On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
> > check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
> > ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 4:04 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Excellent catch. We were looking at this code last week and wondered
> the purpose of this abort. Probably we should have some macro or
> function to decided whether to skip a transaction based on log record.
> That will avoid using
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:48 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 3:07 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > I'd vote for 1 on the grounds that it's easier to document and
> > understand a single collation version, which comes straight from
> > ucol_getVersion(). This approach makes it a separate
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:36 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:46 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> > Also, make it so each view ends up being its own separate page.
> >
>
> I did not do this. AFAIK those views of chapter 54 get rendered to
> separate pages only because they are
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 01:15:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is this something you want to follow up on, since you were involved in that
> patch? Is the redundant assignment simply to be deleted, or do you want to
> check the original patch again for context?
Most of the changes of this
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for helping review the patches in such detail.
On 2022-11-25 9:48 a.m., Bruce Momjian wrote:
Looking at the patch, I am unclear how the the patch prevents concurrent
duplicate value insertion during the partitioned index checking. I am
actually not sure how that can be
Hi,
On 2022-11-25 18:48:26 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I could download the installer from ActiveState, but they want me to
> sign up for an account before I do that, which I'm not happy about. And
> while I think our use probably comes within their license terms, IANAL
> and I'm not dead
On 2022-11-25 Fr 18:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> For various reasons (see below) it's preferable to build on Windows with
> Strawberry Perl. This works OK if you're building with Msys2, I upgraded
> the instance on the machine that runs fairywren and drongo today, and
> fairywren seems fine. Not
For various reasons (see below) it's preferable to build on Windows with
Strawberry Perl. This works OK if you're building with Msys2, I upgraded
the instance on the machine that runs fairywren and drongo today, and
fairywren seems fine. Not so drongo, however. First it encountered a
build error,
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 1:03 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached patch teaches autovacuum.c to pass the information down to
> lazyvacuum.c, which includes the information in the autovacuum log.
> The approach I've taken is very similar to the existing approach with
> anti-wraparound autovacuum.
Hi,
On 2022-11-23 11:39:43 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-11-22 18:08:28 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > >
> > > CREATE VIEW pg_stat_bgwriter AS
> > > SELECT
> > > -pg_stat_get_bgwriter_timed_checkpoints()
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 9:00 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Maybe it could be broken out into a separate "autovacuum triggered by:
> " line, seen only in the autovacuum log instrumentation (and not in
> the similar report output by a manual VACUUM VERBOSE). When we still
> end up "escalating" to an
Hi,
On 2022-11-22 23:43:29 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I think there may be a problem/deficiency with hint bits:
>
> |postgres=# DROP TABLE u2; CREATE TABLE u2 AS SELECT
> generate_series(1,99)a; SELECT pg_stat_reset_shared('io'); explain
> (analyze,buffers) SELECT * FROM u2;
> |...
> |
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback.
> I have been following this patch for a long time.
> Recently, I started to try to test it. I found several bugs
> here and want to give you feedback.
>
> 1. CREATE TABLE LIKE
> I found that this case may be repication incorrectly.
>You can run the
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Removing "state->status = TSS_SORTEDINMEM" should be fine as it is
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 at 01:10, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers!
>
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 02:02, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 9:41 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi everyone. The patch is 16 lines, looks harmless and with proven
> > benefits. I'm moving this
Hi.
There another assorted fixes to the head branch.
1. Avoid useless pointer increment
(src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_shmem.c)
The pointer *p, is used in creation dsa memory,
not p + MAXALIGN(pgstat_dsa_init_size()).
2. Discard result unused (src/backend/access/transam/xlogrecovery.c)
Hi, hackers!
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 02:02, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 9:41 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> >
>
> Hi everyone. The patch is 16 lines, looks harmless and with proven
> benefits. I'm moving this into RfC.
As I've written up in the thread we can not gain much from
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Looking at a recent pg_upgrade thread I happened to notice that the check for
> roles with a pg_ prefix only reports the error, not the roles it found. Other
> similar checks where the user is expected to alter the old cluster
On 2022-Nov-25, Dimos Stamatakis wrote:
> So does this mean there is no race condition in this case and that
> this error is redundant?
No, it means I believe a bug exists but that I haven't spent enough time
on it to understand what it is.
Please do not top-post.
After further contemplation of bug #17691 [1], I've concluded that
what I did in commit c9b0c678d was largely misguided. For one
thing, the new hlCover() algorithm no longer finds shortest-possible
cover strings: if your query is "x & y" and the text is like
"... x ... x ... y ...", then the
Hi, hackers!
In the measurements above in the thread, I've been using LIFO wake
queue in a primary lockless patch (and it was attached as the previous
versions of a patch) and an "inverted wake queue" (in faсt FIFO) as
the alternative benchmarking option. I think using the latter is more
fair and
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:33:30PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 22:01, Cary Huang wrote:
> >
> > Patch: Global Unique Index
>
> Let me start by expressing severe doubt on the usefulness of such a
> feature, but also salute your efforts to contribute.
>
> > In other words,
Israel Barth Rubio writes:
> It would be great if we can back-patch this to all supported versions,
> as the issue itself is currently affecting them all.
In my mind, this is waiting for Peter to opine on whether it satisfies
his concern.
I'm also looking for input on whether to reject if
Etsuro Fujita writes:
> I have committed the patch.
Apologies for not having paid attention to this thread, but ...
I don't think the committed patch is acceptable at all, at least
not in the back branches, because it creates a severe ABI break.
Specifically, by adding a field to ResultRelInfo
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 8:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ted Yu writes:
> > I wonder if we should check relation->rd_rules after the call
> > to RelationBuildRuleLock().
>
> That patch is both pointless and wrong. There is some
> value in updating relhasrules in the catalog, so that future
> relcache
Sergey Shinderuk writes:
> What about user-defined operators? I created my own <= operator for int8
> which returns true on null input, and put it in a btree operator class.
> Admittedly, it's weird that (null <= 1) evaluates to true. But does it
> violate the contract of the btree operator
Ted Yu writes:
> I wonder if we should check relation->rd_rules after the call
> to RelationBuildRuleLock().
That patch is both pointless and wrong. There is some
value in updating relhasrules in the catalog, so that future
relcache loads don't uselessly call RelationBuildRuleLock;
but we
On 24.11.22 10:13, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 21:35, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
My code follows the style used for parsing the decimal integers.
Keeping that consistent is valuable I think. I think the proposed
change makes the code significantly harder to understand. Also, what
On 25.11.2022 15:46, Richard Guo wrote:
Considering the 'Filter' is a strict function, marking it as
NULL would do. I think this is why this patch works.
What about user-defined operators? I created my own <= operator for int8
which returns true on null input, and put it in a btree operator
Hi,
(In light of commit 7b2ccc5e03bf16d1e1bbabca25298108c839ec52)
In RelationBuildDesc(), we have:
if (relation->rd_rel->relhasrules)
RelationBuildRuleLock(relation);
I wonder if we should check relation->rd_rules after the call
to RelationBuildRuleLock().
Your comment
So does this mean there is no race condition in this case and that this error
is redundant?
Thanks,
Dimos
[ServiceNow]
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date: Thursday, 24. November 2022 at 19:24
To: Dimos Stamatakis
Cc: Peter Geoghegan , simon.ri...@enterprisedb.com
, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
> Attached is a draft patch along the lines I speculated about above.
> It breaks backwards compatibility in that PreventInTransactionBlock
> commands will now be rejected if they're a non-first command in a
> pipeline. I think that's okay, and arguably desirable, for HEAD
> but I'm pretty
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:09 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 23.11.22 09:36, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> v6-0005-Cleanup-view-name-hyperlinks-for-Tables-28.1-and-.patch
> v6-0006-Remove-all-stats-views-from-the-ToC-of-28.2.patch
>
> I wasn't sure yet whether these
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 15:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Not quite sure the added test case is worth the cycles.
>
No, probably not, for such a trivial change.
Pushed to HEAD and 15, without the test. Thanks for looking!
Regards,
Dean
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:26 AM David Rowley wrote:
> There are two different pass-through modes that the WindowAgg can move
> into when it detects that the run condition is no longer true:
>
> 1) WINDOWAGG_PASSTHROUGH and
> 2) WINDOWAGG_PASSTHROUGH_STRICT
>
> #2 is used when the WindowAgg is
On 23.08.22 03:38, Dong Wook Lee wrote:
I made a small patch for xml2 to improve test coverage.
However, there was a problem using the functions below.
- xpath_number
- xpath_bool
- xpath_nodeset
- xpath_list
Do you have any advice on how to use this function correctly?
It would also be good
On 05.05.22 17:47, Maxim Orlov wrote:
During work on 64-bit XID patch [1] we found handy to have initdb
options to set initial xid/mxid/mxoff values to arbitrary non default
values. It helps test different scenarios: related to wraparound,
pg_upgrade from 32-bit XID to 64-bit XID, etc.
We
On 04.10.22 06:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:05:57AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em seg., 3 de out. de 2022 às 05:01, Masahiko Sawada
escreveu:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 9:08 AM Ranier Vilela wrote:
1. Avoid useless reassigning var _logsegno
> On 24 Nov 2022, at 17:31, T Adachi wrote:
> To the developers working on pg_rman, are there any plans to support PG15
> and when might pg_rman source be released?
> The latest version of pg_rman, V1.3.14, appears to be incompatible with PG15.
> (In PG15, pg_start_backup()/pg_stop_backup() have
On 23.11.22 09:36, Peter Smith wrote:
PSA new patches. Now there are 6 of them. If some of the earlier
patches are agreeable can those ones please be committed? (because I
think this patch may be susceptible to needing a big rebase if
anything in those tables changes).
I have committed
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
> check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
> ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use EndRecPtr to check whether to
> stream or not. Generally it will not
Hi Hou,
Thanks for the patch. With a simple condition, we can eliminate the
need to queueing snapshot change in the current transaction and then
applying it. Saves some memory and computation. This looks useful.
When the queue snapshot change is processed in
ReorderBufferProcessTXN(), we call
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:16 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-11-24 18:13:10 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > With that said, here's a small improvement I can think of, that is, to
> > avoid calling LWLockWaitForVar() for the WAL insertion lock the caller
> > of
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 11:47, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 09:29, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 11:03, Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:17 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:09 PM Peter Smith
> > > > wrote:
Yes, if the property is on the subscription side then it should be applied
for all the tables that the connected publication is exposing.
So if the property is enabled you should be sure that this origin column
exists to all of the tables that the publication is exposing...
Sure this is the
Excellent catch. We were looking at this code last week and wondered
the purpose of this abort. Probably we should have some macro or
function to decided whether to skip a transaction based on log record.
That will avoid using different values in different places.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM
Hi,
On 9/30/22 2:11 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 7/6/22 3:30 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 10/28/21 11:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-10-28 16:24:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:56 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
So you have in mind to check for
Your patch moves the description of the subscriber-related configuration
parameters from config.sgml to logical-replication.sgml. But
config.sgml is supposed to contain *all* configuration parameters. If
we're going to start splitting this up and moving things around then
we'd need a more
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 4:54 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 7:38 AM Stavros Koureas
> wrote:
> >
> > Reading more carefully what you described, I think you are interested in
> > getting something you call origin from publishers, probably some metadata
> > from the
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> [v11]
There is one more thing that just now occurred to me: In expanding the use
of size classes, that makes rebasing and reworking the shared memory piece
more work than it should be. That's important because there are still some
open
Hi Developer，
I have been following this patch for a long time.
Recently, I started to try to test it. I found several bugs
here and want to give you feedback.
1. CREATE TABLE LIKE
I found that this case may be repication incorrectly.
You can run the following SQL statement:
```
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:00 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed not to have a test case for this.
> > >
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 8:19 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is an updated patch. In the attached, I added an assertion to
> ExecInsert(). Also, I tweaked comments and test cases a little bit,
> for consistency. Also, I noticed a copy-and-pasteo in a comment in
> ExecBatchInsert(), so I fixed
Hi,
When doing some other related work, I noticed that when decoding the COMMIT
record via SnapBuildCommitTxn()-> SnapBuildDistributeNewCatalogSnapshot() we
will add a new snapshot to all transactions including the one being
decoded(just committed one).
But since we've already done required
Hi hackers,
Mr Lane, thank you for backporting this also to version 13. It seems
to be occuring in the wild (without debug_discard_caches) for real
user too when doing a lot of "CREATE INDEX i ON
unlogged_table_truncated_after_crash (x,y)" which sometimes (rarely)
results in SIGSEGV11. I've
Hi hackers,
> I'm wondering whether the safest way to handle this is by creating a
> new TAM called "heap64", so that all storage changes happens there.
> Many current users see stability as one of the greatest strengths of
> Postgres, so while I very much support this move, I wonder if this
>
During DecodeCommit() for skipping a transaction we use ReadRecPtr to
check whether to skip this transaction or not. Whereas in
ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming() we use EndRecPtr to check whether to
stream or not. Generally it will not create a problem but if the
commit record itself is adding
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 2:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> I found that qual_is_pushdown_safe() has an argument "subquery"
> that is not used in the function. This argument has not been
> referred to since the commit 964c0d0f80e485dd3a4073e073ddfd9bfdda90b2.
>
> I think we can remove this if there is
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> So it seems that there are two candidates of rt_node structure: (1)
> all nodes except for node256 are variable-size nodes and use pointer
> tagging, and (2) node32 and node128 are variable-sized nodes and do
> not use pointer tagging
60 matches
Mail list logo
