On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:44 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> > > 0001 and 0002).
> >
> > While trying to
21.04.2020 21:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-04-19 22:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> To the point, I've tried to use HAVE_ALLOCINFO on master today and it
>> failed too:
>
> Do you have a proposed patch?
>
As this is broken at least since the invention of the generational
allocator
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:15:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > And add the acronym to the docs:
> > > >
> > > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> > > > doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of full
> > > > page writes and amount of WAL bytes
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote
> in
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
> > > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And
>
> > 1) v14-0001-Introduce-RelInfoList-structure.patch
> > -
> >
> > - I'm not entirely sure why we need this change. We had the list+hash
> > before, so I assume we do this because we need the output functions?
>
> I believe that this is what Tom
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:03, David Rowley wrote:
> I wonder if the fix should be more something along the lines of trying
> to merge things do we only generate a single partial path. That way
> we wouldn't be at the mercy of the logic in add_partial_path() to
> accept or reject the path based
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:51:42 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> > I meant that we always have EOR at the end of recovery. So in the
> > missing latest checkpoint (and crash recovery) case, we insert EOR
> > after the immediate checkpoint. That also means we no longer set
> >
On 2020/04/22 9:13, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:08:56 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
On 2020/04/21 17:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
-
On 2020/04/22 10:53, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:28:07 +0900, Ian Barwick
wrote in
On 2020/04/22 6:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
Also in that case, non-fast
On 2020/04/22 6:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Apr-20, Fujii Masao wrote:
+ /*
+* In 9.1 and 9.2 the postmaster unlinked the promote file inside the
+* signal handler. It now leaves the file in place and lets the
+* Startup process do the unlink.
+*/
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Do we intend to see this done in the current cycle?
I don't have an objection to doing it now. It's just a new compiler
warning option, it shouldn't be able to break any code. (Plus there's
plenty of time to revert, if somehow it causes a problem.)
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
It builds failed by applying to the latest code version, and
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:28:07 +0900, Ian Barwick
wrote in
> On 2020/04/22 6:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
> >> Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered.
On 2020/04/22 6:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
Hi Francois,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:09 AM Francois Payette
wrote:
> I create a trigger on an imported foreign table. In the procedure, I change
> the value of a column that is not in the triggering update statement. This
> change does not make it to the mysql side.
I'm not an expert on
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:04:27 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
>
Mmm. The message body seems disappearing for uncertain reason.
cd12323440 conflicts with this. Rebased.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From b3b780c2143ae70b82fb1e8256e771f11276af31 Mon
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:03:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:35:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > > Also, how about, for consistency, making the parent table labeling of
> > > the trigger look similar to that for the
At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:13:02 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier
> > wrote in
> >> a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in
> >> the future.
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:08:56 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
>
> On 2020/04/21 17:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> >> Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
> > - if (!fast_promoted)
> > +
I'm surprised that this hasn't applied yet, because:
On 2020-Apr-09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> One thing to remember is that the current situation is broken. While you
> can set index columns to have different storage than the corresponding table
> columns, pg_dump does not preserve that,
On 2020-Apr-08, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Specifically for 2PC, isn't it better to close some OS-level FD of an
> unrelated table scan and then succeed than to ERROR immediately? Anyway,
> 0dc8ead46 hasn't changed this.
I think for full generality of the interface, we pass a "close" callback
in
Do we intend to see this done in the current cycle?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>> a checkpoint record now, but this routine could be called elsewhere in
>> the future. Please see the attached.
>
> It looks fine to me.
Fixed this way, then.
Hi All,
I was pleasantly surprised to see that triggers can be created on FDW tables.
I'm running into a problem.
I create a trigger on an imported foreign table. In the procedure, I change the
value of a column that is not in the triggering update statement. This change
does not make it to
On 2020-Apr-20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:35:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Also, how about, for consistency, making the parent table labeling of
> > the trigger look similar to that for the foreign constraint, so
> > Triggers:
> > TABLE "f1" TRIGGER "trig"
Hi,
On 2020-04-21 17:09:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > It was local TCP. The speeds I can reach are faster than the 10GiB/s
> > (unidirectional) I can do between the laptop & workstation, so testing
> > it over "actual" network isn't
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:03:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we
On 2020-Apr-20, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + /*
> + * In 9.1 and 9.2 the postmaster unlinked the promote file inside the
> + * signal handler. It now leaves the file in place and lets the
> + * Startup process do the unlink.
> + */
> + if (IsPromoteSignaled() &&
On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
> > > tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
> > > from doing that. But you
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
> > the backward-compatibility for that.
> >
> > Also in that case, non-fast promotion is
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:34 AM tushar wrote:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x03ffa9841220 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> #1 0x03ffa9842aa8 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> #2 0x03ff9f7881b4 in __gnu_cxx::__verbose_terminate_handler() () from
> /lib64/libstdc++.so.6
> #3
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> It was local TCP. The speeds I can reach are faster than the 10GiB/s
> (unidirectional) I can do between the laptop & workstation, so testing
> it over "actual" network isn't informative - I basically can reach line
> speed between them with
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If we were going to go down the path of periodically logging warnings
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I do wonder if the RI stuff would actually end up being faster without
> SPI. If not, we'd only end up writing more code to do the same thing.
> Now that tables can be partitioned, it is much more of a pain than when
> only regular tables could be supported. Obviously
Hi,
On 2020-04-21 14:01:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > It's all CRC overhead. I don't see a difference with
> > --manifest-checksums=none anymore. We really should look for a better
> > "fast" checksum.
>
> Hmm, OK. I'm wondering exactly
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If we were going to go down the path of periodically logging warnings
> >> about old prepared
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2020-04-19 15:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for removing both. There are a lot of such debug "features"
>> in the code, and few of them are worth anything IME.
> removed
I don't see a commit?
regards, tom lane
On 2020-04-19 15:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
The HEAPDEBUGALL define has been broken since PG12 due to tableam
changes. Should we just remove this? It doesn't look very useful.
It's been around since Postgres95.
If we opt for removing: PG12 added an analogous
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> It's all CRC overhead. I don't see a difference with
> --manifest-checksums=none anymore. We really should look for a better
> "fast" checksum.
Hmm, OK. I'm wondering exactly what you tested here. Was this over
your 20GiB/s connection
On 2020-04-19 22:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
To the point, I've tried to use HAVE_ALLOCINFO on master today and it
failed too:
$ CPPFLAGS="-DHAVE_ALLOCINFO" ./configure --enable-tap-tests
--enable-debug --enable-cassert >/dev/null && make -j16 >/dev/null
generation.c: In function
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:20:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> index 7595e609b5..233905552c 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> @@ -941,13 +943,14 @@
Hello,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:08 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:09:07PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:19 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 06:16:45PM +0900, yuzuko wrote:
> > > I don't think that adequately allows what's
I think I also owe the attached doc updates.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
index 7595e609b5..233905552c 100644
On 2020-Apr-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> + while (HeapTupleIsValid(trigtup = systable_getnext(scan)))
> + {
> + Form_pg_trigger pg_trigger = (Form_pg_trigger)
> GETSTRUCT(trigtup);
> + ObjectAddress trig;
> +
> + /* Ignore triggers that weren't cloned
Hi,
On 2020-04-21 07:18:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:44 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > FWIW, I just tested pg_basebackup locally.
> >
> > Without compression and a stock postgres I get:
> > unixtcp tcp+ssl:
> > 1.74GiB/s
On 2020-Apr-20, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > I can imagine removal of the SPI from the current implementation (and
> > constructing the plans "manually"), but note that the queries I use in my
> > patch are no longer that trivial. So the SPI makes sense to me because it
> > ensures regular query
On 4/21/20 5:06 PM, Eugen Konkov wrote:
Hi. I read the thread.
Probably this fiddle will be helpful for testing:
https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12=abe845142a5099d921d3729043fb8491
I recently encountered a problem:
Why Window-specific functions do not allow DISTINCT to be used within the
Hi. I read the thread.
Probably this fiddle will be helpful for testing:
https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12=abe845142a5099d921d3729043fb8491
I recently encountered a problem:
Why Window-specific functions do not allow DISTINCT to be used within the
function argument list?
sum( DISTINCT
Hi,
We are getting a server crash on zlinux machine if we set
jit_above_cost=0 in postgresql.conf file after configuring PG v12
server with --with-llvm ( llvm-ttoolset-6.0)
We configured PG v12 sources with switch --with-llvm ( after setting
these variables on command prompt )
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:26 PM Ahsan Hadi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I did some tests a while back, and here are the results.
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, but that was for a security hole. I am doubtful that the
>> severity of this problem is bad enough to justify jumping through
>> similar hoops. Even if we fixed it and documented it, how many
>> users would
Hi,
I have some code that I've been using in production that supports adding
and authenticating Windows groups via the pg_ident file. It has a new
indicator (+), that signifies the identifier is a Windows group, as in the
following example:
# MAPNAME SYSTEM-USERNAME PG-USERNAME
"Users"
On 2020/04/21 17:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
- if (!fast_promoted)
+ if (!promoted)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:22 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
> More few comments.
>
> 1. Comments about order:
> /*
> * Callback function for EnumSystemLocalesEx.
> * Stop enumerating if a match is found for a locale with the format
> * _.
> * The order for search locale is essential:
> * Find
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:54 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I found concurrency bug in amcheck running on replica. When
> btree_xlog_unlink_page() replays changes to replica, deleted page is
> left with no items. But if amcheck steps on such deleted page
> palloc_btree_page() expects it would
Em ter., 21 de abr. de 2020 às 09:02, Juan José Santamaría Flecha <
juanjo.santama...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:41 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have tried a simple test with the latest patch and it
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:41 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > I have tried a simple test with the latest patch and it failed for me.
> >
> > Set LC_MESSAGES="English_United Kingdom";
> > -- returns en-GB, then code changes it to en_NZ when
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:12 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-18 11:10, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > On 2020-04-18 11:07, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> While setting up the cascading replication I have hit one issue on
> base code[1]. After fixing that I have got one
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:18 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests
> were done to simulate
> > > a live database
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman wrote:
> >
> > I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were
> > done to simulate
> > a live database environment using pgbench.
> >
> > machine configuration used for
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman wrote:
>
> I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were done
> to simulate
> a live database environment using pgbench.
>
> machine configuration used for this test:
> Instance Type:t2.xlarge
> Volume Type :io1
>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:44 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> > 0001 and 0002).
>
> While trying to figure out if Robert's 0003 patch was correct, I added
> yet another
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:44 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, I just tested pg_basebackup locally.
>
> Without compression and a stock postgres I get:
> unixtcp tcp+ssl:
> 1.74GiB/s 1.02GiB/s699MiB/s
>
> That turns out to be bottlenecked by
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 3:46 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I cannot find a single place where all supported locales are listed, but
> > > I have created a
Dear Tom Lane
Thanks for your so many fruitful comments !
I have fixed my patch again.
On the other hand, there're some questions left
that I'd like to discuss.
> * You missed updating equalfuncs.c/copyfuncs.c. Pretty much any change in a
> Node struct will require touching backend/nodes/
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:44:45AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >> As a bugfix, I think this should be backpatched. But this patch
> >> requires catalog change. Were similar cases there before? If so,
> >>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:38 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:44:45AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Among all the joined tables, only "pg_index I" is expected to have
> > multiple rows associated with single relation. But we do sum() for
> > toast index "pg_index X"
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 2:36 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Hi Asif,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were
>> done to simulate
>> a live database environment using pgbench.
>>
>> machine
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> As before, these two apply on top of Robert's patches (or at least his
> 0001 and 0002).
While trying to figure out if Robert's 0003 patch was correct, I added
yet another patch to this stack to test it. 0006 does basic xid map
maintenance
Hi!
I found concurrency bug in amcheck running on replica. When
btree_xlog_unlink_page() replays changes to replica, deleted page is
left with no items. But if amcheck steps on such deleted page
palloc_btree_page() expects it would have items.
(lldb_on_primary) b btbulkdelete
primary=# drop
Hi Asif,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were
> done to simulate
> a live database environment using pgbench.
>
> machine configuration used for this test:
> Instance Type:t2.xlarge
> Volume Type
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:34:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to
> > XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets
> > to set NULL. That can
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
> legrand legrand wrote:
>
> > Antonin Houska-2 wrote
>
> > > Right now I recall two problems: 1) is the way I currently store
> > > RelOptInfo for the grouped relations correct?, 2) how should we handle
> > > types for which logical
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to
> XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets
> to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access.
That's an oversight of the original
At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
- if (!fast_promoted)
+ if (!promoted)
RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY |
Hi,
On 2020-04-05 15:49:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> When starting with on a data directory with an older WAL page magic we
> currently make that hard to debug. E.g.:
>
> 2020-04-05 15:31:04.314 PDT [1896669][:0] LOG: database system was shut down
> at 2020-04-05 15:24:56 PDT
> 2020-04-05
I found this conficts with a7e8ece41cf7a96d8a9c4c037cdfef304d950831.
Rebased on it.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From e67149578c750977a2a2872d3f4dbb3a86c82a6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:21:55 +0900
Subject: [PATCH
At Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:48:02 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
>
> On 2020/04/21 15:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
> >> the backward-compatibility for that.
>
Hi,
I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were
done to simulate
a live database environment using pgbench.
machine configuration used for this test:
Instance Type:t2.xlarge
Volume Type :io1
Memory (MiB) :16384
vCPU # :4
Architecture:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 3:46 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find a single place where all supported locales are listed, but I
> > have created a small test program (WindowsNLSLocales.c) based on:
> > [_] format
On 2020/04/21 15:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
the backward-compatibility for that.
Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
tries to
Hi,
On 2020-04-20 22:31:49 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-04-21 10:20:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > It is quite likely that compression can benefit more from parallelism
> > as compared to the network I/O as that is mostly a CPU intensive
> > operation but I am not sure if we can just
On 2020/04/21 14:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:27:20PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/04/21 10:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
With your patch, this code
now means that in order to finish recovery you need to send SIGUSR2 to
the startup process *and* to create the
Hello.
The commit a7e8ece41c adds a new member restoreCommand to
XLogPageReadPrivate. readOneRecord doesn't make use of it but forgets
to set NULL. That can lead to illegal pointer access.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From
84 matches
Mail list logo
