On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 3:11 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I just noticed that 0003 does some changes to
> TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus() that haven't been adequately
> explained AFAICS. How do you know that these changes are safe?
IMHO this is safe as well as logical to do w.r.t.
hi.
minor issues.
In transformJsonFuncExpr(ParseState *pstate, JsonFuncExpr *func)
func.behavior->on_empty->location and
func.behavior->on_error->location are correct.
but in ExecInitJsonExpr, jsestate->jsexpr->on_empty->location is -1,
jsestate->jsexpr->on_error->location is -1.
Maybe we can
based on v17.
begin;
drop table if exists s1;
CREATE TABLE s1 (id numrange, misc int, misc1 text);
create role test101 login;
grant update, select on s1 to test101;
insert into s1 VALUES ('[1,1000]',2);
set session authorization test101;
update s1 set id = '[1,1000]';
savepoint sp1;
update s1
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 11:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> That line of argument also leads to the conclusion that it'd be
> okay to expose info about the ordering of the CTE result to the
> upper planner. This patch doesn't do that, and I'm not sufficiently
> excited about the issue to go write some
On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 20:18 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've often had to analyze what caused corruption in PG instances, where the
> symptoms match not having had backup_label in place when bringing on the
> node. However that's surprisingly hard - the only log messages that indicate
> use of
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 06:06:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that simd.h was a rather large
> dependency to add to something as widely used as pg_wchar.h. So I'd
> favor getting it out of there just on compilation-time grounds,
> independently of whether it's
>
> Attached is a separate patch with those doc updates, intended to be
> applied and back-patched independently of the main RETURNING patch.
>
> Regards,
> Dean
+ You will require the SELECT privilege and any column(s)
+ of the data_source and
+ target_table_name referred to
+ in any
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 12:57 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 2) Raise error if user slot with same name already exists on standby.
"ERROR: not synchronizing slot test; it is a user created slot"
I just tested this using v35 and to me the error message when this
happens is not very good.
Hi,
I've often had to analyze what caused corruption in PG instances, where the
symptoms match not having had backup_label in place when bringing on the
node. However that's surprisingly hard - the only log messages that indicate
use of backup_label are at DEBUG1.
Given how crucial use of
On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 22:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> That line of argument also leads to the conclusion that it'd be
> okay to expose info about the ordering of the CTE result to the
> upper planner. [...] The fence is sort of one-way
> in this line of thinking: information can propagate up to
On Thursday, November 16, 2023, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> That line of argument also leads to the conclusion that it'd be
> okay to expose info about the ordering of the CTE result to the
> upper planner. This patch doesn't do that, and I'm not sufficiently
> excited about the issue to go write some
Richard Guo writes:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> So you could argue that there's more to do here, but I'm hesitant
>> to go further. Part of the point of MATERIALIZED is to be an
>> optimization fence, so breaking down that fence is something to be
>> wary of. Maybe we
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:25 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
> I noticed that this query worked correctly in the main branch with the
> inequality operator:
>
> postgres=# select distinct on (a, b) a, b from (values (3, 1), (2, 2)) as
> t (a, b) where a > b group by grouping sets((a, b), (a)); a | b
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> BufFileTellBlock should be adjusted too. Or removed altogether; it's been
> commented out since year 2000. Other than that, looks good to me.
Yes, I recall wondering about what to do on this one so I just let it
be when
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> So you could argue that there's more to do here, but I'm hesitant
> to go further. Part of the point of MATERIALIZED is to be an
> optimization fence, so breaking down that fence is something to be
> wary of. Maybe we shouldn't even take this
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:27 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> On 11/13/23 2:57 PM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2023 4:16 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >> Yeah good point, agree to just error out in all the case then (if we
> >> discard the sync_ reserved
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:54 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> That being said, it's not unheard of for Postgres to make adjustments for
> third-party code (search for "pljava" in commits 62aba76 and f4aa3a1). I
> read the description of the pgrx problem [2], and I'm still trying to
> understand the
On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 20:13 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 19:01 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 0003: Cache for recomputeNamespacePath.
>
> Committed with some further simplification around the OOM handling.
While I considered OOM during hash key initialization, I missed some
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 3:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 6:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Thoughts on whether to backpatch? It'd probably be at least a bit painful,
> > there have been a lot of changes in the surrounding code in the last 5
> > years.
>
> I guess the main
Hi Jian,
Thanks for your comments, a new version is attached.
Thanks,
Shihao
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 9:59 AM jian he wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 10:30 AM shihao zhong
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback on my previous patch. I have fixed the issue
> and attached a new patch for
Nathan Bossart writes:
> It looks like is_valid_ascii() was originally added to pg_wchar.h so that
> it could easily be used elsewhere [0] [1], but that doesn't seem to have
> happened yet.
It seems to be new as of v15, so there wouldn't have been a lot of time
for external code to adopt it. As
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:10:59PM -0800, Jubilee Young wrote:
> On the off-chance that everyone agrees with me without reserve, the
> attached patch moves the relevant code around (and includes the gory
> details). This seems to be unlikely to be the only mildly-exotic build
> system failure
Jubilee Young writes:
> I have root-caused the exact problem, but the bug is... social, rather
> than technical in nature: people with inadequate options at their
> disposal have implemented increasingly clever educated guesses that
> are increasingly prone to going wrong, rather than just asking
Hi hackers,
Patch rebased to the current master
--
regards, Andrei Zubkov
Postgres Professional
From ff2ff96352a843d32a1213a1e953503fd1525b7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrei Zubkov
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 00:27:24 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] pg_stat_statements tests: Add NOT NULL checking
> On 30 Jul 2020, at 14:11, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:47 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>> But I also agree that what pg_start_backup() was doing before v13 was
>> wrong; that's why I committed
>> 303640199d0436c5e7acdf50b837a027b5726594. The only reason I didn't
>> back-patch it
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 3:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think the main reason it's not all that bad, even when hitting this path, is
> that one stall every 8GB just isn't that much and that the stalls aren't that
> long - the leaf page fsm updates don't use the strategy, so they're still
>
In the "Allow tests to pass in OpenSSL FIPS mode" thread [0] it was discovered
that 3DES is joining the ranks of NIST disallowed algorithms. The attached
patch adds a small note to the pgcrypto documentation about deprecated uses of
algorithms. I've kept it to "official" notices such as RFC's
Hi,
On 2023-11-16 15:29:38 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 6:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Thoughts on whether to backpatch? It'd probably be at least a bit painful,
> > there have been a lot of changes in the surrounding code in the last 5
> > years.
>
> I guess the main
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 6:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Thoughts on whether to backpatch? It'd probably be at least a bit painful,
> there have been a lot of changes in the surrounding code in the last 5 years.
I guess the main point that I'd make here is that we shouldn't
back-patch because it's
Hello,
I work on pgrx, a Rust crate (really, a set of them) that allows
people to use Rust to write extensions against Postgres, exporting
what Postgres sees as ordinary "C" dynamic libraries. Unfortunately,
the build system for this is a touch complicated, as it cannot simply
run pgxs.mk, and
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > Perhaps we could use snprintf_l() and strtod_l() where available.
> > They're not standard, but they are obvious extensions that NetBSD and
> > Windows have, and those are the two systems for which we are doing
> >
Richard Guo writes:
> I think the second plan (patched) makes more sense. In the first plan
> (unpatched), the HashAggregate node actually does not reduce the the
> number of rows because it groups by 'unique1', but planner does not know
> that because it lacks statistics for Vars referencing
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:34 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Putting those two thoughts together, I think pg_basebackup with
> --progress could tell you "still waiting for the summary file up to LSN
> %X/%X to appear, and the walsummarizer is currently handling lsn %X/%X"
> or something like that.
@cfbot: rebased
>From a9bb61421c24bd3273a8519362febb4073c297a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 22:28:06 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v4] WIP: use BulkInsertState for toast tuples, too
DONE: ALTER, CLUSTER
TODO: copyto, copyfrom?
slot_getsomeattrs
On 2023-Nov-16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Oct-04, Robert Haas wrote:
> > - Right now, I have a hard-coded 60 second timeout for WAL
> > summarization. If you try to take an incremental backup and the WAL
> > summaries you need don't show up within 60 seconds, the backup times
> > out. I
On 2023-Nov-16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 5:21 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I meant code like this
> >
> > memcpy(, rlocator, sizeof(RelFileLocator));
> > key.forknum = forknum;
> > entry = blockreftable_lookup(brtab->hash, key);
>
> Ah, I hadn't
On 2023-Oct-04, Robert Haas wrote:
> - I would like some feedback on the generation of WAL summary files.
> Right now, I have it enabled by default, and summaries are kept for a
> week. That means that, with no additional setup, you can take an
> incremental backup as long as the reference backup
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 5:21 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I meant code like this
>
> memcpy(, rlocator, sizeof(RelFileLocator));
> key.forknum = forknum;
> entry = blockreftable_lookup(brtab->hash, key);
Ah, I hadn't thought about that. Another way of handling that might be
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:12 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 0001 looks OK to push, and since it stands on its own I would get it out
> of the way soon rather than waiting for the rest of the series to be
> further reviewed.
All right, done.
> 0003:
> AmWalSummarizerProcess() is unused. Remove?
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm, I really can't get excited about this. To me the "you" sounds worse, but
> whatever...
To me, it seems flat-out incorrect without the "you".
It might be better to rephrase the whole thing entirely so that it
doesn't need to address the
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 07:11:41PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> After a recent commit 6a72c42f (a related discussion [1]) which
> removed MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren(), I think there are a
> couple of other backward compatibility macros out there that can be
> removed. These macros
Hi! Thank you for your work on the subject.
On 25.09.2023 10:11, Richard Guo wrote:
I think I've come across a wrong result issue with grouping sets, as
shown by the query below.
-- result is correct with only grouping sets
select a, b
from (values (1, 1), (2, 2)) as t (a, b) where a = b
group
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
>> True, but from the perspective of the affected code, the question is
>> basically "did you call expression_planner() yet". So I like this
>> naming for that connection, whereas something based on "transformation"
>> doesn't really connect to anything in existing
On 06/11/2023 19:16, Tristan Partin wrote:
That sounds like a much better solution. Attached you will find a v4
that implements your suggestion. Please let me know if there is
something that I missed. I can confirm that the patch works.
This patch is missing a select(). It will busy loop until
On 26/09/2023 07:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:42:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I
doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground.
While looking more at that, I've noticed that I
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:29 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:46:25PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > FWIW, there are other backward compatibility macros out there like
> > tuplestore_donestoring which was introduced by commit dd04e95 21 years
> > ago and SPI_push()
Hi,
After a recent commit 6a72c42f (a related discussion [1]) which
removed MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren(), I think there are a
couple of other backward compatibility macros out there that can be
removed. These macros are tuplestore_donestoring() which was
introduced by commit dd04e95 21
Hi,
> Attached is a slightly modified version of the patch.
The patch was marked as "Needs Review" so I decided to take a look.
I believe it's a good patch. The text is well written, has the
necessary references, it warns the user but doesn't scare him/her too
much.
> I couldn't make it
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:50 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 15.11.23 13:26, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Question: Why are you using AT_PASS_ADD_OTHERCONSTR? I don't know if
> > it's right or wrong, but if you have a specific reason, it would be
> > good
> > to know.
> >
> > I referred
Dear Vignesh,
Thanks for updating the patch! Here are some comments.
They are mainly cosmetic because I have not read yours these days.
01. binary_upgrade_add_sub_rel_state()
```
+/* We must check these things before dereferencing the arguments */
+if (PG_ARGISNULL(0) || PG_ARGISNULL(1)
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 4:01 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Nov-16, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > I searched HEAD code and did not find any "translator:" comments for
> > just ordinary slot name substitutions like these; AFAICT that comment
> > is not necessary anymore.
>
> True. Lose that.
Sorry for the late response here. We spent some time researching and measuring
the frequency impact of AVX512 instructions used here.
>How does this compare to older CPUs, and more mixed workloads? IIRC,
the use of AVX512 (which I believe this instruction to be included in)
has significant
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:39 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 17.10.23 09:25, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > #create table tpart (a serial primary key, src varchar) partition by
> > range(a);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > #create table t_p4 (a int primary key, src varchar);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > To appease
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:51 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 27.10.23 13:32, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > I think we should fix these anomalies as follows
> > 1. Allow identity columns to be added to the partitioned table
> > irrespective of whether they have partitions of not.
> > 2. Propagate
On 2023-Nov-16, Peter Smith wrote:
> I searched HEAD code and did not find any "translator:" comments for
> just ordinary slot name substitutions like these; AFAICT that comment
> is not necessary anymore.
True. Lose that.
The rationale I have is to consider whether a translator looking at the
On 16/11/2023 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 09/03/2023 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
After further thought that seems like a pretty ad-hoc solution.
We probably can do no better in the back branches, but shouldn't
we start treating WaitEventSets as ResourceOwner-managed
On 2023-Nov-13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:25 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Also, it would be good to provide and use a
> > function to initialize a BlockRefTableKey from the RelFileNode and
> > forknum components, and ensure that any padding bytes are zeroed.
> >
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 5:21 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> PFA v34.
>
Few comments on v34-0001*
===
1.
+ char buf[100];
+
+ buf[0] = '\0';
+
+ if (MySubscription->twophasestate == LOGICALREP_TWOPHASE_STATE_PENDING)
+ strcat(buf, "twophase");
+ if (MySubscription->failoverstate
I just noticed that 0003 does some changes to
TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus() that haven't been adequately
explained AFAICS. How do you know that these changes are safe?
0001 contains one typo in the docs, "cotents".
I'm not a fan of the fact that some CLOG sizing macros moved to clog.h,
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 6:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> The existing RTE_SUBQUERY stanza has most of what we need for this,
> so I experimented with extending that to also handle RTE_CTE. It
> seems to work, though I soon found out that it needed tweaking for
> the case where the CTE is
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-11-15 22:00:41 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > This causes a nontrivial increase in the size of the parser (~5% in an
> > > optimized build here), I wonder if we can do better.
> >
> > Hmm, sorry if I sound ignorant but what do you
On 2023-11-16 16:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:25:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Other than that, it looks OK.
Tweaked the queries of this one slightly, and applied. So I think
that we are now good for this thread. Thanks, all!
Thanks for the modification and
62 matches
Mail list logo
