Rebased.
I intentionally left duplicate code in XLogNeedData but changed my
mind to remove it. It makes the function small and clearer.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From 7c4ce152d248546c8f56057febae6b17b6fa71bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 12:28 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > I found that the argument name of XLogFileInit() is wrong in its comment.
> > Attached is the patch that fixes that typo.
> >
>
> LGTM.
Thanks for checking! Committed.
Regards,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:09 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> > Failed regression test. It's necessary to change the first a in “allowed
> > step characters are” to uppercase A in the regression test of
> > 002_pgbench_no_server.pl.
>
> Argh. I think I ran the test, then stupidly updated
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:40:47AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Not only can't I DROP the _ccold indexes, but also dropping the table doesn't
> cause them to be dropped, and then I can't even slash dee them anymore:
Yes, I can confirm the report. In the case of this scenario the
reindex is
At Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:03:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 05:03:00AM +, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > The attached trivial patch fixes the initialization of the fake
> > unlogged LSN. Currently, BootstrapXLOG() in initdb sets the initial
> > fake
>That suggests you're doing a lot of 'drop index concurrently', right?
Not completely, In the actual scene, in fact, I didn't perform too much 'drop
index concurrently' on the master. I just just execute a lot of queries on the
standby. You know, it will have a certain probability every time
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:42:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please see the attached. Justin, does it fix your problems regarding
> the locks?
Confirmed.
Thanks,
Justin
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:18:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I can confirm that this is an issue related to session locks which are
> not cleaned up when in an out-of-transaction state, state that can be
> reached between a transaction commit or start while holding at least
> one session
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 02:38:45PM +0800, 李杰(慎追) wrote:
I'm a bit confused. You shouldn't see any crashes and/or core files in
this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, I assume you're running a
regular build without asserts. Secondly, I had to add an extra assert
to trigger the failure. So what
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:40:37AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Some people ask for indexable encrypted columns, but I tend to explain to
> > them how impractical and inefficient that is. You can support hash indexes
> > if you don't salt the encrypted data, but that greatly weakens the
> >
On 23/10/2019 17:56, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
>
> Hi all ,
>
> Temporal table is one of the main new features added in sql standard
> 2011. From that I will like to implement system versioned temporal
> table which allows to keep past and present data so old data can be
> queried.
>
Excellent!
Hi all ,
Temporal table is one of the main new features added in sql standard 2011.
>From that I will like to implement system versioned temporal table which
allows to keep past and present data so old data can be queried. Am propose
to implement it like below
CREATE
In create table only one
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:53:45AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yeah.. Something along those lines definitely seems like it'd be better
> > as that would force anyone adding new options to explicitly say which
> > server version the
I am able to apply the v2 patch with "patch -p1 "
-
+static void
+executeStatementExpect(PGconn *con, const char *sql, const ExecStatusType
expected, bool errorOK)
+{
I think some instances like this need 80 column alignment?
-
in initCreatePKeys():
+ for (int i = 0; i <
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:32 AM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.2019 20:22, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> > I think the patch should do the simplest thing possible, i.e. what it
> > does today. Otherwise we'll never get it committed.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Tomas, that keeping things as
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 11:41:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> FWIW, I have spent an hour or two poking at this issue the last couple
> of days so I am not ignoring both, not as much as I would have liked
> but well... My initial lookup leads me to think that something is
> going wrong with
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:42 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:30:16AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> >I have moved it out as a separate patch (0003) so that if we need that
> >we need this for the streaming transaction then we can keep this.
> >>
>
> I'm OK with moving it
Hi,
While working on some slides explaining EXPLAIN, I couldn't resist the
urge to add the missing $SUBJECT. The attached 0001 patch gives the
following:
Gather ... time=0.146..33.077 rows=1 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
Buffers: shared hit=4425
-> Parallel Seq Scan
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 4:51 PM Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> út 22. 10. 2019 v 5:09 odesílatel Amit Kapila
> napsal:
>>
>>
>> CountOtherDBBackends is called from other places as well, so I don't
>> think it is advisable to change the sleep time in that function.
>> Also, I don't want to add a
Ah ha ha , this is great, I am very ashamed of my English expression, did not
let you clearly understand my mail.
now, I am very glad that you can understand this. I sincerely hope that I can
help you. I am also a postgres fan, a freshly graduated student.
We have all confirmed that this bug
>
>I'm a bit confused. You shouldn't see any crashes and/or core files in
>this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, I assume you're running a
>regular build without asserts. Secondly, I had to add an extra assert to
>trigger the failure. So what core are you talking about?
>
Sorry, I should
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:53:45AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yeah.. Something along those lines definitely seems like it'd be better
> as that would force anyone adding new options to explicitly say which
> server version the option makes sense for. Would it make sense to have a
> minimum
Hello.
At Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:29:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan
wrote in
>
> On 10/20/19 7:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> On 10/20/19 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> The right way to fix it, likely, is to add CFLAGS_SL while performing this
> >>> particular autoconf test, as
23 matches
Mail list logo
