On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:44:58PM +0100, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I encountered that the assertion error is reported instead of a proper
> PANIC message when failed to fsync WAL. The cause is that there are
> multiple places where we call XLogFileNameP function that calls palloc
> during critical
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:36:36 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> One thing pending in this development line is how to catalogue aggregate
> >> functions that can be used in incrementally-maintainable views.
> >> I saw a brief mention somewhere that the devels knew it needed to be
> >> done, but
Hi Michael,
Thank you very much for your email. I rebased the code with the newest
master and attached it in the attachment.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Haozhou
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 11:20 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:30:08AM +0800, Haozhou Wang wrote:
> > I rebas
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 02:30:47PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:33 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Patch applies, compiles, works for me. No further comments.
>>
>> I switched the patch as ready.
>
> Thanks a lot.
An issue with the patch as proposed is that its style is diffe
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:01:43PM +0800, Quan Zongliang wrote:
> > What the user needs is the same replication link that selectively skips
> some
> > transactions. And this choice only affects transactions that are doing
> bulk
> > delete se
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:43, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> 1. Some code opens a file, writes some stuff to it, closes, and then
> fsyncs it, and if that fails and and it ever retries it'll redo all of
> those steps again. We know that some kernels might have thrown away
> the data, but we don't care
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:58 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was just looking at some callers of pg_fsync(), to notice that some
> code paths don't use data_sync_elevel(). For some code paths, that's
> actually better to never PANIC (say backup_label file, logical
> decoding snapshot, lock file wher
Hi Fabien,
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:33 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Patch applies, compiles, works for me. No further comments.
>
> I switched the patch as ready.
Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Amit
Hi all,
I was just looking at some callers of pg_fsync(), to notice that some
code paths don't use data_sync_elevel(). For some code paths, that's
actually better to never PANIC (say backup_label file, logical
decoding snapshot, lock file where FATAL/LOG are used now, etc.).
However I have spotte
Sorry to bother you, now I know that there is no problem here.
The model for reading and writing of PGXACT::xid and
ShmemVariableCache->latestCompletedXid can be simplified as follows:
backend A backend B
backend C
wlock(XidGenLock);
Hi all,
I have run the TAP tests with an instance of Postgres locally set at
port 5432 on Windows, to notice that 001_start_stop.pl fails various
tests because the test tries to use the default port for the node
initialized with pg_ctl. The problem can get fixed easily by
assigning a random port
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 11:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> then the EXPLAIN output produced by HEAD looks like:
>
> QUERY PLAN
> ---
> Sort
>Output: p.x, p.b
>Sort Key: p.x
>-> Append
> -> Seq Scan on public.part_p1 p
>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:44:25AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I do not have a Windows host, so I can only do blind tests. I just moved the
> declaration out of !WIN32 scope in attached v7, which might solve the
> resolution error. All other issues pointed out above seem fixed in the v6
> you sen
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:01:18 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > A rebase looks to be necessary, Mr Robot complains that the patch does
> > not apply cleanly. As the thread is active recently, I have moved the
> > patch to next CF, waiting on author.
>
> Thank you for taking care
Dear Michael san
> The latest patch includes calls to heap_open(), causing its compilation to
> fail.
> Could you please send a rebased version of the patch? I have moved the entry
> to
> next CF, waiting on author.
Thanks. I've fixed where you pointed out.
Also, I'm waiting for other kind of
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:19:54PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
>> Sorry, an unfinished line was left... Please ignore this.
>
> A rebase looks to be necessary, Mr Robot complains that the patch does
> not apply cleanly.
Is this because the patch has ".gz" suffix?
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SR
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 05:23:59PM +0800, Hubert Zhang wrote:
> > Note that the vectorized executor engine is based on PG9.6 now, but it
> > could be ported to master / zedstore with some effort. We would
> appreciate
> > some feedback bef
>> One thing pending in this development line is how to catalogue aggregate
>> functions that can be used in incrementally-maintainable views.
>> I saw a brief mention somewhere that the devels knew it needed to be
>> done, but I don't see in the thread that they got around to doing it.
>> Did you
Hi Konstantin,
Thanks for your reply.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:09 AM Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 28.11.2019 12:23, Hubert Zhang wrote:
>
> We just want to introduce another POC for vectorized execution engine
> https://github.com/zhangh43/vectorize_engine and wa
Michael,
> A rebase looks to be necessary, Mr Robot complains that the patch does
> not apply cleanly. As the thread is active recently, I have moved the
> patch to next CF, waiting on author.
Thank you for taking care of this patch. Hoshiai-san, can you please
rebase the patch?
Best regards,
-
On 11/30/19 8:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:54:41PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This patch achieves $SUBJECT and also provides some testing of the
>> sslpassword setting.
> The patch does not apply anymore, so a rebase is needed. As it has
> not been reviewed, I
I wrote:
> Now, there is another thing that set_rtable_names() is doing that
> postgres_fdw doesn't do, which is to unique-ify the chosen alias
> names by adding "_NN" if the querytree contains multiple uses of
> the same table alias. I don't see any practical way for postgres_fdw
> to match that
I wrote:
> * variant-a's diffs in expected/postgres_fdw.out indicate that
> postgres_fdw is doing something weird with the table aliases it selects to
> print in the "Relations:" output. I think this is an independent bug ---
> and it surely *is* a bug, because the aliases printed by HEAD don't ag
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 01:27:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alternatively, it'd be possible to get rid of the separate List
>> altogether, and just add the rinfo's to "mergeclauses" immediately.
>> The functionality of the separate list could be replaced by a
>> bool variab
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 03:01:31PM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
Are you planning to submit a revised patch for this?
Yes, I'll submit a rebased version of this patch shortly. I got broken
because of the recent fix in choose_best_statistics, shouldn't take long
to update the patch. I do have a co
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 01:27:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
It seems most of this comesfrom find_mergeclauses_for_outer_pathkeys()
which builds matched_restrictinfos and then just leaves it allocated.
After pfreeing this (see attached patch), the memory usage gets way down
an
Tomas Vondra writes:
> It seems most of this comesfrom find_mergeclauses_for_outer_pathkeys()
> which builds matched_restrictinfos and then just leaves it allocated.
> After pfreeing this (see attached patch), the memory usage gets way down
> and the query completes.
Interesting. The memory leak
Hi
> I think I got your point. Your proposal is that it's more efficient if
> we make the leader process vacuum the index that can be processed only
> the leader process (i.e. indexes not supporting parallel index vacuum)
> while workers are processing indexes supporting parallel index vacuum,
> r
Hi,
while evaluating one of the CF patches (the incremental sort one, but
that's mostly irrelevant), I ran into a strange issue with join planning
for a fairly simple query. I needed to asses how the patch affects query
planning for different GUCs, so I ran a group of queries and stashed the
resu
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 22:11, Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 19:18, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Its possible to change order of index processing by parallel leader? In v35
>> patchset I see following order:
>> - start parallel processes
>> - leader and parallel wor
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 12:34:37PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 03:26:17PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Attached is a fixed and rebasified patch for cfbot.
> > Included inline for conceptual review.
>
> Your patch still causes two regression tests to fail per Mr Robot
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 04:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 7:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I think it is probably because this part of the code doesn't consider
> > > PARALLEL_VACUUM_DISABLE_LEADER_PARTIC
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 11:06, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> > I think the advantage of the current approach is that once the parallel
> > workers are launched, the leader can process indexes that don't support
> > parallelism. So, both type of indexes can be processed at the same time.
>
> I
"=?utf-8?B?55uP5LiA?=" writes:
> The code in GetSnapshotData() that read the `xid` field of PGXACT
> struct has a dependency on code in GetNewTransactionId() that write
> `MyPgXact->xid`. It means that the store of xid should happen before the
> load of it. In C11, we can use [Release-Acquire
Michael Paquier writes:
> I have worked more on the CF. And here are the final results:
> Committed: 36.
> Moved to next CF: 146.
> Withdrawn: 4.
> Rejected: 6.
> Returned with Feedback: 29.
> Total: 221.
As always, many thanks for doing this tedious work!
regards, tom
Hello!
On 11/29/19 11:07 AM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
If Anastasia doesn't mind I'd like to send new version of the patch.
On 2019/11/28 12:29, Artur Zakirov wrote:
On 2019/11/27 13:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yeah, the actual take is if we want to make the frontend code more
complicated with a la
Hi
> I think the advantage of the current approach is that once the parallel
> workers are launched, the leader can process indexes that don't support
> parallelism. So, both type of indexes can be processed at the same time.
In lazy_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes I see:
/*
37 matches
Mail list logo
