On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:02 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Dec-11, Amit Langote wrote:
> > While staring at the build_simple_rel() bit mentioned above, I
> > realized that this code fails to set userid correctly in the
> > inheritance parent rels that are child relations of subquery parent
>
On 07.02.23 21:10, Nathan Bossart wrote:
ERROR: permission denied to use replication slots
DETAIL: You must have REPLICATION privilege.
adding the operation to the end seems less awkward (i.e., "You must have
REPLICATION privilege to use replication slots."). I don't think
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:55:38PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> To fix, a init_var() in alloc_var() is needed when we will use the
> fixed_buf instead of allocating,
> since alloc_var() could be called in a loop for existing values,
> like in sqrt_var() for instance.
>
> Attached new version
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:46 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> >+
> >+ ParallelVacuumFinish
> >+ Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish index
> >vacuum.
> >+
>
> >This change is out-of-date.
>
> That was an oversight.
Dear Melih,
Thank you for updating the patch. Before reviewing, I found that
cfbot have not accepted v8 patch [1].
IIUC src/psql/describe.c has been modified in v8, but
src/test/regress/expected/subscription.out
has not been changed accordingly.
[1]:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:07:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:31 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I might be missing something, but what could go wrong if pg_upgrade
> > > > could emit
> > > > a bunch of commands like:
> > > >
> > > > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
This patch adds support for the unit "B" to pg_size_pretty(). This
makes it consistent with the units support in GUC. (pg_size_pretty()
only supports "bytes", but GUC only supports "B". -- I opted against
adding support for "bytes" to GUC.)From 605ada8dc38b35aa70a281a7cacab65ce89f42be Mon Sep
Dear Peter,
Thank you for reviewing! Latest version can be seen in [1].
> 1.
> PQcanConnCheck seemed like a strange API name. Maybe it can have the
> same prefix as the other?
>
> e.g.
>
> - PQconnCheck()
> - PGconnCheckSupported()
>
> or
>
> - PQconnCheck()
> - PGconnCheckable()
>
I choose
Dear Katsuragi-san,
Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version.
> 0001:
> Extending pqSocketPoll seems to be a better way because we can
> avoid having multiple similar functions. I also would like to hear
> horiguchi-san's opinion whether this matches his expectation.
> Improvements of
Dear Horiguchi-san,
My comment may be no longer needed, but I can +1 to your opinion.
> > On 2023/02/09 11:50, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > > While looking a patch, I found that pqSocketPoll passes through the
> > > result from poll(2) to the caller and throws away revents. If I
> >
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:31 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 04:12:52PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I also don't know if there is any other safe way for newly added
> > > > tables apart from the above suggestion to create separate publications
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:31:14AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 16:19:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> But it looks like I misunderstood what this quote meant compared to
>> what v3 does. It is true that v3 sets iov_len and iov_base more than
>> needed when writing sizes larger
At Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:11:38 -0800, Andres Freund wrote in
> I wonder if we should keep the checkpointer around for longer. If we have
> checkpointer signal postmaster after it wrote the shutdown checkpoint,
> postmaster could signal walsenders to shut down, and checkpointer could do
> some
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:02 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah. I think the analysis looks good, but I'll do some testing next
> week with the aim of getting it committed. Looks like it now needs
> Meson changes, but I'll look after that as my penance.
Here's an updated version that I'm
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 7:50 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> On 2/17/23 4:15 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > This happens because of the function used in the index expression.
> > Now, this is not the only thing, the replication can even fail during
> > DDL replication when the function like above is
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 21:44, David Rowley wrote:
> Updated patch attached.
After making another couple of small adjustments, I've pushed this.
Thanks for the review.
David
At Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:53:36 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz
wrote in
> Thanks for the review. I updated the patch.
WalUsageAccumDiff(, , );
- PendingWalStats.wal_records = diff.wal_records;
- PendingWalStats.wal_fpi = diff.wal_fpi;
- PendingWalStats.wal_bytes =
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:32:23AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> These last ones are staying around for a few more weeks, until the
> middle of the next CF, I guess. After all this is done, the final
> changes are very short, showing the effects of the normalization, as
> of:
> 6 files
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:36:27AM +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 2/17/23 3:35 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 0001 looks quite committable at this stage, and that's independent on
>> the rest. At the end this patch creates four new test files that are
>> extended in the next patches:
Dear Amit,
Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version.
> 1.
> +
> + The minimum delay for publisher sends data, in milliseconds
> +
> +
>
> It would probably be better to write it as "The minimum delay, in
> milliseconds, by the publisher to send changes"
Fixed.
> 2. The
Here is a code review only for patch v31-0001.
==
General Comment
1.
PQcanConnCheck seemed like a strange API name. Maybe it can have the
same prefix as the other?
e.g.
- PQconnCheck()
- PGconnCheckSupported()
or
- PQconnCheck()
- PGconnCheckable()
==
Commit Message
2.
Hi,
On 2023-02-19 19:08:41 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On 2023-02-11, Andres Freund wrote
> 20230212004254.3lp22a7bpkcjo...@awork3.anarazel.de:
> > The windows test failure is a transient issue independent of the patch
> > (something went wrong with image permissions).
>
> That's happening
On 2023-02-11, Andres Freund wrote
20230212004254.3lp22a7bpkcjo...@awork3.anarazel.de:
> The windows test failure is a transient issue independent of the patch
> (something went wrong with image permissions).
That's happening again since 3h ago.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 2:46 AM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 Fr 19:27, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> FWIW I have a thing I call bfbot for slurping up similar
>> data from the build farm. It's not pretty enough for public
>> consumption, but I do know that this assertion hasn't failed there,
>>
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023, at 23:16, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Ignore previous patch, new correct version attached, that also keeps
> track of if the buf-field is in use or not.
Ops! One more thinko, detected when trying fixed_buf[8], which caused a seg
fault.
To fix, a init_var() in
Hi again,
Ignore previous patch, new correct version attached, that also keeps track of
if the buf-field is in use or not.
Seems like your idea gives a signifiant speed-up!
On my machine, numeric_in() is 22% faster!
I ran a benchmark with 100 tests measuring execution-time of numeric_in() with
Richard Guo writes:
> ... As we can see, the join qual 't2.a = t2.b' disappears in the plan, and
> that results in the wrong query results.
Ugh.
> I did some dig and here is what happened. Firstly both sides of qual
> 't2.a = t2.b' could be nulled by the OJ t1/t2 and they are marked so in
>
Hi,
On 2023-02-19 11:13:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 2023-02-19 Su 02:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On 18.02.23 21:26, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> My inclination is to move TEMP_CONFIG support from the Makefile to
> >>> pg_regress.c. That way it's consistent across
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, at 21:26, Andres Freund wrote:
> Removing the free_var()s from numeric_add_opt_error() speeds it up from ~361ms
> to ~338ms.
I notice numeric_add_opt_error() is extern and declared in numeric.h,
called from e.g. timestamp.c and jsonpath_exec.c. Is that a problem,
i.e. is
Some little updates since I last checked:
+ * This file also includes the implementation when compression is none for
+ * both API's.
=> this comment is obsolete.
s/deffer/infer/ ?
or determine ?
This typo occurs multiple times.
currently this includes only ".gz"
=> remove this phase from the
I wrote:
> So that leads to a conclusion that we could just forget the whole
> thing and always use the syntactic qualscope here. I tried that
> and it doesn't break any existing regression tests, which admittedly
> doesn't prove a lot in this area :-(.
Hmm, I thought it worked, but when I tried
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2023-02-19 Su 02:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 18.02.23 21:26, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> My inclination is to move TEMP_CONFIG support from the Makefile to
>>> pg_regress.c. That way it's consistent across the build tools and isn't
>>> duplicated.
>> I'm having a
Hi,
On 2/19/23 02:03, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 15:05, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> I've pushed the revert. Let's try again for PG16.
>
> As we discussed in person at the developer meeting, here's a patch to
> try again for PG16.
>
> It combines the committed patches
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 13:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:23 PM Masahiko Sawada
>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:55 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > (v67)
> >
> > I have some questions about adding the infrastructure for DDL deparsing.
> >
> > Apart from the
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 2:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> To me that seems even simpler? Nothing but the archiver is supposed to create
> .done files and nothing is supposed to remove .ready files without archiver
> having created the .done files. So the archiver process can scan
> archive_status
On 2023-02-19 Su 02:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 18.02.23 21:26, Andres Freund wrote:
When building with meson, TEMP_CONFIG is supported for TAP tests, but
doesn't
do anything for regress/isolation.
The reason for that is that meson's (and ninja's) architecture is to
separate
"build
On 2023-02-17 Fr 19:27, Thomas Munro wrote:
FWIW I have a thing I call bfbot for slurping up similar
data from the build farm. It's not pretty enough for public
consumption, but I do know that this assertion hasn't failed there,
except the cases I mentioned earlier, and a load of failures on
On Thur, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:03 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-13 14:06:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > The patch calls update_progress in change_cb_wrapper and other
> > > > wrappers which will miss the case of DDLs that generates a lot of data
> > > > that is not processed by the
> This doesn't pass the tests, because the regression tests weren't adjusted:
> https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5937624817336320/testrun/build/testrun/regress/regress/regression.diffs
Thanks for sharing this. I have fixed this in the patch attached.
>> IMO, there's no need for 2
39 matches
Mail list logo
