On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned in [1], there is no regression tests for the SQL control
> functions: pg_control_checkpoint, pg_control_recovery,
> pg_control_system and pg_control_init.
>
> It would be minimal to check their execution, as of a
Hi
út 18. 10. 2022 v 11:33 odesílatel Julien Rouhaud
napsal:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 11:46:34AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2022-10-07 07:26:08 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > I am sending version with handy written parser and meson support
> >
> > Given this is a new
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:19:48AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> That wouldn't be overdoing anymore if we remove the line number / filename
> from
> the fill_*_line prototypes right?
Yeah, but there is a twist: HbaLine or IdentLine can be passed as
NULL when entering in fill_hba_line() or
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:03 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In standby mode, the state machine in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable()
> > reads WAL from pg_wal after failing to read from the archive. This is
> > currently
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 08:59:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hmm. I would be tempted to keep track of the file name and the line
> number as well in IdentLine. One reason is that this can become
> useful for debugging. A second is that this can reduce a bit the
> arguments of
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 03:03, Vik Fearing wrote:
> Shouldn't it be able to detect that these two windows are the same and
> only do one WindowAgg pass?
>
>
> explain (verbose, costs off)
> select row_number() over w1,
> lag(amname) over w2
> from pg_am
> window w1 as (order by amname),
>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 09:37:08AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Okay, so if we follow this argument, then the logical conclusion is that
> this *should* be backpatched, after all.
After sleeping on it and looking at all the stable branches involved,
backpatched down to v10.
--
Michael
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 4:28 AM Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-10-18 at 22:06 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Will do first thing tomorrow.
>
> Just wanted to confirm that I pushed Fedora RPMs built against LLVM 15
> by adding these patches.
>
> Thanks Thomas.
Cool.
FTR I still have to
On 2022-Oct-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-25, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
>
> > Or if you know the frequencies of the highly frequent values of the
> > partitioning key at the time the partition bounds are defined, you
> > could define hash ranges that contain approximately the same number of
On 2022-Oct-25, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
> Or if you know the frequencies of the highly frequent values of the
> partitioning key at the time the partition bounds are defined, you
> could define hash ranges that contain approximately the same number of
> rows in each partition. A parallel sequential
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 8:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-08-08 08:37:41 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > Agreed. This probably bleeds over into the other documentation thread
> > a bit -- how do we want to communicate the subtle points to people in
> > a CF?
>
> We should write a docs patch
> Hi Hackers,
>
> I noticed that psql has no tab completion around identity columns in
> ALTER TABLE, so here's some patches for that.
>
> In passing, I also added completion for ALTER SEQUECNE … START, which was
> missing for some reason.
>
> - ilmari
Hi ilmari
I've tested all 4 of your
While fooling with my longstanding outer-join variables changes
(I am making progress on that, honest), I happened to notice that
equivclass.c is leaving some money on the table by generating
redundant RestrictInfo clauses. It already attempts to not generate
the same clause twice, which can save
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:26 AM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I don't find too much difficulty in having one option's default depend
> on another's value, as long as it's documented.
My patch is definitely missing the documentation for that part right
now; I wanted to get feedback on the approach
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:01 AM wrote:
> Yeah I agree that not forcing verify-full when using system CAs is a
> giant foot-gun, and many will stop configuring just until it works.
>
> Is there any argument for not checking hostname when using a CA pool
> for which literally anyone can create a
+#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
+ sanity_check_GUC_C_var(hentry->gucvar);
+#endif
=> You can conditionally define that as an empty function so #ifdefs
aren't needed in the caller:
void sanity_check_GUC_C_var()
{
#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
...
#endif
}
+ /* Skip checking
On 25/10/2022 18:09, Japin Li wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 22:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 25/10/2022 12:02, Japin Li wrote:
However, the code marks the main transaction and subtransactions directly
to the committed.
Hmm, yeah, step 2 in this example doesn't match reality. We actually
On Tue, 2022-10-25 at 14:51 -0400, Reid Thompson wrote:
> patch rebased to current master
>
actually attach the patch
--
Reid Thompson
Senior Software Engineer
Crunchy Data, Inc.
reid.thomp...@crunchydata.com
www.crunchydata.com
From ab654a48ec7bfbc3bc377c5757a04f1756e72e79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
patch rebased to current master
--
Reid Thompson
Senior Software Engineer
Crunchy Data, Inc.
reid.thomp...@crunchydata.com
www.crunchydata.com
Or if you know the frequencies of the highly frequent values of the
partitioning key at the time the partition bounds are defined, you could define
hash ranges that contain approximately the same number of rows in each
partition. A parallel sequential scan of all partitions would then perform
Hi Arne,
On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 15:27 +, Arne Roland wrote:
> Hello Reid,
>
> could you rebase the patch again? It doesn't apply currently
> (http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_40_3867.log). Thanks!
rebased patches attached.
> You mention, that you want to prevent the compiler from getting
>
Hi,
On Tue, 2022-10-18 at 22:06 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Will do first thing tomorrow.
Just wanted to confirm that I pushed Fedora RPMs built against LLVM 15
by adding these patches.
Thanks Thomas.
Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 22:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25/10/2022 12:02, Japin Li wrote:
>> However, the code marks the main transaction and subtransactions directly
>> to the committed.
>
> Hmm, yeah, step 2 in this example doesn't match reality. We actually
> set t and t1 directly as
> > Explicitly
> > locking (assuming you stay in your lane) should only need to guard
> > against access from other
> > backends of this type if using shared buffers, so will be use-case
> > dependent.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here?
I'm mainly pointing out that the specific code that
On 25/10/2022 12:02, Japin Li wrote:
I'm a bit confused about TransactionIdSetTreeStatus, the comment says if
subtransactions cross multiple CLOG pages, it will mark the subxids, that
are on the same page as the main transaction, as sub-committed, and then
set main transaction and
On 2022-10-25 Tu 07:01, tho...@habets.se wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 01:03:23 +0100, Jacob Champion
> said:
>> I'd like to try to get this conversation started again. To pique
>> interest I've attached a new version of 0001, which implements
>> `sslrootcert=system` instead as suggested
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> I think Tom's point was that it's wrong to add a separate entry-tree CPU
> cost estimation to another estimation, which tries (very inadequately) to
> estimate the whole scan cost. Instead, I propose writing better estimations
> for both entry-tree CPU cost and
It will often happen that some hash keys are more frequently referenced than
others. Consider a scenario where customer_id is the hash key, and one
customer is very large in terms of their activity, like IBM, and other keys
have much less activity. This asymmetry creates a noisy neighbor
Hi, Ronan!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:15 AM Ronan Dunklau
wrote:
> > > You're right, I was too eager to try to raise the CPU cost
proportionnally
> to
> > > the number of array scans (scalararrayop). I'd really like to
understand
> where
> > > this equation comes from though...
> >
> > So,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 01:03:23 +0100, Jacob Champion
said:
> I'd like to try to get this conversation started again. To pique
> interest I've attached a new version of 0001, which implements
> `sslrootcert=system` instead as suggested upthread. In 0002 I went
> further and switched the default
On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 21:09 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Rebased.
I had a look at the patch set.
It applies and builds cleanly and passes the regression tests.
0001: Add GUC: explain_regress
I like the idea of the "explain_regress" GUC. That should simplify
the regression tests.
---
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:08:59PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:43:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Another advantage is that it minimizes the presence of the hardcoded
>> HbaFileName and IdentFileName in hba.c, which is one thing we are
>> trying to achieve here
Thanks a lot for the reply and timely help!
On 25.10.2022 01:36, David G. Johnston wrote:
I suspect they came about out of simplicity - being able to simply take a text
file with a bunch of SQL commands in a script and send them as-is to the server
without any client-side parsing and let the
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:08:27AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> Here is a patch that
> implements it with an EXPLAIN option named GENERIC_PLAN.
I only have a quick look at the patch for now. Any reason why you don't rely
on the existing explain_filter() function for emitting stable output
On Wed, 2022-10-12 at 00:03 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 09:49:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think it might be better to drive it off an explicit EXPLAIN option,
> > perhaps
> >
> > EXPLAIN (GENERIC_PLAN) SELECT * FROM tab WHERE col = $1;
> >
> > If you're trying to
Hi, hackers
I'm a bit confused about TransactionIdSetTreeStatus, the comment says if
subtransactions cross multiple CLOG pages, it will mark the subxids, that
are on the same page as the main transaction, as sub-committed, and then
set main transaction and subtransactions to committed (step 2).
Hello,
I just noticed that this proposal from 2020 didn't get any backers:
On 2020-Dec-01, Paul Martinez wrote:
> It is currently slightly difficult to determine how many background worker
> processes are currently running, which is useful when trying to manage
> the max_worker_processes
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 3:37 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-25, Richard Guo wrote:
>
> > Agree with your point. Do you think we can further make the one-line
> > function a macro or an inline function in the .h file?
>
> We can, but should we?
>
> > I think this function is called quite
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:25 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 9:48 AM Richard Guo
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:05 AM John Naylor <
> john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's perfectly clear and simple now, even if it doesn't win at "code
> golf".
>
On 2022-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 02:22:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I confess I don't understand why is it important that XLogBeginInsert is
> >> called inside the critical section. It seems to me that that part is
> >> only a
On 2022-Oct-25, Richard Guo wrote:
> Agree with your point. Do you think we can further make the one-line
> function a macro or an inline function in the .h file?
We can, but should we?
> I think this function is called quite frequently during planning, so
> maybe doing that would bring a
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:43:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Another advantage is that it minimizes the presence of the hardcoded
> HbaFileName and IdentFileName in hba.c, which is one thing we are
> trying to achieve here for the inclusion of more files. I found a bit
> strange that
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:03:03PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> It would also require to bring HbaLine->sourcefile. I'm afraid it would be
> weird to introduce such a refactoring in a separate commit just to pass a
> constant down multiple level of indirection, as all the macro will remain
>
FYI - After a recent push, the v40-0001 patch no longer applies on the
latest HEAD.
[postgres@CentOS7-x64 oss_postgres_misc]$ git apply
../patches_misc/v40-0001-Perform-streaming-logical-transactions-by-parall.patch
error: patch failed: src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c:54
error:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 9:48 AM Richard Guo wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:05 AM John Naylor
wrote:
>>
>> It's perfectly clear and simple now, even if it doesn't win at "code
golf".
>
>
> Agree with your point. Do you think we can further make the one-line
> function a macro or an
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 02:43:43PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > This is essentially the same as before except now, utilizing the
> > GUC_DEFAULT_COMPILE flag added by Justin's patch [1], the sanity-check
> > skips over any dynamic
46 matches
Mail list logo
