Re: Logical replication keepalive flood

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:33 PM Peter Smith wrote: > > This data shows the special keepalives are now greatly reduced from > 1000s to just 10s. > > Thoughts? > I could easily see the flood of keepalives with the test setup described by the original problem reporter (Abbas Butt). I found that

Re: straightening out backend process startup

Hi, On September 13, 2021 9:56:52 PM PDT, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:11:29 -0700, Andres Freund wrote >in >> Hi, >> >> On 2021-08-05 12:50:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2021-08-03 16:50:24 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >> > > > - My first attempt at

RE: Added schema level support for publication.

From Tue, Sept 14, 2021 11:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com > wrote: > > > > 6. > > I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables > > and the list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication > > should only

Re: Don't clean up LLVM state when exiting in a bad way

Hi, On September 13, 2021 9:00:00 PM PDT, Alexander Lakhin wrote: >Hello hackers, >14.09.2021 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2021-09-07 14:44:39 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:27:27PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: I think this is a tad too strong. We should

Re: TAP test for recovery_end_command

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Amul Sul wrote: > > Yeah, added that test too. I triggered the restartpoint via a > CHECKPOINT command in the attached version. > > +# archive_cleanup_command executed with every restart points > +ok( !-f

Re: straightening out backend process startup

At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:11:29 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in > Hi, > > On 2021-08-05 12:50:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2021-08-03 16:50:24 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > > - My first attempt at PostgresMainSingle() separated the single/multi > > > > user > > > > cases a bit

RE: Allow escape in application_name

Dear Horiguchi-san, Thank you for giving comments! > Thanks for the new version. I don't object for reusing > process_log_prefix_padding, but I still find it strange that the > function with the name 'process_padding' is in string.c. If we move > it to string.c, I'd like to name it

Re: Added schema level support for publication.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM vignesh C wrote: > > > > Thanks for the changes, the suggested changes make the parsing code > > simpler. I have merged the changes to the main patch. Attached v27 > > patch has the changes for the same. > > >

Re: Added schema level support for publication.

Amit Kapila writes: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com > wrote: >> I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables and the >> list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication should only >> contain the tables and all tables in schemas

Re: Don't clean up LLVM state when exiting in a bad way

Hello hackers, 14.09.2021 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2021-09-07 14:44:39 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:27:27PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >>> I think this is a tad too strong. We should continue to clean up on exit as >>> long as the error didn't happen while

Re: Add jsonlog log_destination for JSON server logs

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:22 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 03:56:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > And this part leads me to the attached, where the addition of the JSON > > format would result in the addition of a couple of lines. > > Okay, I have worked through the

Re: SQL:2011 application time

Hi Corey, Thanks for all the good questions! > 1. This patch creates a pg_period catalog table, whereas the system > versioning relies on additions to pg_attribute to identify the start/end > columns. Initially I thought this was because it was somehow possible to have > multiple application

Re: postgres.h included from relcache.h - but removing it breaks pg_upgrade

Andres Freund writes: > On 2021-09-13 22:40:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> As for the fix ... what in the world is pg_upgrade doing including >> relcache.h? It seems like there's a more fundamental problem here: >> either relcache.h is declaring something that needs to be elsewhere, >> or

Re: Added schema level support for publication.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > 6. > I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables and the > list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication should only > contain the tables and all tables in schemas which user specified.

Re: resowner module README needs update?

Thanks for looking. On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:17 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:44:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > It seems a bunch of other object/resource types have been integrated > > into the resowner mechanism since the list was last updated (2008). > > > >

Re: straightening out backend process startup

Hi, On 2021-08-05 12:50:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2021-08-03 16:50:24 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > - My first attempt at PostgresMainSingle() separated the single/multi user > > > cases a bit more than the code right now, by having a > > > PostgresMainCommon() > > > which

RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress

Hi On Thursday, September 9, 2021 5:04 PM I wrote: > Also, this patch is based on the v12 patch-set of skip xid, as described in my > previous email. > Note that you need to use past commit-id if you want to apply v12 set. > I'll update mine as well when the latest patch-set v13 is shared on

Re: PG Docs - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION option list order

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Kapila writes: > > Pushed the first patch. I am not so sure about the second one so I > > won't do anything for the same. I'll close this CF entry in a day or > > two unless there is an interest in the second patch. > > Sorry for not

Re: postgres.h included from relcache.h - but removing it breaks pg_upgrade

Hi, On 2021-09-13 22:40:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I noticed that postgres.h is included from relcache.h (starting in [1]) and > > wanted to fix that - it violates our usual policy against including > > postgres.h > > from within headers. > > Ugh, yeah, that's

Re: postgres.h included from relcache.h - but removing it breaks pg_upgrade

Andres Freund writes: > I noticed that postgres.h is included from relcache.h (starting in [1]) and > wanted to fix that - it violates our usual policy against including postgres.h > from within headers. Ugh, yeah, that's entirely against policy. As for the fix ... what in the world is

RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

From Thur, Sep 9, 2021 10:33 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Sorry for the late response. I've attached the updated patches that > incorporate > all comments unless I missed something. Please review them. Thanks for the new version patches. Here are some comments for the v13-0001 patch. 1) +

Re: Don't clean up LLVM state when exiting in a bad way

Hi, On 2021-09-07 14:44:39 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:27:27PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > I think this is a tad too strong. We should continue to clean up on exit as > > long as the error didn't happen while we're already inside llvm > > code. Otherwise we loose

Re: Remove duplicate static function check_permissions in slotfuncs.c and logicalfuncs.c

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:51:18AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:14:36PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: nitpick: It looks like there's an extra

RE: Added schema level support for publication.

From Sun, Sept 12, 2021 11:13 PM vignesh C wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:21 AM Hou Zhijie wrote: > > Attach the without-flag version and add comments about the pubobj_name. > > Thanks for the changes, the suggested changes make the parsing code simpler. > I have merged the changes to the

Re: 64 bit TID?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:36 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > If somebody wants to make TIDs (or some generalized TID-like thing > that tableam knows about) into logical identifiers, then they must > also answer the question: identifiers of what? > > TIDs from Postgres heapam identify a physical

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

At Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:30:22 +, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote in > On 9/13/21, 1:25 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > Seems like "huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory" would be sufficient. > > I think we are down to either shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages or > huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory.

Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:09:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I got around to looking at this issue today, and verified that only one > place needs to be changed, as attached. Thanks! This looks fine to me at quick glance. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: 64 bit TID?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 3:30 PM Chris Cleveland wrote: > Wow, thank you, that is some thread. It discusses the issues > thoroughly. If somebody wants to make TIDs (or some generalized TID-like thing that tableam knows about) into logical identifiers, then they must also answer the question:

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On 9/13/21, 1:25 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: > Seems like "huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory" would be sufficient. I think we are down to either shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages or huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory. Robert's argument against huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory was that it might

Re: resowner module README needs update?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:44:11PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > It seems a bunch of other object/resource types have been integrated > into the resowner mechanism since the list was last updated (2008). > > Attached patch updates the list. Not sure though if we should keep > the current format

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:20:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> Yeah, I agree. What about >> huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or >> huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? I'm still not stoked about >> using "required" or

Re: pgsql: Deduplicate choice of horizon for a relation procarray.c.

Hi, On 2021-08-27 18:46:39 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > As the code in question was only introduced in dc7420c2c92 it seems worth > > backpatching this change as well, otherwise 14 will look different from all > > other branches. > >

Re: Is SPI + Procedures (with COMMIT) inside a bgworker broken?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > The direct cause of that is that SPI_execute() doesn't permit the called > query to perform COMMIT/ROLLBACK, which is because most callers would fail > to cope with that. You can instruct SPI to allow that by replacing the > SPI_execute() call

postgres.h included from relcache.h - but removing it breaks pg_upgrade

Hi, I noticed that postgres.h is included from relcache.h (starting in [1]) and wanted to fix that - it violates our usual policy against including postgres.h from within headers. But then I noticed that that causes pg_upgrade/file.c to fail to compile: In file included from

Re: 64 bit TID?

> > Are there any plans in the works to widen the TID? > > This was recently discussed here [0] as well, but to the best of my > knowledge no material proposal to update the APIs has been suggested > as of yet. > > [0] >

Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful

On 9/13/21, 1:14 PM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:52 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> Let's say step 1 looks for WAL file 10, but 10.ready doesn't exist >> yet. The following directory scan ends up finding 11.ready. Just >> before we update the PgArch state, XLogArchiveNotify()

Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)

Hi, I've attached the v7 patch set. Changes from v6: - removed unnecessary global variable BufferActionsStats - fixed the loop condition in pg_stat_get_buffer_actions() - updated some comments - removed buffers_checkpoint and buffers_clean from pg_stat_bgwriter view (now pg_stat_bgwriter view

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

"Bossart, Nathan" writes: > Yeah, I agree. What about > huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or > huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? Seems like "huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory" would be sufficient. regards, tom lane

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: > Yeah, I agree. What about > huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or > huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? I'm still not stoked about > using "required" or "needed" in the name, as it sounds like huge pages > must be allocated

Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:52 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: > The pg_readyXlog() logic looks a bit like this: > > 1. Try to skip directory scan. If that succeeds, we're done. > 2. Do a directory scan. > 3. If we found a regular WAL file, update PgArch and return >

Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode

Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 08:25:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> ..But I think it's not useful to put details into errorMessage on success, >> unless you're going to document that. It would never have occurred to me to >> look there, or that it would even be safe. >

Re: Is SPI + Procedures (with COMMIT) inside a bgworker broken?

=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes: > I'm trying to execute a PROCEDURE (with COMMIT inside) called from a > background worker using SPI but I'm always getting the error below: > 2021-09-13 09:36:43.571 -03 [23846] ERROR: invalid transaction termination The direct cause of that is

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On 9/13/21, 8:59 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:43 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> I think that's an improvement. The only other idea I have at the >> moment is num_huge_pages_required_for_shared_memory. > > Hmm, that to me sounds like maybe only part of shared memory uses

Re: Numeric x^y for negative x

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 17:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I came here just to opine that there should be a comment about there not > being a clamp to the maximum scale. For example, log_var says "Set the > scales .. so that they each have more digits ..." which seems clear > enough; I think the

Re: PG Docs - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION option list order

Amit Kapila writes: > Pushed the first patch. I am not so sure about the second one so I > won't do anything for the same. I'll close this CF entry in a day or > two unless there is an interest in the second patch. Sorry for not reviewing this more promptly. I made some further edits in the

Re: 64 bit TID?

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 17:50, Chris Cleveland wrote: > > All, > > I'm considering a new design for a specialized table am. It would simplify > the design if TIDs grew forever and I didn't have to implement TID reuse > logic. TID reuse logic also helps clean up index tuples for deleted table

Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Am I the only that that thinks this code is doing far too much in a > PG_CATCH block? You mean the one in ReorderBufferProcessTXN? Yeah, that is mighty ugly. It might be all right given that it almost immediately does AbortCurrentTransaction, since that should

Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()

On 2021-Sep-06, Amit Kapila wrote: > The error can occur at multiple places (like via palloc or various > other places) between the first time we subtract the change_size and > add it back after the change is re-computed. I think the correct fix > would be that in the beginning we just compute

Re: Numeric x^y for negative x

On 2021-Sep-12, Dean Rasheed wrote: > So the fix is just to remove the upper bound on this local_rscale, as > we do for the full-precision calculation. This doesn't impact > performance, because it's only computing the logarithm to 8 > significant digits at this stage, and when x is very close to

Re: What are exactly bootstrap processes, auxiliary processes, standalone backends, normal backends(user sessions)?

Thanks Bharath and Justin -- I think I took all the suggestions and made a few other changes of my own. Here's the result. I'm not 100% happy with the historical note in "startup process", mostly because it uses the word "name" three times too close to each other. Didn't quickly see an obvious

Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote: > I agree with you, even though I think that scanning pg_class for identifying > the relfilenode looks like a more sensible thing to do than directly scanning > the file system, we need to consider one point that, now also in current > system

Re: refactoring basebackup.c

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:03 AM Jeevan Ladhe wrote: >> + /* >> + * If we do not have enough space left in the output buffer for this >> + * chunk to be written, first archive the already written contents. >> + */ >> + if (nextChunkLen > mysink->base.bbs_next->bbs_buffer_length - >>

Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:43 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages? It's kinda long, but a long name > > that you can understand without reading the docs is better than a > > short one where you can't. > > I think that's an improvement. The only other idea I have at the

64 bit TID?

All, I'm considering a new design for a specialized table am. It would simplify the design if TIDs grew forever and I didn't have to implement TID reuse logic. The current 48 bit TID is big, but I can see extreme situations where it might not be quite big enough. If every row that gets updated

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 8:46 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:33 AM Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > > > Sorry for the late response. I've attached the updated patches that > > incorporate all comments unless I missed something. Please review > > them. > > > > Here's some

Re: TAP test for recovery_end_command

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Amul Sul wrote: > Yeah, added that test too. I triggered the restartpoint via a > CHECKPOINT command in the attached version. +# archive_cleanup_command executed with every restart points +ok( !-f "$archive_cleanup_command_file", + 'archive_cleanup_command not

Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)

> I think you're confusing discussions. > > Robert was talking about initdb/bootstrap/single, and I separately and > independently asked about hot standbys. It seems like Robert and I agreed > about the desired behavior and there was no further discussion. Sorry for including 2 separate points

Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful

Hi, Thanks for the feedback. > + * by checking the availability of next WAL file. "xlogState" specifies the > + * segment number and timeline ID corresponding to the next WAL file. > > "xlogState" probably needs to be updated here. Yes, I updated the comment. > As noted before [0], I think we

Re: Private Information Retrieval (PIR) as a C/C++ Aggregate Extension

Yes, that is accurate. You can think of PIR as an aggregator. The amount of data per query is already limited. In fact, the naive implementation of Information Theoretic PIR requires the transmission of the entire database. MuchPIR implementation makes use of the already optimized

resowner module README needs update?

Hi, I was reading src/backend/utils/resowner/README today and noticed the following paragraph that mentions the types of objects/resources *directly* supported by the module. === Currently, ResourceOwners contain direct support for recording ownership of buffer pins, lmgr locks, and catcache,

RE: Added schema level support for publication.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 11:13 PM vignesh C wrote: > > Thanks for the changes, the suggested changes make the parsing code > simpler. I have merged the changes to the main patch. Attached v27 > patch has the changes for the same. > Thanks for your new patch. I had a look at the changes

Re: [PATCH] Add --create-only option to pg_dump/pg_dumpall

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 15:34, Nitin Jadhav wrote: > I have reviewed and tested the patch. Following are a few comments. This review has gone unanswered since April, has been WoA since early April and the patch no longer applies. I'm marking this Returned with Feedback, a new version can be

Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types

On 9/12/21 2:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 9/11/21 8:51 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> @Andrew: did you have any comment on this part ? >> >> |Subject: buildfarm xversion diff >> |Forking >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210328231433.gi15...@telsasoft.com >> | >> |I gave suggestion

Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 09:28:17AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Here is an updated implementation of filter's file, that implements syntax > proposed by you. Thanks. If there's any traction for this approach. I have some comments for the next revision, > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dump.sgml >

Re: TAP test for recovery_end_command

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:56 AM Euler Taveira wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, at 8:18 AM, Amul Sul wrote: > > The attached patch adds a small test for recovery_end_command execution. > > Additional coverage is always a good thing. > Thanks for the confirmation. > Currently, patch tests

Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target

> On 9 Sep 2021, at 03:32, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 07:32:03PM +, Jacob Champion wrote: >> On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 23:21 +, Jacob Champion wrote: One small-ish comment that I have is about all the .config files we have at the root of src/test/ssl/,

Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file

> On 28 Jul 2021, at 09:28, Pavel Stehule wrote: > út 13. 7. 2021 v 1:16 odesílatel Tom Lane > napsal: > Hence I suggest > > include table PATTERN > exclude table PATTERN > > which ends up being the above but with words not [+-]. One issue with this

Is SPI + Procedures (with COMMIT) inside a bgworker broken?

Hi all, I'm trying to execute a PROCEDURE (with COMMIT inside) called from a background worker using SPI but I'm always getting the error below: 2021-09-13 09:36:43.568 -03 [23845] LOG: worker_spi worker 2 initialized with schema2.counted 2021-09-13 09:36:43.568 -03 [23846] LOG: worker_spi

Re: Online verification of checksums

> On 2 Sep 2021, at 13:18, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 9 Jul 2021, at 22:00, Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > >> I am changing the status to "Waiting on Author" based on the latest comments >> of @David Steele >> and secondly the patch does not apply cleanly. > > This patch hasn’t moved since

Re: brin multi minmax crash for inet value

On 9/13/21 8:19 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 08:23:44PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:44:47PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: Hi Tomas, Just noted that this query crash the server. Execute it in the regression database: If I'm not wrong, this is

Re: Added schema level support for publication.

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM vignesh C wrote: > > Thanks for the changes, the suggested changes make the parsing code > simpler. I have merged the changes to the main patch. Attached v27 > patch has the changes for the same. > +pubobj_name: ColId { $$ = list_make1(makeString($1)); } + | ColId

Re: Toast compression method options

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:54 PM Jaime Casanova wrote: > > I will do that early next week. > > > > Great! I'm marking the patch as "waiting on author". > Thanks for keep working on this. > I haved rebased the patch. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com From

Re: [PATCH] Allow multiple recursive self-references

On 31.08.21 16:48, Denis Hirn wrote: The documentation was not up to date anymore with the most recent changes. This version of the patch fixes that. I studied up on the theory and terminology being discussed here. I conclude that what the latest version of this patch is doing (allowing

Re: refactoring basebackup.c

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:25 AM Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:39 PM Robert Haas wrote: > > The way the gzip APIs I used work, you tell it how big the output > > buffer is and it writes until it fills that buffer, or until the input > > buffer is empty, whichever happens first.

Re: Multi-Column List Partitioning

On PG head + Nitin's v3 patch + Amit's Delta patch. Make check is failing with below errors. --inherit.sql is failing with error :"ERROR: negative bitmapset member not allowed" update mlparted_tab mlp set c = 'xxx' from (select a from some_tab union all select a+1 from some_tab) ss (a) where

Re: refactoring basebackup.c

Thanks, Robert for your response. On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:09 AM Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:14 PM Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > > To give an example, I put some logging statements, and I can see in the > log: > > " > > bytes remaining in mysink->base.bbs_next->bbs_buffer: 16537 >

Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE

On 9/2/21 8:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 7/22/21 3:49 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote: Hi Here are the 4 unchanged patches from v49, to which I added 2 patches, which are small changes wrt usage of  'JsonIs'  versus  'IsJson'. That should make the cfbot green again. Apparently not, but I have

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:33 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Sorry for the late response. I've attached the updated patches that > incorporate all comments unless I missed something. Please review > them. > A few review comments for the v13-0002 patch: (1) I suggest a small update to the patch

Re: corruption of WAL page header is never reported

At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:21:31 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote in > At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:56:11 +0900, Fujii Masao > wrote in > > > > > > On 2021/09/13 11:00, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > The point here is "retry this page, not this record", so "we don't > > > need > > > to retry

Re: Doc: Extra type info on postgres-fdw option import_generated in back branches

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 5:44 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > In commit aa769f80e, I back-patched the same postgres-fdw.sgml change, > including $SUBJECT, to v12, but I noticed the type info on each FDW > option is present in HEAD only. :-( Here is a patch to remove > $SUBJECT from the back branches

Re: drop tablespace failed when location contains .. on win32

At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:06:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:33:23AM +, wangsh.f...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > 0001 is a small fix, because I find that is_absolute_path is not > > appropriate, > > see comment in skip_drive: > > > * On Windows, a path may begin

Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, September 11th, 2021 at 07:02, Jian Guo wrote: Hi, thank you for looking at the patch. > - LZ4F_decompressionContext_t ctx = NULL; > - snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath), "%s/%s", basedir, > dirent->d_name); > -

Re: corruption of WAL page header is never reported

At Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:56:11 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in > > > On 2021/09/13 11:00, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > The point here is "retry this page, not this record", so "we don't > > need > > to retry immediately" looks a bit ambiguous. So how about something > > like this? > > Note that we

Re: Allow escape in application_name

At Fri, 10 Sep 2021 04:33:53 +, "kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com" wrote in > Dear Hou, > > > I found one minor thing in the patch. > > Thanks! > > > Is it better to use Abs(padding) here ? > > Although some existing codes are using " padding > 0 ? padding : -padding ". > > +1, fixed. > > And

Re: drop tablespace failed when location contains .. on win32

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:33:23AM +, wangsh.f...@fujitsu.com wrote: > 0001 is a small fix, because I find that is_absolute_path is not appropriate, > see comment in skip_drive: > > * On Windows, a path may begin with "C:" or "//network/". #define is_absolute_path(filename) \ ( \ -

Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 19:30, Jaime Casanova > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:20:14PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 12:48, vignesh C wrote: > > > > > > > The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could

Re: brin multi minmax crash for inet value

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 08:23:44PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:44:47PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > Hi Tomas, > > > > Just noted that this query crash the server. Execute it in the > > regression database: > > If I'm not wrong, this is the crash fixed by

Re: SQL:2011 application time

So I've been eagerly watching this thread and hoping to have time to devote to it. I've also been looking at the thread at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/calay4q8pp699qv-pjzc4tos-e2nzrjkrvax-xqg1aqj2q+w...@mail.gmail.com that covers system versioning, and per our conversation far too long