On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:06 PM Peter Smith
wrote:
> Here are my review comments for the latest patch v16-0001. (excluding the
> test code)
Hi, thank you for your review !
> ==
>
> General
>
> 1.
>
> Since the value of min_apply_delay cannot be < 0, I was thinking probably it
>
Hi!
I've found the discussion you'd mentioned before, checking now.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:49 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error
> would
> > require a
Justin Pryzby писал 2023-01-19 04:49:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
Hi,
Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error
would
require a new test.
Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a
check
for a vacuum
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:49 AM Peter Smith
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:06 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > Here are my review comments for the latest patch v16-0001. (excluding
> > the test code)
> >
>
> And here are some review comments for the v16-0001 test code.
Hi, thanks
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:39 AM Zheng Li wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 8:58 PM Zheng Li wrote:
> > >
>
> Foreign Tables can also be considered replicated with DDL replication because
> we
> don't even need to replicate the data as
On 1/19/23 11:01, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrey Lepikhov writes:
On 1/9/23 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, if this does bring the probability of failure down to the
one-in-a-billion range, I think we could also nuke the whole
"ignore:" business, simplifying pg_regress and allowing the
random test to be
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:35:29AM +0100, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> Anything I can do to help with this? Or will you do that yourself?
So, I have done a second lookup, and tweaked a few things:
- Addition of a macro for pg_strcasecmp(), to match with
token_matches().
- Fixed a bit the documentation.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> Attaching the patch.
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:21 PM Nitin Jadhav
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > GetConfigOptionValues function extracts the config parameters for the
> > given variable irrespective of whether it results in noshow or not.
Hi all,
A recent system update of a Debian SID host has begun to show me this
issue:
./src/bin/psql/create_help.pl: Bareword dir handle opened at line 47,
column 1. See pages 202,204 of PBP.
([InputOutput::ProhibitBarewordDirHandles] Severity: 5)
This issue gets fixed here as of the attached.
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves* processed by autovacuum."
>
> Yes, I think the lack of autovacuum needs
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:11 PM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:00:43AM +, Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > The attached patch includes below two changes for the description of
> > Logical Replication "Configuration Settings".
> >
> > 1. Add one brief
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 13:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I am a bit worried about the indirections that the wrappers and hooks
> > > > create. Output plugins call
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:31 PM Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> The attached patch includes below two changes for the description of
> Logical Replication "Configuration Settings".
>
> 1. Add one brief description about wal_sender_timeout.
>I made it similar to one other
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:05 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:13 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I think that it makes sense to keep 'vacuum_freeze_strategy_threshold'
> > strictly for freezing. But the point is that the eager scanning
> > strategy is driven by table freezing
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 10:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe writes:
> > On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 19:59 +0100, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> > > So, the timestamp displayed in the log message is certainly wrong.
>
> > If recovery stops at a WAL record that has no timestamp, you get this
> > bogus
Hi hackers!
Alexander found a very good issue.
Please check the solution above. Any objections? It's a production case,
please review,
any thoughts and objections are welcome.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:15 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> Nikita Malakhov писал 2023-01-16 20:12:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
I'm trying to better understand the following barging behaviour with SHARED
locks.
*Setup:*
postgres=# create table t(a INT);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# INSERT INTO t VALUES(1);
INSERT 0 1
Then, performing the following operations in 3 different sessions, in
order, we observe:
Session 1 Session 2
I tried this other test, based on looking at the new regression tests
you added,
SELECT ts_headline('english', '
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion,
As idle as a painted Ship
Upon a painted Ocean.
Water, water, every where
And all the boards did shrink;
Water,
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 8:58 PM Zheng Li wrote:
>
> I added documentation and changed user interface design in the
> attached v60 patch set.
> The patch set addressed comments from Peter in [1].
>
> The motivation for the user interface change is that we want to manage
> DDL replication feature in
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 22:37, Richard Guo wrote:
> I'm still confused that when the same scenario happens with ORDER BY in
> an aggregate function, like in query 1, the result is different in that
> we would get an unsorted output.
>
> I wonder if we should avoid this inconsistent behavior.
It
On 2023-Jan-18, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> The current calls are done that way:
>
> wait_for_replay_catchup called:
> - 8 times with write LSN as an argument
> - 1 time with insert LSN as an argument
> - 16 times with flush LSN as an argument
> So it looks like that providing a node as a second
On 11.01.23 07:11, Peter Smith wrote:
v9-0003 --> v10-0001
I'm not sure if anything is pending for v9-0003, if there is something
pending, please post an updated patch for the same.
Thanks for the reminder. PSA v10.
So this patch changes some sections describing system views to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 09:49, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 22:37, Richard Guo wrote:
> > I'm still confused that when the same scenario happens with ORDER BY in
> > an aggregate function, like in query 1, the result is different in that
> > we would get an unsorted output.
> >
Not related to this patch: it's very annoying that in the PDF output,
each section in the appendix doesn't start on a blank page -- which
means that the doc page for many modules starts in the middle of a page
were the previous one ends. This is very ugly. And then you get to
dblink, which
Hi,
On 1/6/23 4:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
0004:
@@ -3037,6 +3037,43 @@ $SIG{TERM} = $SIG{INT} = sub {
=pod
+=item $node->create_logical_slot_on_standby(self, master, slot_name, dbname)
+
+Create logical replication slot on given standby
+
+=cut
+
+sub create_logical_slot_on_standby
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > BTW, I wonder if we should have checked CoercionForm before
> > fix_upper_expr_mutator steps into CoerceViaIO->arg to adjust the expr
> > there.
>
> I will just quote what it says in primnodes.h:
>
> * NB: equal()
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 6:04 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:33 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > I noticed that commit 5212d447fa updated some comments in multixact.c
> because
> > SLRU truncation for multixacts is performed during VACUUM, instead of
> > checkpoint.
As far as I can tell this is ready for committer feedback now btw. I'd
really like to get this into PG16.
> It hadn't been my intention to block the patch on it, sorry. Just
> registering a preference.
No problem. I hadn't looked into the shared PRNG solution closely
enough to determine if I
On 10.01.23 21:31, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 8:52 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
Ok, let's look through these patches starting from the top then.
v4-0001-Add-no-movement-scan-helper.patch
This makes sense overall; there is clearly some duplicate code that can
be unified.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 5:37 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:49 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 13:29 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:29 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Xing Guo writes:
> > Are there any unsafe codes in pltcl.c? The return statement is in the
> > PG_CATCH() block, I think the exception stack has been recovered in
> > PG_CATCH block so the return statement in PG_CATCH block should be ok?
>
>
On 1/16/23 21:39, Pavel Stehule wrote:
po 16. 1. 2023 v 21:34 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
Hi,
there's minor bitrot in the Mkvcbuild.pm change, making cfbot unhappy.
As for the patch, I don't have much comments. I'm wondering if it'd be
useful to indicate which timing
> 0004 looks fine as well, be it for the tests (I am hesitating to tweak
> things a bit here actually for the role names), the code or the docs,
Anything I can do to help with this? Or will you do that yourself?
Hi Vignesh,
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 15:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Attached is a rebased version of the patch.
>
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased
> patch:
I rebased the patch. Attached is an updated
Hello,
I was curious as to why we need 3rd running_xact and wanted to learn
more about it, so I have made a few changes to come up with a patch
which builds the snapshot in 2 running_xacts. The motive is to run the
tests to see the failures/issues with this approach to understand the
need of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:49 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 13:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am a bit worried
On 2023-Jan-02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a patch: contrib_v1.patch
>
> It modifies Appendix F, the contrib directory.
>
> It adds brief text into the titles shown in the
> table of contents so it's easier to tell what
> each module does. It also suffixes [trusted] or
On 2023-01-17 Tu 11:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> FYI crake has just passed the test with flying colours.
> Cool. I await the Windows machines' results with interest.
fairwren and drongo are clean except for fairywren upgrading 9.6 to 11.
This appears to be a longstanding
On 1/16/23 18:37, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-01-02 14:28:20 +0100, David Geier wrote:
I'm doubtful this is worth the complexity it incurs. By the time we convert
out of the instr_time format, the times shouldn't be small enough that the
accuracy is affected much.
I don't feel strong
Hi,
@Andres: will you take care of these changes and provide me with an
updated patch set so I can rebase the RDTSC changes?
Otherwise, I can also apply Tom suggestions to your patch set and send
out the complete patch set.
--
David Geier
(ServiceNow)
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 06:15, Ankit Kumar Pandey wrote:
>
>
> > On 09/01/23 17:53, David Rowley wrote:
> > I gave some thought to whether doing foreach_delete_current() is safe
> > within a foreach_reverse() loop. I didn't try it, but I couldn't see
> > any reason why not. It is pretty late here
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:36 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 11.01.23 07:11, Peter Smith wrote:
> > v9-0003 --> v10-0001
> >
> >> I'm not sure if anything is pending for v9-0003, if there is something
> >> pending, please post an updated patch for the same.
>
Dean Rasheed writes:
> I think the behaviour of an ORDER BY in the query can also be pretty
> surprising.
Indeed. The fundamental question is this: in
> SELECT ARRAY[random(), random(), random()]
> FROM generate_series(1, 3)
> ORDER BY random();
are those four occurrences of random() supposed
Hi,
I took a quick look at this patch, to see if there's something we
want/can get into v16. The last version was submitted about 9 months
ago, and it doesn't apply cleanly anymore, but the bitrot is fairly
minor. Not sure there's still interest, though.
As for the patch, I wonder if it's
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:15 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Great. Here is a first attempt at the patch.
In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
if (!am_superuser && !am_walsender && (SuperuserReservedBackends +
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 5:56 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Why do you think that?
>
> For the reasons I gave about statistics, random sampling, the central
> limit theorem. All that stuff. This matches the experience of Andres.
> And is obviously the only explanation behind the reliance on
>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 9:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Possibly a better answer is to refactor into separate functions,
> along the lines of
>
> static bool
> ConfigOptionIsShowable(struct config_generic *conf)
>
> static void
> GetConfigOptionValues(struct config_generic *conf, const char **values)
TBH, I think the best approach is what I did in:
0001-report-top-parent-progress-for-CREATE-INDEX.txt
That's a minimal patch, ideal for backpatching.
..which defines/clarifies that the progress reporting is only for
*direct* children. That avoids the need to change any data structures,
and it's
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> fairwren and drongo are clean except for fairywren upgrading 9.6 to 11.
> This appears to be a longstanding issue that the fuzz processing was
> causing us to ignore. See for example
>
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> ... I was going for the html effect
> of having these views chunked into their own pages, any other changes being
> non-detrimental.
But is that a result we want? It will for example break any bookmarks
that people might have for these documentation entries. It
On 2023-01-18 We 03:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A recent system update of a Debian SID host has begun to show me this
> issue:
> ./src/bin/psql/create_help.pl: Bareword dir handle opened at line 47,
> column 1. See pages 202,204 of PBP.
> ([InputOutput::ProhibitBarewordDirHandles]
Hi,
On 1/16/23 16:14, gkokola...@pm.me wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I admit I am completely at lost as to what is expected from me anymore.
>
:-(
I understand it's frustrating not to know why a patch is not moving
forward. Particularly when is seems fairly straightforward ...
Let me briefly explain my
On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
from the rows in its group.
PFA an implementation of this aggregate.
Here is v2
On 1/18/23 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
from the rows in its
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 00:00, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> út 17. 1. 2023 v 20:29 odesílatel Isaac Morland
> napsal:
>
>>
>> I welcome comments and feedback. Now to try to find something manageable
>> to review.
>>
>
> looks well
>
> you miss update psql documentation
>
>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:30:45 +0100
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Not related to this patch: it's very annoying that in the PDF output,
> each section in the appendix doesn't start on a blank page -- which
> means that the doc page for many modules starts in the middle of a
> page were the previous one
Nitin Jadhav writes:
> GetConfigOptionValues function extracts the config parameters for the
> given variable irrespective of whether it results in noshow or not.
> But the parent function show_all_settings ignores the values parameter
> if it results in noshow. It's unnecessary to fetch all the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:06 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:18 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:02 PM John Naylor
> > wrote:
>
> Attached is an update that mostly has the modest goal of getting CI green
> again. v19-0003 has squashed the entire
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 8:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > ... I was going for the html effect
> > of having these views chunked into their own pages, any other changes
> being
> > non-detrimental.
>
> But is that a result we want? It will for example break any
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
>>> returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
>>> from the rows in its group.
> Since the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:44:52PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:21 AM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> With your patch, we might replay one of these "old" files in pg_wal instead
>> of the complete version of the file from the archives,
>
> That's true even today,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:37 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I can, it should be just about trivial code-wise. A bit queasy about trying to
> forsee the potential consequences.
That's always going to be true, though.
> A somewhat related issue is that pgstat_report_vacuum() sets dead_tuples to
> what
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:35:29AM +0100, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> Anything I can do to help with this? Or will you do that yourself?
Nope. I just need some time to finish wrapping it, that's all.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:06 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are my review comments for the latest patch v16-0001. (excluding
> the test code)
>
...
>
> 8. AlterSubscription (general)
>
> I observed during testing there are 3 different errors….
>
> At subscription CREATE time you can get this
Hi,
On 2023-01-18 16:19:02 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:02 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > vacuum-no reltuples/n_live_tupn_dead_tup
> > 1 476 500
> > 2 2500077 500
> > 3
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:06 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are my review comments for the latest patch v16-0001. (excluding
> the test code)
>
And here are some review comments for the v16-0001 test code.
==
src/test/regress/sql/subscription.sql
1. General
For all comments
"time
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:12:18PM +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently there is no error in this case, so additional thrown error would
> require a new test.
> Besides, throwing an error here does not make sense - it is just a check
> for a vacuum
> permission, I think the right way
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> How about a float autovacuum_no_auto_cancel_age where positive values are
> treated as absolute values, and negative values are a multiple of
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age? And where the "computed" age is capped at
> vacuum_failsafe_age? A
On 2023-Jan-18, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:30:45 +0100
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Not related to this patch: it's very annoying that in the PDF output,
> > each section in the appendix doesn't start on a blank page -- which
> > means that the doc page for many modules
Hi,
On 2023-01-12 08:34:25 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.01.23 08:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 23.11.22 14:57, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > > Hi Andres,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > > I don't think it is correct for any of these to add const. The
> > > > only
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:28:57AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
> twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
I should have thought of this. This is fixed in v2.
> In the common case where we hit neither limit, this
Hi,
This patch hasn't been updated since September, and it got broken by
4a29eabd1d91c5484426bc5836e0a7143b064f5a which the incremental sort
stuff a little bit. But the breakage was rather limited, so I took a
stab at fixing it - attached is the result, hopefully correct.
I also added a couple
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> 1. It's still possible for a CREATEROLE user to hand out role
> attributes that they don't possess. The new prohibitions in
> cf5eb37c5ee0cc54c80d95c1695d7fca1f7c68cb prevent a CREATEROLE user
> from handing out membership in a role on which
David Rowley writes:
> No objections from me.
Pushed, thanks for looking at it.
regards, tom lane
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
This needs regression test support for the feature and some minimal
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 2:38 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> Committed.
I was just noticing that what was committed here didn't actually fix
the problem implied by the subject line. That is, non-superuser still
can't own subscriptions. To put that another way, there's no way for
the superuser to delegate
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:49:19AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > Maybe (all?) the clarification the
Hi Tomas,
Thanks for picking up the patch and for the interesting discussions that
you bring !
> Interesting. Are there any particular differences compared to how we
> estimate for example range clauses on regular columns?
The theory is the same for scalar types. Yet, the statistics that are
One more thing before we move on from this topic. I'd been testing
modified versions of the AdjustUpgrade.pm logic by building from a
--from-source source tree, which seemed way easier than dealing
with a private git repo. As it stands, TestUpgradeXversion.pm
refuses to run under $from_source,
On 18/01/23 15:12, David Rowley wrote:
I also thought I'd better test that foreach_delete_current() works
with foreach_reverse(). I can confirm that it *does not* work
correctly. I guess maybe you only tested the fact that it deleted the
current item and not that the subsequent loop
Also, calc_hist_selectivity_contains in multirangetypes_selfuncs.c needs
a proper comment, not just "this is a copy from rangetypes".
However, it seems the two functions are exactly the same. Would the
functions diverge in the future? If not, maybe there should be just a
single shared function?
.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > It just fits: the dead tuples approach can sometimes be so
> > completely wrong that even an alternative triggering condition based
> > on something that is virtually unrelated to the thing we actually care
> > about can do much better in
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:25:57 +0100
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Jan-02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > Attached is a patch: contrib_v1.patch
> >
> > It modifies Appendix F, the contrib directory.
> >
> > It adds brief text into the titles shown in the
> > table of contents so it's easier to tell
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:31 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> pgstat_report_analyze() will totally override the
> tabentry->dead_tuples information that drives autovacuum.c, based on
> an estimate derived from a random sample -- which seems to me to be an
> approach that just doesn't have any sound
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 18:34:47 +0100
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Jan-18, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:30:45 +0100
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > Not related to this patch: it's very annoying that in the PDF
> > > output, each section in the appendix doesn't start
Hi Tomas,
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 17:29 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I took a quick look at this patch, to see if there's something we
> want/can get into v16. The last version was submitted about 9 months
> ago, and it doesn't apply cleanly anymore, but the bitrot is fairly
> minor. Not sure
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 11:49 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I tweaked this a bit to end up with:
>
> > - Partitioned tables are not processed by autovacuum. Statistics
> > - should be collected by running a manual ANALYZE
> > when it is
> > + The leaf partitions of a partitioned table
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 10:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I seem to recall that the original idea was to report the timestamp
>> of the commit/abort record we are stopping at. Maybe my memory is
>> faulty, but I think that'd be significantly more useful than the
>> current
On 1/18/23 16:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
from the rows in its group.
PFA an
Hello Mahmoud,
Thanks for the patch and sorry for not taking a look earlier.
On 6/30/22 16:31, Mahmoud Sakr wrote:
> Hi,
> Given a query:
> SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.r << t2.r
> where t1.r, t2.r are of range type,
> currently PostgreSQL will estimate a constant selectivity for the <<
>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves*
Hi,
On 2023-01-18 10:22:14 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-01-12 08:34:25 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 07.01.23 08:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > This patch version looks correct to me. It is almost the same as the
> > > one that Andres had posted in his thread, except that
Hi,
I was playing around with splitting up the tablespace test in regress so
that I could use the tablespaces it creates in another test and happened
to notice that the pg_class validity checks in type_sanity.sql are
incomplete.
It seems that 8b08f7d4820fd did not update the pg_class tests in
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 2:00 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:28:57AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > In general, looks good. I think this will often call HaveNFreeProcs
> > twice, though, and that would be better to avoid, e.g.
>
> I should have thought of this. This is fixed
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:15 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Suppose that we notice that its new
> estimate for live_tuples approximately matches what the stats
> subsystem already thought about live_tuples, while dead_tuples is far
> far lower. We shouldn't be so credulous as to believe the new
>
On 2023-01-18 We 14:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> One more thing before we move on from this topic. I'd been testing
> modified versions of the AdjustUpgrade.pm logic by building from a
> --from-source source tree, which seemed way easier than dealing
> with a private git repo. As it stands,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:02 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Some of what I'm proposing arguably amounts to deliberately adding a
> bias. But that's not an unreasonable thing in itself. I think of it as
> related to the bias-variance tradeoff, which is a concept that comes
> up a lot in machine
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I think we can do what you want but it's a bit harder than what you've
> done. If we're not going to save the current run's product then we need
> to run the upgrade test from a different directory (probably directly in
> "$buildroot/$this_branch/inst"). Otherwise we'll
Hi,
On 2023-01-17 12:08:01 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I think that's not the fault of relfrozenxid as a trigger, but that we
> > simply
> > don't keep enough other stats. We should imo at least keep track of:
>
> If you assume that there is chronic undercounting of dead tuples
> (which I
> On Jan 18, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I was just noticing that what was committed here didn't actually fix
> the problem implied by the subject line. That is, non-superuser still
> can't own subscriptions.
Not so. They can. See src/test/subscription/027_nosuperuser.pl
>
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
