On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 13:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, that root issue is converted from a relatively minor bug into
> > a server crash because snprintf.c treats a NULL pointer passed to %s
> > as a crash-worthy error. I have advocated for that behavior in the
> > past, but I'm starting
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:25 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Hello, hackers
>
>
> When the current HEAD fails during logical decoding, the failure
> increments txns count in pg_stat_replication_slots - [1] and adds
> the transaction size to the sum of bytes in the same repeatedly
> on
>> > I would tend to agree with this behavior, that is not to start any new
>> > transaction or transaction attempt once -T has expired.
>
> That is the behavior in the latest patch. Once -T has expired, any new
> transaction or retry does not start.
Actually v14 has not changed the behavior in
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:01 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 7/12/21 6:46 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 7:19 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > Now, the other idea I had in mind was to traverse the WHERE clause
> > expression in publication_add_relation and identify if it
Thanks for having a look at this.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 11:04, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> 0001 Adds planner support for ORDER BY aggregates.
>
> /* Normal transition function without ORDER BY / DISTINCT. */
> Is it possible to avoid entering to initialize args if 'argno >=
>
út 13. 7. 2021 v 2:01 odesílatel Thomas Munro
napsal:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 8:20 AM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > po 12. 7. 2021 v 18:12 odesílatel vignesh C
> napsal:
> >> Thanks for fixing the comments, CFbot also passes for the same. I have
> >> changed the status back to "Ready for
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:00:49 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >>> Or, we should terminate the last cycle of benchmark regardless it is
> >>> retrying or not if -T expires. This will make pgbench behaves much
> >>> more consistent.
> >
> > I would tend to agree with this behavior, that is not
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have noticed that
> >> a nearby function LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot() logs similar
> >> information
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 07:46:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Autoconf's AC_CHECK_DECLS always defines HAVE_DECL_whatever
>> as 1 or 0, but some of the entries in msvc/Solution.pm show
>> such symbols as "undef" instead. Shouldn't we fix it as
>> per attached? This is
On 13.07.21 01:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Autoconf's AC_CHECK_DECLS always defines HAVE_DECL_whatever
as 1 or 0, but some of the entries in msvc/Solution.pm show
such symbols as "undef" instead. Shouldn't we fix it as
per attached? This is probably only cosmetic at the moment,
but it could bite us
Hi Sawada-san,
Thank you for your reply.
> Not sure but it might be possible to keep holding an xlogreader for
> reading PREPARE WAL records even after the transaction commit. But I
> wonder how much open() for wal segment file accounts for the total
> execution time of 2PC. 2PC requires 2
>>> Or, we should terminate the last cycle of benchmark regardless it is
>>> retrying or not if -T expires. This will make pgbench behaves much
>>> more consistent.
>
> I would tend to agree with this behavior, that is not to start any new
> transaction or transaction attempt once -T has expired.
Thanks a lot Tom.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 2:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > [ v5_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch ]
>
> Pushed with minor cosmetic adjustments.
>
> RelationCopyStorage() kind of gives me the willies.
> It's not really an smgr-level function, but we call
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:39 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021, at 4:29 AM, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I have been looking at the latest patch set (v16). Below are my review
> comments and some patches.
>
> Peter, thanks for your detailed review. Comments are inline.
>
Hi
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 01:59, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> > 3. This seems to be a bug fix where byval datum sorts do not properly
> > handle bounded sorts. I think that maybe that should be fixed and
> > backpatched. I don't see anything that says Datum sorts can't be
> > bounded and if there were
Hello,
During reading the documentation of libpq [1] , I found the following
description:
In the nonblocking state, calls to PQsendQuery, PQputline, PQputnbytes,
PQputCopyData, and PQendcopy will not block but instead return an error
if they need to be called again.
[1]
On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 23:10 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> In my experience SIGTERM coped fine so far.
OK. I don't think ignoring SIGTERM in the way my patch does it is a
great solution, and it's not getting much support, so I think I'll back
away from that idea.
I had a separate discussion with
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 06:50, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Your version looks better to me than the original version, but I'm still
> -0.05 on changing this at all.
I was more +0.4. It does not seem worth the trouble of too much
discussion so, just to try and bring this to a close, instead of
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 07:46:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Autoconf's AC_CHECK_DECLS always defines HAVE_DECL_whatever
> as 1 or 0, but some of the entries in msvc/Solution.pm show
> such symbols as "undef" instead. Shouldn't we fix it as
> per attached? This is probably only cosmetic at the
Hi,
On 2021-07-13 13:25:50 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:29 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > For comparison, here is my sketch of idea #1. I pick an arbitrary
> > value to use as PG_O_DIRECT (I don't want to define O_DIRECT for fear
> > of breaking other code that might see
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:46:29PM +, gkokola...@pm.me wrote:
> On Monday, July 12th, 2021 at 17:07, wrote:
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Are you using outlook? The format of your messages gets blurry on the
PG website, so does it for me.
>> I am admittedly not so well versed on
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 04:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > It looks like this has likely never come up before because the only
> > time we use tuplesort_set_bound() is in nodeSort.c and
> > nodeIncrementalSort.c, none of those currently use datum sorts.
> > However, I'm thinking
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:29 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> For comparison, here is my sketch of idea #1. I pick an arbitrary
> value to use as PG_O_DIRECT (I don't want to define O_DIRECT for fear
> of breaking other code that might see it and try to pass it into
> open()... for all I know, it might
(This is out of topic)
At Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:17:55 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in
> Oh, apologies, I didn't realize there was an attachment. That seems
> specific enough :-)
>
> In my defense, the archives don't show the attachment either:
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:14 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jul 2021, at 15:00, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > I think we can improve it by changing to
> > 'refresh_option'. Thoughts?
>
> My first thought was that the existing wording is clearer, referring to
> “options to refresh”.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:01:46AM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Ah, right. I think the (!done && !success) case is probably indicative
> of an API smell, but that's probably something to clean up in a future
> pass.
Yeah, agreed. I feel that it would should be cleaner to replace those
two
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 04:50:28PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:29:07 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>> Er, wait. We've actually allowed negative values for pg_ctl
>> --timeout or the subcommand kill!?
>
> --timeout accepts values less than 1, which values cause
On 2021-Jul-12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-12, ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com wrote:
>
> > While I’m reading source codes related to vacuum, I found comments which
> > don’t seem to fit the reality. I think the commit[1] just forgot to fix
> > them.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > [1]
> >
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 8:20 AM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> po 12. 7. 2021 v 18:12 odesílatel vignesh C napsal:
>> Thanks for fixing the comments, CFbot also passes for the same. I have
>> changed the status back to "Ready for Committer".
>
> I tested this version with the last release and with a
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 01:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 03:22, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> |This is useful if only a small percentage of rows is checked on
> >> |the inner side and is controlled by >> |
On Sun, 2021-07-11 at 13:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 11:31:48PM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 16:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > + * outputlen: The length (0 or higher) of the client response
> > > buffer,
> > > + *
Autoconf's AC_CHECK_DECLS always defines HAVE_DECL_whatever
as 1 or 0, but some of the entries in msvc/Solution.pm show
such symbols as "undef" instead. Shouldn't we fix it as
per attached? This is probably only cosmetic at the moment,
but it could bite us someday if someone wrote a complex
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> [1] your proposal of "[+-] OBJTYPE OBJIDENT" plus empty lines allowed
> plus lines starting with # are comments, seems plenty. Any line not
> following that format would cause an error to be thrown.
I'd like to see some kind of keyword on each line, so that we
Em seg., 12 de jul. de 2021 às 09:04, David Rowley
escreveu:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 03:07, David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached my WIP patch. It's WIP due to what I mentioned
> > in the above paragraph and also because I've not bothered to add JIT
> > support for the new
po 12. 7. 2021 v 23:15 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
>
>
>
> On 7/12/21 11:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Jul-12, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >
> >>> 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
> >>> separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
>
On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm not sure how to verify no external code depends on that flag. I have
> no idea if there's a plausible use case for it, though.
But we don't *have* to, do we?
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Tiene valor
On 2021-Jul-13, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm not going to fight against some sort of versioning, but I think keeping
> the scope as narrow as possible would make it unnecessary. That is, let's
> stick to the original goal to allow passing filtering rules that would not
> fit on the command-line, and
On 7/13/21 12:08 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 10 Jul 2021, at 17:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
So if it was up to me, I'd go back to the original format or something close
it. So something like this:
[+-] OBJECT_TYPE_PATTERN OBJECT_NAME_PATTERN
That still leaves the parsing with quoting and
> On 10 Jul 2021, at 17:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> So if it was up to me, I'd go back to the original format or something close
> it. So something like this:
>
> [+-] OBJECT_TYPE_PATTERN OBJECT_NAME_PATTERN
That still leaves the parsing with quoting and escaping that needs to be done
less
Thomas Munro writes:
> Clearly there is a more general question though, which is "should we
> buy into Apple's ABI management system or not", and I don't have a
> strong opinion on that.
Well, I definitely don't wish to clutter our core code with any
explicit dependencies on
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I've always had a hard time distinguishing various types of
> processes/terms used in postgres. I look at the source code every time
> to understand them, yet I don't feel satisfied with my understanding.
> I request
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:43 AM Peifeng Qiu wrote:
> > >As you note, this'd have to be restricted to superusers, which makes it
> > >seem like a pretty bad idea. We really don't want to be in a situation
> > >of pushing people to run
On 7/12/21 11:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-12, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
>>> 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
>>> separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
>>> NULL (with amhotblocking=false) or equal to indexattrs. So why not
Amul Sul writes:
> [ v5_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch ]
Pushed with minor cosmetic adjustments.
RelationCopyStorage() kind of gives me the willies.
It's not really an smgr-level function, but we call it
everywhere with smgr pointers that belong to relcache entries:
/* copy
On 2021-Jul-12, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
> > separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
> > NULL (with amhotblocking=false) or equal to indexattrs. So why not to
> > just get rid of hotblockingattr and
On 7/12/21 10:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> Well, one of us is confused and it might be me ;-)
>
> :-)
>
>> The point is that BRIN is the only index type with amhotblocking=false,
>> so it would return NULL (and thus it does not block HOT). All other
>>
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 13:14, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While I’m reading source codes related to vacuum, I found comments which
> don’t seem to fit the reality. I think the commit[1] just forgot to fix
them.
> What do you think?
Hmm, yes, those are indeed some leftovers.
Some comments on the
On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Well, one of us is confused and it might be me ;-)
:-)
> The point is that BRIN is the only index type with amhotblocking=false,
> so it would return NULL (and thus it does not block HOT). All other
> indexes AMs have amblocking=true and so should return
On 7/12/21 10:45 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> po 12. 7. 2021 v 22:31 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
> napsal:
>>
>> On 6/30/21 1:43 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>>> st 30. 6. 2021 v 1:20 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
>>> napsal:
On 6/30/21 12:53 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> st 30. 6. 2021
po 12. 7. 2021 v 22:31 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
>
> On 6/30/21 1:43 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > st 30. 6. 2021 v 1:20 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
> > napsal:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/30/21 12:53 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >>> st 30. 6. 2021 v 0:31 odesílatel Josef Šimánek
> >>> napsal:
>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:39 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 06.07.21 22:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 2. We'd really like to use preadv/pwritev where available.
>
> A couple of things that I haven't seen made clear in this thread yet:
>
> - Where is the availability boundary for preadv/pwritev on
On 7/12/21 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
>> separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
>> NULL (with amhotblocking=false) or equal to indexattrs. So why not to
On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
> separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
> NULL (with amhotblocking=false) or equal to indexattrs. So why not to
> just get rid of hotblockingattr and
On 2021-Jul-12, ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com wrote:
> While I’m reading source codes related to vacuum, I found comments which
> don’t seem to fit the reality. I think the commit[1] just forgot to fix them.
> What do you think?
>
> [1]
>
On 6/30/21 1:43 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> st 30. 6. 2021 v 1:20 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
> napsal:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/30/21 12:53 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>>> st 30. 6. 2021 v 0:31 odesílatel Josef Šimánek
>>> napsal:
Hello!
Tomáš Vondra has shared a few ideas to improve BRIN
po 12. 7. 2021 v 18:12 odesílatel vignesh C napsal:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:29 AM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 5:45 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > > > looks so with your patch psql doesn't work on ms
> >
> >
On 22.04.21 11:23, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
The statistics gathered by the module are made available via a
view named pg_stat_statements. This view
- contains one row for each distinct database ID, user ID and query
- ID (up to the maximum number of distinct statements that the
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> While looking at the other logrep patch [1] (column filtering) I noticed
> Alvaro's comment regarding a new parsenode (PublicationTable) not having
> read/out/equal/copy funcs. I'd bet the same thing applies here, so
> perhaps see if the
I wrote:
> I don't think the new structuring will pose any challenges for rebasing
0002, either. This might need some experimentation, though:
>
> + * Subroutine of pg_utf8_verifystr() to check on char. Returns the
length of the
> + * character at *s in bytes, or 0 on invalid input or premature
On 06.07.21 22:34, Tom Lane wrote:
2. We'd really like to use preadv/pwritev where available.
A couple of things that I haven't seen made clear in this thread yet:
- Where is the availability boundary for preadv/pwritev on macOS?
- What is the impact of having vs. not having these functions?
On 2021-Jun-23, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> For a multi-level partition, for example: table 'A' is partition of table
> 'B', and 'B' is also partition of table 'C'. After I 'ALTER TABLE C DETACH B',
> I thought partition constraint check of table 'C' does not matter anymore if
> INSERT INTO
On 12.07.21 10:44, David Rowley wrote:
What I was trying to get to here was something that was more
reasonable that might make sense to commit. I'm just not certain
where Peter stands on this now that the latest patch is a net zero
when it comes to adding lines. Peter?
Your version looks
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:34:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> I like debug_discard_caches best.
>> I can live with that. Anyone strongly against it?
> I like it.
Hearing no votes against, here's a proposed patch for that.
(This is for HEAD; I
[ moved from -bugs list for more visibility ]
I wrote:
> However, that root issue is converted from a relatively minor bug into
> a server crash because snprintf.c treats a NULL pointer passed to %s
> as a crash-worthy error. I have advocated for that behavior in the
> past, but I'm starting to
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, July 12th, 2021 at 17:07, wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Monday, July 12th, 2021 at 13:04, Michael Paquier mich...@paquier.xyz
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 09:42:32AM +, gkokola...@pm.me wrote:
> >
> > > This to my
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:20 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> +
> + Avoid Using non-negative Word in Error
> Messages
> +
> +
> +Do not use non-negative word in error messages as it looks
> +ambiguous. Instead, use foo must be an integer value greater than
> zero
> +or foo must be an
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 3:23 PM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 18:09, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > I'm planning to handle conflicting errors separately after this
> > current work is done, once the patch is changed to have just the valid
> > scenarios(removing the scenarios you have
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:42 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> I'm only just starting to page this back into my head, so this is by no
> means a full review of the v7 changes -- just stuff I've noticed over
> the last day or so of poking around.
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 11:48 +0200,
Em seg., 12 de jul. de 2021 às 05:20, Heikki Linnakangas
escreveu:
> On 12/07/2021 02:34, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > If it is not possible, know the upper limits, before the loop.
> > It is necessary to do this inside the loop.
>
> > @@ -49,10 +47,14 @@ _bt_restore_page(Page page, char *from, int
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:29 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 5:45 PM Pavel Stehule
> > wrote:
> > > looks so with your patch psql doesn't work on ms
>
> Here's a fix for Windows. The pqsignal() calls are #ifdef'd out. I
David Rowley writes:
> It looks like this has likely never come up before because the only
> time we use tuplesort_set_bound() is in nodeSort.c and
> nodeIncrementalSort.c, none of those currently use datum sorts.
> However, I'm thinking this is still a bug that should be fixed
> separately from
Hi,
As suggested in [1], starting a new thread for discussing $subject
separately. {pre, post}_auth_delay waiting logic currently uses
pg_usleep which can't detect postmaster death. So, there are chances
that some of the backends still stay in the system even when a
postmaster crashes (for
On 2021/07/09 11:41, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
PSA v6 patch.
Thanks for updating the patch!
+
+ Avoid Using non-negative Word in Error
Messages
+
+
+Do not use non-negative word in error messages as it looks
+ambiguous. Instead, use foo must be an integer value greater than
Greetings.
Thanks for the project. I see the code in github has not been updated for
a long time, is it still in active development?
Thanks
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan (https://www.aliyun.com/)
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, July 12th, 2021 at 13:04, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 09:42:32AM +, gkokola...@pm.me wrote:
>
> > This to my understanding means that gzip is expected to exist.
> >
> > If this is correct, then simply checking for the
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, July 12th, 2021 at 13:00, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 12/07/2021 à 12:27, gkokola...@pm.me a écrit :
>
> > > > > Shouldn't this be coded as a loop going through @gzip_wals?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hope that there is only one gz file created.
On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> FWIW "make check" fails for me with this version, due to segfault in
> OpenTableLists. Apparenly there's some confusion - the code expects the
> list to contain PublicationTable nodes, and tries to extract the
> RangeVar from the elements. But the list
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:28, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 00:14, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay. I think that covers the basics of what I was
> > missing in these docs, and although it does not cover the recursive
> > 'if the check is implied by
Le lundi 12 juillet 2021, 15:11:17 CEST David Rowley a écrit :
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> > In the meantime I fixed some formatting issues, please find attached a new
> > patch.
>
> I started to look at this.
Thank you ! I'm attaching a new version of the patch taking
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 03:22, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> |This is useful if only a small percentage of rows is checked on
>> |the inner side and is controlled by > |linkend="guc-enable-resultcache"/>.
> You might be right there, but I'm not too sure
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 00:14, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I think that covers the basics of what I was
> missing in these docs, and although it does not cover the recursive
> 'if the check is implied by constraints don't lock this partition',
> I'd say that your suggested
Over on [1], Ronan is working on allowing Datum sorts for nodeSort.c
when we're just sorting a single Datum.
I was looking at his v4 patch and noticed that he'd modified
free_sort_tuple() to conditionally only free the sort tuple if it's
non-NULL. Without this change, the select.sql regression
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> In the meantime I fixed some formatting issues, please find attached a new
> patch.
I started to look at this.
First I wondered how often we might be able to apply this
optimisation, so I ran make check after adding some elog(NOTICE) calls
to
On 7/12/21 1:10 PM, Egor Rogov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the review and corrections.
>
> On 11.07.2021 21:54, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This should have been added with [1].
>>
>> Excerpt from the documentation:
>> "pg_stats is also designed to present the information in a
On 7/12/21 11:38 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> Thank you for comments.
>
> The patch adds a function get_att_num_by_name; but we have a lsyscache.c
> function for that purpose, get_attnum. Maybe that one should be used
> instead?
>
> Thank you for pointing that out, I
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I have noticed that
>> a nearby function LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot() logs similar
>> information after releasing spinlock, so it is better to follow the
>> same here as
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:50 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> At first glance, this looked to me like breaking something just for
> sake of breaking it, but removing the rel argument could be helpful
> to simplify any external code calling it as there would be no need for
> this extra Relation. So
On 7/12/21 10:32 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Hi, I was wondering if/when a subset of cols is specified then does
> that mean it will be possible for the table to be replicated to a
> *smaller* table at the subscriber side?
>
> e.g Can a table with 7 cols replicated
On 7/8/21 9:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Here at last is a new version.
Please refer this scenario ,where backup target using
--server-compression is closing the server
unexpectedly if we don't provide -no-manifest option
[tushar@localhost bin]$ ./pg_basebackup --server-compression=gzip4 -t
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 16:58 +0530, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> > While looking into one of the pg_upgrade issue, I found it
> > challenging to find out the database that has the datallowconn set to
> > 'false' that was throwing following
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > On 09/04/2021 07:01, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> This seems to work on Linux, macOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD (and I assume
> >> any other BSD). Can anyone tell me if it works on illumos, AIX or
> >> HPUX, and if not, how
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 14:06, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 01:01, David Rowley wrote:
> > I've spent a bit of time hacking at this and I've come up with the
> > attached patch.
>
> Matthias, any thoughts on my revised version of the patch?
Sorry for the delay. I think that
+1 for the change. Patch looks good to me.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:59 PM Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> While looking into one of the pg_upgrade issue, I found it
>
> challenging to find out the database that has the datallowconn set to
>
> 'false' that was throwing following error:
>
>
> *"All
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 01:01, David Rowley wrote:
> I've spent a bit of time hacking at this and I've come up with the
> attached patch.
Matthias, any thoughts on my revised version of the patch?
David
On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 16:58 +0530, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> While looking into one of the pg_upgrade issue, I found it
> challenging to find out the database that has the datallowconn set to
> 'false' that was throwing following error:
>
> "All non-template0 databases must allow connections, i.e.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 03:07, David Rowley wrote:
>
> Please find attached my WIP patch. It's WIP due to what I mentioned
> in the above paragraph and also because I've not bothered to add JIT
> support for the new expression evaluation steps.
I've split this patch into two parts.
0001 Adds
Hackers,
The Commitfest 2021-07 is now in progress. It is one of the biggest one.
Total number of patches of this commitfest is 342.
Needs review: 204.
Waiting on Author: 40.
Ready for Committer: 18.
Committed: 57.
Moved to next CF: 3.
Withdrawn: 15.
Rejected: 3.
Returned with Feedback: 2.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It's there in CF. I am fine with PG-15. It will be good to patch the
> back-branches to have this extra
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:13 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 1:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:37 AM Alexey Lesovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:36 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok, looks nice. But I am
While looking at the other logrep patch [1] (column filtering) I noticed
Alvaro's comment regarding a new parsenode (PublicationTable) not having
read/out/equal/copy funcs. I'd bet the same thing applies here, so
perhaps see if the patch needs the same fix.
[1]
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
