On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:39 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 01:36:46PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:55 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
>
> I do think having a separate GUC is a must, irrespectedly of what other
> GUC (if any) is used as a default. You're
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:38 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> No, that's a good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is at the
> moment. My understanding was that the infrastructure in the 2PC patch is
> enough even for subtransactions, but I might be wrong. I need to think
> about that for a
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:56 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:54:48PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:22 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2019-Sep-28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > The CREATE INDEX docs already say:
> > > >
> > > >
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:54:48PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:22 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-Sep-28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > The CREATE INDEX docs already say:
> > >
> > > In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered into
> > >
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:22 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2019-Sep-28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > The CREATE INDEX docs already say:
> >
> > In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered into
> > the system catalogs in one transaction, then two table scans occur in
> >
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 10:52:18PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> committed with that
Thanks, LGTM.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2019-Sep-22, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> The attached patch addresses the comment about assuming UTF8.
The UTF8 bits looks reasonable to me. I guess the other part of that
question is whether we support any other multibyte encoding that
supports combining characters. Maybe for
On 2019-Sep-28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The CREATE INDEX docs already say:
>
> In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered into
> the system catalogs in one transaction, then two table scans occur in
> two more transactions. Before each table scan, the index build must
On Saturday, September 28, 2019, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:16:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Coleman wrote:
>>
>>> Over in the incremental sort patch discussion we found [1] a case
>>> where a higher cost plan ends up being
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:50:30PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 5:55 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
The "patched" column means all developer GUCs disabled, so it's expected
to produce the same plan as master (and it is). And then there's one
column for each developer GUC. If the
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 08:31:30PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:49:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>On 2019-Jul-30, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've decided to do a couple of experiments, trying to make my mind about
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:16:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Coleman wrote:
Over in the incremental sort patch discussion we found [1] a case
where a higher cost plan ends up being chosen because a low startup
cost partial path is ignored in favor of a
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:12:49AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:36:46PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 21:22 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's worth mentioning that those bechmarks (I'm assuming we're
talking
about the numbers Rober shared in [1]) were
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:36:46PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 21:22 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's worth mentioning that those bechmarks (I'm assuming we're
talking
about the numbers Rober shared in [1]) were done on patches that used
the eager accounting approach (i.e.
On 2019-09-28 19:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think that rather than adding error
> checks that were not there before, the right path to fixing this is
> to cause these settings to be ignored if we're doing crash recovery.
That makes sense to me. Something like this
On 2019-09-27 16:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 03:50:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-09-27 03:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Your patch does not issue a ereport(LOG/FATAL) in the event of a
>>> failure with SSL_CTX_set_max_proto_version(), which is something
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:26:27PM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> If we're going to open this up, can we add an option to say "this key is
> allowed to log in to this account", SSH style?
>
> I like the idea of using keys rather than .pgpass, but I like the ~/.ssh/
> authorized_keys model and
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 01:36:46PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:55 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 02:33:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:55 AM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/3/18 14:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> >> I don't see
On 9/28/19 1:26 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:51 AM David Steele wrote:
>
> Yeah, more checks would be necessary. IMO easy fix is to forbid not only
> recovery target parameters but also any recovery parameters (specified
> in recovery.conf in previous versions) in crash
Fujii Masao writes:
>> Agreed. Seems like that could be added to the patch above easily
>> enough. More checks would be needed to prevent the behaviors I've been
>> seeing in the other thread, but it should be possible to more or less
>> mimic the old behavior with sufficient checks.
> Yeah,
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Tom Lane 2019-09-26 <12685.1569510...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> We haven't seen it in quite some time in HEAD, though I fear that's
>> just due to bad luck or change of timing of unrelated tests.
> The v13 package builds that are running every 6h here haven't seen a
>
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 00:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I intended it to mean "the entire cluster." Basically, how many
> workers out of max_worker_processes are you willing to use for
> parallel query, as opposed to other things. I agree that PGC_USERSET
> doesn't make any sense.
In that case,
Amit Langote writes:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote writes:
>>> Isn't the point of using ANALYZE here to show that the exec-param
>>> based run-time pruning is working (those "never executed" strings)?
>> Hm. Well, if you want to see those, we could do it
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:51 AM David Steele wrote:
>
> On 9/28/19 10:54 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:01 AM David Steele wrote:
> >> On 9/27/19 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, recovery target settings are used even when neither backup_label
> >>> nor
On 9/28/19 12:00 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 9/28/19 11:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:52 AM David Steele wrote:
>>
>>> The question for the old versions: is this something that should be
>>> fixed in the code or in the documentation?
>>>
>>> My vote is to make this
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 01:51:00PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> In my experience it's not immediately obvious (even after reading the
> documentation) the implications of how concurrent index builds manage
> transactions with respect to multiple concurrent index builds in
> flight at the same
On 9/28/19 11:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:52 AM David Steele wrote:
>
>> The question for the old versions: is this something that should be
>> fixed in the code or in the documentation?
>>
>> My vote is to make this explicit in the documentation, since changing
>> the
On 9/28/19 10:54 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:01 AM David Steele wrote:
>> On 9/27/19 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, recovery target settings are used even when neither backup_label
>>> nor recovery.signal exist, i.e., just a crash recovery, in v12. This is
>>>
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t(i int)PARTITION BY RANGE(i);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t0 PARTITION OF t DEFAULT PARTITION BY RANGE(i);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t00 PARTITION OF t0 DEFAULT; -- oh yes
CREATE TABLE
...
Not sure how it could be useful to partition default into
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:52 AM David Steele wrote:
>
> Hackers,
>
> In versions < PG12 recovery_target_action has a behavior that appears to
> be a bug, or is at least undocumented. If hot_standby = off and
> recovery_target_action is not specified then the cluster will promote
> when the
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:01 AM David Steele wrote:
>
> On 9/27/19 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:14 AM David Steele wrote:
> >>
> >> I think, at the very least, the fact that targeted recovery proceeds in
> >> the absence of recovery.signal represents a bug.
> >
> >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:26 PM legrand legrand
wrote:
>
> OK I confirm:
> - "client backend" appears at session start and end hook,
> - "autovacuum worker" and "pg_background" only appears at session end hook
> (backend_start can be retreived from pg_stat_activity),
> - "parallel workers" are
Antonin Houska wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > BTW that tli_p business to the openSegment callback is horribly
> > inconsistent. Some callers accept a NULL tli_p, others will outright
> > crash, even though the API docs say that the callback must determine the
> > timeline. This is made
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:50:10PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> Dne pá 13. 9. 2019 16:43 uživatel Tom Lane napsal:
>
> It struck me that the real reason that we keep getting gripes about
> the weird behavior of CHAR(n) is that these functions (and, hence,
> their corresponding
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:37 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is an updated patch series, rebased on current master. It does
> fix one memory accounting bug in ReorderBufferToastReplace (the code was
> not properly updating the amount of memory).
>
Few comments on 0001
1.
I am
Oleg, Peter, thanks for looking into this!
I hope to benchmark decompression on Silesian corpus soon.
PFA v2 with better comments.
> 27 сент. 2019 г., в 14:41, Peter Eisentraut
> написал(а):
>
> After reviewing this thread and more testing, I think
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Sep-27, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >>> You placed the errinfo in XLogRead's stack rather than its callers' ...
> >>> I don't think that works, because as soon as XLogRead returns that
> >>> memory is no longer guaranteed to exist.
>
> >> I was
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> BTW that tli_p business to the openSegment callback is horribly
> inconsistent. Some callers accept a NULL tli_p, others will outright
> crash, even though the API docs say that the callback must determine the
> timeline. This is made more complicated by us having the
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:55 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 02:33:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:55 AM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/3/18 14:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> >> I don't see the need to tie this setting to
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I experimented with adjusting explain_parallel_append() to filter
> >> more fields, but soon realized that we'd have to filter out basically
> >> everything that
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 03:46:09PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yes, it seems OK to clean this up in master.
Thanks, applied on HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello Amit,
I think we might also need to use pg_get_partkeydef along with
pg_partition_tree to fetch the partition method information. However,
I think to find reloid of pgbench_accounts in the current search path,
we might need to use some part of query constructed by Fabien.
Fabien, what
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:35:53PM -0500, Joe Nelson wrote:
> Note that it requires functions from str2int-10.patch, and will not
> compile when applied to master by itself. I didn't want to duplicate
> functionality from that other uncommitted patch in mine.
If we have a dependency between both
Hey,
I completely agree, that was an important consideration.
I had some purely cosmetic suggestions:
1. Rename ExecComputeSlotInfo to eliminate the need for the asserts.
2. Extract return value to a bool variable for slightly better
readability.
3. Taking the opportunity to use TTS_IS_VIRTUAL.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:02:34PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> My Valgrind test script reports the following error, triggered from
> within contrib/bloom's regression test suite on master as of right
> now:
>
> I suspect that the recent commit 69f94108 is involved here, but I
> haven't
45 matches
Mail list logo
