On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:43 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/01/27 10:06, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:38 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >> I will post "keep_connections" GUC and "keep_connection" server level
> >> option patches later.
> >
> > Attaching v19 patch
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 5:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > AFAIK there is always a potential race with DropSubscription dropping
> > > > slots. The DropSubscription might be running at exactly the same time
> > > > the apply worker has just dropped the very same tablesync slot.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:29 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/01/30 9:28, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 12:14 AM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> +* It doesn't make sense to show this entry in the
> >> output with a
> >> +
On 2021/01/27 10:06, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:38 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
I will post "keep_connections" GUC and "keep_connection" server level
option patches later.
Attaching v19 patch set for "keep_connections" GUC and
"keep_connection" server level option.
On 2021/01/30 9:28, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 12:14 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
+ /*
+* It doesn't make sense to show this entry in the
output with a
+* NULL server_name as it will be closed at the xact
At Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:24:30 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > David Rowley writes:
> >> Parent RT indexes are guaranteed to be lower than their children RT
> >> indexes,
>
> > I was intentionally avoiding that assumption ;-). Maybe it buys enough
> > to be worth the loss of generality, but ...
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:23 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think this is true only when the user specifically requested it by
> > > > the use of "ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 9:31 PM 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
> > + *
I wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> Parent RT indexes are guaranteed to be lower than their children RT
>> indexes,
> I was intentionally avoiding that assumption ;-). Maybe it buys enough
> to be worth the loss of generality, but ...
Oh, it's too late at night. I now remember that the real
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila
> > > >
David Rowley writes:
> What I can't understand is why you changed to a List-of-Lists rather
> than a List-of-Relids.
Yeah, I spent no effort on micro-optimizing the data structure. I figured
that since we were not including leaf partitions, there would never be
enough rels involved to worry
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila
> > >
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> For simplicity of review I divided the patch into two parts.
> 0001 revises make_partition_pruneinfo() and children to identify
> the relevant parent partitions for themselves, which is not too
> hard to do by chasing up the child-to-parent
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > 4) How about following
> > > + errmsg("must be a superuser to print backtrace
> > > of backend process")));
> > > instead of
> > > +
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:38 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> postgres=# explain (analyze, verbose) select * from a,b where a.i=b.j;
>
> QUERY PLAN
>
Hi greg,
Thanks for the review !
> Personally, I think a table's "parallel_dml" option should be ON by default.
> It's annoying to have to separately enable it for each and every table being
> used, when I think the need to turn it selectively OFF should be fairly
> rare.
Yes, I agreed.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have made the below changes in the patch.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have made the below changes in the patch. Let me know what you think
> > > about these?
> > > 1. It was a bit
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I started looking through this patch. I really quite dislike solving
> this via a kluge in indxpath.c. There are multiple disadvantages
> to that:
>
> * It only helps for the very specific problem of redundant bitmap
> index scans,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:56 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> * I haven't yet done anything about the issue on postgres_fdw's
> handling of concurrent data fetches by multiple ForeignScan nodes
> (below *different* Append nodes in the query) using the same
> connection discussed in [2]. I modified the
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I have made the below changes in the patch. Let me know what you think
> > about these?
> > 1. It was a bit difficult to understand the code in DropSubscription
> > so I have
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:50 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This fixes the cases reported by Andreas and Jaime, leaving me
> > more confident that there's nothing wrong with David's Assert.
>
> It could be fixed by modifying
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:24 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 12/9/20 3:21 AM, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Since ba3e76c,
> > the optimizer call generate_useful_gather_paths instead of
> > generate_gather_paths() outside.
> >
> > But I noticed that some comment still talking about
At Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:20:19 +0100, Peter Eisentraut
wrote in
> On 2021-01-19 09:32, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:17:34 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote in
> >> By the way we can do the same thing on CA file/dir, but I personally
> >> think that the benefit from
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 5:44 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
>
> Attatching v1 patches, introducing options which let user manually control
> whether to use parallel dml.
>
> About the patch:
> 1. add a new guc option: enable_parallel_dml (boolean)
> 2. add a new tableoption: parallel_dml (boolean)
>
>
Hi Bertrand,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:52 PM Gilles Darold wrote:
>
> Le 18/12/2020 à 00:26, Tom Lane a écrit :
> > Gilles Darold writes:
> >> The same problem applies if the returned type or the procedural language
> >> is dropped. I have tried to fix that in ProcedureCreate() by using an
> >>
Dear All.
Thank you for all opinions and discussions regarding the KMS/TDE function.
First of all, to get to the point of this email,
I want to participate in anything I can do (review or development)
when TDE related development is in progress.
If there is a meeting related to it, I can't
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> 2. In AlterSubscription_refresh(), we can't allow workers to be
> stopped at commit time as we have already dropped the slots because
> the worker can access the dropped slot. We need to stop the workers
> before dropping slots. This makes
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:19 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have made the below changes in the patch. Let me know what you think
> about these?
> 1. It was a bit difficult to understand the code in DropSubscription
> so I have rearranged the code to match the way we are doing in HEAD
> where we
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > 4) How about following
> > + errmsg("must be a superuser to print backtrace
> > of backend process")));
> > instead of
> > + errmsg("must be a superuser to print backtrace
> > of superuser query
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 10:58 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Please submit to a future CF when a new patch is available.
Hi,
This is another version of the row filter patch. Patch summary:
0001: refactor to remove dead code
0002: grammar refactor for row filter
0003: core code, documentation, and
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> This fixes the cases reported by Andreas and Jaime, leaving me
> more confident that there's nothing wrong with David's Assert.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with the Assert.
The commit message of a929e17e5 mentions:
> Here we tighten that
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> Pushed with minor cleanup.
thorntail seems unhappy:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=thorntail=2021-01-31%2020%3A58%3A12
==-=-== stack trace: pgsql.build/src/test/regress/tmp_check/data/core
==-=-==
[New LWP 2266507]
[Thread
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:08:02PM -0800, Paul Martinez wrote:
> Some of the original justifications for requiring superuser to create
> subscriptions include:
> - Replication inherently adds significant network traffic and extra background
> process, and we wouldn't want unprivileged users to
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:39 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If you invent some entirely new category of standby-only hint bit at a
> level below the access method code, then you can use it inside access
> method code such as nbtree. Maybe you don't have to play games with
> minRecoveryPoint in code
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:01 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:14 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >> Looks good, I've applied it, thanks.
> >
> > I tested last set of patches
> >
> > 1. There is no problem with patching and compilation
> > 2. make check-world passed
> > 3.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:01 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh,
> >
> >>
> >> I have handled the above scenario(drop schema should automatically
> >> remove the schema
Greg Stark writes:
> I wonder if there isn't room to handle this the other way around. To
> configure Postgres to not need a CREATE ROLE for every role but
> delegate the user management to the external authentication service.
> So Postgres would consider the actual role to be the one kerberos
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 12:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I remain concerned about the cost and inconvenience of exposing
>> it via log_line_prefix, but at least that shouldn't be visible
>> to anyone who's not entitled to know who's logged in ...
> What if we logged it as
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 18:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ah. So basically, this comes into play when you consider that some
> outside-the-database entity is your "real" authenticated identity.
> That seems reasonable when using Kerberos or the like, though it's
> not real meaningful for traditional
Please ignore previous email, the attached file was 0 bytes.
Here comes the patch again, now including data.
--
Doc: improve documentation of oid columns that can be zero.
pg_attribute.atttypid
Zero if column is dropped.
pg_class.relam
Can be zero, e.g. for views.
pg_depend.classid
Zero for
Doc: improve documentation of oid columns that can be zero.
pg_attribute.atttypid
Zero if column is dropped.
pg_class.relam
Can be zero, e.g. for views.
pg_depend.classid
Zero for pinned objects.
pg_language.lanplcallfoid
Zero for internal languages.
pg_operator.oprcode
Zero if none.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 12:21 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 17:01 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > - for LDAP, the bind DN is discarded entirely;
> >
> > We don't support pg_ident.conf-style entries for LDAP, meaning that the
> > user provided has to match what we check, so
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 12:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Jacob Champion writes:
> > On Fri, 2021-01-29 at 17:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What happens if ALTER USER RENAME is done while the session is still
> >> alive?
>
> > IMO the authenticated identity should be write-once. Especially since
> >
45 matches
Mail list logo
