On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:17:52AM +, imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> According to the commit 3c8404649 [1], transactional update in
> pg_index is not safe in non-MVCC catalog scans before PG9.4.
> But it seems to me that we can use transactional update in pg_index
> after the commit 813fb0
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:23:54PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Right, so this is basically a policy decision: do we assume that all
> pre-13 indexes that depend on collations are potentially corrupted, or
> assume that they are not? The "correct" thing to do would be to
> assume they are potentia
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:27 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> As I was working on that lately, I came to the conclusion that we should
> get *this* patch done first.
Cool. Let's aim to get this into 13!
> > * Some have expressed doubt that pg_depend is the right place for
> > this; let's see if any
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:23:54PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Right, so this is basically a policy decision: do we assume that all
> > pre-13 indexes that depend on collations are potentially corrupted, or
> > assume that they are not? T
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I'm inclined to think that we need to make ecpglib.h's bool-related
> > definitions exactly match c.h, which will mean that it has to pull in
> > on most platforms, which will mean adding a control symbol
> > for that to ecpg_config.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:37 PM Rafia Sabih wrote:
> I was reviewing this patch and here are a few comments,
Hi Rafia,
Thanks!
> +static void
> +ExplainNodePerProcess(ExplainState *es, bool *opened_group,
> + int worker_number, Instrumentation *instrument)
> +{
>
> A small description about th
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The two approaches to solve this problem being discussed in that
> > > > thread [1] are as follows:
> > > > (a)
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The two approaches to solve this proble
On 08/11/2019 05:53, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:41 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:00:08AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Sorry for the long delay... Yes, I will update the patch if necessary.
Fujii-san, are you planning to update this patch then? I have
On 11/7/19 4:36 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote:
On 11/7/19 12:56 PM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0300, Grigory Smolkin
wrote in
On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin
wrote in
On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freun
At Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:53:07 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:41 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:00:08AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > Sorry for the long delay... Yes, I will update the patch if necessary.
> >
> > Fujii-san, are you planning to
Hello.
At Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:23:41 +0500, Andrey Lepikhov
wrote in
> > Can I switch the status back to "Needs review"?
> > Regards,
> >
>
> One issue is that your patch provides small information. WAL errors
> Investigation often requires information on xid, subxacts,
> delete-on-abort/commit
Sorry about the delay.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:00 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> This patch seems excessively complicated to me. Why don't you just add
> the actual partitioned table to pg_publication_rel and then expand the
> partition hierarchy in pgoutput (get_rel_sync_entry() or
> GetRelation
On 08/11/2019 09:26, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
Hello.
At Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:23:41 +0500, Andrey Lepikhov
wrote in
Can I switch the status back to "Needs review"?
Regards,
One issue is that your patch provides small information. WAL errors
Investigation often requires information on xid,
On Tue, Sept 10, 2019 at 11:27 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > [0002 patch]
> > In pgss_planner_hook:
> >
> > + /* calc differences of buffer counters. */
> > + bufusage = compute_buffer_counters(bufusage_start,
> > pgBufferUsage);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-07 17:03:44 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:48 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a bit confused - does this happen only with the logical_work_mem
> > > patches, or with clean master too?
>
On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 15:04 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> So we have three proposals:
>
> 1. Assume that pre-13 indexes that depend on collations are
> potentially corrupted and complain until they are reindexed. This
> could be done by having pg_upgrade run ALTER INDEX ... DEPENDS ON
> COLLATION
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:53 AM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>>> - I wonder if CheckForSerializableConflictOutNeeded() shouldn't have a
>>> portion of it's code as a static inline. In particular, it's a shame
>>> that we currently perform external function calls at quite the
>>> frequency when seria
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 14:02, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> I am reading about this feature and reviewing it.
> To start with, I reviewed the patch:
> 0005-Doc-changes-describing-details-about-logical-decodin.patch.
Thanks for picking up the patch review.
Your reply somehow spawned a new m
Hello Rafia,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:41 AM Rafia Sabih wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 08:06, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Thanks for sharing this case. I hadn't considered it, but you're
>> right that it should be handled sensibly. I have fixed table sync
>> code to handle this case properly. Co
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:29 AM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> čt 7. 11. 2019 v 6:56 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
>>
>> Okay, no problem. I will pick the previous version and do this. I
>> will post the patch in a day or so for your review.
>
>
> Thank you very much
>
Did you get a chance to look at
pá 8. 11. 2019 v 6:39 odesílatel Amit Kapila
napsal:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:29 AM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > čt 7. 11. 2019 v 6:56 odesílatel Amit Kapila
> napsal:
> >>
> >> Okay, no problem. I will pick the previous version and do this. I
> >> will post the patch in a day or so for your
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 17:43, Sergei Fedorov
wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Yes, we will be happy to put our patch under the PostgreSQL License.
>
> Patch is attached to this email, master was rebased to head prior to
> creating the patch.
>
> We are using a C++ wrapper on top of libpq for using da
Hello Tom,
Thank you for your comments.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:30 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> failure: not only did you fail to add any commentary about the new macros,
> but you removed most of the commentary that had been in-line in the
> existing usages.
I apologize for the insufficient comments.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 17:43, Sergei Fedorov
wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Yes, we will be happy to put our patch under the PostgreSQL License.
>
> Patch is attached to this email, master was rebased to head prior to
> creating the patch.
>
> We are using a C++ wrapper on top of libpq for using da
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 06:28, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
> On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances
> > Testlib's command_fails_like by allowing the passing of extra keyword
> > type arguments. The keyword initially recognized
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have done some experiments on this line. I have first produced a
> case where we can show the problem with the existing shared costing
> patch (worker which is doing less I/O might pay the penalty on behalf
> of the worker who is doing more
Hi all
I recently found the need to pretty-print the contents of pg_locks. So
here's a little helper to do it, for anyone else who happens to have that
need. pg_identify_object is far from adequate for the purpose. Reckon I
should turn it into C and submit?
CREATE FUNCTION describe_pg_lock(IN l
pá 8. 11. 2019 v 0:39 odesílatel Mark Dilger
napsal:
> Hackers,
>
> As discussed with Tom in [1] and again with Pavel and Alvaro in [2],
> here is a partial WIP refactoring of the SPI interface. The goal is to
> remove as many of the SPI_ERROR_xxx codes as possible from the
> interface, replacin
út 5. 11. 2019 v 11:28 odesílatel Kyotaro Horiguchi
napsal:
> Hello.
>
> At Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:53:18 +0100, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
> > On 2019-11-02 16:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > >> This patch moves the parse analysis component
Hello.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:15 PM Moon, Insung wrote:
> Deal Hackers.
>
> The value of ssl_passphrase_command is set so that an external command
> is called when the passphrase for decrypting an SSL file such as a
> private key is obtained.
> Therefore, easily set to work with echo "passphras
po 4. 11. 2019 v 8:53 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2019-11-02 16:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> This patch moves the parse analysis component of ExecuteQuery() and
> >> EvaluateParams() into a new transformExecuteStmt() that i
On 2019-11-08 08:13, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I dug into repository and found that transformExecuteStmt existed at
the time of implementing PREPARE-EXECUTE statements(28e82066a1) and
removed by the commit b9527e9840 which is related to
plan-invalidation.
git show -s --format=%B b
Le 07/11/2019 à 11:52, Etsuro Fujita a écrit :
> Horiguchi-san,
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that the comment in XACT_EVENT_PRE_PREPARE
>> contains the same mistake and needs more or less the same fix.
> Good catch! How about rewriting "We d
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
