Hi,
On 2023-01-15 16:49:01 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't see how we can fix this mess entirely without tracking the storage
> type a lot more widely. Most importantly in targetlists, as we use the
> targetlists to compute the tupledescs of executor nodes, which then influe
Hi,
On 2023-01-15 18:41:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-01-15 18:08:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ri_newTupleSlot has the tupdesc we want, planSlot is a virtual slot
> >> that has the bogus tupdesc, and for some reason heap_form_tuple
Hi,
On 2023-01-15 18:08:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-01-15 16:40:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The documentation is correct, what is broken is the code. I'm not
> >> sure when we broke it
>
> > I've not thought th
List, tle);
else
need_projection = true;
}
Greetings,
Andres Freund
cally 128), it is easy to hit the limitation and you will
> get errors something like:
>
> could not connect to server: Resource temporarily unavailable
>
> I don't know if this should be applied to other OS as well though.
Yea, that'd be good. Care to suggest a patch?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2019-09-04 09:41:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-08-30 12:35:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's the sort of thing that we sometimes cover in the
> >> "source code" changes of the release notes. But yeah, 0
note suggesting that oids in forks should be assigned in the
> 9000- range.
But how do you get from forks in that sentence from the commit message
(or the source, which says " with 9000- tentatively reserved for
forks"), to the range being for "external extensions"? Those are very
different things imo?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
d in the
9000- range.
As forks != extensions, the release note entry seems misleading, and
a6417078c doesn't seem relevant?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
andler.c '
Thanks for the report, I've pushed the fix.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
think it's wrong to say that async commit doesn't mean anything
for unlogged tables.
I'd also say that it's not correct to say that async commit really
controls WAL writes at all. It's just whether we *flush* the commit
record, or not.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
e is in bytes, as opposed
> to a value of time, like milliseconds. You can specify the bytes in
> terms of the number of pages, e.g., 2 = 16kB, or you can specify it
> directly in bytes, e.g., 32kB.
I'm not following? Why is bytes vs time a problem? We have similar
base-unit issues in plenty time based GUCs?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2019-02-05 12:24:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-02-05 12:10:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> For something like release-9-6-10.html, there's no value in having it
> >> appear in three or four different places. You can't ev
Hi,
On 2019-02-05 12:10:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-02-05 08:50:16 -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> >> The original thought process was to _not_ do that given the effort, but
> >> if it's just for `/current/` it may not be so b
On 2019-02-05 09:12:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > For the record: I think this is a terrible idea. Makes it much harder to
> > figure out what changed when, and requires per-branch incantations to
> > grep through the log.
>
> Uh ... "gre
On 2019-02-05 08:50:16 -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 2/5/19 1:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-01-26 10:06:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> >>> The one "caveat" I will bring up is
and soon URLs like
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/release-10.html
will be too.
I don't understand how this can be considered a good idea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2018-11-28 14:49:10 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:46:33AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-11-28 18:34:26 +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> > > After one week no response at all? Neither positive nor negative. It seem
le.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
ng v10 release
notes...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On 2018-02-09 23:43:26 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> WaitForBackgroundWorkerShutdown() was added in 924bcf4f16d, but never
> documented which seems like an oversight for such a useful function. The
> attached patch adds this to bgworker.sgml, and also fixes what I believe are
> typos in the Wa
> A Boolean value of true tells the backend
> + to go into walsender mode, wherein a small set of replication commands
> + can be issued instead of SQL statements.
This actually is wrong now I think. Petr?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
21 matches
Mail list logo
