A number of static assertions could be moved to better places.
We first added StaticAssertStmt() in 2012, which required all static
assertions to be inside function bodies. We then added
StaticAssertDecl() in 2020, which enabled static assertions on file
level. We have a number of calls
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:37 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
Review comments
==
1. Currently, we don't release the stream lock in LA (leade apply
worker) for "rollback to savepoint" and the reason is mentioned in
comments of apply_handle_stream_abort() in the patch. But, today,
čt 8. 12. 2022 v 12:29 odesílatel Sergey Shinderuk <
s.shinde...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
> Hello,
>
> I propose to add a new value "no_data_found" for the
> plpgsql.extra_errors and plpgsql.extra_warnings parameters [1].
>
> With plpgsql.extra_errors=no_data_found SELECT INTO raises no_data_found
Dear Andres,
Thanks for reporting! I have analyzed the problem and found the root cause.
This feature seemed not to work on 32-bit OSes. This was because the calculation
of delay_time was wrong. The first argument of this should be TimestampTz
datatype, not Datum:
```
+ /* Set apply
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 7:45 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:43 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:03 PM
Hi Vignesh,
> In the case of physical replication by setting
> recovery_min_apply_delay, I noticed that both primary and standby
> nodes were getting stopped successfully immediately after the stop
> server command. In case of logical replication, stop server fails:
> pg_ctl -D publisher -l
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:02:21AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> As far as i understand from this thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/Yox1ME99GhAemMq1%40paquier.xyz,
> the aim of the perl version for the pg_upgrade tests is to achieve equality
> of dumps for most
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:15:03AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The main idea behind this work is breaking out privileges into more
> granular pieces. If I want to create a role that only runs VACUUM on some
> tables on the weekend, why ѕhould I have to also give it the ability to
> ANALYZE,
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Final tme, with fixes from cirrusci.
Well, why not. Seems like you would use that a lot with PostGIS.
#include /* for ldexp() */
+#include /* for DBL_EPSILON */
And be careful with the order here.
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 03:14:09PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is the next step. To contain the scope, I focused on just "make check"
> for now. This patch removes all incidental calls to md5(), replacing them
> with sha256(), so that they'd pass with or without FIPS mode. (Two tests
>
> Attached please find a new solution that skips the deparsing of ALTER TABLE
> subcommands generated for TableLikeClause. The patch v42-0005 added a new
> boolean field table_like to AlterTableStmt in order to identify an ALTER TABLE
> subcommand generated internally for the TableLikeClause.
>
It is worth considering whether temporary objects, such as tables,
indexes, and sequences,
should be replicated to the subscriber side.
Like temp tables, different sessions create their own temp tables.
If they are all transferred to the subscriber side, there will
inevitably be errors,
because
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-12-08 17:57:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given that this additional experimentation didn't find any holes
>> in the API design, I think this is pretty much ready to go.
> One interesting area is timestamp / datetime related code. There's been some
> past efforts
Hi,
On 2022-12-08 17:57:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that this additional experimentation didn't find any holes
> in the API design, I think this is pretty much ready to go.
One interesting area is timestamp / datetime related code. There's been some
past efforts in the area, mostly in
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 7:43 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +static void
On 2022-12-08 Th 17:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2022-12-08 16:00:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Yes, I think just putting "struct Node;" in as many places as
>>> necessary is the way to go. Or even:
>> +1
> OK, here's a v5 that does it like that.
>
> I've spent a little
Hi,
I just re-discovered this issue, via
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20221209003607.bz2zdznvfnkq4zz3%40awork3.anarazel.de
On 2022-09-25 16:22:37 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think it's OK for
> connect_pg_server() to connect in a blocking
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:32 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 7:59 PM John Naylor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Optimize node128 insert.
> > >
> > > I've attached a rough start at this. The basic idea is borrowed
> On Dec 8, 2022, at 3:25 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
>>
>> Revised patch attached.
>
> And again, because I think I missed one change in the last one.
>
>
Final tme, with fixes from cirrusci.
random_normal_04.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 3:22 PM Andrey Chudnovsky
wrote:
>
>> I think it's okay to have the extension and HBA collaborate to
>> provide discovery information. Your proposal goes further than
>> that, though, and makes the server aware of the chosen client flow.
>> That appears to be an
Hi,
On 2022-12-08 16:15:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> commit 3f0e786ccbf
> Author: Andres Freund
> Date: 2022-12-07 12:13:35 -0800
>
> meson: Add 'running' test setup, as a replacement for installcheck
>
> CI tests the pg_regress/isolationtester tests that support doing so against a
>
Hi,
Since
commit 3f0e786ccbf
Author: Andres Freund
Date: 2022-12-07 12:13:35 -0800
meson: Add 'running' test setup, as a replacement for installcheck
CI tests the pg_regress/isolationtester tests that support doing so against a
running server.
Unfortunately cfbot shows that that
>
> Revised patch attached.
And again, because I think I missed one change in the last one.
random_normal_03.patch
Description: Binary data
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:53 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> We are not the first using Homebrew to run into this, and best I can
> tell, it is a brew-specific bug. The certificate directory that's been
> configured isn't actually installed by the formula. (A colleague here
> was able to verify the
> On Dec 8, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> I guess make_interval is a typo ?
>
> This is causing it to fail tests:
> http://cfbot.cputube.org/paul-ramsey.html
>
Yep, dumb typo, thanks! This bot is amazeballs, thank you!
P.
> On Dec 8, 2022, at 2:40 PM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 2:53 PM Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
> random_normal(stddev float8 DEFAULT 1.0, mean float8 DEFAULT 0.0)
>
> Any particular justification for placing stddev before mean? A brief survey
> seems to indicate other
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-12-08 16:00:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yes, I think just putting "struct Node;" in as many places as
>> necessary is the way to go. Or even:
> +1
OK, here's a v5 that does it like that.
I've spent a little time pushing ahead on other input functions,
and
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 01:53:23PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Just a utility function to generate random numbers from a normal
> distribution. I find myself doing this several times a year, and I am
> sure I must not be the only one.
>
> random_normal(stddev float8 DEFAULT 1.0, mean float8
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 2:53 PM Paul Ramsey
wrote:
>
> random_normal(stddev float8 DEFAULT 1.0, mean float8 DEFAULT 0.0)
>
Any particular justification for placing stddev before mean? A brief
survey seems to indicate other libraries, as well as (at least for me)
learned convention, has the mean
Hi,
On 2022-12-08 16:00:10 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > If we go with "struct Node *" then we can solve such problems by
> > just repeating "struct Node;" forward-declarations in as many
> > headers as we have to.
>
> Yes, I think just putting
Just a utility function to generate random numbers from a normal
distribution. I find myself doing this several times a year, and I am
sure I must not be the only one.
random_normal(stddev float8 DEFAULT 1.0, mean float8 DEFAULT 0.0)
random_normal_01.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi,
On 2022-12-08 20:44:05 +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
> When checking something else in the base backup code, I've noticed that
> sendFileWithContent() does not advance the 'content' pointer.
Oof. Luckily it looks like that is a relatively recent issue, introduced in
bef47ff85df, which is only
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 03:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's true that the cost attributed to the Agg node won't impact any
> live decisions in the plan level in which it appears. However, if
> that's a subquery, then the total cost attributed to the subplan
> could in principle affect plan choices in
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:13 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 07:20:28AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > We should probably talk about what the privileges should be, though. I
> > think there's a case to be made that CLUSTER should be governed by the
> > VACUUM privileges, given
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> If we go with "struct Node *" then we can solve such problems by
> just repeating "struct Node;" forward-declarations in as many
> headers as we have to.
Yes, I think just putting "struct Node;" in as many places as
necessary is the way to go. Or
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 01:12, David Geier wrote:
> Both plans were captured on 14.5, which is indeed prior to 1349d279.
>
> I disabled sequential scan to show that there's an alternative plan
> which is superior to the chosen plan: Index Only Scan is more expensive
> and takes longer than the Seq
When checking something else in the base backup code, I've noticed that
sendFileWithContent() does not advance the 'content' pointer. The sink buffer
is large enough (32kB) so that the first iteration usually processes the whole
file (only special files are processed by this function), and thus
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 03:26:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> While testing MERGE, I noticed that it supports inheritance
> hierarchies and the ONLY keyword, but that isn't documented. Attached
> is a patch to merge.sgml, borrowing text from update.sgml and
> delete.sgml.
LGTM. I didn't see
I've created a new thread for making CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW,
and REINDEX grantable:
https://postgr.es/m/20221208183707.GA55474%40nathanxps13
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Hi hackers,
This is meant as a continuation of the work to make VACUUM and ANALYZE
grantable privileges [0]. As noted there, the primary motivation for this
is to continue chipping away at things that require special privileges or
even superuser. I've attached two patches. 0001 makes it
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 07:20:28AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> We should probably talk about what the privileges should be, though. I
> think there's a case to be made that CLUSTER should be governed by the
> VACUUM privileges, given how VACUUM FULL is now implemented.
Currently, CLUSTER,
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:48:20PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
>>> My previous analysis
>>> shows that there is no vast hidden demand for new privilege bits. If we
>>> implement MAINTAIN to control access to
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-12-07 17:32:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +typedef struct Node *NodePtr;
> Seems like it'd be easier to just forward declare the struct, and use the
> non-typedef'ed name in the header than to have to deal with these
> interdependencies and the differing typenames.
While testing MERGE, I noticed that it supports inheritance
hierarchies and the ONLY keyword, but that isn't documented. Attached
is a patch to merge.sgml, borrowing text from update.sgml and
delete.sgml.
I note that there are also a couple of places early in the manual
(advanced.sgml and
David Rowley writes:
> So, with the assumption that you've used 2 different versions to show
> this output, for post 1349d279, there does not seem to be much choice
> on how the aggregate is executed. What's your concern about the
> costings having to be accurate given there's no other plan
On Sun, 2022-11-27 at 09:40 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > BTW, these should have some kind of prefix, like PG_ALLOC_* to
> > avoid causing the same kind of problem for someone else that
> > another header caused for you by defining something somewhere
> > called IGNORE (ignore what, I don't
On 4/2/19 7:06 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:47 AM Michael Paquier mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:43:12AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:56 AM Michael Paquier mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> wrote:
>>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:56 AM Amin wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to create HeapTuple data structure.
> First, I create a tuple descriptor:
> TupleDesc *td=CreateTemplateTupleDesc(colCount);
> Then, for each variable, I do:
>
On 12/8/22 06:48, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:00 PM Vik Fearing wrote:
On 12/7/22 04:22, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:40 PM Vik Fearing
wrote:
On 12/6/22 05:57, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:48 PM Vik Fearing
wrote:
On 2022-12-07 We 23:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 08:25:59PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> Your patch makes it inconsistent with vacuum full, which is strange
>> because vacuum full calls cluster.
>>
>> postgres=> VACUUM FULL t;
>> VACUUM
>> postgres=> CLUSTER t;
>> ERROR:
Hi David,
Thanks for the explanations and awesome that this was improved on already.
I didn't have this change on my radar.
On 12/8/22 11:40, David Rowley wrote:
This output surely must be from a version of PostgreSQL prior to
1349d279? I can't quite figure out why you've added a "SET
On 2022-Dec-07, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Are you suggesting we should not go down the path that v8-0003 does in the
> monitoring section cleanup thread? I find the usability of Chapter 54
> System Views to be superior to these two run-on chapters and would rather
> we emulate it in both these
On 2022-Dec-08, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> For the complete picture, I tried to see what other actions with the table
> could *potentially* be considered as maintenance.
> Here is the list:
>
> - create|alter|drop on extended statistics objects
> - alter table|index alter column set statistics
> -
Hello,
I propose to add a new value "no_data_found" for the
plpgsql.extra_errors and plpgsql.extra_warnings parameters [1].
With plpgsql.extra_errors=no_data_found SELECT INTO raises no_data_found
exception when the result set is empty. With
plpgsql.extra_errors=too_many_rows,no_data_found
Hi Christoph,
I just took a quick look at your patch.
Some suggestions:
+ else if (Matches("ALTER", "VIEW", MatchAny, "SET", "("))
> + COMPLETE_WITH_LIST(view_optional_parameters);
> + /* ALTER VIEW xxx RESET ( yyy , ... ) */
> + else if (Matches("ALTER", "VIEW", MatchAny, "RESET",
On 29.11.22 21:22, David Rowley wrote:
There seems to be a small bug in the pg_strtointXX functions in the
code that checks that there's at least 1 digit. This causes 0x to be
a valid representation of zero. That does not seem to be allowed by
the parser, so I think we should likely reject it
On 08.12.2022 01:39, Nathan Bossart wrote:
It was also noted elsewhere [1] that the privilege requirements for CLUSTER
are not documented. The attached patch adds such documentation.
[1] https://postgr.es/m/661148f4-c7f1-dec1-2bc8-29f3bd58e242%40postgrespro.ru
Thanks for the patch. It
Hi,
On 12/7/22 6:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2022-12-07 10:00:25 +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Please find attached a new patch series:
v27-0001-Add-info-in-WAL-records-in-preparation-for-logic.patch
v27-0002-Handle-logical-slot-conflicts-on-standby.patch
On 08.12.2022 07:48, Isaac Morland wrote:
If we implement MAINTAIN to control access to VACUUM, ANALYZE,
REFRESH, CLUSTER, and REINDEX, we will cover everything that I can
find that has seriously discussed on this list
I like this approach with MAINTAIN privilege. I'm trying to find any
Amit-san,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 6:47 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > * In postgresGetForeignModifyBatchSize():
> >
> > /*
> > -* Should never get called when the insert is being performed as part
> > of a
> > -* row movement
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 22:06, David Geier wrote:
> The cost of an Aggregate node seems to be the same regardless of the
> input being pre-sorted or not. If however the input is not sorted, the
> Aggregate node must additionally perform a sort which can impact runtime
> significantly. Here is an
On 06.12.22 09:41, Antonin Houska wrote:
Attached are my proposals for improvements. One is to avoid memory leak, the
other tries to improve readability a little bit.
I added the readability improvement to my v2 patch. The pfree() calls
aren't necessary AFAICT.
On 02.12.22 18:28, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2022-12-02 08:30:55 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
From 200879e5edfc1ce93b7af3cbfafc1f618626cbe9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 08:16:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Refactor ExecGrant_*() functions
Instead of
On 2022-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> However, this
> approach of not storing the placeholder in the stored rule would lead
> to a whole lot of regression test output changes, because the stored
> view queries of many regression tests involving views would now end up
> with only 1 entry in the
Hi hackers,
The cost of an Aggregate node seems to be the same regardless of the
input being pre-sorted or not. If however the input is not sorted, the
Aggregate node must additionally perform a sort which can impact runtime
significantly. Here is an example:
CREATE TABLE foo(col0 INT, col1
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > +static void
> > > > +ProcessParallelApplyInterrupts(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +
Hi Fujita-san,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 6:47 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:17 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Rebased to fix a minor conflict with some recently committed
> > nodeModifyTable.c changes.
>
> Apologies for not having reviewed the patch. Here are some review
67 matches
Mail list logo
