y that the test now
passes and confirms that amcheck feature works as intended.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
Hi, Mark!
On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 23:10, Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
> > On May 17, 2024, at 11:51 AM, Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> >
> > Amcheck with checkunique option does check uniqueness violation between
> pages. But it doesn't warranty detection of cross page unique
amcheck is not a tool that provides any
warranty when checking an index.
I'm not against docs modification in any way that clarifies its exact usage
and limitations.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3DttG__BTZ-r5ccopBRb5evjg%3DzsF_o_3C5h4zRBA_LjQ%40mail.gmail.com
ture for the patches is the following now.
> > 0001 – optimization, but rather simple and giving huge effect
> > 0002 – refactoring
> > 0003 – fix for the bug
> > 0004 – better error reporting
>
> I think the thread contains enough motivation on why 0002, 0003 and
> 0004 are material for post-FF. They are fixes and refactoring for
> new-in-v17 feature. I'm going to push them if no objections.
>
> Regarding 0001, I'd like to ask Tom and Mark if they find convincing
> that given that optimization is small, simple and giving huge effect,
> it could be pushed post-FF? Otherwise, this could wait for v18.
>
In my view, patches 0002-0004 are worth pushing.
0001 is ready in my view. But I see no problem pushing it into v18
regarding that this optimization could be not eligible for post-FF. I don't
know the criteria for this just let's be safe about it.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
158 +-- the merged partitions, works correctly for temporary partitions
Test for split with comment for merge. Maybe better something like:
"Split partition of a temporary table when one of the partitions after
split has the same name as the partition being split"
0002:
analgous -> analogous (maybe better using "like" instead of "analogous to")
heirarchy -> hierarchy
alter_table.sgml:
Maybe in documentation it's better not to provide reasoning, just state how
it works:
for consistency with CREATE TABLE PARTITION OF ->
similar to CREATE TABLE PARTITION OF
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
A correction of a typo in previous message:
non-leaf pages iteration cycles (under P_ISLEAF(topaque)) -> non-leaf pages
iteration cycles (under !P_ISLEAF(topaque))
On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 16:19, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 15:55, Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
>
On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 15:55, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Hi, Alexander!
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 05:42, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:23 AM Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:13 AM Mark Dilger
>> &g
is a pure code refactoring.
As for the cross-page check regression/TAP testing, this test had problems
since the btree page layout is not fixed (especially it's different on
32-bit arch). I had a variant for testing cross-page check when the test
was yet regression one upthread for both 32/64 bit a
On Fri, 10 May 2024, 22:42 Pavel Borisov, wrote:
> Hi, Mark!
>
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2024, 21:35 Mark Dilger,
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On May 10, 2024, at 5:10 AM, Pavel Borisov
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, Alexander!
>> >
>>
Hi, Mark!
On Fri, 10 May 2024, 21:35 Mark Dilger,
wrote:
>
>
> > On May 10, 2024, at 5:10 AM, Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Alexander!
> >
> > On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 12:39, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:43 AM T
Hi, Alexander!
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 12:39, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > > The revised patchset is attached. I applied cosmetical changes. I'm
> > > going to push it if no objections.
> >
> > Is this really
ted in the thread, and make sense
in my opinion.
I really don't know what's the policy of applying code improvements other
than bugfixes post feature-freeze. IMO they are safe to be appiled to v17,
but they also could be added later.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
>
est
> > PostgreSQL committers.
> >
> > Please join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
>
Congratulations! Well deserved!
Pavel Borisov
datum = list_nth(spec->upperdatums, abs(cmpval) -
1);
and
5290 datum = list_nth(spec->upperdatums, abs(cmpval) -
1);
Otherwise - good.
0004:
I suggest also getting rid of thee-noun compound words like:
salesperson_name. Maybe salesperson -> clerk? Or maybe use the same terms
like in pgbench: branches, tellers, accounts, balance.
0005: Good
0006: Patch is right
In comments:
+ New partitions will have the same table access method,
+ same column names and types as the partitioned table to which they
belong.
(I'd suggest to remove second "same")
Tests are passed. I suppose that it's better to add similar tests for
SPLIT/MERGE PARTITION(S) to those covering ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION (e.g.:
subscription/t/013_partition.pl and regression tests)
Overall, great work! Thanks!
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
Hi, Karina!
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:44, Karina Litskevich
wrote:
> Hi, hackers!
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:00 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
>
>> 0005: Rename checkunique parameter to more user friendly as proposed by
>> Peter Eisentraut and Alexander Korotkov
&
eeCheckState (code refactoring) as
proposed by Peter Geoghegan
Loading of right page for cross-page unique constraint check in the same
way as in bt_right_page_check_scankey()
0004: Report error when next page to a leaf is not a leaf as proposed by
Peter Geoghegan
I think it's a very improbable
I did notice (I meant to point out) that I have concerns about this
> part of the new uniqueness check code:
> "
> if (P_IGNORE(topaque) || !P_ISLEAF(topaque))
> break;
> "
My concern here is with the !P_ISLEAF(topaque) test -- it shouldn't be
> required
I agree. But I didn't see the need
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 Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 22:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:37 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> > In my understanding, the downside of 041b96802ef is bringing
> read_stream* things from being heap-only-related up to the level of
> acquire_sample_rows() th
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 19:36, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 5:28 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Yes, I think so. Table AM API deals with TIDs and block numbers, but
> > doesn't force on what they actually mean. For example, in ZedStore
> > [1], data is stored on per-column
Hi, Alexander!
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 16:20, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 9:54 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:33 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > > Yes, it was my mistake. I got rushing trying to fit this to FF, even
> doing significant changes
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 19:48, Matthias van de Meent <
boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 17:21, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/8/24 16:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > >> On 08/04/2024 16:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> I was just about
This could be easily broken with bureaucratic decisions some of them, like
proposed counting of lines of code vs period of time look even little bit
repressive.
Let's remain an open community, support inspiration in each other, and
don't build an over-regulated corporation. I feel that Postgres will win if
people feel less limited by formal rules. Personally, I believe RMT has
enough experience and authority to stabilize and interact with authors if
questions arise.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 16:27, John Naylor wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 9:08 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached a mostly-polished update on runtime embeddable values,
> > storing up to 3 offsets in the child pointer (1 on 32-bit platforms).
> > As discussed, this includes a macro to
ckend/access/common/tidstore.c:48:3: error: anonymous
structs are a C11 extension [-Werror,-Wc11-extensions]
struct
^
1 error generated.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
Hi, Alexander
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 13:59, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 13:34, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:18 AM Pavel Borisov
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 03:25, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 13:34, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:18 AM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 03:25, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:40 AM Andres F
ly requires
> > reimplementing all of analyze.c.
> .
> Non-lock base AM needs to just provide an alternative implementation
> for what acquire_sample_rows() does. This seems like reasonable
> effort for me, and surely not reimplementing all of analyze.c.
>
I agree.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
Hi, Alexander!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 12:34, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Hi, Alexander!
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 07:33, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Pavel!
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 6:58 PM Pavel Borisov
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024
Hi, Alexander!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 07:33, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Hi, Pavel!
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 6:58 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 19:17, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 11:49 +0300, Alexander Korotkov
Hi, hackers!
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 19:17, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 11:49 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > I don't like the idea that every custom table AM reltoptions should
> > begin with StdRdOptions. I would rather introduce the new data
> > structure with table
Hi, Alexander!
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:18, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 7:55 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-Apr-03, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding the shmem data structure for LSN waiters. I didn't pick
> > > LWLock or ConditionVariable,
correction: so now code is not broken
>
ldTable, Relation NewTable order. It coincides to what is
expected by the function, no now code is not broken. The only wrong thing
is naming of arguments in declaration of this function in tableam.h I think
this is a minor oversight from original commit d25f519107b
Provided all the above I'd reco
>
> I think for better code look this could be removed:
> >vlock:
> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
> together with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); in heapam_tuple_insert_with_arbiter
> placed in the beginning of while loop.
>
To clarify things, this I wrote only about
I've looked at patch 0003.
Generally, it does a similar thing as 0001 - it exposes a more generalized
method tuple_insert_with_arbiter that encapsulates
tuple_insert_speculative/tuple_complete_speculative and at the same time
allows extensibility of this i.e. different implementation for custom
palives_idle in seconds
commit_delay in microseconds
deadlock_timeout in milliseconds
max_standby_archive_delay in milliseconds
vacuum_cost_delay in milliseconds
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay in milliseconds
etc..
I haven't counted precisely, but I feel that milliseconds are the most
often used in both guc's and functions. So I'd propose using milliseconds
for the patch as it was proposed originally.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase.
should do what.
I think, with rebase and correction in the comments/commit message patch
0006 is ready to be committed.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov.
#include
#include "utils/sampling.h"
#include "utils/spccache.h"
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:52 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> >> The revised rest of the patchset is attached.
> >> 0001 (was 0006) – I prefer the definition of AcquireSampleRowsFunc to
&g
>
> This seems not needed, it's already inited to InvalidOid before.
> +else
> +accessMethod = default_table_access_method;
>
> + accessMethodId = InvalidOid;
>
> This code came from 374c7a22904. I don't insist on this simplification in
> a patch 0002.
>
A correction of the code quote for
+ accessMethodId = InvalidOid;
This code came from 374c7a22904. I don't insist on this simplification in a
patch 0002.
Overall both patches look good to me.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov.
Hi, Anton!
Looks like an oversight when refactoring BTScanOpaqueData.firstPage into
using function argument in 06b10f80ba4.
@@ -2487,14 +2486,13 @@ _bt_endpoint(IndexScanDesc scan, ScanDirection dir)
104
105 /* remember which buffer we have pinned */
106 so->currPos.buf = buf;
107 -
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 08:51, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Hi, Alexander!
>
> Thank you for working on this patchset and pushing some of these patches!
>
> I tried to write comments for tts_minimal_is_current_xact_tuple()
> and tts_minimal_getsomeattrs() for them to be the sa
in the
thread. (tts_minimal_getsysattr is not introduced by the current patchset,
but anyway)
Meanwhile I found that (never appearing) error message
for tts_minimal_is_current_xact_tuple needs to be corrected. Please see the
patch in the attachment.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Add-comments
Hi, Alexander!
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 09:22, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Hi, Alexander!
>
> For 0007:
>
> Code inside
>
> +heapam_reloptions(char relkind, Datum reloptions, bool validate)
> +{
> + if (relkind == RELKIND_RELATION ||
> + relkind == RELKIND_T
rc/include/access/tableam.h:extern bytea
*index_reloptions(amoptions_function amoptions, Datum reloptions,
Otherwise the patch looks good and doing what it's proposed to do.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov.
iendly message if we do.
+ */
also applies to tts_minimal_is_current_xact_tuple()
I'd propose changes for clarity of this comment:
%s/a storage tuples/storage tuples/g
%s/generally//g
Otherwise patch 0005 also looks good to me.
I'm planning to review the remaining patches. Meanwhile think pushi
t patches are unchanged.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
ng how it works. I think it's regarding
this patchset only and could remove or substantiate the main questions
about the current patchset.
[0]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyj...@mail.gmail.com
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov.
be only in some
specific artificial workload. Did you do some measurements? Do we have
several percent performance-wise?
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
Alexander,
On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 23:35, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Pavel,
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 8:32 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> > I've reviewed both patches:
> > 0001 - is a pure refactoring replacing argument transfer from via struct
> member to transf
rection).
Maybe, in this case, it would be more clear like: "...(for backwards scan
it will be the first item on a page)"
Otherwise the patch 0002 looks like a good fix for the bug to be pushed.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
>
>
> Additionally changes in 0007 looks dependent from 0005. Does replacement
> of slot inside ExecInsert, that is already used in the code below the call
> of
>
> >/* insert the tuple normally */
> >- table_tuple_insert(resultRelationDesc, slot,
> >- estate->es_output_cid,
> >- 0, NULL);
>
>
Hi, Alexander!
I've reviewed patch 0004. It's clear enough and I think does what it's
supposed.
One thing, in function signature
+bool (*tuple_is_current) (Relation rel, TupleTableSlot *slot);
there is a Relation agrument, which is unused in both existing heapam
method. Also it's unused in
ce MOX patch is unlikely to be committed and now
>> for test purpose only.
>>
>
If the patch is RwF the CF entry is finished and can't be enabled, rather
the patch needs to be submitted in a new entry, which I have just done.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4703/
Please feel free to submit your review.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 10:34, John Naylor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:37 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 AM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
> > > Agree. The fix is attached.
> >
> > What an oversight.
> > Tha
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 08:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin writes:
> > And a warning:
> > $ CC=gcc-12 CFLAGS="-Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter
> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-clobbered
> > -Wno-missing-field-initializers" ./configure -q && make -s
> > slru.c:63:1: warning: ‘inline’ is not at
e is underlying [free] function and simply falls
> through otherwise,
> also, take into account that it could be located in the uninterruptible
> part of the code.
>
> On the whole topic I have to
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:56 PM Pavel Borisov
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Alex
Hi, Alexander!
> I'm planning to review some of the other patches from the current patchset
> soon.
>
I've looked into the patch 0003.
The patch looks in good shape and is uncontroversial to me. Making memory
structures to be dynamically allocated is simple enough and it allows to
store complex
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 14:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 12:14, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/11/2023 01:43, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >>> v61 looks
ind regards,
Pavel Borisov
Hi, Heikki!
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2023 01:43, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > v61 looks good to me. I'm going to push it as long as there are no
> > objections.
> This was discussed earlier, but is still present in v61:
>
> > +/*
> > + * An internal
ad I'm attaching
them under v17. I suppose that we can commit these patches to v17 if
there are no objections or additional reviews.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAPpHfdurb9ycV8udYqM%3Do0sPS66PJ4RCBM1g-bBpvzUfogY0EA%40mail.gmail.com
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
v17-0002-Add-EvalPlan
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:01, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:42 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 17:07, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:46 PM Aleksander Alekseev
> > > wro
original 64-xid patch, from which the current patch is
derived, as just "privious input" persons.
Regards, Pavel Borisov
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Korotkov
It's very good that this long-standing patch is finally committed. Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Hi, Konstantin!
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 22:44, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
>
> On 04/10/2023 3:00 am, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 12:59 AM Pavel Borisov
> > wrote:
> >> I've looked through the patch v8. I think it's good enough
Hi!
On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 10:35, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> Hi, Peter.
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 4:57 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:24 AM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > The thing is that NULLs could appear in the middle of matching values.
> > >
> > > #
ential.
>
> This patch does indeed seem "ready for committer". John?
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
FWIW I think the patch is still in good shape and worth to be committed.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
Sorry, I've mistaken with attached version previously. Correct v5 attached.
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 13:58, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> Hi, Alexander!
>
> I found and fixed a couple of naming issues that came to v4 from
> earlier patches.
> Also, I added initialization of require
Hi, Alexander!
I found and fixed a couple of naming issues that came to v4 from
earlier patches.
Also, I added initialization of requiredMatchedByPrecheck in case of first page.
Please see patch v5.
One more doubt about naming. Calling function
_bt_checkkeys(IndexScanDesc scan, IndexTuple
On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 00:48, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 5:11 AM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > I looked at the patch code and I agree with this optimization.
> > Implementation also looks good to me except change :
> > + if (key->sk_flags &
the meaning without looking at the patch commit
message. But I don't have better proposals yet, so maybe it's
acceptable.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase.
I'm not completely sure what should be in this list, but maybe also
tuplesort extensibility [1]? [1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALT9ZEHjgO_r2cFr35%3Du9xZa6Ji2e7oVfSEBRBj0Gc%2BtJjTxSg%40mail.gmail.com#201dc4202af38f224a1e3acc78795199
ST
> pointer, maybe you would want to participate there [1].
>
> We still would be grateful for feedback.
>
> [1] Extending the TOAST Pointer
I don't see a clear reason it's rejected, besides technically it's
Waiting on Author since January. If it's a mistake and the patch is
up-to-date you can set an appropriate status.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
with threads
having equal amount of session-local variables.
In other words, the overall goal in principle is to gain from less
memory copying wherever it doesn't add the burden of locks for
concurrent variables access?
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
we patched corner cases of
a0ffa885e before (by 13d838815), why not patch minor things in
096dd80f3 instead of reverting?
As I see in [1] there is some demand from users regarding this option.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
Hi!
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 15:14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 21 Apr 2023, at 12:58, Anton Voloshin wrote:
> >
> > On 21/04/2023 13:45, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> >> The patch is attached. Anyone to commit?
> >
> > Speaki
c:
> >
> > static double default_multirange_selectivity(Oid operator);
> > static double default_multirange_selectivity(Oid operator);
>
> Nice catch.
>
> > No harm from this duplication, still, I suggest to clean it up for
> > tidiness' sake.
>
> +1
>
The patch is
ch success and few reverts.
>
> regards, tom lane
Great news!
It's much deserved! Congratulations, Nathan, Amit and Masahiko!
Pavel Borisov
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 17:08, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The proposed changes are in patchset v5.
>
> Pavel, John, thanks for your feedback.
>
> > I've looked into the patches v4.
> > For 0001:
> > I think long "not accepting commands that generate" is equivalent to
> > more concise
ittle bit
better that OR as the word _might_ means that each of the proposals in
the list is a probable, not a sure one.
The proposed changes are in patchset v5.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
v5-0002-This-recommendation-is-outdated-for-some-time-now.patch
Description: Binary data
v5-
Upon Alexander reverting patches v15 from master, I've rebased what
was correction patches v4 in a message above on a fresh master
(together with patches v15). The resulting patch v16 is attached.
Pavel.
v16-0002-Add-EvalPlanQual-delete-returning-isolation-test.patch
Description: Binary data
uple_update() whereas as per the comment on this
function "concurrent updates of
the target tuple is not expected (for example, because we have a lock
on the relation associated with the tuple)". It seems not to break
anything but maybe this could be simplified.
Overall I think the p
ere is a big progress in it already. I propose to see it's status a week
later and if it is not ready then to revert existing. Hope there are no
other patches in the existing branch complained to suffer this.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
>
Hi, Andres and Alexander!
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, 10:10 Alexander Korotkov, wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:50 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-03-02 14:28:56 +0400, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > > 2. Heap updates with low tuple concurrency:
> > > Prepare with pkeys
the cluster with an erroneous config file it will fail to start,
not sure about re-read config)
Overall the proposal seems legit and useful.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
d things.
I wish you succeed and enjoy this activity!
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/So,_you_want_to_be_a_developer%3F
[2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/42/
be chunk-updatable, so that we don't need
to rewrite the whole TOAST and WAL-replicate the whole thing at every
small attribute modification. But obviously, it's just another
opinion.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
So overall I value the extensibility part of this activity as the most
important one and will be happy to see it completed first.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
et_new_filenode()->RelationCreateStorage()
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
with your proposals
to address the sources of caution, and improve or review the patches, it
would be really helpful. And these are really the things that move patches
forward, not just complaining about words.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
undefined and there is no preferred order between these tuples, even
if their second sort keys are different.
And maybe (unlikely IMO) we need some analog of NULLS DISCTICNT/NOT
DISTINCT in this scope?
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
n. If performance improvement
could be demonstrated in a more direct way it would be a good argument
to commit the improvement. Personally I like TPS plots like in [1].
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALT9ZEHSX1Hpz5xjDA62yHAHtpinkA6hg8Zt-odyxqppmKbQFA%40mail.gmail.com
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase
to v5, not v6. That lead to comment mismatch with
> > the code that you've noticed. v8 should be correct. Please, recheck.
>
> v9 also incorporates lost changes to the commit message by Pavel Borisov.
I've looked through patch v9. It resembles patch v5 plus comments
clarification by Mason
Hi, Alexander!
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 15:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:05 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 3:43 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > > One more update of a patchset to avoid compiler warnings.
> >
>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 12:52, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> Hi, Vignesh!
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 12:41, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 16:49, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hackers,
> > >
> > > When worki
1.patch
> patching file src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
> ...
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 1376.
> ...
> 1 out of 15 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c.rej
>
> [1] - http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_41_4099.log
The rebased patch is attached. It's just a change in formatting, no
changes in code though.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov,
Supabase.
v2-0001-Lock-updated-tuples-in-tuple_update-and-tuple_del.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 17:28, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 02:20:38PM +0300, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > Hi, Alexander!
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:48, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:51 A
Hi, Alexander!
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:48, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:51 AM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 09:29, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 6:42 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
&
1 - 100 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
