Hi,
This patch fixes $SUBJECT.
/Joel
pg-proc-protrftypes-references-pg-type-oid.patch
Description: Binary data
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:37 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
>
> > > (4)
> > You could, but I'm not sure it would make the code easier to read,
> > especially for those who don't know !isParallelWorker() means it's a
> > parallel leader.
> ...
> > I really can't see a problem. PrepareParal
Hi, thanks for the reviews.
I updated the attached patch.
The summary of the changes is following.
1. fix document
I followed another view's comments.
2. refactor issue_xlog_fsync()
I removed "sync_called" variables, narrowed the "duration" scope and
change the switch statement to if stateme
On 2021/01/23 13:40, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:43 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Please review the v16 patch set further.
Thanks! Will review that later.
+ /*
+* For the given server, if we closed connection or it
is still in
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, at 08:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>you should to use TRANSFORM clause in CREATE FUNCTION statement
Thanks, it worked, and like expected it references the pg_type.oid of the
transform.
Attached patch adds "(references pg_type.oid)" to the documentation for
pg_proc.protrftypes.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:21 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Creating/altering subscription is successful when we specify a
> > publication which does not exist in the publisher. I felt we should
> > throw an error in this case
po 25. 1. 2021 v 8:05 odesÃlatel Joel Jacobson napsal:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand how pg_proc.protrftypes works.
>
> The documentation says "Data type OIDs for which to apply transforms.".
> For this column, there is no reference to any catalog table?
> I would guess it should be "(refere
First, some possibly major questions:
(23)
From: 'Alvaro Herrera'
> Maybe we can create a new file specifically for this to avoid mixing
> unrelated stuff in fe-misc.c -- say fe-trace.c where all this new
> tracing stuff goes.
What do you think about this suggestion? I think this is reasonable
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 13:16, David Rowley wrote:
> Proposed patch attached.
I ended up pushing a slightly revised version of this which kept the
code the same as before when rs_numblocks had not been changed. I
backpatched to 9.5 as it seemed low risk and worthy of stopping some
head-scratching
Hi,
I'm trying to understand how pg_proc.protrftypes works.
The documentation says "Data type OIDs for which to apply transforms.".
For this column, there is no reference to any catalog table?
I would guess it should be "(references pg_type.oid)", right?
I tried to generate a value for this colu
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Hou, Zhijie
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After doing some test to cover the code path in the PATCH 0001.
> I have some suggestions for the 0002 testcase.
>
>
> (1)
> + /* Check parallel-safety of any expressions in the
> partition key */
> +
Hello,
Thank you for your comments.
Following Corey's advice, I applied Amit's patches proposed in this
email [1], and confirmed our memory pressure problem was solved.
So dropping cached plan with DISCARD is not necessary anymore.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqG1qQuBwApueaU
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:03 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Amit.
>
> PSA the v19 patch for the Tablesync Solution1.
>
I see one race condition in this patch where we try to drop the origin
via apply process and DropSubscription. I think it can lead to the
error "cache lookup failed for replication
From: Greg Nancarrow
> > (1)
> Yes, you're right the wording is not right (and I don't really like
> the wording used before the patch).
>
> Perhaps it could say:
>
> (Note that we do allow CREATE TABLE AS, INSERT INTO...SELECT, SELECT
> INTO, and CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW to use parallel plans.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:16 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:53 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 5:04 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > Attached new 0002 which does these adjustments. I went with
> > > ri_RootTargetDesc to go along with ri_RelationDesc.
> > >
At Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:05:19 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:42 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 202
At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:36:58 +0900, torikoshia
wrote in
> I suppose it would be normal practice to store past results of
> pg_stat_statements for future comparisons.
> If this is the case, I think that if we only add the number of
> generic plan execution, it will give us a hint to notice the ca
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:28 PM Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-25 13:15, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> > On 2021-01-25 10:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 202
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:42 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bhara
On 2021-01-25 13:15, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021-01-25 10:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I rebased the patch to the maste
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip
On 2021-01-25 11:47, japin wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 09:36, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I rebased the patch to the mast
From: Amit Langote
> Yes, it can be simplified by using a local join to prevent the update of the
> foreign
> partition from being pushed to the remote server, for which my example in the
> previous email used a local trigger. Note that the update of the foreign
> partition to be done locally is
On 2021-01-25 10:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I rebased the patch to the master branch.
>
> Thank you for working on this.
Dear Ikeda-san,
> I checked columns' descriptions of other views.
> There are "Number of xxx", "Total number of xxx", "Total amount of time
> that xxx" and "Total time spent xxx".
Right.
> Since the "time" is used for showing spending time, not count,
> I'll change it to "Total number of WAL da
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:29:53PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> ... Last two months were a
>> little overworked for me so I let slip quite a few things. If you want to
>> disable the animal as Tom suggests, do as you want.
> Perhaps he was suggesting that you (buildfarm own
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:23 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > 2.
> > @@ -98,11 +102,16 @@
> > #include "miscadmin.h"
> > #include "parser/parse_relation.h"
> > #include "pgstat.h"
> > +#include "postmaster/interrupt.h"
> > #include "replica
On 2021-01-25 10:34, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Dear Ikeda-san,
Thank you for updating the patch. This can be applied to master, and
can be used on my RHEL7.
wal_write_time and wal_sync_time increase normally :-).
```
postgres=# select * from pg_stat_wal;
-[ RECORD 1 ]+---
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:23 AM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com <
tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Greg-san,
>
>
> Second group of comments (I'll reply to (1) - (4) later):
>
>
> (5)
> @@ -790,7 +790,8 @@ ExecCheckXactReadOnly(PlannedStmt *plannedstmt)
> ...
> - if (plannedstmt->com
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:29:53PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>>The "no such file" error seems more like a machine local issue to me.
> >>
> >>I'll look into it when I have time, which make take some time. Hopefully
> >>over the holidays.
> >
> >This is still happening ... Any chance you can ha
Hi,
After doing some test to cover the code path in the PATCH 0001.
I have some suggestions for the 0002 testcase.
(1)
+ /* Check parallel-safety of any expressions in the
partition key */
+ if (get_partition_col_attnum(pkey, i) == 0)
+
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:59 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes you are right. Looks like t
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:08 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >
> > I think so. But do you have any reason to believe that it won't be
> > required anymore?
>
> A temporary slot will not clash with a permanent slot of the same name,
>
I have trie
At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM
>Thanks a lot for the tests. In your test case, parallel insertions are not
>being picked because the Gather node has
> some projections(floor(((random() * '1'::double precision) + >'1'::double
> precision)) to perform. That's expected.
>Whenever parallel insertions are chosen for CTAS, we sh
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:24 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Few comments:
> > =
> > 1.
> > - * So the state progression is always: INIT -> DATASYNC -> SYNCWAIT ->
> > - * CATCHUP -> SYNCDONE -> READY.
> > + * So the sta
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:32 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/21/21 3:17 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:16 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think I've managed to get the 0002 patch [1] rebased to master and
> >> working (with help from Masahiko Saw
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> 2.
> @@ -98,11 +102,16 @@
> #include "miscadmin.h"
> #include "parser/parse_relation.h"
> #include "pgstat.h"
> +#include "postmaster/interrupt.h"
> #include "replication/logicallauncher.h"
> #include "replication/logicalrelation.h"
> +#
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 5:54 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > 4.
> > > - /*
> > > - * To build a slot name for the sync work, we are limited to NAMEDATALEN
> > > -
> > > - * 1 characters. We cut the original slot name to NAMEDATALEN - 28 chars
>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 09:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I rebased the patch to the master branch
Hi Amit.
PSA the v19 patch for the Tablesync Solution1.
Main differences from v18:
+ Patch has been rebased off HEAD @ 24/Jan
+ Addressing some review comments [ak0123]
[ak0123]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JhpuwujrV6ABMmZ3jXfW37ssZnJ3fikrY7rRdvoEmu_g%40mail.gmail.com
Fea
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 6:34 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I recently found a use case like this. SELECT * FROM p, q WHERE
> p.partkey =
> q.colx AND (q.colx = $1 OR q.colx = $2); Then we can't do either planning
> time
> partition prune or init partition prune. Even though we have run-time
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I rebased the patch to the master branch.
> >
> > Thank you for working on this. I've read the latest patch.
Dear Ikeda-san,
Thank you for updating the patch. This can be applied to master, and
can be used on my RHEL7.
wal_write_time and wal_sync_time increase normally :-).
```
postgres=# select * from pg_stat_wal;
-[ RECORD 1 ]+--
wal_records | 121781
wal_fpi
On 2021-Jan-24, Mark Rofail wrote:
> I do not think that postgres contains vector operators, correct me if I am
> wrong. I feel that supporting vectors is our of the scope of this patch, if
> you have an idea how to support it please let me know.
I do not think that this patch needs to support oi
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 5:54 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > 4.
> > - /*
> > - * To build a slot name for the sync work, we are limited to NAMEDATALEN -
> > - * 1 characters. We cut the original slot name to NAMEDATALEN - 28 chars
> > - * and append _%u_sync_%u (1 + 10 + 6 + 10 + '\0'). (It's actually
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wr
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 6:51 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:26 AM Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 12:52 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> >> + for (i = 0; i < riinfo->nkeys; i++)
> >> + {
> >> + Oid
Hi, Japin
Thanks for your comments.
On 2021-01-23 01:46, japin wrote:
Hi, Masahiro
Thanks for you update the v4 patch. Here are some comments:
(1)
+ char*msg = NULL;
+ boolsync_called;/* whether to sync
data to the disk. */
+ instr_time
Hello Greg-san,
Second group of comments (I'll reply to (1) - (4) later):
(5)
@@ -790,7 +790,8 @@ ExecCheckXactReadOnly(PlannedStmt *plannedstmt)
...
- if (plannedstmt->commandType != CMD_SELECT ||
plannedstmt->hasModifyingCTE)
+ if ((plannedstmt->commandType != CMD_SELECT &&
+
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 15:30 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:09 +, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> > > My vote is that we should not have a GUC for such an unlikely event, and
> > > that
> > > stopping recovery is good enough.
> > OK. IIUC, my current patch for this fix doesn
Hello Joel,
UPDATE catalog_clone.pg_index SET indkey = '1 2 12345'::int2vector WHERE
> indexrelid = 2837;
> ERROR: operator does not exist: int2vector pg_catalog.@> smallint[]
> LINE 1: ...WHERE "attrelid" OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) $1 AND $2 OPERATOR(p...
>
In your example, you are using the notati
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:06 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 11:48, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not really familiar with this part of the code, so it's not exactly
> > clear
> > to me if some logic is missing in compute_new_xmax_infomask() /
> > heap
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jan-24, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * Do not allow tuples with invalid combinations of hint bits to be
> > placed
> > + * on a page. These combinations are detected as corruption by the
> > + * contr
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 11:48, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on pg14 compatibility for an extension relying on an
apparently
> uncommon combination of FOR UPDATE and stored function calls, I hit some
new
> Asserts introduced in 866e24d47db (Extend amcheck to check heap pages):
>
>
On 2021-Jan-24, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> + /*
> + * Do not allow tuples with invalid combinations of hint bits to be
> placed
> + * on a page. These combinations are detected as corruption by the
> + * contrib/amcheck logic, so if you disable one or both of these
> + * ass
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> >> On 22 Jan 2021, at 12:56, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> And maybe even more interestnig -- is there a point to this whole
> >> make_diff directory at all in these days of git? Or should we just
> >> remove it rather
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:17 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 1/23/21 9:31 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I was looking at this and it looks like we've got a problematic case
> > where postgresGetForeignModifyBatchSize() is called from
> > ExecInitRoutingInfo().
> >
> > That case is when the insert is per
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:26 AM Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 12:52 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
Thanks for the review.
>> + for (i = 0; i < riinfo->nkeys; i++)
>> + {
>> + Oid eq_opr = eq_oprs[i];
>> + Oid typeid = RIAttType(fk_rel, r
Hi again,
I found a similar problem with int2vector columns:
CREATE TABLE catalog_clone.pg_index AS SELECT * FROM pg_catalog.pg_index;
CREATE TABLE catalog_clone.pg_attribute AS SELECT attrelid,attnum FROM
pg_catalog.pg_attribute;
ALTER TABLE catalog_clone.pg_attribute ADD UNIQUE (attrelid, attn
Hello Joel,
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Joel Jacobson wrote:
> HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument types. You might
> need to add explicit type casts.
> QUERY: SELECT 1 WHERE (SELECT pg_catalog.count(DISTINCT y) FROM
> pg_catalog.unnest($1) y) OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) (SEL
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021, at 11:21, Mark Rofail wrote:
>This seems to be a type casting problem indeed. The coercion part of the patch
>found in "ruleutils.c:11438-11491" is the culprit, is there a cleaner way to
>achieve this?
>I am aware of the problem and will try to fix it, but I assume this is b
Hi:
I recently found a use case like this. SELECT * FROM p, q WHERE p.partkey
=
q.colx AND (q.colx = $1 OR q.colx = $2); Then we can't do either planning
time
partition prune or init partition prune. Even though we have run-time
partition pruning work at last, it is too late in some cases si
Hi Masahiko:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:15 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:16 PM Jesper Pedersen <
> jesper.peder...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 12/5/20 10:38 PM, Andy Fan wrote:
>
Hi Mark and others,
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021, at 09:22, Mark Rofail wrote:
> Changelog:
> - v13 (compatible with current master 2021-01-24, commit
> 7e57255f6189380d545e1df6a6b38827b213e3da)
...
> I encourage everyone to take review this patch. After considerable reviews
> and performance testing, i
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> > Please find the patch for the same. I haven't a
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:03:58AM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> On 03.01.2021 14:29, Noah Misch wrote:
> >Overall, this patch predicts a subset of cases where pg_dump will emit a
> >failing GRANT or REVOKE that targets a pg_catalog object. Can you write a
> >code comment stating what it d
67 matches
Mail list logo
