On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:23:17AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks for adding the test case.
For the archives: this has been applied as of 2acab05.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:54:27PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks for the updated patch. I don't have any comments, except that
> the text I suggested couple of weeks ago no longer reads clear:
I have spent a couple of extra hours on the patch, and committed it.
There was one issue in logica
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 17:40, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> By the way, the backport patch is turning out to be simpler. It's
> because in pre-12 versions, the file offset is part of the Vfd
> structure, so all the offset handling is not required.
Please have a look at the attached backport patch for P
Hi,
It seems that d986d4e87f6 forgot to update a comment upon renaming a variable.
Attached fixes it.
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/trigger.c b/src/backend/commands/trigger.c
index faeea16d21..99cb5bf557 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/trigger.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/trig
[please trim extra text before responding]
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 00:30, Mahendra Singh wrote:
> >
> >
> > 3.
> > After v35 patch, vacuum.sql regression test is taking too much time due to
> > large number of inserts so by reducing numb
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:46 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I was analyzing your changes related to ReinitializeParallelDSM() and
> > it seems like we might launch more number of workers for the
> > bulkdelete phase. While creating a para
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 00:30, Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 10:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:44 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it might be a good idea to change what we expect index AMs to
> > > do rather than trying to make anything that th
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:56 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:45 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:51 AM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > To avoid losing track of this, I've added this to November CF.
> >
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2277/
> >
> > Str
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 03:39, Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for updated patches. I verified my all reported issues and all are
> fixed in v36 patch set.
>
> Below are some review comments:
> 1.
> + /* cap by max_parallel_maintenace_workers */
> + parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:07 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think it shouldn't be more than the number with which we have
> > > > > created a parallel context, no? If tha
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:12 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > It seems to me that we currently allow expressions that are anonymous
> > and self-referencing composite type records as partition key, but
> > shouldn't. Allowing them leads to this:
>
> Hm. Seems like the restrictions
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:07 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > > I think it shouldn't be more than the number with which we have
> > > > created a parallel context, no? If that is the case, then I think it
> > > > should be fine.
> > >
> > >
Hi Amit-san,
>>> 1)
For now, I'm not sure it should be set current_child_table_relid to zero
when the current phase is changed from "acquiring inherited sample rows" to
"computing stats". See bellow.
In the upthread discussion [1], Robert asked to *not* do such things,
that is, resetting
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I believe I've uncovered a bug that may cause archive status ".ready"
> files to be created too early, which in turn may cause an incorrect
> version of the corresponding WAL segment to be archived.
>
> The crux of the issu
At Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:48:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> I wrote:
> > Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
> > alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that the header comment
> > for do_pg_abort_backup could do with more work, perhaps along the
> > lines of "The o
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > So that's how you prevent piling up multiple registrations of this
> > callback compared to v1. FWIW, I think that it is a cleaner approach
> > to remove the callback once a non-exc
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:21 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Still waiting for some review of the first patch, to get it out of the
> way. Anastasia?
I plan to commit this first patch [1] in the next day or two, barring
any objections.
It's clear that the nbtree "pin scan" VACUUM code is totally
unn
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> So that's how you prevent piling up multiple registrations of this
> callback compared to v1. FWIW, I think that it is a cleaner approach
> to remove the callback once a non-exclusive backup is done, because a
> session has no need for it o
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:01 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Attached patch with updated commit message based on suggestions. I am
> > planning to commit this tomorrow unless there are more comments.
> >
>
> While testing the patch on back vers
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 07:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:40:17PM +0530, Mahendra Singh wrote:
> > I found some inconsistency in alphabetical order in
> > src/backend/tsearch/Makefile, src/backend/utils/Makefile and
> > src/pl/plpython/Makefile files. Attached patch is f
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Haven't read the patch in any detail yet, but that seems like
> an improvement. And I guess we need a test case, or we'll
> break it again :-(
Thanks for adding the test case.
Regards,
Amit
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 02:20:20PM +, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> As concern [1], at src/include/port/win32.h, the comments still
> references Windows XP and claims about possible MingW break.
This looks like a leftover of d9dd406, which has made the code to
require C99. As we don't support compil
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:23:51AM +0100, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> For me this is the default way how to reindex whole table manually in psql
> since you get some "progress". Anyway I can remove it if you don't see any
> benefit in extending this example.
I have thought more about this one through t
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:40:17PM +0530, Mahendra Singh wrote:
> I found some inconsistency in alphabetical order in
> src/backend/tsearch/Makefile, src/backend/utils/Makefile and
> src/pl/plpython/Makefile files. Attached patch is fixing those order
> related inconsistency.
Thanks, committed.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:44:47AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 11/22/19 10:58 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Remove redutant test.
>
> Yeah, this test does look redundant since we already check for if parent is
> NULL earlier in the function. Any optimizing compiler should see this too,
> bu
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 03:30:33PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > With many real world unique indexes, the true reason behind most or
> > all B-Tree page splits is "version churn". I view these page splits as
> > a permanent solution to a t
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:36:13AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As that's a confusion I introduced with d9fadbf, I would like to fix
> that and backpatch this change down to 11. (Ranier gets the
> authorship per se as that's extracted from a larger patch).
Committed that part.
I got to look a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 03:30:33PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> With many real world unique indexes, the true reason behind most or
> all B-Tree page splits is "version churn". I view these page splits as
> a permanent solution to a temporary problem -- we *permanently*
> degrade the index struc
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you using a static analysis tool?
> Yes,two static tools, but reviewed by me.
If you're working on/with static code analysis tools, I have some
requests :-) How could we automate the discovery of
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 18:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 01/09/2018 06:33, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery) wrote:
> >> Certainly the PQconndefaults function specifies Debug flag for the
> "options" o
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:52:05PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>> Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to my original fix,
>> except for the fact that I included a bug in it, I'm going to go see
>> about getting that committed.
>
> Perha
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:58 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Attached is v26, which adds this new criteria/heuristic for unique
> > indexes. We now seem to consistently get good results with unique
> > indexes.
>
> In the past we tried to increase the number of cases where HOT updates
> can happen but
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 06:21:20PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:13 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > The new criteria/heuristic for unique indexes is very simple: If a
> > unique index has an existing item that is a duplicate on the incoming
> > item at the point that we m
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Updated patches attached. This version is more
> complete than the last set of patches I posted. It looks like this:
>
> 0001 - Lets a table AM that needs a toast table choose the AM that
> will be used to implement the
I wrote:
> Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
> alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that the header comment
> for do_pg_abort_backup could do with more work, perhaps along the
> lines of "The odd-looking signature allows this to be registered
> directly as a
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I suggest changing the sect1's contents to be a list of available auth
>> methods, linked to their subsections. That would provide approximately
>> the same quality-of-use as the subsection TOC that used to be there.
>
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > This was changed by Peter in
> > commit 56811e57323faa453947eb82f007e323a952e1a1 along with the
> > restructuring. It used to say "the following subsections". So techically
> I
> > think that change is correct, but tha
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
> > amount to an objection. While I give him a chance to respond, here's
> > an updated patch.
>
> Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:24 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:33 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I was basically just thinking that we could pass the context to use via
> > CurrentMemoryContext, instead of explicitly passing it in.
>
> I thought about that, but as a general rule, re
Hi
> Andrew Gierth complained about this too over on -committers, and I saw
> his message first and pushed a fix. It includes the first and third
> hunks from your proposed patch, but not the second one.
Yep, I received his email just after sending mine. Thanks, my build is clean
now.
regards,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:44 PM Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > Stellar. If nobody objects in the meantime, I plan to commit 0001-0003
> > next week.
>
> My compiler (gcc 8.3.0) is not happy with recent
> 5910d6c7e311f0b14e3d3cb9ce3597c01d3a3cde commit:
>
> autovacuum.c:831:1: error: ‘AutoVacLauncherS
Hello
> Stellar. If nobody objects in the meantime, I plan to commit 0001-0003
> next week.
My compiler (gcc 8.3.0) is not happy with recent
5910d6c7e311f0b14e3d3cb9ce3597c01d3a3cde commit:
autovacuum.c:831:1: error: ‘AutoVacLauncherShutdown’ was used with no prototype
before its definition [-
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 18:07, Masahiko Sawada <
masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:08 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 14:19, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
> initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the other
> versions directly - but it seems harder to tackle the patches together.
OK. I have committed 0001-0003 as I had m
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 14:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:02:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't think it'd be a great idea to change parallel_schedule like
> > that. Independently adding test scripts to the same parallel batch
> > probably won't end well: you might e
Robert Haas writes:
> Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
> amount to an objection. While I give him a chance to respond, here's
> an updated patch.
Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that th
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to my original fix,
> except for the fact that I included a bug in it, I'm going to go see
> about getting that committed.
Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
amount to
Amit Langote writes:
> It seems to me that we currently allow expressions that are anonymous
> and self-referencing composite type records as partition key, but
> shouldn't. Allowing them leads to this:
Hm. Seems like the restrictions here ought to be just about the same
as on index columns, no
> Then, URLs pointing to that page (such as Dave evidently has bookmarked)
> would break entirely, which doesn't seem like an improvement.
>
it was linked to in a bug report.
Dave Cramer
Amit Langote writes:
> I wonder if it's worthwhile to fix the following not-so-friendly error
> message:
> create index on foo ((row(a)));
> ERROR: column "" has pseudo-type record
Ugh. That used to work more nicely:
regression=# create index fooi on foo ((row(a)));
ERROR: column "pg_expres
Magnus Hagander writes:
> This was changed by Peter in
> commit 56811e57323faa453947eb82f007e323a952e1a1 along with the
> restructuring. It used to say "the following subsections". So techically I
> think that change is correct, but that doesn't necessarily make it helpful.
> But based on how it
De: Michael Paquier
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2019 04:34
>So, this basically matches with what the MS documents tell us, and my
>impression: this API is available down to at least MSVC 2008, which is
>much more than what we support on HEAD where one can use MSVC 2013 and
>newer versi
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:00 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Agreed, that's an issue and do_pg_abort_abort should not touch
> sessionBackupState, so you should keep cancel_before_shmem_exit after
> pg_stop_backup().
I don't understand this comment, because that can't possibly work. It
assumes either
## Tomas Zubiri (m...@tomaszubiri.com):
> We already established that a tcp connection was subpar in terms of
> latency, we shall note then that a tcp connection is subpar in terms
> of security.
It's an entirely different thing, I'd argue. I'm not even convinced
that an error message is a bad th
De: Michael Paquier
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2019 04:45
>And if you actually group things together so as any individual looking
>at your patches does not have to figure out which piece applies to
>what, that's also better.
I'm still trying to find the best way.
>Anyway, the patch f
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:31 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> The patch can cause removal of a wrong cleanup function on non-cassert
> build. That might be unwanted. But I think the assertion is needed
> anyway.
I agree with the first part of this critique, but not necessarily with
the second part.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:08 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 14:19, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about adding an additional argument to ReinitializeParallelDSM()
> > > > > > that allows the n
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 9:16 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:27:43 +0100
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > > On 2019-12-16 11:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > I agree that this is a timing issue. I al
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 16:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:26 PM Amit Khandekar wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 11:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I have also made minor changes related to below code in patch:
> > > - else if (readBytes != sizeof(ReorderBufferDiskCha
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:02 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 06:53, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:43 PM Dave Cramer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While following an old link to
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/auth-methods.html
>>>
>>> I see a list of links to a
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 06:53, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:43 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> While following an old link to
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/auth-methods.html
>>
>> I see a list of links to authentication methods. However:
>>
>> When I hit the current vers
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:43 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
> While following an old link to
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/auth-methods.html
>
> I see a list of links to authentication methods. However:
>
> When I hit the current version
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/auth-methods.html
While following an old link to
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/auth-methods.html
I see a list of links to authentication methods. However:
When I hit the current version
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/auth-methods.html
There are absolutely no links...
Dave Cramer
At Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:49:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
> > ("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
> > lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
> >
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:49:10PM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> We implemented Approach B in the attached patch set (patch 0001) and
> then implemented Approach A (patch 0002) to sanity check the pruned
> list of columns to scan we were getting at plan-time.
> We emit a notice in SeqNext()
On 2019-12-17 07:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
The patch looks pretty clean. I have a few minor comments.
- if (/^AC_INIT\(\[PostgreSQL\], \[([^\]]+)\]/)
+ if (/^AC_INIT\(\[([^\]]+)\], \[([^\]]+)\], \[([^\]]+)\]/)
{
Why did you remove the bit about "PostgreSQL"?
Just to make
Thank you Alvaro for the comment (on my comment).
At Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:33:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in
> On 2019-Dec-13, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > At Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:50:20 +, "Bossart, Nathan"
> > wrote in
>
> > > The crux of the issue seems to be that XLogWrite() does
On 2019-12-17 05:40, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
The idea is that if you connect over a Unix-domain socket and the local
(effective) user is the same as the server's (effective) user, then
access should be granted immediately without any chec
Uggg. I must apologyze for the last bogus comment.
At Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:24:36 +, "Bossart, Nathan"
wrote in
> On 12/12/19, 8:08 PM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" wrote:
> > As the result the patch doesn't seem to save anything than setting up
> > and operating correctly.
>
> Disregarding the beha
út 17. 12. 2019 v 6:36 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:28:33AM +0100, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I have prepared patch to improve documentation for REINDEX. It
> > should be more inline with another documentation pages.
> >
> > You can see the change applied in attac
út 17. 12. 2019 v 6:36 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:28:33AM +0100, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I have prepared patch to improve documentation for REINDEX. It
> > should be more inline with another documentation pages.
> >
> > You can see the change applied in attac
Hi,
It seems to me that we currently allow expressions that are anonymous
and self-referencing composite type records as partition key, but
shouldn't. Allowing them leads to this:
create table foo (a int) partition by list ((row(a, b)));
create table foo1 partition of foo for values in ('(1)'::f
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:13 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
>
> It sets the final_lsn here so that it can iterate from the start_lsn
> to final_lsn and cleanup the serialized files in
> ReorderBufferRestoreCleanup function. One solution We were thinking
> was to store the lsn of the last serialized change
Hello,
On 2019/12/05 11:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:15:52PM +0900, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
Ah, I thought that pg_identify_object() gives properly quoted identity, and
it could be used to make SQL script.
It depends on the object type. For columns I can see in your pat
74 matches
Mail list logo
