On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Even if that isn't the proximate cause of the current reports, it's
> clearly trouble waiting to happen, and we should get rid of it.
> Accordingly, see attached proposed patch. This just flushes the
> "immediate interrupt" stuff in favor of
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 07:26:55PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> > > Patch applies. There seems to be a compilation issue:
> > >
> > > describe.c:5974:1: error: expected declaration or statement at end of
> > > input
> > > }
> >
> > This is in brown paper bag territory.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 08:22:09PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> About v4: applies, compiles, global & local "make check" ok. Doc gen ok.
>
> Code & help look ok.
>
> About the doc: I do not understand why the small program listing contains an
> "\echo :variable".
It no
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 23:46, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On second thoughts, it actually needs to be in
> get_row_security_policies(), after making copies of the quals from the
> policies, otherwise it would be scribbling on the copies from the
> relcache. Actually that makes the code change a bit
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 01:14:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Not particularly on topic, but: including a patch version number in your
> subject headings is pretty unfriendly IMO, because it breaks threading
> for people whose MUAs do threading by matching up subject lines.
Thanks for letting me
Hi Team,
Let us say we have a Master (M1) and a Slave (S1) in replication using
Streaming Replication.
I stopped all my writes from Application and i switched a WAL and made sure
it is replicated to Slave.
I have then shutdown M1. And ran a promote on S1.
Now S1 is my new Master with a new
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:27:26PM +0800, Peifeng Qiu wrote:
> I've updated the patch according to your comments.
Looks good. Thanks. I plan to push this on Saturday.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM that we should try to come up with a way of making code like this
> > work, rather than placing the burden on new code to get it right.
>
> Other than "use the right datatype", I'm not sure what we can do?
Ambiguity seems like the real
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Commit ab0dfc961b6 used a "long" variable within _bt_load() to count
> the number of tuples entered into a B-Tree index as it is built. This
> will not work as expected on Windows, even on 64-bit Windows, because
> "long" is only 32-bits wide.
Right. "long" used to be
Commit ab0dfc961b6 used a "long" variable within _bt_load() to count
the number of tuples entered into a B-Tree index as it is built. This
will not work as expected on Windows, even on 64-bit Windows, because
"long" is only 32-bits wide. It's far from impossible that you'd have
~2 billion index
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Sascha Kuhl wrote:
Is it possible to differentialy synchronise two databases on the basis of
equality and differences between both? Can I review this piece of code?
It's rather unclear what exactly are you looking for, what do you mean
by 'on the
Hello David,
Patch applies. There seems to be a compilation issue:
describe.c:5974:1: error: expected declaration or statement at end of
input
}
This is in brown paper bag territory. Fixed.
I do not understand why you move both size and description out of the
verbose mode, it should
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:29 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > I'm going to commit these adjustments if no objections.
>
> Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Looking quickly at the v2 patch,
> it seems like you didn't entirely take to heart the idea of preferring
> a
Hello David,
About v4: applies, compiles, global & local "make check" ok. Doc gen ok.
Code & help look ok.
About the doc: I do not understand why the small program listing contains
an "\echo :variable". Also, the new entry should probably be between the
\w & \watch entries instead of
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 4:36 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Yes, increasing of Bloom filter size also helps. But my intention was
> > to make non-lossy check here.
>
> Why is that your intention? Do you want to do this as a feature
Not particularly on topic, but: including a patch version number in your
subject headings is pretty unfriendly IMO, because it breaks threading
for people whose MUAs do threading by matching up subject lines.
I don't actually see the point of the [PATCH] annotation at all, because
the thread is
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:53:51AM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:16 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I tested on Red Hat and on Windows Server 2016; I won't be shocked
> > if the test (not the code under test) breaks on other Windows
> > configurations.
>
> IIRC there
Will be doing in just a few days. I am taking _initial_ suggestions,
incorporating them, then I will be setting that up.
On 4/28/2019 11:25 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 12:54:07PM -0400, Steve wrote:
As you might know, generating SSL certificates for postgres (to be
used by
Is it possible to differentialy synchronise two databases on the basis of
equality and differences between both? Can I review this piece of code?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:10 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > Not sure if you'll like it but maybe we could ignore even regular
> > inheritance child targets that are proven to be empty (is_dummy_rel()) for
> > a given query during the initial SELECT planning. That way, we can
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 12:54:07PM -0400, Steve wrote:
> As you might know, generating SSL certificates for postgres (to be
> used by pgadmin, for example...) can be quite a bear; especially if
> you need more than one, since they are based on the username of the
> postgres user.
Thanks for
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:38:50PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> Patch applies. There seems to be a compilation issue:
>
> describe.c:5974:1: error: expected declaration or statement at end of
> input
> }
This is in brown paper bag territory. Fixed.
> > I think the way
Folks,
Our test coverage needs all the help it can get.
This patch, extracted from another by Fabian Coelho, helps move things
in that direction.
I'd like to argue that it's not a new feature, and that it should be
back-patched as far as possible.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:09:27PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> About v3. Applies, compiles, global & local make check are ok. doc gen ok.
>
> > > I'd put the commands in alphabetical order (echo, qecho, warn) instead of
> > > e/w/q in the condition.
> >
> > Done.
>
>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:10:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think we generally write this the way Justin suggests. It's
> more precise, at least if you're reading it in a way that makes
> text distinguishable from plain text: what to put into
> the config file is exactly "-1", and not
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Mmm. I posted to wrong thread. Sorry.
>
> At Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:39:49 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro
> HORIGUCHI wrote in <
> 20190423.163949.36763221.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > At Tue,
26 matches
Mail list logo
