On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:19:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Actually, I've come up with an idea just after hitting the send
> button: let's use an extra ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD rather than
> rely on the GUC to set the AM of the partitioned table correctly.
> This extra command should
Andy Fan writes:
> Here is latest version, nothing changed besides the rebase to the latest
> master. The most recent 3 questions should be addressed.
>
> - The error message compatible issue [1] and the Peter's answer at [2].
> - Peter's new question at [2] and my answer at [3].
>
> Any effrot
Hi,
I noticed that margay (Solaris) has started running more of the tests
lately, but is failing in pg_basebaseup/010_pg_basebackup. It runs
successfully on wrasse (in older branches, Solaris 11.3 is desupported
in 17/master), and also on pollock (illumos, forked from common
ancestor Solaris 10
On 4/12/24 06:44, Tom Lane wrote:
* I'm pretty unconvinced by group_keys_reorder_by_pathkeys (which
I notice has already had one band-aid added to it since commit).
In particular, it seems to believe that the pathkeys and clauses
lists match one-for-one, but I seriously doubt that that invariant
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:21:49PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I see many projects have files like SECURITY.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, and
> CONTRIBUTING.md, and I think it would be relatively easy to add content to
> each of those for PostgreSQL, even if they just link elsewhere.
Here's a first
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 18:58, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> The last 25 consecutive runs have passed [1] after switching
> REL_12_STABLE to -O0 ! So I am wondering whether that confirms that
> the compiler version is to blame, and while we're still here,
> is there anything else I could try?
I don't
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 9:20 PM Marina Polyakova
wrote:
>
> On 2024-04-13 08:40, John Naylor wrote:
> > so that they build fine on PG16 as well. The problem is, not all the
> > required headers are generated when invoking `make headerscheck`. The
> > attached patch brings in some Makefile rules
On 4/16/24 23:50, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:36 PM David Steele wrote:
I've been playing around with the incremental backup feature trying to
get a sense of how it can be practically used. One of the first things I
always try is to delete random files and see what happens.
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 15:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> - I couldn't understand why the "Operate
> XLogCtl->log{Write,Flush}Result with atomics" code was correct when I
> read it.
I reviewed ee1cbe806d. It followed a good process of discussion and
review. It was a bit close to the feature freeze
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:11:49PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Apr-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > - Fourth thought: we do as in the third thought, except we also allow
> > DROP CONSTRAINT a constraint that's marked "local, inherited" to be
> > simply an inherited constraint (remove
On 4/15/24 20:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/15/24 10:18, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I'll try a bit more to make this work without the temp table.
>>
>
> Considering the earlier discussion in e2933a6e1, I think making the
> table TEMP is the best fix, so I'll do that. Thanks for remembering
On Tue, 2024-04-16 at 11:58 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hm, that seems annoying, even for update-unicode :/. But I guess it
> won't be
> very common to have such failures?
Things don't change a lot between Unicode versions (and are subject to
the stability policy), but the tests are
Hi,
On 2024-04-16 15:05:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly the
> > signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> > generate that by hand. And for a lot of the functions we
On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 21:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's definitely not OK for the standard test suite to include
> internet access.
The update-unicode target is not run as part of the standard test
suite.
> Seems like we need to separate "download new
> source files" from "generate the
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly the
> > signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> > generate that by hand. And for a lot of the
Andres Freund writes:
> I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly the
> signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> generate that by hand. And for a lot of the functions we should probably move
> the existing func.sgml comments to
Hi,
On 2024-04-15 18:23:21 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 17:05 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Can't we test this as part of the normal testsuite?
>
> One thing that complicates things a bit is that the test compares the
> results against ICU, so a mismatch in Unicode version
On 2024-Apr-15, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Here's a couple more issues affecting upgrades from v16 to v17.
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE a(i int NOT NULL); CREATE TABLE b(i int PRIMARY KEY)
> INHERITS (a);
> pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR: constraint
>
Hi,
On 2024-03-19 17:39:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> My own pet docs peeve is a purely editorial one: func.sgml is a 30k line
> beast, and I think there's a good case for splitting out at least the
> larger chunks of it.
I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly
On 2024-Apr-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> - Fourth thought: we do as in the third thought, except we also allow
> DROP CONSTRAINT a constraint that's marked "local, inherited" to be
> simply an inherited constraint (remove its "local" marker).
Here is an initial implementation of what I was
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:06 PM Stefan Fercot
wrote:
> Sure, I can see your point here and how people could be tempted to through
> away that backup_manifest if they don't know how important it is to keep it.
> Probably in this case we'd need the list to be inside the tar, just like
>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:35 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-04-16 15:45:42 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2024-03-06 14:17:23 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > 0001 Turn tail recursion into iteration in
Hi,
At 2024.pgconf.dev, Andres and I will be hosting a patch review
workshop.[1] Part of the workshop will be a presentation, and part of
it will be a practicum. That is, we're going to actually ask attendees
to review some patches during the workshop. We'll also comment on
those reviews, and the
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 3:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> What I fear is that this will turn into another situation like we had
> with pg_xlog, where people saw "log" in the name and just blew it
> away. Matter of fact, I recently encountered one of my few recent
> examples of someone doing
Hi,
On 2024-04-16 08:31:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:52 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Taking a closer look at acquire_sample_rows(), I think it would be
> > good if table AM implementation would care about block-level (or
> > whatever-level) sampling. So that
On 2024-04-16 13:33:53 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Reverted.
Thanks!
Hi,
On 2024-04-15 10:54:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:33 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Here's a patch implementing this approach. I confirmed that before we
> > trigger
> > the stuck spinlock logic very quickly and after we don't. However, if most
> > sleeps are
Hi,
On 2024-04-16 15:45:42 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-03-06 14:17:23 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > 0001 Turn tail recursion into iteration in CommitTransactionCommand()
> > > I did minor revision of comments and
Hello, hackers,
On 10/03/2024 12:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Committed, thanks.
This commit (7b8e2ae2f) have turned cpluspluscheck script into a
--cplusplus option for headerscheck. I propose to update the
src/tools/pginclude/README correspondingly, please see the attached patch.
--
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:25, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for looking into this!
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 20:17, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > On 03/04/2024 13:31, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > > Streaming API has been committed but the committed version has a minor
>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:36 PM David Steele wrote:
> I've been playing around with the incremental backup feature trying to
> get a sense of how it can be practically used. One of the first things I
> always try is to delete random files and see what happens.
>
> You can delete pretty much
Hi,
Thanks for working on this!
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 15:26, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2024, at 13:19, David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 09:17, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12 Apr 2024, at 23:15, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>> Here's a few more.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:12 PM David Steele wrote:
> Anyway, I think it should be fixed or documented as a caveat since it
> causes a hard failure on restore.
Alright, I'll look into this.
> I know Tomas added some optimizations that work best with --no-manifest
> but if we can eventually
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:10 AM Stefan Fercot
wrote:
> > > But ... I didn't really end up feeling very comfortable with it. Right
> > > now, the backup manifest is something we only use to verify the
> > > integrity of the backup. If we were to do this, it would become a
> > > critical part of
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 11:35, Richard Guo wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 5:48 PM Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
>>
>> Oversight of 0294df2f1f84 [1].
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=0294df2f1f84
>
> +1. I think this change improves the code
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-03-06 14:17:23 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > 0001 Turn tail recursion into iteration in CommitTransactionCommand()
> > I did minor revision of comments and code blocks order to improve the
> > readability.
>
> After sending
>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:52 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Taking a closer look at acquire_sample_rows(), I think it would be
> good if table AM implementation would care about block-level (or
> whatever-level) sampling. So that acquire_sample_rows() just fetches
> tuples one-by-one from table
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 14:52, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-04-15 16:02:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Do you want that patch applied, not applied, or applied with some set
> of
> > > modifications?
> >
> > I think we should
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:45 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Hou,
>
> > Kuroda-San reported an issue off-list that:
> >
> > If user execute ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET (failover) command inside a txn block
> > and rollback, only the subscription option change can be rolled back, while
> >
Hi,
I am working on using read streams in the CREATE DATABASE command when the
strategy is wal_log. RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer() function is used in
this context. This function reads source buffers then copies them to the
destination buffers. I used read streams only when reading source
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 17:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to
> the
> > README.
>
> Thanks for noticing and working on the patch.
>
> There were a few things that were not quite
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 00:37, David Rowley wrote:
> I've now pushed all 3 patches. Thank you for all the reviews on
> these and for the extra MemoryContextMethodID bit, Matthias.
I realised earlier today when working on [1] that bump makes a pretty
brain-dead move when adding dedicated blocks
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 16:02:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Do you want that patch applied, not applied, or applied with some set of
> > modifications?
>
> I think we should apply Alexander's proposed revert and then separately
> discuss what we
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 5:48 PM Aleksander Alekseev <
aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote:
> Oversight of 0294df2f1f84 [1].
>
> [1]:
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=0294df2f1f84
+1. I think this change improves the code quality. I searched for
other arrays indexed
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:11 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-04-12 01:04:03 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > 1) If we just apply my revert patch and leave c6fc50cb4028 and
> > 041b96802ef in the tree, then we get our table AM API narrowed. As
> > you expressed the current API requires
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 17:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to the
> README.
Thanks for noticing and working on the patch.
There were a few things that were not quite accurate or are misleading:
1.
> +These three memory contexts aim to
Oversight of 0294df2f1f84 [1].
[1]: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=0294df2f1f84
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v1-0001-Replace-constant-3-with-NUM_MERGE_MATCH_KINDS.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:06:45PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:55 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > I personally feel adding the additional check for sync_replication_slots may
> > not improve the situation here. Because the GUC sync_replication_slots can
> >
Hi,
On Sunday, March 10th, 2024 at 4:47 AM, David Steele wrote:
> I've had a new idea which may revive this patch. The basic idea is to
> keep backup_label but also return a copy of pg_control from
> pg_stop_backup(). This copy of pg_control would be safe from tears and
> have a
Hi,
On Saturday, April 13th, 2024 at 12:18 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/13/24 01:03, David Steele wrote:
> > On 4/12/24 22:12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > On 4/11/24 23:48, David Steele wrote:
> > > > On 4/11/24 20:26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > FWIW that discussion also mentions
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:55 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:52 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:00:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > > Please find v5 addressing above comments.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > @@ -1634,9 +1677,14
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:26 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Thanks. Collecting all the ones submitted here, as well as a few submitted
> off-list by Alexander, the patch is now a 3-part patchset of cleanups:
>
> 0001 contains the typos and duplicate words fixups, 0002 fixes a parameter
> with
>
> On 16 Apr 2024, at 07:12, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to the
> README.
Nice catch, we should add it to the README.
+ pfree'd or realloc'd.
I think it's best to avoid mixing API:s, "pfree'd or repalloc'd" keeps it to
functions in
On Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:52 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
Hi,
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:00:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > Please find v5 addressing above comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> @@ -1634,9 +1677,14 @@ SyncReplicationSlots(WalReceiverConn *wrconn) {
>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> > I think for now let's restrict their usage in parallel and make the
> > promotion behavior consistent both for worker and API.
>
> Okay, let's do it that way. Is it worth to add a few words in the doc related
> to
>
> On 16 Apr 2024, at 01:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2024, at 07:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 02:42:57PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Is the attached split in line with how you
Dear Hou,
> Kuroda-San reported an issue off-list that:
>
> If user execute ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET (failover) command inside a txn block
> and rollback, only the subscription option change can be rolled back, while
> the
> replication slot's failover change is preserved.
>
> This is because
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:31 AM Давыдов Виталий
wrote:
> Dear All,
> Just interested, does anyone tried to reproduce the problem with slow
> catchup of twophase transactions (pgbench should be used with big number of
> clients)? I haven't seen any messages from anyone other that me that the
>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 06:32:11AM +, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kuroda-San reported an issue off-list that:
>
> If user execute ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET (failover) command inside a txn block
> and rollback, only the subscription option change can be rolled back, while
> the
>
On 2024/3/11 09:25, Quan Zongliang wrote:
On 2024/3/4 15:48, jian he wrote:
Maybe we can tolerate LOG, first output the query plan then statement.
It is more appropriate to let the extension solve its own problems.
Of course, this change is not easy to implement.
Due to the way XID is
Hi,
> I think it would be reasonable to restrict what can be put in base/ and
> global/ but users generally feel free to create whatever they want in
> the root of PGDATA, despite being strongly encouraged not to.
>
> Anyway, I think it should be fixed or documented as a caveat since it
> causes
Hi,
On 14.04.2024 05:02, Wen Yi wrote:
I think we can change the output like this:
postgres=# \du
List of roles
Role name | Login | Attributes | Password | Valid until | Connection limit
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > If GetNowFloat() somehow was returning a negative number then we could
> > end up with a large delay. But if gettimeofday() was so badly broken
> > then wouldn't there be some evidence of this in the log timestamps on
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:00:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> Please find v5 addressing above comments.
Thanks!
@@ -1634,9 +1677,14 @@ SyncReplicationSlots(WalReceiverConn *wrconn)
{
PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP(slotsync_failure_callback,
PointerGetDatum(wrconn));
{
+
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:21:04AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > There is no clear use case for allowing them in parallel and I feel it
> > would add more confusion when it can work sometimes but not other
> > times. However, if we
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 11:49 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:59 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks, I have created the following Commitfest entry for this:
> >>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:21:04AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:47 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:29:49PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 6:21 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 15,
Hi,
Kuroda-San reported an issue off-list that:
If user execute ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET (failover) command inside a txn block
and rollback, only the subscription option change can be rolled back, while the
replication slot's failover change is preserved.
This is because ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:05:46PM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
> Upon reviewing the login event trigger, I noticed a potential typo about
> the SetDatabaseHasLoginEventTriggers function name.
Indeed, thanks! Will fix and double-check the surroundings.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 7:48 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > > FYI - We also considered the idea which walsender waits until all prepared
> > transactions
> > > are resolved before decoding and sending changes, but it did not work well
> > > - the restarted walsender sent only COMMIT
On 16.04.2024 01:06, David G. Johnston wrote:
At this point I'm on board with retaining the \dr charter of simply being an
easy way to access the detail exposed in pg_roles with some display formatting
but without any attempt to convey how the system uses said information.
Without changing
Hi,
Upon reviewing the login event trigger, I noticed a potential typo about
the SetDatabaseHasLoginEventTriggers function name.
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/event_trigger.c
b/src/backend/commands/event_trigger.c
index 0d3214df9c..7a5ed6b985 100644
---
On 4/12/24 06:44, Tom Lane wrote:
* The very first hunk causes get_eclass_for_sort_expr to have
side-effects on existing EquivalenceClass data structures.
What is the argument that that's not going to cause problems?
At the very least it introduces asymmetry, in that the first
caller wins the
73 matches
Mail list logo
