On 2020-11-09 07:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
This is accepted by clang, and MSVC has visibly an equivalent for
that, as of VS 2012:
#elif defined(_MSC_VER) && (_MSC_VER >= 1700)
#define pg_nodiscard _Check_return_
We don't care about the 1700 condition as we support only >= 1800 on
HEAD, and in th
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 08:57:51AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Forgetting to assign the return value of list APIs such as lappend() is a
> perennial favorite. The compiler can help point out such mistakes. GCC has
> an attribute warn_unused_results. Also C++ has standardized this under the
>
However, let me confirm the following.
Is this information really useful?
If there is no valid use case for this, I'd like to drop it.
Thought?
I thought it would be easy for users to see at a glance that if there
is a case I assumed,
if the last modified date and time is old, there is no nee
Hello, Stephen
On Tuesday, Nov 3, 2020 3:02 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 4:28 PM Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > > > Yes. What I meant was such a safe guard needs to be im
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 00:17, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> > 2) adding the dependency on heapam.h to heap.c makes sense because of
> > heap_inplace_update bt it may be a bit annoying because I suspect
> > that's a useful sanity check that the tableam stuff hasn't been
> > bypassed
>
> That is not terrible
On 2020/11/07 0:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/10/31 2:06, John Naylor wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:48 PM Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
John Naylor mailto:john.nay...@enterprisedb.com>> writes:
> Okay, along those lines here's a patch using "this view" in a ne
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:03:49AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-10-09 09:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> During the discussion on Unix-domain sockets on Windows, someone pointed
>> out[0] abstract Unix-domain sockets. This is a variant of the normal
>> Unix-domain sockets that don't use
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical
> > > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical
> > streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on
> > pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that t
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical
> streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on
> pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming
> transactions can be interleaved and because we ar
Michael reported a BF failure [1] related to one of the logical
streaming test case and I've analyzed the issue. As responded on
pgsql-committers [2], the issue here is that the streaming
transactions can be interleaved and because we are maintaining whether
xact_wrote_changes at the LogicalDecodin
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 06:19:57PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> However in the case of ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS we can do better. Why not
> just reset the relfrozenxid and other stats as if the table was
> freshly created when it's truncated?
That concept is sound.
> 1) Should we update relpages and r
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:01:59PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:34:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:00:33AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > [last non-rebase change]
> >
> > Rebased the second patch. The first patch did not need a rebase.
>
> Re
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:07 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 03:52, Andy Fan wrote:
> > then I did a perf on the 2 version, Is it possible that you called
> tts_minimal_clear twice in
> > the v9 version? Both ExecClearTuple and ExecStoreMinimalTuple called
> tts_minimal_clear
>
Hi,
On Saturday, Nov 7, 2020 2:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> The patch looks fine to me however I feel that in the test case there are a
> lot
> of duplicate statement which can be reduced e.g.
> +-- 1. Overwrite existing regular trigger with regular trigger
> (without OR REPLACE)
> +create trigge
At Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:40:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:13 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:48:24 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:44 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11
At Mon, 09 Nov 2020 11:13:31 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Now the branch for counter-increment is removed. For similar
> branches for counter-decrement side in CatCacheCleanupOldEntries(),
> Min() is compiled into cmovbe and a branch was removed.
Mmm. Sorry, I sent this by a mista
At Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:42:15 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in
> On 06/11/2020 10:24, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Thank you for the comment!
> > First off, I thought that I managed to eliminate the degradation
> > observed on the previous versions, but significant degradation (1.1%
> > slower)
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 03:52, Andy Fan wrote:
> then I did a perf on the 2 version, Is it possible that you called
> tts_minimal_clear twice in
> the v9 version? Both ExecClearTuple and ExecStoreMinimalTuple called
> tts_minimal_clear
> on the same slot.
>
> With the following changes:
Thank
I wrote:
> I think the most plausible response is to add this aggregate to the filter
> logic that already exists in the xversion tests. Perhaps we could
> alternatively change this test case so that it relies on some other
> polymorphic function, but I'm not quite sure what a good candidate
> wou
Andres Freund writes:
> Yea, I'll try to do that in the next few days (was plannin to last week,
> but due to a hand injury I was typing one handed last week - makes it
> pretty annoying to clean up code. But I just started being able to at
> least use my left thumb again...).
Ouch. Get well soo
We had an outage caused by transaction wraparound. And yes, one of the
first things I did on this site was check that we didn't have any
databases that were in danger of wraparound.
However since then we added a monitoring job that used a temporary
table with ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS. Since it was a
Hi,
On 2020-11-08 17:35:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I suppose this is related to what you are talking about here.
Yes.
> If so, could we prioritize getting that committed? It's annoying
> to have the buildfarm failures page so full of this one issue.
Yea, I'll try to do that in the next few d
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-11-02 10:28:33 -0800, Jesse Zhang wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 6:12 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>>> There will be a breaking API change for JIT related API in LLVM
>>> 12.
seawasp, which runs some bleeding-edge version of clang, has been falling
over for the last
Hi,
Attached is a draft of the release announcement for the upcoming
2020-11-12 update release.
Corrections and feedback welcome, so long as it is submitted by
2020-11-11 AoE[1].
Thanks!
Jonathan
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anywhere_on_Earth
The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has re
Hi,
I took a look at this today, and I think the code is ready, but the
regression test needs a bit more work:
1) It's probably better to use somewhat more specific names for the
objects, especially when created in public schema. It decreases the
chance of a collision with other tests (which may
I wrote:
> Yeah, this is sufficient reason why we must use the more invasive
> patch on those branches. What I'm wondering now is if there's a
> way to break even-older branches based on failure to handle dropped
> columns here.
After tracing through the example in v11, I see why those branches
a
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> Here is a scenario that produces segfault during update (on version 12
> and 13):
Hm. So the point about failing to reproduce dropped columns is more
critical than I thought. I wonder how come we get away with that before
v12?
> So, we would need to back port thi
On 11/8/20 12:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:45:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The weekend before stable-branch releases is probably not the best
>> time to be pushing "minor" fixes into those branches. I got my
>> fingers burned today, and so did Peter. Don't follow o
On 2020-11-07 01:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Marina,
Hello, Fabien!
Thank you for your comments!
While trying to test a patch that adds a synchronization barrier in
pgbench [1] on Windows,
Thanks for trying that, I do not have a windows setup for testing, and
the sync code I wrote for W
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 22:30, David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > So far benchmarking shows there's still a regression from the v8
> > version of the patch. This is using count(*). An earlier test [1] did
> > show speedups when we needed to deform tup
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 6:13 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 20:43, David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 22:30, David Rowley wrote:
> > I did some further tests this time with some tuple deforming. Again,
> > it does seem that v9 is slower than v8.
> >
> > Graphs at
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:45:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The weekend before stable-branch releases is probably not the best
> time to be pushing "minor" fixes into those branches. I got my
> fingers burned today, and so did Peter. Don't follow our example ;-)
You could just apply your stuff a
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:25 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Ok. Here's one like that. Also, a WIP patch for FreeBSD.
Here's an updated patch for FreeBSD, which I'll sit on for a bit
longer. It needs bleeding edge 13-CURRENT (due out Q1ish).
From b9cb5562457c214c48c0a6334b8ed3264f50e3d6 Mon Sep 17 00:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 5:14 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
> > On 2/15/15 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder if we couldn't achieve largely the same positive effects
> through
> >> adding a simple transaction-level timeout option.
>
> > A common use-case is long-running reports hitt
Hello Tom,
Use ppoll, and start more threads but not too many?
Does ppoll exist on Windows?
Some g*gling suggest that the answer is no.
There was a prior thread on this topic, which seems to have drifted off
into the sunset:
Indeed. I may have contributed to this dwindling by not adding
36 matches
Mail list logo
