On 2023-10-14 06:16 +0200, Andrew Atkinson write:
>- When describing options for a command, changed to “option of” instead
>of “option to”
I think "option to" is not wrong (maybe less common). I've seen this
in other texts and took it as "the X option [that applies] to Y".
>-
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023, 5:20 pm Andrew Atkinson,
wrote:
>
>- Many examples of “an SQL”. I changed those to “a SQL...”. For
>example I changed “An SQL command which” to “A SQL command that”. I'm not
>an English major so maybe I'm missing something here.
>
> It would depend on how you
Dear hackers,
Here is a new patch.
Previously I wrote:
> Based on above idea, I made new version patch which some functionalities were
> exported from pg_resetwal. In this approach, pg_upgrade itself removed WALs
> and
> then create logical slots, then pg_resetwal would be called with new
Hello. I started reading through the Glossary[^1] terms to learn from the
definitions, and to double check them against what I'd written elsewhere. I
found myself making edits. :)
I've put the edits together into a patch. My goal was to focus on wording
simplifications that are smoother to read,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
> performance problem because it’s not difficult to have a workload
> where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
> fixed-size buffer pool. However, just
On 2023-10-09 01:13 +0200, David E. Wheeler write:
> On Sep 12, 2023, at 21:00, Erik Wienhold wrote:
>
> >> I posted this question on Stack Overflow
> >> (https://stackoverflow.com/q/77046554/79202),
> >> and from the suggestion I got there, it seems that @@ expects a boolean to
> >> be
> >>
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 06:59, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> At Fri, 6 Oct 2023 14:58:13 +0530, vignesh C wrote in
> > On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 11:53, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > It makes sense to include xid in the debug message, earlier I thought
> > > that will it be a good idea to also print the
Hi,
On 2023-10-13 11:30:35 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-10-13 10:39:10 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-10-12 09:24:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I kind of had hoped somebody would comment on the approach. Given that
> > > nobody
> > > has, I'll push the minimal fix of
On 10/13/23 06:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing writes:
Regardless of what the spec may or may not say about v1.d, it still
remains that nulls should not be allowed in a *base table* if the domain
says nulls are not allowed. Not mentioned in this thread but the
constraints are also applied
On 2023-10-09 22:34 +0200, David G. Johnston write:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:13 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah. There is a lot of attraction in having \pset null affect these
> > displays just like all other ones. The fact that they act differently
> > now is a wart, not something we should
On 2023-10-09 10:29 +0200, Laurenz Albe write:
> On Sun, 2023-10-08 at 19:58 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > We probably should add the two terms to the glossary:
> >
> > empty privileges: all privileges explicitly revoked from the owner and
> > PUBLIC
> > (where applicable), and none
On 2023-10-09 09:54 +0200, Laurenz Albe write:
>
> I tinkered a bit with your documentation. For example, the suggestion to
> "\pset null" seemed to be in an inappropriate place. Tell me what you think.
+1 You're right to put that sentence right after the explanation of
empty privileges.
--
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:54 PM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > > > Doesn't that mean that if you create the first
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 3:56 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-10-13 16:44:13 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > Here is what I had in mind (only this part in the second patch was changed).
>
> Makes sense to me. I think we'll likely eventually want to use a custom
> pipeline anyway, and I think we
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:31 PM Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> Le mercredi 11 octobre 2023, 10:59:50 CEST Thomas Munro a écrit :
> > The back-patch to 12 was a little trickier than anticipated, but after
> > taking a break and trying again I now have PG 12...17 patches that
> > I've tested against LLVM
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 02:34:27PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:14:39AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Thanks. I've made a couple of small changes, but otherwise I think this
>> one is just about ready.
>
> I forgot to rename one thing. Here's a v13 with that
On Fri, 2023-10-13 at 11:18 +0200, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
> I tried adding a section in "Logical Replication > Subscription" with
> the text you suggested and links in the CREATE / ALTER SUBSRIPTION
> commands.
>
> Is it better ?
Minor comments:
* Use possessive "its" instead of the
Hi,
On 2023-10-13 10:39:10 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-10-12 09:24:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I kind of had hoped somebody would comment on the approach. Given that
> > nobody
> > has, I'll push the minimal fix of resetting the state in
> > ReleaseBulkInsertStatePin(), even
Hi,
On 2023-10-12 09:24:19 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-10-12 11:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > >> On 2023-09-25 15:42:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> I just did a git bisect run to discover when the failure documented
> > >>> in bug #18130 [1] started.
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:46:11PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Also, it seems counterintuitive that queries with fewer than 10
>> constants are not merged.
>
> Why? What would be your intuition using this feature?
For the
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:17, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> I do plan to backpatch this, yes. I don't think there are many people
> affected by this (few people are using infinite dates/timestamps, but
> maybe the overflow could be more common).
>
OK, though I doubt that such values are common in
On 2023-10-13 16:44:13 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Here is what I had in mind (only this part in the second patch was changed).
Makes sense to me. I think we'll likely eventually want to use a custom
pipeline anyway, and I think we should consider using an optimization level
inbetween "not at
Hi,
On 2023-10-13 11:06:21 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:31:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I also don't think we should add the mem2reg pass outside of -O0 - running
> > it
> > after a real optimization pipeline doesn't seem useful and might even make
> > the
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:31:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think the "function(no-op-function),no-op-module" bit does something
> > particularly useful?
>
> Right, looks like leftovers after verifying which passes
On 10/12/23 19:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:41:39AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
After some more thought, I think we could massage the "pg_control in
backup_label" method into something that could be back patched, with more
advanced features (e.g. error on backup_label
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 05:07:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Now, it doesn't mean that this approach with the "powers" will never
> happen, but based on the set of opinions I am gathering on this thread
> I would suggest to rework the patch as follows:
> - First implement an on/off switch
Hello
Equaling a domain with a type is really confusing because why, for instance, in
this case the following is possible without defining any additional operators.
CREATE DOMAIN d_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL;
CREATE DOMAIN d_description VARCHAR(1000) NOT NULL;
CREATE TABLE x(name d_name,
> On 12 Oct 2023, at 15:40, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2023, at 15:37, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>> I realized that pg_stat_statements is bumped to 1.11 with this patch
>> but oldextversions test is not updated. So, I attached a patch for
>> updating oldextversions.
>
> Thanks for
On 10/13/23 14:04, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 11:44, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/23 11:21, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this only inefficient? Or can it also lead to wrong query results?
>>
>> I don't think it can produce incorrect results. It only affects which
>>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 11:44, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 10/13/23 11:21, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > Is this only inefficient? Or can it also lead to wrong query results?
>
> I don't think it can produce incorrect results. It only affects which
> values we "merge" into an interval when building
Dear hackers,
> >
> > > > I mean instead of resetwal directly modifying the control file we
> > > > will modify that value in the server using the binary_upgrade function
> > > > and then have that value flush to the disk by shutdown checkpoint.
> > > >
> > >
> > > True, the alternative to
On 10/13/23 11:21, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 23:43, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Ashutosh Bapat reported me off-list a possible issue in how BRIN
>> minmax-multi calculate distance for infinite timestamp/date values.
>>
>> The current code does this:
>>
>> if
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 2:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:07 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > But is this a problem? basically, we will set the
> > > ShmemVariableCache->nextOid counter to the value that we want in the
> > > IsBinaryUpgrade-specific function. And then the
On 23/8/2023 12:37, Richard Guo wrote:
To fix it we may need to modify RelOptInfos for Path, BitmapHeapPath,
ForeignPath and CustomPath, and modify IndexOptInfos for IndexPath. It
seems that that is not easily done without postponing reparameterization
of paths until createplan.c.
Attached is
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> I'll need a bit more input from Fujii-san before doing anything about
> his comments, still it looks like a doc issue to me that may need a
> backpatch to clarify how the non-transactional case behaves.
>
I would prefer to associate the
On 13.10.2023 12:03, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:56, a.rybakina wrote:
Also I've incorporated improvements from Alena Rybakina except one for
skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found. It's not yet clear for
me if this check fix some cases. But at least optimization got
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 23:43, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Bapat reported me off-list a possible issue in how BRIN
> minmax-multi calculate distance for infinite timestamp/date values.
>
> The current code does this:
>
> if (TIMESTAMP_NOT_FINITE(dt1) || TIMESTAMP_NOT_FINITE(dt2))
>
On 9/23/23 03:57, Jeff Davis wrote:
IIUC there is really one use case here, which is for superuser to
define a subscription including the connection, and then change the
owner to a non-superuser to actually run it (without being able to
touch the connection string itself). I'd just document that
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:31:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-10-11 21:59:50 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > +#else
> > + LLVMPassBuilderOptionsRef options;
> > + LLVMErrorRef err;
> > + int compile_optlevel;
> > + char *passes;
> > +
> > +
On 13/10/2023 15:56, a.rybakina wrote:
Also I've incorporated improvements from Alena Rybakina except one for
skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found. It's not yet clear for
me if this check fix some cases. But at least optimization got skipped
in some useful cases (as you can see in
Hi,
> Those all make sense to me.
>
> > [...]
>
> Of course. Your general approach seems wise.
>
> Thanks for working on this. I will be relieved once this is finally
> taken care of.
+1, and many thanks for your attention to the patchset and all the details!
--
Best regards,
Aleksander
> On 13 Oct 2023, at 04:25, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:13:45AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 26 Sep 2023, at 00:20, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:18:00AM +0900, bt23nguyent wrote:
-basic_archive_configured(ArchiveModuleState
Also I've incorporated improvements from Alena Rybakina except one for
skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found. It's not yet clear for
me if this check fix some cases. But at least optimization got skipped
in some useful cases (as you can see in regression tests).
Agree. I wouldn't say
On 13.10.2023 10:04, Andy Fan wrote:
It seems to me that the expressions "=" and "IN" are equivalent
here due to the fact that the aggregated subquery returns only one
value, and the result with the "IN" operation can be considered as
the intersection of elements on the left and
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:07 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > But is this a problem? basically, we will set the
> > ShmemVariableCache->nextOid counter to the value that we want in the
> > IsBinaryUpgrade-specific function. And then the shutdown checkpoint
> > will flush that value to the control
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:54 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > > Doesn't that mean that if you create the first login trigger in a
> > > database and leave the transaction open,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:46:11PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> IMHO this adds way too much complexity to something that most users would
>> expect to be an on/off switch.
>
> This documentation is exclusively to be precise about
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 08:01:08AM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 10/13/23 06:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> but after also removing
>> the completion for "ZONE" after typing "AT TIME" because AT would be
>> completed by "TIME ZONE".
>
> Why? The user can tab at any point.
IMO this leads to
Hi Tom,
Would you like to have a look at this? The change is not big and the
optimization has also been asked for many times. The attached is the
v5 version and I also try my best to write a good commit message.
Here is the commit fest entry:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4268/
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:43:34PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Here's a new patch set. I think I've incorporated the performance
> fixes that you've suggested so far into this version. I also adjusted
> a couple of other things:
Now looking at 0002, where you should be careful about the code
>
> It seems to me that the expressions "=" and "IN" are equivalent here due
> to the fact that the aggregated subquery returns only one value, and the
> result with the "IN" operation can be considered as the intersection of
> elements on the left and right. In this query, we have some kind of
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:07 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I had an idea about this:
> > > So far, you only consider constant ranges. But if we have a STABLE range
> > > expression, you could use an index scan for "expr <@ range", for example
> > > Index Cond (expr >= lower(range) AND
On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 19:56 +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> Say, we have data processed by some user function and we want to keep
> reference to this function
> in our data. In this case we have two ways - first - store string output of
> regprocedure, which is not
> very convenient, and the
On 10/13/23 06:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 03:07:25AM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
The SQL committee already has another operator starting with AT which is AT
LOCAL.
The other patch was the reason why I looked at this one.
Thank you for updating and committing this
54 matches
Mail list logo
