At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:41:21 +0100, Pavel Stehule
wrote in
> čt 15. 12. 2022 v 8:25 odesílatel Masahiko Sawada
> napsal:
> > Is this a bug in plpgsql?
> >
>
> I think it is by design. There is not any callback that is called after an
> exception.
>
> It is true, so some callbacks on
čt 15. 12. 2022 v 8:25 odesílatel Masahiko Sawada
napsal:
> Hi,
>
> While investigating the issue reported on pg_hint_plan[1], I realized
> that stmt_end() callback is not called if an error raised during the
> statement execution is caught. I've attached the patch to check when
> stmt_beg() and
Hi,
While investigating the issue reported on pg_hint_plan[1], I realized
that stmt_end() callback is not called if an error raised during the
statement execution is caught. I've attached the patch to check when
stmt_beg() and stmt_end() are called. Here is an example:
postgres(1:3220232)=#
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:44:34PM -0600, David Christensen wrote:
> I can get one sent in tomorrow.
-XLogRecordHasFPW(XLogReaderState *record)
+XLogRecordHasFPI(XLogReaderState *record)
This still refers to a FPW, so let's leave that out as well as any
renamings of this kind..
+ if
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > There are other a bunch of hard errors from get_multirange_io_data(),
> > get_range_io_data() and its subroutine can hit, shouldn't we care
> > about those?
>
> I think those are all "internal" errors, ie not reachable as
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:14:59AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> AFAICS, most of these functions have no direct source code callers,
> they're user-facing functions and not in a hot code path. I measured
> the test times of these functions and I don't see much difference [1].
Thanks for the
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:29:17 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > subscriber was busy enough
Amul Sul writes:
> There are other a bunch of hard errors from get_multirange_io_data(),
> get_range_io_data() and its subroutine can hit, shouldn't we care
> about those?
I think those are all "internal" errors, ie not reachable as a
consequence of bad input data. Do you see a reason to think
I'm in the middle of working on making some adjustments to the costs
of Incremental Sorts and I see the patch I wrote changes the plan in
the drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test.
The particular plan changed currently expects:
---
Sort
Sort Key:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 9:50 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:25 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are comments on v59 0001, 0002 patches:
> >
> > Thanks for the comments!
> >
> > >
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:03 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Here are some proposed patches for converting range_in and multirange_in.
>
> 0001 tackles the straightforward part, which is trapping syntax errors
> and called-input-function errors. The only thing that I think might
> be controversial here
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 03:51:11PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Clearing up one CI failure.
+-- normal values converge on stddev == 2.0
+SELECT round(stddev(random_normal(2, 2)))
+ FROM generate_series(1, 1);
I am not sure that it is a good idea to make a test based on a random
behavior that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > > One idea to avoid
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:23:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > Allowing walsender to finish ignoring replication status
> > wouldn't be great.
> >
>
> Yes, that would be ideal. But do you know why that is a must?
I believe a graceful
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:46:17 +, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
> wrote in
> > I have implemented and tested that workers wake up per
> > wal_receiver_timeout/2
> > and send keepalive. Basically it works well, but I found two problems.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > > One idea to avoid that is to send the min_apply_delay subscriber option
> > > to publisher
> > >
Here are some proposed patches for converting range_in and multirange_in.
0001 tackles the straightforward part, which is trapping syntax errors
and called-input-function errors. The only thing that I think might
be controversial here is that I chose to change the signatures of
the exposed
Hi
While studying Jeff's new crop of collation patches I noticed in
passing that check_strxfrm_bug() must surely by now be unnecessary.
The buffer overrun bugs were fixed a decade ago, and the relevant
systems are way out of support. If you're worried that the bugs might
come back, then the test
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > One idea to avoid that is to send the min_apply_delay subscriber option to
> > publisher
> > and compare them, but it may be not sufficient. Because XXX_timout GUC
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:46:17 +, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
wrote in
> I have implemented and tested that workers wake up per wal_receiver_timeout/2
> and send keepalive. Basically it works well, but I found two problems.
> Do you have any good suggestions about them?
>
> 1)
>
> With this
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:40:45 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote
in
> > On 14 Dec 2022, at 08:04, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 07.12.22 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I think if we want to make this configurable on the fly, and environment
> >> variable would be much easier, like
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:12:26AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:29:39PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Okay. Should all the privileges
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 16:11 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Yeah, but:
>
> regression=> insert into p1 values (1);
> ERROR: permission denied for table p1
> regression=> select * from p1;
> ERROR: permission denied for table p1
Right, that's what I had in mind: a user is only granted operations
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:29:39PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
>>> relation's
>>> TOAST table as well?
>>
On 12/14/22 6:52 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:59:04PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
HA-256 that we will just need to pick up?
The attached v2 has the GUC rename and a change to GUC_REPORT such that the
frontend can use the real value rather than the default. I kept
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:59:04PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 12/14/22 6:25 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I was thinking about it but opted for the simpler approach of a GUC name with
>> the algorithm baked into it: scram_sha256_iterations. It doesn't seem all
>> that
>> likely that
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
>> relation's
>> TOAST table as well?
>
> Yes, I agree.
This might be tricky, because AFAICT you have to scan
I wrote:
> Amul Sul writes:
>> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
>> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
>> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
> I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is already on it.
I've gone through
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 02:02:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe we could have workers that are exiting for that reason set a
> flag saying "please restart me without delay"?
That helps a bit, but there are still delays when starting workers for new
subscriptions. I think we'd need to create a
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:08 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 23:13, Alex Fan wrote:
> > I am new to the postgres community and apologise for resending this as the
> > previous one didn't include patch properly and didn't cc reviewers (maybe
> > the reason it has been buried in
Hi Bharath,
I can get one sent in tomorrow.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 15:57, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 15:32 -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> > Is there a firm decision on the issue of changing the cluster index
> > of a table? Re-clustering a table on the same index is clearly
> > something that should be granted by MAINTAIN
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Thanks, I have been looking at jsonpath, but I'm not quite sure how to
> get the escontext argument to the yyerror calls in jsonath_scan.l. Maybe
> I need to specify a lex-param setting?
You want a parse-param option in jsonpath_gram.y, I think; adding that
will persuade
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:02:39AM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> On 14.12.2022 22:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > The behavior is that MAINTAIN
> > privileges on the partitioned table does not imply MAINTAIN privileges
> > on the partitions. I believe that's fine and it's consistent with other
> >
On 14.12.2022 22:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
The behavior is that MAINTAIN
privileges on the partitioned table does not imply MAINTAIN privileges
on the partitions. I believe that's fine and it's consistent with other
privileges on partitioned tables, such as SELECT and INSERT.
Sorry, I may have
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:54:53PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Indeed PendingCheckpointerStats.buf_written_checkpoints needs to count
> buffer writes in SlruInternalWritePage(). However, does it need to be
> done immediately there? The stats will not be visible to the users
> until the next
On 2022-12-14 We 11:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amul Sul writes:
>> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
>> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
>> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
> I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is
> You do have to lock a table in order to update its pg_class row,
> though, whether the table is temporary or not. Otherwise, another
> session could drop it while you're doing something with it, after
> which bad things would happen.
I was responding to this from Andres:
> Is that actually
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:18 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> So I don't see any evidence we skip any locking on pg_class when doing
> updates on rows for temporary tables.
I don't know what this means. You don't have to lock pg_class to
update rows in any table, whether temporary or otherwise.
You do
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 15:32 -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Is there a firm decision on the issue of changing the cluster index
> of a table? Re-clustering a table on the same index is clearly
> something that should be granted by MAINTAIN as I imagine it, but
> changing the cluster index, strictly
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 14:47, Jeff Davis wrote:
Furthermore, MAINTAIN privileges on the partitioned table do not grant
> the ability to create new partitions. There's a comment in tablecmds.c
> alluding to a possible "UNDER" privilege:
>
> /*
>* We should have an UNDER permission flag for
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 02:39:43PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 14.12.22 03:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> While investigating on what it would take to extend SCRAM to use new
>> hash methods (say like the RFC draft for SCRAM-SHA-512), I have been
>> quickly reminded of the limitations
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 12:07 +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> After a fresh install, including the patch for \dpS [1],
> I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST
> table
> to be vacuumed.
I wanted to also mention partitioning. The behavior is that MAINTAIN
privileges on the
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
> relation's
> TOAST table as well?
Yes, I agree.
--
Jeff Davis
PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:23:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh. What in the world is the rationale for that?
> My assumption is that this is meant to avoid starting workers as fast as
> possible if they repeatedly crash.
I can see the point of rate-limiting if the
On 12/14/22 6:25 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 14 Dec 2022, at 02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:17:58PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It does raise an interesting point though, if we in the future add suppprt for
SCRAM-SHA-512 (which seems reasonable to do) it's
Hi hackers!
Just to bump this thread, because the problem seems to be still actual:
Please correct me if I am wrong. I've checked another discussion related to
pg_visibility [1].
According to discussion: if using latest completed xid is not right for
checking visibility, than
it should be the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:23:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> I'm reasonably certain the launcher is already signaled like you describe.
>> It'll just wait to start new workers if it's been less than
>> wal_retrieve_retry_interval milliseconds since the last time it
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I'm reasonably certain the launcher is already signaled like you describe.
> It'll just wait to start new workers if it's been less than
> wal_retrieve_retry_interval milliseconds since the last time it started
> workers.
Oh. What in the world is the rationale for that?
On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 at 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Greg Stark writes:
> > Simple Rebase
>
> I took a little bit of a look through these.
>
> * I find 0001 a bit scary, specifically that it's decided it's
> okay to apply extract_autovac_opts, pgstat_fetch_stat_tabentry_ext,
> and especially
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 07:05:34PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Dec-14, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
>> > I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
>> > be vacuumed.
>>
>> Hm. My first thought
On 2022-Dec-14, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> > I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
> > be vacuumed.
>
> Hm. My first thought is that this is the appropriate behavior. WDYT?
It seems wrong to me.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:35 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > typedef struct xl_heap_prune
> >
> > I think this is unsafe on alignment-picky machines. I think it will
> > cause the offset numbers to be aligned at an odd address.
> > heap_xlog_prune() doesn't copy the data into aligned memory, so I
>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:42:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> My first thought is that the latter two uses should be moved to a new
>> parameter, and the apply launcher should store the last start time for each
>> apply worker like the apply workers do for the table-sync
Nathan Bossart writes:
> My first thought is that the latter two uses should be moved to a new
> parameter, and the apply launcher should store the last start time for each
> apply worker like the apply workers do for the table-sync workers. In any
> case, it probably makes sense to lower this
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:31:02AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> +return replace_percent_placeholders(base_command, "df", (const char
>> *[]){target_detail, filename});
> This is a "compound literal", which I gather is required by C99.
> But I don't think that's
Hi,
On 2022-12-14 10:55:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I read through 0001 again and I noticed this:
>
> typedef struct xl_heap_prune
> {
> TransactionId snapshotConflictHorizon;
> uint16 nredirected;
> uint16 ndead;
> +bool
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:08:40PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:13 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> Currently, CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX (minus REINDEX
>> SCHEMA|DATABASE|SYSTEM) require ownership of the relation or superuser. In
>> fact, all three use
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 7:19 AM Jose Arthur Benetasso Villanova
wrote:
> I'm a bit lost here. I tried your patch again and indeed the
> heapallindexed inside gin_check_parent_keys_consistency has a TODO
> comment, but it's unclear to me if you are going to implement it or if the
> patch "needs
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 06:59:48PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I can't think of any reason for this behavior, and I didn't find an
> obvious answer in the last commits to touch that (2ad36c4e44,
> fa2642438f).
I can't think of a reason, either.
> Patch attached to simplify it. It uses the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
> be vacuumed.
Hm. My first thought is that this is the appropriate behavior. WDYT?
> So, the patch for \dpS works as expected and can be committed.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:41:05PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 07:20:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I certainly don't think that "wake the apply launcher every 1ms"
>> is a sane configuration. Unless I'm missing something basic about
>> its responsibilities, it should
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:31:02AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + return replace_percent_placeholders(base_command, "df", (const char
> *[]){target_detail, filename});
This is a "compound literal", which I gather is required by C99.
But I don't think that's currently being exercised, so
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:31 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> There are a number of places where a shell command is constructed with
> percent-placeholders (like %x). First, it's obviously cumbersome to
> have to open-code this several times. Second, each of those pieces of
> code silently encodes
Amul Sul writes:
> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is already on it.
regards,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 8:06 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Please find attached v31 with the changes mentioned above (except that I put
> your wording into the commit message instead of a README: I think it helps to
> make
> clear what the "design" for the patch series is).
Thanks, I think
On 11.12.22 23:18, Peter Smith wrote:
+StaticAssertDecl(SysCacheSize == (int) lengthof(cacheinfo),
+ "SysCacheSize does not match syscache.c's array");
+
static CatCache *SysCache[SysCacheSize];
In almost every example I found of StaticAssertXXX, the lengthof(arr)
part came first in the
On 14.12.22 03:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
This patch passes check-world and the CI is green. I have tested as
well the patch with SCRAM verifiers coming from a server initially on
HEAD, so it looks pretty solid seen from here, being careful of memory
leaks in the frontend, mainly.
The changes
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 6:45 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > Updated patch attached.
> >
> > I will review the patch a bit more, but I think
> > it would be committable.
>
> One thing I
Hi,
On 12/13/22 5:37 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/22 2:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 5:49 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
It seems kind of unfortunate to have to add payload to a whole bevy of
record types for this feature. I think it's worth it, both because the
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022, Andrey Borodin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 1:29 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
I was wrong. GIN check does similar gin_refind_parent() to lock pages
in bottom-up manner and truly verify downlink-child_page invariant.
Does this mean that we need the adjustment in docs?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:15 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Please see the attached patch. I also fix Peter's comments[1]. The GUC name
> and
> design are still under discussion, so I didn't modify them.
>
Let me summarize the discussion on name and design till now. As per my
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:02 PM David Christensen
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:30 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > 1.
> > -if (config.filter_by_fpw && !XLogRecordHasFPW(xlogreader_state))
> > +if (config.filter_by_fpw && !XLogRecordHasFPI(xlogreader_state))
> > These
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:17:58PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> It does raise an interesting point though, if we in the future add suppprt
>> for
>> SCRAM-SHA-512 (which seems reasonable to do) it's not good enough to have a
>> single
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:02 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on checkpoint related stuff, I have encountered that
> there is some inconsistency while reporting checkpointer stats. When a
> checkpoint gets completed, a checkpoint complete message gets logged.
> This message has a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Horiguchi-san, Amit,
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:35 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At Mon, 12 Dec 2022 18:10:00 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > Yeah, I think ideally it will timeout but if we
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 10:49 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 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
Dear Horiguchi-san, Amit,
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:35 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Mon, 12 Dec 2022 18:10:00 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > Yeah, I think ideally it will timeout but if we have a solution like
> > during delay, we keep sending ping messages
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:50 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing the patch.
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 20:14, John Naylor
wrote:
> > While allocation is markedly improved, freeing looks worse here. The
proportion is surprising because only about 2% of nodes are freed during
the load,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Updated patch attached.
>
> I will review the patch a bit more, but I think
> it would be committable.
One thing I noticed is this bit:
-- Clean up
-DROP TABLE batch_table,
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 08:04, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 07.12.22 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think if we want to make this configurable on the fly, and environment
>> variable would be much easier, like
>> my $mode = $ENV{PG_TEST_PG_UPGRADE_MODE} || '--copy';
>
> Here is an
This patch exposes the ICU facility to add custom collation rules to a
standard collation. This would allow users to customize any ICU
collation to whatever they want. A very simple example from the
documentation/tests:
CREATE COLLATION en_custom
(provider = icu, locale = 'en', rules =
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:20 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:25 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 8:45 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, December 9, 2022 3:14 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On
After a fresh install, including the patch for \dpS [1],
I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table
to be vacuumed.
postgres@postgres(16.0)=# GRANT MAINTAIN ON pg_type TO alice;
GRANT
postgres@postgres(16.0)=# \c - alice
You are now connected to database "postgres"
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 2:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:53 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > In logical decoding, when logical_decoding_work_mem is exceeded, the
> changes are
> > sent to output plugin in streaming mode. But there is a
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 2:24 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Dec-12, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I started feeling like putting all the new logic being added
> > by this patch into plancache.c at the heart of GetCachedPlan() and
> > tweaking its API in kind of unintuitive ways may not have been
87 matches
Mail list logo
