ne 26. 7. 2020 v 21:10 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
napsal:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 06:56:31PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > >> I meant can this:
> > >> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAMEread object name filter
> > >> expressions
so 25. 7. 2020 v 15:26 odesílatel vignesh C napsal:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >> I meant can this:
> >> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAMEread object name filter
> >> expressions from file\n"));
> >> be changed to:
> >> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAME
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 7:02 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> I have made slight changes on top of the patch to remove duplicate
> code, attached v3 patch for the same.
> The parallel worker hang issue gets resolved, make check & make
> check-world passes.
>
Having a function to unblock selective signals
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please find my comments inline below:
>
> I think here we should report that we haven't done what was asked.
> + /* Nothing to do if the itemid is unused or
> already dead. */
> + if (!ItemIdIsUsed(itemid) ||
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:32 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> []
> >
> > + StaticAssertStmt(InvalidOffsetNumber + 1 ==
> > FirstOffsetNumber,
> > +"InvalidOffsetNumber
> > increments to FirstOffsetNumber");
> >
> > If you are going to rely
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:05:04PM -0400, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I have noticed this before, but since it wasn't a production machine I just
> shrugged it off as being a hazard of using consumer-grade stuff; it didn't
> seem to be worth investigating further.
The most direct and non-invasive way to
>
>
> 2. Currently I want to add a new GUC parameter, if set it to true, server
> will
> create a holdable portal, or else nothing changed. Then let the user set
> it to true in the above case and reset it to false afterward. Is there
> any issue
> with this method?
>
>
I forget to say in this
I have a user case like this:
rs = prepared_stmt.execute(1);
while(rs.next())
{
// do something with the result and commit the transaction.
conn.commit();
}
The driver used the extended protocol in this case. It works like this: 1).
Parse ->
PreparedStmt. 2). Bind -> Bind the prepared
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 4:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
>
> No, "git diff --check" doesn't help. I have tried pgindent but that
> also doesn't help neither was I expecting it to help. I am still not
> able to figure out how I goofed up this
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:48:45AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:04 PM David Rowley wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any objections to that being changed?
> >
> > That's OK with me. By the way, I'm on vacation and
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 7:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 17:42:41 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:05 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > Here's a version that adds some documentation.
> >
> > I jumped on a dual socket machine with 36 cores/72 threads and 144GB
> >
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:06 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > [ v7-0001-Improve-performance-of-binary-COPY-FROM-with-buff.patch ]
>
> Pushed with cosmetic changes.
Thanks for that.
> I'd always supposed that stdio does enough internal buffering that short
> fread()s shouldn't be
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 06:17:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> ECPGset_noind_null() and ECPGis_noind_null() in misc.c show that
> ECPGgeneric_bytea is attached to ECPGt_bytea. The two structures may
> be the same now, but if a bug fix or a code change involves a change
> in the structure
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 3:48 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:58 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:42 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to propose a patch for enabling the parallelism for the
> > > bitmap index scan path.
>
>
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:08 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I find that Andres original "SELECT cat, count(*) FROM
> fewgroups_many_rows GROUP BY 1;" test case is noticeably improved by
> the patch. Without the patch, v13 takes ~11.46 seconds. With the
> patch, it takes only ~10.64 seconds.
I saw
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:04 PM David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have any objections to that being changed?
>
> That's OK with me. By the way, I'm on vacation and will catch up on these
> HashAgg threads next week.
(Adding Justin as I know
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:58 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I would like to propose a patch for enabling the parallelism for the
> > bitmap index scan path.
Workers Planned: 4
-> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan on
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 06:56:31PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >> I meant can this:
> >> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAMEread object name filter
> >> expressions from file\n"));
> >> be changed to:
> >> printf(_("
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 04:42:06PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:52:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Sounds fine to me. Thanks.
> >
> > Do others have any objections with this wording?
>
> I have used the wording suggested by Alvaro, and applied the patch
>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 05:13:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 5:05 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "reported memory usage doesn't reflect the
space used for transition state"? Surely it does include that, we've
built the memory accounting stuff
> 24 июля 2020 г., в 14:05, Ashutosh Sharma написал(а):
>
> Attached is the patch that adds heap_force_kill(regclass, tid[]) and
> heap_force_freeze(regclass, tid[]) functions which Robert mentioned in the
> first email in this thread. The patch basically adds an extension named
>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Like Pavel, and I think implicitly Dagfinn and Andres, I'm not sure I
> > believe this. Pavel's example is a good one. The leakproof exception
> > helps, but it doesn't cover everything. Users I've encountered throw
> >
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I would like to propose a patch for enabling the parallelism for the
> bitmap index scan path.
>
> Background:
> Currently, we support only a parallel bitmap heap scan path. Therein,
> the underlying bitmap index scan is done by a single
I would like to propose a patch for enabling the parallelism for the
bitmap index scan path.
Background:
Currently, we support only a parallel bitmap heap scan path. Therein,
the underlying bitmap index scan is done by a single worker called the
leader. The leader creates a bitmap in shared
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, the proposed comment changes don't actually add much. Also
> >> please try to avoid inserting non-ASCII into the source code;
> >> at least in my mail reader,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 1:49 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 18:52, Andy Fan wrote:
> > The reason I ask this is because I have a task to make numeric output
> > similar to oracle.
> >
> > Oracle:
> >
> > SQL> select 2 / 1.0 from dual;
> >
> >
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 12:24, David Rowley wrote:
> If we've not seen any performance regressions within 1 week, then I
> propose that we (pending final review) push this to allow wider
> testing. It seems we're early enough in the PG14 cycle that there's a
> large window of time for us to do
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:52:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sounds fine to me. Thanks.
>
> Do others have any objections with this wording?
I have used the wording suggested by Alvaro, and applied the patch
down to 13. Now let's see about the original item of this thread..
--
Michael
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:31:38PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Thanks for picking it up!
For the archives, the patch set has been applied as ce4939f and
15e4419 on HEAD. Thanks, Noah.
> That's a good question. I believe that if one actually do use RAND_cleanup as
> a re-seeding mechanism
29 matches
Mail list logo
