Identifying a message in emit_log_hook.

Hi Simon, On 3/10/16 7:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: Can you add this to the CF? It was submitted before deadline. I presume you have access to do that? No problem - here it is: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/576/ -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsq

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

On 3/9/16 7:37 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 03/02/16 05:02, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:24 PM, David Steele wrote: I have attached a patch that adds an ereport() macro to suppress client output for a single report call (applies cleanly on 1d0c3b3). I'll also move it t

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

On 3/10/16 11:00 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > The comment above errhidefromclient says "Only log levels below ERROR > can be hidden from the client." but use of the errhidefromclient(true) > actually does hide the error message from client, client just gets > failed query without any message when use

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

On 3/10/16 11:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> The comment above errhidefromclient says "Only log levels below ERROR >> can be hidden from the client." but use of the errhidefromclient(true) >> actually does hide the error message from client, client just gets >> failed query wi

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

On 3/10/16 9:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The patch is evidently modeled on errhidestmt and errhidectx, which are > making the same assumption for their fields. > > I wonder whether, instead of continuing to proliferate random bool fields > in struct ErrorData, we oughta replace them all with an "int

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: BSD Authentication support

On 1/14/16 11:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Marisa Emerson wrote: >> I've attached the latest version of this patch. I've fixed up an issue with >> the configuration scripts that I missed. > Looks reasonable on a quick read-through. Can anyone with access to a > BSD

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent error handling in START_REPLICATION command

On 1/21/16 9:53 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > > So it's true that the client can't unilaterally terminate COPY BOTH > mode; it can only send CopyDone. But an error on the server side > should do

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 1/20/16 11:42 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com>> > wrote: > > Agreed. So I've attached a version of the patch which d

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)

On 2/10/16 12:50 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of > eXtensible Transaction Manager API. > Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f2766b97-555d-424f-b29f-e0ca0f6d1...@p

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent error handling in START_REPLICATION command

On 3/11/16 1:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> It looks like a decision needs to be made here whether to apply this patch, >>> send it back to the author, or reject it so I'm mar

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

On 2/8/16 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Removing one of "archive" or "hot standby" will just cause confusion and >>> breakage, so neither is a good choice for removal. >>> >>> What we should do is >>> 1. Map "archive" and "h

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)

On 3/11/16 1:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on another thread about this patch. > The subject is "The plan for FDW-based sharding", but the thread kind > of got partially hijacked by this issue. The net-net of that is that > I don't think we have a clear enough idea

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

Hi Filip, On 2/20/16 8:00 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Catalin Iacob On 2/9/16, Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> > wrote: > > FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if the NOTIFY statement syntax > were > > not remarkably different from t

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)

On 3/11/16 2:00 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David Steele I'm concerned about the lack of response or reviewers for this patch. > It may be because everyone believes they had their say on the original > thread, or because it seems like a bi

Re: [HACKERS] insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

Hi Peter, On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not >>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human >>> consumption, not stric

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

We're are now one third of the way through the 2016-03 Commitfest. There are still some patches left that need review but have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?reviewer=-2) though a lot have been picked up in the last week. Needs review: 56 Needs *reviewer*: 15 (was 58 last week)

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote: Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for committer'. This patch is now ready for committer. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make chang

Re: [HACKERS] Batch update of indexes

Hi Konstantin, On 2/3/16 11:47 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Attached please find patch for "ALTER INDEX ... WHERE ..." clause. It is now able to handle all three possible situations: 1. Making index partial (add WHERE condition to the ordinary index) 2. Extend partial index range (less restric

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts

On 2/18/16 6:54 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: First, I rebased the previous patch set and merged three of them. Now they are of three patches. 1. Making SQL parser part of psqlscan independent from psql. Moved psql's baskslsh command stuff out of original psqlscan.l and some psql stuff

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] speeding up GIN build with parallel workers

On 2/18/16 10:10 AM, Constantin S. Pan wrote: On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:01:47 +0300 Oleg Bartunov wrote: My feedback is (Mac OS X 10.11.3) set gin_parallel_workers=2; create index message_body_idx on messages using gin(body_tsvector); LOG: worker process: parallel worker for PID 5689 (PID 6906)

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

Hi Anastasia, On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: 18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova: 04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan: On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: I fixed it in the new version (attached). Thank you for the review. At last, there is a

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: use foreign keys to improve join estimates v1

Hi Thomas, On 2/24/16 11:21 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Overall, I still believe the FK patch is a clear improvement of the current status - while it's true it does not improve all possible cases and there's a room for additional improvements (like handling multiple candidate FK constraints), it sh

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

On 2/25/16 4:44 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: Added to the commitfest 2016-03. [CF] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/ This looks like a fairly straight-forward bug fix (the size of the patch is deceptive because there a lot of new tests included). It applies cleanly. Anastasia, I see

Re: [HACKERS] Batch update of indexes

On 3/14/16 10:28 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Rebased patch is attached. Thanks for the quick turnaround! Marko, you are signed up to review this patch. Do you have an idea of when you'll be able to do that? -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 2/23/16 2:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: As a continuation of the thread firstly dedicated to SCRAM: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192afe.6080...@iki.fi Here is a new thread aimed at gathering all the ideas of this previous thread and aimed at clarifying a bit what has been discussed

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

Hi Jeff, On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that, I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and keeping the function name itself simple.

[HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On 2/24/16 12:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: This has the merit to be clear, thanks for the input. Whatever the approach taken at the end we have two candidates: - Extend XLogInsert() with an extra argument for flags (Andres) - Introduce XLogInsertExtended with this extra argument and let XLogIns

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] we have added support for box type in SP-GiST index

On 2/15/16 10:29 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: It's very pity but author is not able to continue work on this patch, and I would like to raise this flag. I'd like to add some comments about patches: traversalValue patch adds arbitrary value assoсiated with branch in SP-GiST tree walk. Unlike to rec

Re: [HACKERS] dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

Hi Abhijit, On 3/1/16 8:36 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 2/29/16 10:33 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: >Given the audience for this, I think it'd probably be OK to just >provide a function that does this, instead of DDL. That seems like a promising idea. Can you suggest some possible usage? pg_extens

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On 2/26/16 11:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Amit Kapila This patch no longer applies cleanly: $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404 error: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c: patch does not apply err

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts

Hi Fabien, On 3/14/16 3:27 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Any takers to review this updated patch? > > I intend to have a look at it, I had a look at a previous instance, but > I'm ok if someone wants to proceed. There's not exactly a long line of reviewers at the moment so if you could do a follo

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

On 3/14/16 4:10 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > David Steele writes: > >> Hi Robbie, >> >> On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >>> Hello friends, >>> >>> Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. It's also >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

On 3/14/16 7:20 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > David Steele writes: > >> >> Strange timing since I was just testing this. Here's what I got: >> >> $ pg/bin/psql -h localhost -U vagr...@pgmasters.net postgres >> conn->inStart = 179, conn->inEnd = 179,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. OK, everything seems to be working fine with a 9.6 client and server so next I tested older clients and I got this error: $ /usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/bin/psql -h localhost \ -U vagr...@pgmasters.n

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On 3/15/16 1:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele >> This patch no longer applies cleanly: >> >> $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch >> error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404 >> error: src/backen

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that, >>> I don't think w

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi Michael, On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review? Meanwhile I am >>&

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On 3/15/16 10:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Note that we currently have some frontend programs with the equivalent >> problem. Most importantly receivelog.c (pg_basebackup/pg_recveivexlog) >> are missing pretty much the same directory f

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE behind-the-scenes effects' CONTEXT

On 1/30/16 10:52 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 2016-01-21 04:17, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Marko, I was/am waiting for an updated patch. Could you comment please? > > Sorry, I've not found time to work on this recently. > > Thanks for everyone's comments so far. I'll move this to the next CF > and

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

On 3/15/16 1:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Hello, this is the new version of this patch. > > The CommitFest entry for this patch is messed up. It shows no author, > even though I'm pretty sure that a patch has to have one by > definiti

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] fix DROP OPERATOR to reset links to itself on commutator and negator

Hi Kevin, On 3/1/16 11:08 AM, Roma Sokolov wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2016, at 03:46, Euler Taveira wrote: >> Because it is not a common practice to test catalog dependency on >> separate tests (AFAICS initial catalogs are tested with oidjoins.sql). >> Also, your test case is too huge for such a small u

[HACKERS] Re: pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

On 3/3/16 12:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> This patch needs to be applied on top discard_hba_and_ident_cxt patch >> that is posted earlier. > > Here I attached a re-based patch to the latest head with inclusion of > discard_hba_ident

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

On 3/4/16 1:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", >>> and why >>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness". >>> >>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct? >>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > >> I think that you should update documentation. At least description of >> epoch on this page: >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html > > Thank you very much for pointing where i

Re: [HACKERS] statistics for array types

On 3/9/16 7:42 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/18/16 11:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> >>> The patch implementing my idea above is attached. >> What's the status here? Jeff, did you have a look at Alexander's >> version

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages

On 3/9/16 6:58 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 08/03/16 21:21, Artur Zakirov wrote: >> I think here >> >>> +const char * >>> +logicalmsg_identify(uint8 info) >>> +{ >>> +if (info & ~XLR_INFO_MASK == XLOG_LOGICAL_MESSAGE) >>> +return "MESSAGE"; >>> + >>> +return NULL; >>> +} >> >> we sh

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 3/16/16 9:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:38 PM, David Steele wrote: > >> 1) I see that rolvaliduntil is still in pg_authid: >> I think that's OK if we now define it to be "role validity" (it's still >> password validity

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On 3/10/16 7:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 9 March 2016 at 23:11, David Steele mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: There hasn't been any movement on this patch in a while. Will you have a new tests ready for review soon? I see the value in this feature, but the patch itself

[HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/10/16 1:24 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: New patch for Alvaro's consideration. Very minor changes since the last time, the explanations below are literally longer than the changes: - Rebased, though I don't think any of the files had changed in the mean time - Removed in

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/17/16 1:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function >> as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without >> time zone). The point here would be only to move the behavior fo

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Request - repeat value of \pset title during \watch interations

On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am I missing something, should this have been closed? -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: SET ROLE hook

On 3/6/16 1:17 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2016-03-05 21:49 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway >: > > I still don't see any point in trying to pass data back from the hooks > as the extension can maintain that state just fine, although it looks > like it would be pretty t

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb array-style subscription

Hi Dmitry, On 3/3/16 5:31 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >> If the patch were proposing a similar amount of new infrastructure to >> support some datatype-extensible concept of subscripting, I'd be much >> happier about it. > > Well, actually, I agree with that. I can try to rework the patch to > achie

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Corey Huinker <mailto:corey.huin...@gmail.com>>wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:00 AM, David Steele <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > > On 3/

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups

Hi Magnus, On 3/2/16 12:49 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: > I've finally found some time to take a look to the patch. > > It applies with some fuzziness on master, but the result looks correct. > Unfortunately the OID of the new pg_stop_backup function conflicts with > "pg_blocking_pids()" patch (5

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Request - repeat value of \pset title during \watch interations

On 3/17/16 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele writes: >> On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: >>> Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done > >> Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am >> I miss

[HACKERS] Re: [PATH] Jsonb, insert a new value into an array at arbitrary position

Hi Dmitry, On 3/7/16 8:50 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 2016-02-29 17:19+00, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! The first pass of a review is below. It's be over a week since Vitaly posted this review. Please respond and/or provide a new patch as soon as you can. Thanks,

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 3/14/16 9:57 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > New version of the patch implements pg_dump well. > Documentation related to constraints is updated. > > I hope, that patch is in a good shape now. It looks like this patch should be marked "needs review" and I have done so. -- -David da...@pg

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/17/16 4:49 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele wrote: > >> >> I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have >> marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro. > >

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

On 3/11/16 1:46 PM, David Steele wrote: Hi Filip, On 2/20/16 8:00 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Catalin Iacob mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if the NOTIFY statement syntax were > no

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl promote wait

Hi Peter, On 3/9/16 3:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Here are some comments about 0002 <...> > I think that we had better do something like the attached first. > Thoughts? It's been a week since Michael reviewed this patch. Could you please comment on his proposed changes as soon as possible?

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 1/26/16 3:39 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote: Agree, I had the same idea in my mind when was writing that script. I will migrate it to TAP suite and write a review for Michael Paquier's patch. Stas Kelvich Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company On 26 Jan 201

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)

On 3/16/16 7:59 AM, Stas Kelvich wrote: > On 12 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something >>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

On 3/12/16 1:24 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: Great, thank you very much. I hope so this feature really useful. It allow to simple export/import XML doc in different encodings, JSONs and can be enhanced future via options. The nice feature (but not for this release) can be additional cast info for i

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/17/16 11:55 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, David Steele <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>>wrote: > >> Not sure I agree. My point was that even if developers were pretty >> careful with their casting (or are using two actual d

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

We are now nearly two thirds of the way through the 2016-03 Commitfest. There are still some patches left that need review but have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?status=1&reviewer=-2) and this hasn't changed much since last week. Needs review: 55 (was 56 last week) Needs *r

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

On 3/4/16 11:09 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > But first here is updated patch for sequence access methods. I went with > the previously discussed custom type as this gives us proper control > over the width of the state and making sure that it's not gonna be > toastable, etc and we need this as sequen

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

On 3/18/16 11:25 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: The COPY RAW patch seems to have two entries in the commitfest. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/223/ and https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/547/ Are those about the same patch? Indeed they are - good catch! I've responded on the thread and c

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

On 3/9/16 3:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched. As far as I can see this patch should be marked "ready for review" so now it is. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi Michael, On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review? Meanwhile I am >>> marki

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6

On 2/29/16 10:33 AM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > Conclusion > -- > > This patch is large and it needs more research. I will be reviewing it > and will give another notes later. This thread has not had a response from the authors or new patch in more than two weeks. Please post something soon

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb array-style subscription

On 3/20/16 2:29 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > Do you have an updated patch ready? No, I'm afraid it will not be ready for Monday. I have marked this "returned with feedback". Please feel free to submit a reworked patch for 9.7! -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups

Hi Magnus, On 3/19/16 8:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I've attached an updated patch, which is rebased on current master and > includes the oid fix. Before doing a thorough review of this patch there are a few points I would like to consider: * I think it's really important to provide the sto

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups

On 3/22/16 12:14 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:08 PM, David Steele <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > > On 3/19/16 8:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > I've attached an updated patch, which is rebased on current master

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 3/15/16 3:42 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Ah, I see the nuance. Thanks for the explanation. Maybe, >> bt_index_check() and bt_index_parent_child_check() / >> bt_index_check_parent_child(). IMHO, the latter more clearly highlights >>

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On 3/15/16 10:01 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Ok, I understand that this is not an issue in a hurry. I'll go to > another patch that needs review. Since we're getting towards the end of the CF is it time to pick this up again? Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl promote wait

On 3/16/16 12:19 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 3/9/16 3:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Here are some comments about 0002 > <...> >> I think that we had better do something like the attached first. >> Thoughts? > > It's been a

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

Hi Kyotaro, On 3/18/16 3:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am looking this patch. It looks well, but this feature doesn't > respect upper or lower chars. It enforce upper chars. This is not > consistent with any other autocomplete. > > > I checked it against sql help and these stateme

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On 3/22/16 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:38 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/15/16 10:01 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, I understand that this is not an

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v8] GSSAPI encryption support

On 3/20/16 12:09 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Hello friends, > > A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in > this email and on my github: > https://github.com/frozencemetery/postgres/tree/feature/gssencrypt8 Excellent, Robbie! I've run this patch through my test cases a

Re: [HACKERS] POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

Hi Teador, On 3/19/16 8:44 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Sadly the v4 does not work for me - I do get assertion failures. Time is growing short and there seem to be some serious concerns with this patch. Can you provide a new patch soon? If not, I think it might be be time to mark this "returne

Re: [HACKERS] unexpected result from to_tsvector

Hi Artur, On 3/20/16 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: "Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: On Mar 20, 2016 01:09, "Dmitrii Golub" wrote: Alex, actually subdomain can start with digit, Not according to the RFC you have linked to. The powers-that-be relaxed that some time ago; I assume there's a newer R

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6

Hi Dmitry, On 3/16/16 12:38 PM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: I've made an attempt to fix some of the issues you've listed, although there's still much work to be done. I'll add some comments later. Do you know when you'll have a chance to respond to reviews and provide a new patch? Time is short a

[HACKERS] Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations

Hi Thomas, On 3/13/16 8:20 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: <...> I will have another look at this in a few days but for now I need to do some other things, so I'm posting these observations in case they are in some way helpful... It's not clear to me what state this patch should be in but the thread

Re: [HACKERS] Batch update of indexes

On 3/14/16 10:37 AM, David Steele wrote: On 3/14/16 10:28 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Rebased patch is attached. Thanks for the quick turnaround! Marko, you are signed up to review this patch. Do you have an idea of when you'll be able to do that? Bump. Since it looks like Mark

Re: [HACKERS] Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

Hi Vladimir, On 3/14/16 2:15 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote: JFYI, I’m preparing the stand to reproduce the initial problem and I hope to finish testing this week. Do you know when you'll have the results from the testing you were going to do? It seems this patch is currently waiting on that to

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >