On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:53 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:40 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > BTW a vacuum automatically enters failsafe mode under the situation
> > where the user has to run a vacuum in the single-user mode, right?
>
> Only for the table that had the
On 20.12.2021 at 16:09, Robert Haas wrote:
As a data point, this is something I have also wanted to do, from time
to time. I am generally of the opinion that any place the
documentation has a long list of things, which should add ids, so that
people can link to the particular thing in the list
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:53 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 6:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:11 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PSA the v47* patch set.
> > Thanks for the
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:17 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:58 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> >In pgoutput_row_filter_update(), first, we are deforming the tuple in
> >local datum, then modifying the tuple, and then reforming the tuple.
> >I think we can surely do better
On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:03 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> To: Amit Kapila ; Euler Taveira
> Cc: Dilip Kumar ; Peter Smith ;
> Greg Nancarrow ; Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰
> ; vignesh C ; Ajin Cherian
> ; Rahila Syed ; Peter Eisentraut
> ; Önder Kalacı ;
> japin ; Michael Paquier ; David
>
On Monday, December 20, 2021 4:47 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 11:24 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 2:29 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:04 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon,
Hi!
Thanks for new patches.
Yet another crash reproduced on master with v63 patches:
CREATE TABLESPACE ts LOCATION '/tmp/ts';
CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE tbl (num1 bigint);
INSERT INTO tbl (num1) values (1);
CREATE INDEX tbl_idx ON tbl (num1);
REINDEX (TABLESPACE ts) TABLE tbl;
Got error:
CREATE
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, if we go with that then
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:04 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:37 PM Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is this okay?
> >
> > postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1 (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST ( a, a, a );
> > CREATE TABLE
> >
> > postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1_1
I am getting the below error when running the same test-case that Neha
shared in her previous email.
ERROR: 55000: some relations of database "test1" are already in tablespace
"tab1"
HINT: You must move them back to the database's default tablespace before
using this command.
LOCATION: movedb,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Can we fully get rid of vacuum_freeze_table_age?
>
> Does it mean that a vacuum always is an aggressive vacuum?
No. Just somewhat more like one. Still no waiting for cleanup locks,
though. Also, autovacuum is still cancelable (that's
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 6:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:11 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > PSA the v47* patch set.
> Thanks for the comments, I agree with all the comments.
> Attach the V49 patch set,
В Сб, 02/10/2021 в 01:25 +0300, Yura Sokolov пишет:
> Good day.
>
> I found some opportunity in Buffer Manager code in BufferAlloc
> function:
> - When valid buffer is evicted, BufferAlloc acquires two partition
> lwlocks: for partition for evicted block is in and partition for new
> block
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
>
> > BTW, if we go with that then we should set the correct phase
> > for workers as well?
>
> If we have
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 18:41, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
> Which brings up a tangential question, is there value in having something
> that brings in one or more env vars as psql vars directly. I'm thinking
> something like:
>
> \importenv pattern [prefix]
Oof. That gives me the security heebie
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:40 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> BTW a vacuum automatically enters failsafe mode under the situation
> where the user has to run a vacuum in the single-user mode, right?
Only for the table that had the problem. Maybe there are no other
tables that a database level
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:46 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-12-20 17:17:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:41 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > I like the idea of having a built-in function that does the bare
> > > minimum to resolve wraparound emergencies,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. What is the reason for not moving
> > > > > lazy_vacuum_one_index/lazy_cleanup_one_index to
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > My emphasis here has been on making non-aggressive VACUUMs *always*
> > > advance relfrozenxid, outside of certain obvious edge cases. And so
> > > with all the patches
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:28 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 12:10 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> Attach the V49 patch set, which addressed all the above comments on the 0002
> patch.
>
> I've been testing the latest versions of this patch set. I'm attaching a new
>
Hello, hackers.
I have the same question.
Hope to reply, thanks.
-Original Message-
From: liuhuail...@fujitsu.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 4:55 PM
To: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
Subject: Question about HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED
Hi
I did the following steps on PG.
1. Building a
Hi,
On 2021-12-20 17:17:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:41 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > I like the idea of having a built-in function that does the bare
> > minimum to resolve wraparound emergencies, and I think providing some
> > sort of simple progress indicator
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 08:21:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:21:13AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> + log_opts.basedir = "pg_upgrade_log.d";
> we could choose something simpler for the default, like
> "pg_upgrade_log". I don't have a good history in
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2. What is the reason for not moving
> > > > lazy_vacuum_one_index/lazy_cleanup_one_index to vacuum.c so that they
> > > > can be called from vacuumlazy.c and
On 12/21/21 02:01, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
OK, I did a quick test with two very simple benchmarks - simple select
from a sequence, and 'pgbench -N' on scale 1. Benchmark was on current
master, patched means SEQ_LOG_VALS was set to 1.
But ... pgbench -N doesn't use sequences at
>
>
>
> Good catch, thanks. Patch updated.
>
>
>
Applies clean. Passes check-world.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Removing this is not good:
>
> if (relation->rd_pubactions)
> - {
> pfree(relation->rd_pubactions);
> - relation->rd_pubactions = NULL;
> - }
>
> If the subsequent palloc fails, you've created a
At Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:25:22 +0900, Shinya Kato
wrote in
> On 2021-12-17 01:55, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I'm still not sure why you were thinking that ERROR is more proper
> > here.
>
> Since I get an ERROR when I set the wrong normal GUCs, I thought I
> should also get an ERROR when I set the
On Tue, Dec 20, 2021 at 19:11PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's mostly fine. I have made some adjustments as per the attached.
Thanks for reviewing.
> + The default for non-system tables. Records the old values of the
> columns
> + of the primary key, if any. The default for
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:41 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I like the idea of having a built-in function that does the bare
> minimum to resolve wraparound emergencies, and I think providing some
> sort of simple progress indicator (even if rudimentary) would be very
> useful.
If John doesn't have
At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:05:23 +0900, Shinya Kato
wrote in
> - v6-01-Add-EmitWarningsOnPlaceholders.patch
> We should use EmitWarningsOnPlaceholders when we use
> DefineCustomXXXVariable.
> I don't think there is any room for debate.
Unfortunately, pltcl.c defines variables both in pltcl and
Tomas Vondra writes:
> OK, I did a quick test with two very simple benchmarks - simple select
> from a sequence, and 'pgbench -N' on scale 1. Benchmark was on current
> master, patched means SEQ_LOG_VALS was set to 1.
But ... pgbench -N doesn't use sequences at all, does it?
Probably inserts
Greg Nancarrow writes:
> I've attached a patch which addresses that and replaces a couple of
> memcpy()s with struct assignment, as suggested.
Removing this is not good:
if (relation->rd_pubactions)
- {
pfree(relation->rd_pubactions);
-
On 12/20/21 17:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 12/20/21 15:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
That'd work, but I wonder how significant
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:58 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> I reviewed 0003. It uses TupleTableSlot instead of HeapTuple. I probably
> missed
> the explanation but it requires more changes (logicalrep_write_tuple and 3 new
> entries into RelationSyncEntry). I replaced this patch with a slightly
>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:57:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> What do you think about the attached patch? It forbids the DROP INDEX. We
> might
> add a detail message but I didn't in this patch.
Yeah. I'd agree about doing something like that on HEAD, and that
would help with some of the
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:19:44AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> One thing we should keep in mind is that I'm also working on adding
> server-side compression, initially with gzip, but Jeevan Ladhe has
> posted patches to extend that to LZ4. So however we structure the
> options they should take
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 4:14 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Dec-20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > I don't see why this is better. It just makes the code longer and adds more
> > punctuation and reduces type safety.
>
> Removing one palloc is I think the most important consequence ...
>
Here's a less hasty version of the patch.
regards, tom lane
diff --git a/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c b/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c
index e276264882..5d4700430c 100644
--- a/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c
+++ b/src/backend/nodes/nodeFuncs.c
@@ -2201,6 +2201,26 @@
I don't understand what 0002 patch does relative to the 0001 patch.
Is 0002 to change the error messages from "schema variables" to "session
variables" , in a separate commit to show that the main patch doesn't change
regression results ? Could you add commit messages ?
I mentioned before that
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 3:45 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When reviewing some replica identity related patches, I found that when adding
> primary key using an existing unique index on not null columns, the
> target table's relcache won't be invalidated.
Good catch.
It seems you
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:58 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 12:10 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> Attach the V49 patch set, which addressed all the above comments on the 0002
> patch.
>
> I've been testing the latest versions of this patch set. I'm attaching a new
>
Robert Haas writes:
> OK ... but my point is that dump and restore does work. So whatever
> cases pg_get_expr() doesn't work must be cases that aren't needed for
> that to happen. Otherwise this problem would have been found long ago.
pg_get_expr doesn't (or didn't) depend on
>
> Out of curiosity, could you please tell me the concrete situations
> where you wanted to delete one of two identical records?
>
In my case, there is a table with known duplicates, and we would like to
delete all but the one with the lowest ctid, and then add a unique index to
the table which
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure why you're astonished by that, considering that
> psql has applied pg_get_expr to relpartbound since f0e44751d,
> which was the same commit that put code into ruleutils.c to
> make pg_get_expr work on relpartbounds.
>
> It seems a bit
Robert Haas writes:
> Right. I'm not surprised that relpartbound uses those node types. I
> *am* surprised that pg_get_expr() is expected to be able to handle
> them. IOW, they ARE node trees, consonant with the fact that the
> column type is pg_node_tree, but they're NOT expressions.
I'm not
This view also doesn't show vacuum progress across a partitioned table.
For comparison:
pg_stat_progress_create_index (added in v12) has:
partitions_total
partitions_done
pg_stat_progress_analyze (added in v13) has:
child_tables_total
child_tables_done
pg_stat_progress_cluster should have
Hi,
Attached is v4 of the CI patch.
Changes:
- Move docker image specification out of the patch and generate them together
with the VM images. The main reason for this is that I got worried about all
repositories having to recreate the images - they're large.
- Moved the core dump handling
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:59 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not provide
> progress on which index is being vacuumed making it difficult for a user to
> determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase is making progress.
I notice that your
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:13 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason the regression tests fail if I only patch ruleutils is
> that psql \d on a partitioned table invokes
> ... pg_get_expr(c.relpartbound, c.oid) FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c
> and evidently relpartbound does contain precisely these
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed? IMO it
> is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.
+1.
> This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
> current progress of those operations, but it
Robert Haas writes:
> The commit that added PartitionBoundSpec and PartitionRangeDatum was
> committed by me and authored by Amit Langote. It is the original table
> partitioning commit -- f0e44751d7175fa3394da2c8f85e3ceb3cdbfe63. I'm
> reasonably sure that the reason why those didn't get added
> On Dec 20, 2021, at 7:37 AM, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> The patch is pgindented and rebased on the current PG master code.
Thank you, Pavel.
The tests in check_btree.sql no longer create a bttest_unique table, so the
DROP TABLE is surplusage:
+DROP TABLE bttest_unique;
+ERROR: table
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I figured this would be just a quick hack in ruleutils.c, but was
> dismayed to find the regression tests falling over, because some
> bozo neglected to teach nodeFuncs.c about partition expressions.
> It might be a good idea to back-patch that
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:51 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is a WIP patch doing this.
This has bitrot, so I attach v2, mostly just to keep the CFTester
status green. The only real change is one minor simplification to how
we set everything up, inside heap_vacuum_rel().
--
Peter
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 25 Nov 2021, at 14:39, Joshua Brindle
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:49 AM Joshua Brindle
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:46 AM Joshua Brindle
> >> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know enough about NSS to know if
On 2021-Dec-20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't see why this is better. It just makes the code longer and adds more
> punctuation and reduces type safety.
Removing one palloc is I think the most important consequence ...
probably not a big deal though.
I think we could change the memcpy
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 20.12.21 01:18, Peter Smith wrote:
>> I felt it is more natural to implement boolean flag combinations using
>> a bitmask instead of a struct of bools. IMO using the bitmask also
>> simplifies assignment and checking of said flags.
> I don't see why this is better.
On 12/18/21 18:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 2. Export the values from pg_regress as environment variables,
> and then add a way for the test scripts to read those variables.
> I was a bit surprised to realize that we didn't have any way
> to do that already --- psql has \setenv, so why did we never
>
On 12/20/21 15:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
it hurts
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see anything particularly surprising here. pg_get_expr is only
>> able to cope with expression trees over a single relation, but ON UPDATE
>> rules can refer to both OLD and NEW relations. Maybe we could make the
>
> >> I completely agree that checking uniqueness requires looking at the
> heap, but I don't agree that every caller of bt_index_check on an index
> wants that particular check to be performed. There are multiple ways in
> which an index might be corrupt, and Peter wrote the code to only check
On 2021-Dec-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> -[ RECORD 1
> ]---+---
> Schema | pg_catalog
> Name| pg_copy_logical_replication_slot
> Result data type| record
>
Robert Haas writes:
> It's hard to make any general judgment about how wide people's
> terminal windows are likely to be, but it is my opinion that the root
> of the problem is that \df+ just wants to display a whole lot of stuff
> - and as hackers add more function properties in the future,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:29 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> This is one step toward the introduction of LZ4 in pg_basebackup, but
> this refactoring is worth doing on its own, hence a separate thread to
> deal with this problem first. The options of pg_basebackup are
> reworked to be consistent
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 6:54 PM Brar Piening wrote:
> The purpose is that you can directly link to the id in the public html
> docs which still gets generated (e. g.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/protocol-replication.html#PROTOCOL-REPLICATION-BASE-BACKUP).
>
> Essentially it gives people
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 19.12.21 00:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was a bit surprised to realize that we didn't have any way
>> to do that already --- psql has \setenv, so why did we never
>> invent \getenv?
> You can do
> \set foo `echo $ENVVAR`
> but that's probably not portable enough for
On 12/20/21 09:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18.12.21 21:57, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> When I start psql, strace shows $HOME being honored when looking
>> for .terminfo and .inputrc, and getpwent()->pw_dir being used
>> to look for .pgpass, .psqlrc, and .psql_history, which of course
>> aren't
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:46:13AM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Here is a patch to correct wrong comment about
> > REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX, And improve the pg-doc.
>
> That's mostly fine. I have made some adjustments as per
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
> > I reduced the problematic query to this.
> > SELECT 1 FROM pg_rewrite WHERE
> > pg_get_function_arg_default(ev_class, 1) !~~
> > pg_get_expr(ev_qual, ev_class, false);
>
> Or more simply,
>
> regression=# select
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:08 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> That's a reasonable idea. I wonder if it would work in general. If
> someone had a C function (so no source code) with three arguments, they
> might be annoyed if it now displayed as three lines by default.
The problem I see is that
On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
it hurts the patch adding logical decoding of
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 9:29 AM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> I plan to push v25 early next week, unless there are further comments.
Pushed, thanks everyone!
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 18.12.21 21:57, Chapman Flack wrote:
I sometimes do some testing as nobody, on a distro where
getpwent(nobody)->pw_dir is a directory that nobody can't write.
So I end up setting $HOME to a directory that, um, is writable.
When I start psql, strace shows $HOME being honored when looking
for
On 19.12.21 00:53, Tom Lane wrote:
2. Export the values from pg_regress as environment variables,
and then add a way for the test scripts to read those variables.
I was a bit surprised to realize that we didn't have any way
to do that already --- psql has \setenv, so why did we never
invent
On 20.12.21 01:18, Peter Smith wrote:
For some reason the current HEAD PublicationActions is a struct of
boolean representing combinations of the 4 different "publication
actions".
I felt it is more natural to implement boolean flag combinations using
a bitmask instead of a struct of bools. IMO
On 17.12.21 22:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So I've been thinking about this as a "security" item (you can see my
comments to that effect sprinkled all over this thread), in the sense
that if a publication "hides" some column, then the replica just won't
get access to it. But in reality that's
On 2021-Dec-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In pg_upgrade, we let the flush happen with initdb --sync-only, based
> on the binary path of the new cluster, so I think that we are not
> going to miss any test coverage by skipping that.
There was one patch of mine with breakage that only manifested in
Hi Kyotaro,
> At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:39:27 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:59:29 +, Jakub Wartak
> > wrote in
> > > BTW fast feedback regarding that ALTER patch (there were 4 unlogged
> tables):
> > > # ALTER TABLE ALL IN TABLESPACE tbs1 set logged;
>
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:37 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is this okay?
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1 (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST ( a, a, a );
> CREATE TABLE
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1_1 PARTITION OF t1 FOR VALUES IN ((1, 2, 3), (4, 5,
> 6));
> CREATE TABLE
>
>
Am 12.12.21 um 17:20 schrieb Gunnar "Nick" Bluth:
Hello -hackers!
Please have a look at the attached patch, which implements some
statistics for TOAST.
The attached v0.3 includes
* a proper GUC "track_toast" incl. postgresql.conf.sample line
* gathering timing information
* the system view
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:19 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:00 PM Corey Huinker
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry for the delay. This patch no longer applies, it has some conflict
>> > with
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:33 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Few comments:
> > > =
> > > 1.
> > > + * dead_items stores TIDs whose index tuples are deleted by
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:32 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > The problem was that the tuplestore
> > (afterTriggers.query_stack[query_level].tuplestore) that I decided to
> > use to store the AFTER trigger tuples of a partitioned table that is
> >
On 2021-12-17 15:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 17.12.21 03:25, Shinya Kato wrote:
For now, I'v attached the patch that fixed the compilation error.
I think it would be good if you could split the uncontroversial new
EmitErrorsOnPlaceholders() calls into a separate patch. And please
add an
When reverse-compiling a query, ruleutils.c has some complicated code to
handle the join output columns of a JOIN USING join. There used to be
no way to qualify those columns, and so if there was a naming conflict
anywhere in the query, those output columns had to be renamed to be
unique
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:21:13AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I put this together in the simplest way, prefixing all the filenames with the
> configured path..
Well, why not.
> Another options is to chdir() into the given path. But, pg_upgrade takes (and
> requires) a bunch of other paths,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:46:13AM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Here is a patch to correct wrong comment about
> REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX, And improve the pg-doc.
That's mostly fine. I have made some adjustments as per the
attached.
+ The default for non-system tables. Records
Hello Greg,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:40:45 -0500
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 22:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > * If the sort order is underspecified, or you omit ORDER BY
> > entirely, then it's not clear which rows will be operated on.
> > The LIMIT might stop after just some of the
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments, I agree with all the comments.
> Attach the V49 patch set, which addressed all the above comments on the 0002
> patch.
>
Few comments/suugestions:
==
1.
+ Oid publish_as_relid =
On 15.12.21 14:15, Gilles Darold wrote:
Le 15/12/2021 à 13:41, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
On 03.08.21 19:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Gilles Darold writes:
Sorry I have missed that, but I'm fine with this implemenation so let's
keep the v6 version of the patch and drop this one.
Pushed, then.
Friday, December 17, 2021 2:03 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> It sends stats packets at every commit-like operation on apply workers. The
> current pgstat is so smart that it refrain from sending stats packets at too
> high
> frequency. We already suffer frequent stats packets so apply workers
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:20 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:00 PM Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay. This patch no longer applies, it has some conflict
> with d6f96ed94e73052f99a2e545ed17a8b2fdc1fb8a
>
> Thanks Corey for the heads up. Rebased with some
At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:39:27 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:59:29 +, Jakub Wartak
> wrote in
> > BTW fast feedback regarding that ALTER patch (there were 4 unlogged
> > tables):
> > # ALTER TABLE ALL IN TABLESPACE tbs1 set logged;
> > WARNING:
On Monday, December 20, 2021 11:24 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
>
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 2:29 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:04 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, at 3:35 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:49 AM
Am 20.12.2021 um 04:20 schrieb kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com:
Dear Gunnar,
Hi Kuroda-San!
postgres=# CREATE TABLE test (i int, lz4 text COMPRESSION lz4, std text);
postgres=# INSERT INTO test SELECT
i,repeat(md5(i::text),100),repeat(md5(i::text),100) FROM
generate_series(0,10) x(i);
At Mon, 20 Dec 2021 07:59:29 +, Jakub Wartak
wrote in
> Hi Kyotaro, I'm glad you are still into this
>
> > I didn't register for some reasons.
>
> Right now in v8 there's a typo in ./src/backend/catalog/storage.c :
>
> storage.c: In function 'RelationDropInitFork':
> storage.c:385:44:
97 matches
Mail list logo
