On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 7:16 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> > Then let's go with the original patch only. BTW, it took almost the
> > same time (105 wallclock secs) in my environment (CentOs VM) to run
> > tests in src/test/subscription both with and without the patch. I took
> > a median of five runs.
Hi.
function JsonPathExecResult comment needs to be refactored? since it
changed a lot.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 9:23 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> The next step is to devise different heuristics and measure their
> efficacy. IMO, the goal of the algorithm it is to freeze pages in a
> relation such that we drive early unfreezes/freezes -> 0 and pages
> frozen/number of pages of a
Hello hackers,
While studying bug #18158, I've come to the conclusion that the existing
testing infrastructure is unable to detect abnormal situations. of some
kind.
Just a simple example:
With Assert(0) injected in walsender (say:
sed "s/WalSndDone(send_data)/Assert(0)/" -i
Dear Junagn, Sutou-san,
Basically I agree your point - improving a extendibility is good.
(I remember that this theme was talked at Japan PostgreSQL conference)
Below are my comments for your patch.
01. General
Just to confirm - is it OK to partially implement APIs? E.g., only COPY TO is
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:46 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > In your example "foo = 90" is satisfied by_bt_first(), but "foo >
> > 99::int8" is not. I think this could be resolved by introducing a
> > separate flag exactly distinguishing scan keys used for _bt_first().
> > I'm going to post the
On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:25 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-11-30 13:01:46 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:16 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > Maybe we should bite the bullet and always retry short writes in
> > > FileWriteV(). Is that what you meant by "handling
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-08 17:29:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed. I think we want to do that after the initial handshake,
>> too, so maybe as attached.
> I was wondering about that too. But if we do so, why not also do it for
> writes?
Writes don't act that way, do they? EOF on
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 17:35:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I thought it'd be nice to have a test for this, particularly because it's
> > not
> > clear that the behaviour is consistent across openssl versions.
>
> Perhaps, but ...
>
> > To deal with that, I changed the test
On 2023-12-08 17:29:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> >> I think I figured it it out. Looks like we need to translate a closed
> >> socket
> >> (recvfrom() returning 0) to ECONNRESET or such.
>
> > Seems like we should just treat errno == 0 as a reason to emit the "EOF
> >
Nathan Bossart writes:
> Here are a couple more easy micro-optimizations in nearby code. I've split
> them into individual patches for review, but I'll probably just combine
> them into one patch before committing.
LGTM
regards, tom lane
Andres Freund writes:
> I thought it'd be nice to have a test for this, particularly because it's not
> clear that the behaviour is consistent across openssl versions.
Perhaps, but ...
> To deal with that, I changed the test to instead check if "not accept SSL
> connection: Success" is not
Andres Freund writes:
>> I think I figured it it out. Looks like we need to translate a closed socket
>> (recvfrom() returning 0) to ECONNRESET or such.
> Seems like we should just treat errno == 0 as a reason to emit the "EOF
> detected" message?
Agreed. I think we want to do that after the
> On 04.12.23 12:40, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/backend/parser/gram.y b/src/backend/parser/gram.y
>> index d631ac89a9..5a77fca17f 100644
>> --- a/src/backend/parser/gram.y
>> +++ b/src/backend/parser/gram.y
>> @@ -251,6 +251,8 @@ static Node *makeRecursiveViewSelect(char
>> *relname,
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 11:33:16 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-12-08 10:51:01 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-12-08 13:46:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund writes:
> > > > On 2023-12-08 13:23:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> Hmm, don't suppose you have a way to reproduce
On 12/8/23 14:45, Daniel Verite wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
copyto_json.007.diff
When the source has json fields with non-significant line feeds, the COPY
output has these line feeds too, which makes the output incompatible
with rule #2 at https://jsonlines.org ("2. Each Line is a
Here are a couple more easy micro-optimizations in nearby code. I've split
them into individual patches for review, but I'll probably just combine
them into one patch before committing.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 79727aab47c7d7cd733ce21c8241051de6c9ae1e
Dave Cramer wrote:
> > This argument for leaving 3 as the column count makes sense to me. I
> > agree this content is not meant to facilitate interpreting the contents at
> > a protocol level.
> >
>
> I'd disagree. From my POV if the data comes back as a JSON Array this is
> one object
I committed 867dd2dc87, which means my use case for a fast GUC hash
table (quickly setting proconfigs) is now solved.
Andres mentioned that it could still be useful to reduce overhead in a
few other places:
https://postgr.es/m/20231117220830.t6sb7di6h6am4...@awork3.anarazel.de
How should we
On Wed, 2023-11-29 at 20:31 +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> Attached is a rough start with Andres's earlier ideas, to get
> something concrete out there.
The implementation of string hash in 0004 forgot to increment 'buf'.
I tested using the new hash function APIs for my search path cache, and
Joe Conway wrote:
> copyto_json.007.diff
When the source has json fields with non-significant line feeds, the COPY
output has these line feeds too, which makes the output incompatible
with rule #2 at https://jsonlines.org ("2. Each Line is a Valid JSON
Value").
create table j(f json);
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:51:15AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> This is less verbose and still compiles with constants:
>
> use_line_feeds ? strlen(",\n ") : strlen(",");
This one worked on my machine. I've committed the patch with that change.
Thanks everyone for the reviews!
--
Nathan
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 10:51:01 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-12-08 13:46:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2023-12-08 13:23:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Hmm, don't suppose you have a way to reproduce that?
> >
> > > After a bit of trying, yes. I put an abort()
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 13:46:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-12-08 13:23:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm, don't suppose you have a way to reproduce that?
>
> > After a bit of trying, yes. I put an abort() into pgtls_open_client(),
> > after
> > initialize_SSL().
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 8:30 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:05 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:46 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > > "In general, when inequality keys are present,
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-08 13:23:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, don't suppose you have a way to reproduce that?
> After a bit of trying, yes. I put an abort() into pgtls_open_client(), after
> initialize_SSL(). Connecting does result in:
> LOG: could not accept SSL connection:
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 13:23:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-12-08 10:05:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... there was already opinion upthread that this should be on by
> >> default, which I agree with. You shouldn't be hitting cases like
> >> this commonly (if so,
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:05 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:46 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > "In general, when inequality keys are present, the initial-positioning
> > > code only promises to position before the
Hi,
On 2023-11-30 13:01:46 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:16 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 29/11/2023 21:39, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > One thing I wasn't 100% happy with was the treatment of ENOSPC. A few
> > > callers believe that short writes set errno: they
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-12-08 10:05:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... there was already opinion upthread that this should be on by
>> default, which I agree with. You shouldn't be hitting cases like
>> this commonly (if so, they're bugs to fix or the errcode should be
>> rethought), and
Hi,
On 2023-12-08 10:05:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > One possible question for discussion is whether the default for this
> > should be off, on, or possibly something like on-in-assert-builds.
> > (Personally, I'm happy to turn it on myself at run time, but everyone
>
Hi, Ashutosh!
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> I did some analysis of memory consumption by bitmapsets in such cases.
> [1] contains slides with the result of this analysis. The slides are
> crude and quite WIP. But they will give some idea.
>
> [1]
>
Hi,
On 2023-12-07 21:07:59 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> --- a/src/include/executor/execExpr.h
> +++ b/src/include/executor/execExpr.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>
> #include "executor/nodeAgg.h"
> #include "nodes/execnodes.h"
> +#include "nodes/miscnodes.h"
>
> /* forward references to avoid
Hi,
I've pushed the first two parts (backfill of empty ranges for serial
builds, allowing parallelism) after a bit more cleanup, adding a simple
pageinspect test to 0001, improving comments and some minor adjustments.
I ended up removing the protections against BlockNumber overflows, and
moved
On 2023-12-08 Fr 11:37, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:59 AM Amit Langote wrote:
Would it be messy to replace the lookahead approach by whatever's
suiable *in the future* when it becomes necessary to do so?
It might be. Changing grammar rules to tends to change corner-case
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:59 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> Would it be messy to replace the lookahead approach by whatever's
> suiable *in the future* when it becomes necessary to do so?
It might be. Changing grammar rules to tends to change corner-case
behavior if nothing else. We're best off picking
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 10:18 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:57 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:01 PM Nathan Bossart
> > wrote:
> > > +1
> >
> > So, Thomas ... any chance you could commit this? So that my patch
> > stops making cfbot sad?
>
> Done. Thanks
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here is a patch to play with.
Didn't read the patch yet, but ...
> One possible question for discussion is whether the default for this
> should be off, on, or possibly something like on-in-assert-builds.
> (Personally, I'm happy to turn it on myself at run time,
On 08.12.23 05:10, Peter Smith wrote:
Patch 0001 -- "datestyle" becomes DateStyle in messages
Rebased this again, which was part of an earlier patch set
- I think any GUC names documented as MixedCase should keep that same
case in messages; this also obeys the guidelines recently pushed [1].
-
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:02 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 18:02, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > given path. E.g. we have three path chains as follows
> > 1. joinpath_1->joinpath_2->seqpath_1,
> > 2. joinpath_3->joinpath_4->seqpath_1,
> > 3. joinpath_5->joinpath_2->seqpath_1
> >
>
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 at 08:47, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023, Daniel Verite
> wrote:
>
>> Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>> > The attached should fix the CopyOut response to say one column. I.e. it
>> > ought to look something like:
>>
>> Spending more time with the doc I
Hi,
> Then let's go with the original patch only. BTW, it took almost the
> same time (105 wallclock secs) in my environment (CentOs VM) to run
> tests in src/test/subscription both with and without the patch. I took
> a median of five runs. I have slightly adjusted the comments and
> commit
> > > pg_replication_slot could be set back to null.
> >
> > In this case, since the basebackup was taken after the slot was
> > invalidated, it
> > does not require the WAL that was removed. But it seems that once the
> > streaming starts, the slot sprints to life again and gets validated again.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:43 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
>
> Andrei Lepikhov писал(а) 2023-12-08 07:37:
> > On 28/11/2023 01:37, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:07 PM Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> > Sorry for the late answer, I missed this thread because of vacation.
> >>>
Here is a patch to play with.
I also found a related typo.
One possible question for discussion is whether the default for this
should be off, on, or possibly something like on-in-assert-builds.
(Personally, I'm happy to turn it on myself at run time, but everyone
has different workflows.)
В письме от пятница, 8 декабря 2023 г. 15:59:09 MSK пользователь Alvaro
Herrera написал:
> > Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch
> > now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly
> > unchanged.
> >
> > This will be total mess with
> On 7 Dec 2023, at 15:27, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> Then that'd be the attached patch, which also includes --auth instead
> of -A, for the same reason as -N vs --no-sync
Applied to master, thanks!
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On 2023-Dec-08, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch
> now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly
> unchanged.
>
> This will be total mess with two different options mechanisms working in the
> same time,
On 2023-Dec-08, Peter Smith wrote:
> Patch 0001 -- "datestyle" becomes DateStyle in messages
> Rebased this again, which was part of an earlier patch set
> - I think any GUC names documented as MixedCase should keep that same
> case in messages; this also obeys the guidelines recently pushed [1].
В письме от пятница, 8 декабря 2023 г. 08:59:41 MSK пользователь Michael
Paquier написал:
> > I've rebased patch, so it could be add to commitfest again.
>
> This is a 270kB patch with quite a few changes, and a lot of code
>
> moved around:
> > 47 files changed, 2592 insertions(+), 2326
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 7:46 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > BTW Given that the actual value size can be calculated only by the
> > caller, how does the tree know if the value is embedded or not? It's
> > probably related to how to store
On 08/12/2023 13:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I found a few places where access/xlog_internal.h was apparently
included unnecessarily. In some of those places, a more specific header
file (that somehow came in via access/xlog_internal.h) can be used
instead. The *.h file change passes
I found a few places where access/xlog_internal.h was apparently
included unnecessarily. In some of those places, a more specific header
file (that somehow came in via access/xlog_internal.h) can be used
instead. The *.h file change passes headerscheck.From
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 11:21 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> > I mean to commit the open transaction at the below place in
> > wait_for_relation_state_change()
> >
> > wait_for_relation_state_change()
> > {
> > ...
> > -- commit the xact
> > WaitLatch();
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Then start after the wait
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 12:50 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> How about adding code indent checks (like what BF member koel has) to
> the SanityCheck CI task? This helps catch indentation problems way
> before things are committed so that developers can find them out in
> their respective
On 2022-Mar-07, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't think this is worth spending time adding tests for. I get what
> you're saying that this is at least semi-intentional behaviour and
> desirable behaviour so it should have tests ensuring that it continues
> to work. But it's not documented behaviour and
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:43 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I've always been annoyed by the fact that pg_get_serial_sequence takes
> the table and returns the sequence as strings rather than regclass. And
> since identity columns were added, the name is misleading as well
On 2023-Dec-08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 05:44:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Hmm. Yes, it looks like you're right here. That should allow all the
> > scenarios we expect to work to update the paths for the functions.
>
> And done this one as well down to v15,
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> BTW Given that the actual value size can be calculated only by the
> caller, how does the tree know if the value is embedded or not? It's
> probably related to how to store combined pointer/value slots.
Right, this is future work. At
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:46 AM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
>
> Should rise disscusion on separate utility statement or find
> case where procedure version is failed.
>
> 1) Classic (wait_classic_v3.patch)
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3cc883048264c2e9af022033925ff8db%40postgrespro.ru
>
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 at 18:08, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2023, at 12:59, Japin Li wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 at 20:40, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li wrote:
If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:20 AM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-27 03:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > I've retried my case with v6 and it doesn't fail anymore. But I
> > wonder how safe it is to reset xmin within the user-visible function?
> > We have no guarantee that the function is not
> On 8 Dec 2023, at 12:59, Japin Li wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 at 20:40, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li wrote:
>>>
>>> If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
>>> the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right?
>> Yes, I
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
Hi Robert,
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 9:42 AM Jakub Wartak
> wrote:
> > Comment: I was wondering if it wouldn't make some sense to teach
> > pg_resetwal to actually delete all WAL summaries after any any
> > WAL/controlfile alteration?
>
> I
Should rise disscusion on separate utility statement or find
case where procedure version is failed.
1) Classic (wait_classic_v3.patch)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3cc883048264c2e9af022033925ff8db%40postgrespro.ru
==
advantages: multiple wait events, separate WAIT FOR statement
On 06.12.2023 10:30, Richard Guo wrote:
I've self-reviewed this patch again and I think it's now in a
committable state. I'm wondering if we can mark it as 'Ready for
Committer' now, or we need more review comments/feedbacks.
To recap, this patch postpones reparameterization of paths until
Given so many different approaches were discussed, I have started a wiki to
record and collaborate all efforts towards SLRU improvements. The wiki
provides a concise overview of all the ideas discussed and can serve as a
portal for all historical discussions. Currently, the wiki summarizes
On 2023-11-27 03:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I've retried my case with v6 and it doesn't fail anymore. But I
wonder how safe it is to reset xmin within the user-visible function?
We have no guarantee that the function is not called inside the
complex query. Then how will the rest of the
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:53 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> PFA v43, changes are:
>
I wanted to discuss 0003 patch about cascading standby's. It is not
clear to me whether we want to allow physical standbys to further wait
for cascading standby to sync their slots. If we allow such a feature
one may
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:45 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:37 PM John Naylor wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's still unclear to me why the value doesn't need to contain the size.
> > >
> > > If I understand you
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 at 20:40, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li wrote:
>>
>> If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
>> the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right?
> Yes, I think so.
>
Should we disable the
71 matches
Mail list logo
