From: Andrey V. Lepikhov
> On 2/9/21 9:35 AM, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > * Why is a separate FDW connection established for each COPY? To avoid
> using the same FDW connection for multiple foreign table partitions in a
> single
> COPY run?
> With separate connection you can init a
Dear Wang, Horiguchi-san,
> > How about the attached?
>
> I think, this patch is good.
I agree. The backward compatibility is violated in the doc, but maybe no one
take care.
> Maybe we can create a new thread to talk about how ecpg support ipv6
+1
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU
More V29 Feedback
FILE: alter_subscription.sgml
8.
+
+ Commands ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH .. and
+ ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET PUBLICATION .. with refresh
+ option as true cannot be executed inside a transaction block.
+
My guess is those two lots of double dots ("..") were
Hi all,
In recent history, we have had two bugs causing a crash of the backend
because of the default behavior of rd_tableam to be NULL for a
relcache entry for relkinds that have no storage:
1) Sequential attempt for a view:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:06 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
> are v2, because it
po 8. 2. 2021 v 19:35 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> Hi,
>
> With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
> are v2,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:58:30 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900
Hi, Horiguchi-san
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> How about the attached?
I think, this patch is good.
> > > Should we allow "::1" here as well? On the other hand, colons are
> > > already overloaded in this syntax, so maybe allowing them in the
> > > host part is a bad idea.
> Yeah, that made
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 02:26:25 +, "tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> From: Iwata, Aya/岩田 彩
> > I update the patch.
> > I modified code according to review comments of Tsunakawa san and
> > Horiguchi san.
>
>
> I confirmed that all the previous feedback was reflected. Here are some
>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:08:37AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Attached is a new patchset where I've tried to split the patches even further
> to try and separate out changes for easier review. While not a perfect split
> I'm sure, and clearly only for review purposes, I do hope it helps a
Here are my feedback comments for the V29 patch.
FILE: logical-replication.sgml
+slots have generated names:
pg_%u_sync_%u_%llu
+(parameters: Subscription oid,
+Table relid, system
identifiersysid)
+
1.
There is a missing space before the sysid parameter.
=
FILE:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:59 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Can you please provide steps which can lead to this situation? If
> there is an earlier discussion which has example scenarios, please
> point us to the relevant thread.
>
> If we are not sending PREPARED transactions that's fine, but
Sorry, I made a mistake here.
At Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:55:23 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:47:58 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > APIs the wait logic can be implemented in the application code which
> > is actually using these APIs and IMHO that will give
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:58:30 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > If we are going to introduce
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:36 PM Markus Wanner
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Amit,
> >
> > thanks for your very quick response.
> >
> > On 08.02.21 11:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > /*
> > > * It is possible that this transaction is not decoded at
On 2/9/21 9:35 AM, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
From: Andrey Lepikhov
Also, I might defer working on the extended part (v9 0003 and 0004) and further
separate them in a different thread, if it seems to take longer.
I reviewed them but haven't
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:47:58 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:30 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > > +void
> > > +replorigin_drop_by_name(char *name, bool missing_ok, bool nowait)
> > > +{
> > > + RepOriginId roident;
> > > + Relationrel;
> > > +
> > > +
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 06:59:45PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> These suggestions seem reasonable to me. I've applied them in v9.
Sounds good to me, so applied.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:23:23 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I didn't asked about the internal logical correctness, but asked about
> > *actual harm* revealed to users. I don't see any actual harm in the
> > "wrong" transition
At Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:58:14 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> > I didn't care about the windows environment.
> > Somewhat WIN32 directive can be used for switching code, but I agree your
> > claims.
>
> This thread looks like discussing about unix-domain socket on
> Windows. (I'll
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 02:12:37 +, "kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> Dear Wang, Tom
>
> > I think add the bison rule is a little difficult because in PG13 windows
> > can also support unix-socket,
> > In your patch:
> > > dir_name: '/' dir_name{ $$ = make2_str(mm_strdup("/"), $2); }
> >
From: tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
> From: Andrey Lepikhov
> > Of course, you can rebase it.
>
> Thank you. I might modify the basic part to incorporate my past proposal
> about improving the layering or modularity related to ri_useMultiInsert.
> (But I
> may end up giving up due to
> On 02/08/2021 11:40 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a draft of the release announcement for the upcoming
> 2021-02-11 cumulative update release. Please review for technical
'closes fixes' maybe better is:
'includes fixes' or 'closes bugs'
'also fixes over 80 bugs'
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 7:28 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> > > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > >
> > > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> > > Did it actually use a parallel plan in your testing?
> > > When I ran these tests with the Parallel INSERT patch applied, it did
> > > not naturally choose a parallel plan for any of these cases.
> >
> > Yes, these cases pick parallel plan
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:30 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > +void
> > +replorigin_drop_by_name(char *name, bool missing_ok, bool nowait)
> > +{
> > + RepOriginId roident;
> > + Relationrel;
> > +
> > + Assert(IsTransactionState());
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * To interlock
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> > > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > >
> > > > At Mon, 8 Feb
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:36 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> Hello Amit,
>
> thanks for your very quick response.
>
> On 08.02.21 11:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > /*
> > * It is possible that this transaction is not decoded at prepare time
> > * either because by that time we didn't have a consistent
From: Iwata, Aya/岩田 彩
> I update the patch.
> I modified code according to review comments of Tsunakawa san and
> Horiguchi san.
I confirmed that all the previous feedback was reflected. Here are some minor
comments:
(45)
void PQtrace(PGconn *conn, FILE *stream);
+
+
Dear Wang, Tom
> I think add the bison rule is a little difficult because in PG13 windows can
> also support unix-socket,
> In your patch:
> > dir_name: '/' dir_name{ $$ = make2_str(mm_strdup("/"), $2); }
> > | ecpg_ident{ $$ = $1; }
> >;
> Windows will remains wrong(I'm not sure ecpg on
At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote in
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA
> > > wrote in
> > > > > > > I think the right
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 8:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:22 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 8, 2021 1:44 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 11:36 AM Peter Smith
> > > wrote:
> > > > 2. For the 004 test case I know the
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Greg, all
>
> Thanks a lot for your work on this.
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:53 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > Posting an updated set of patches.
>
> I've been looking at these patches, initially with an intention to
> review mainly any
From: Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:14 AM
>> When reading code related ECPG I found 75220fb was committed in PG13 and
>> master.
>> I don't know why it shouldn't be backpatched in PG12 or before.
>> Can anyone take a look at this and kindly tell me why.
>
>We don't usually
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > After digging in gcc's release history, it seems they invented
> > "-fsanitize=alignment" in GCC 5, so we can make this work for gcc
> > by writing
> > #if __GNUC__ >= 5
> > (the likely() macro already uses a similar approach). Can't
Hi, Tom!
Thank you for taking care of this.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ redirecting to -hackers ]
>
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> >> BTW, I managed to reproduce the issue by compiling with CFLAGS="-O0
> >> -fsanitize=alignment -fsanitize-trap=alignment" and the patch
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> >
> > I think what we want to do is mark default_transaction_read_only as
> > GUC_REPORT, instead. That will give a reliable report of what the
> > state of its GUC is, and you can combine it with is_hot_standby
> > to decide whether the
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:42 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:38 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some minor comments about code:
> > >
> > > > + else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR &&
On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 22:22 +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Given the feedback above, I'll continue to flesh out the PoC patch,
> focusing on 1) storing the identity in a single place for all auth
> methods and 2) exposing it consistently in the logs as part of
> log_connections.
Attached is a v1
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:40:41PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> This update also fixes over 80 bugs that were reported in the last several
> months. Some of these issues only affect version 13, but may also apply to
> other
> supported versions.
Did you want s/may/many/?
> * Fix an issue
> On 4 Feb 2021, at 19:35, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-02-04 at 16:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 08:33:35PM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> Note that this changes the error message printed during the invalid-
>>> root tests, because NSS is now sending
Hi,
Attached is a draft of the release announcement for the upcoming
2021-02-11 cumulative update release. Please review for technical
accuracy (I did screen for typos, but would not be surprised if any
slipped in).
Please provide feedback on this thread no later than 2020-02-10 AoE[1].
Thanks!
Hi, can someone point me to the code that cleans up temp files should a
query crashed unexpectedly? Thanks!
Hi Craig, Robert,
The 011_crash_recovery.pl test test starts a transaction, creates a
table, fetches the transaction's xid. Then shuts down the server in
immediate mode. It then asserts that after crash recovery the previously
assigned xid is shown as aborted, and that new xids are assigned
> On Feb 8, 2021, at 2:46 AM, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> 0002 - is a temporary hack for testing. It will allow inserting duplicates in
> a table even if an index with the exact name "idx" has a unique constraint
> (generally it is prohibited to insert). Then a new amcheck will tell us about
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, 14:46 Pavel Borisov Hi, hackers!
>
> It seems that if btree index with a unique constraint is corrupted by
> duplicates, amcheck now can not catch this. Reindex becomes impossible as
> it throws an error but otherwise the index will let the user know that it
> is corrupted,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I noticed that the file src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c has no
> test coverage at all. The only way to reach this appears to be by
> calling abbrev(cidr). It was easy to add a test case for this into the
> existing, otherwise pretty complete, cidr tests.
"Wang, Shenhao" writes:
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> FWIW, directly embedding /unixsocket/path syntax in a URL is broken in
>> the view of URI. It is the reason why the current connection URI takes
>> the way shown above. So I think we want to remove that code rather
>> than to fix it.
> It
Hi everyone,
I’ve been making some experiments with an on-the-fly compression switch lately
and have some updates.
> On Dec 22, 2020, at 10:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>
> Hmm, I assumed that if the compression buffers were flushed on the
> sending side, and if all the data produced on the
Hi everyone,
I wanted to see why we do not allow the following statements to be allowed
within a transaction block:
1. Create database
2. Drop Database
Is there a detailed reasoning behind disallowing the above statements as
part of the design. Will appreciate it if someone can share on why
I noticed that the file src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c has no
test coverage at all. The only way to reach this appears to be by
calling abbrev(cidr). It was easy to add a test case for this into the
existing, otherwise pretty complete, cidr tests.
From
Hi,
With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
are v2, because it is a patchset that is based on a set of patches
that I previously
On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 16:18 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Here's a version of the patch that does it that way. For fun I have
> modified the certificate so it has two OU fields in the DN.
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/client-auth.sgml
> [...]
> + Common Name
> +void
> +replorigin_drop_by_name(char *name, bool missing_ok, bool nowait)
> +{
> + RepOriginId roident;
> + Relationrel;
> +
> + Assert(IsTransactionState());
> +
> + /*
> + * To interlock against concurrent drops, we hold ExclusiveLock on
> + *
I wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 11:21:05AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Isn't the whole "Success." at the end redundant here, and we should
>>> just end the message after the pg_ctl command? So not just the extra
>>> newline, but the whole thing?
>> Agreed.
> +1
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021, at 3:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Fixed the problem as mentioned above in the attached.
This new version looks good to me.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
I wrote:
> After digging in gcc's release history, it seems they invented
> "-fsanitize=alignment" in GCC 5, so we can make this work for gcc
> by writing
> #if __GNUC__ >= 5
> (the likely() macro already uses a similar approach). Can't say
> if that's close enough for clang too.
Ugh, no it
"Tang, Haiying" writes:
> When reading code related ECPG I found 75220fb was committed in PG13 and
> master.
> I don't know why it shouldn't be backpatched in PG12 or before.
> Can anyone take a look at this and kindly tell me why.
We don't usually back-patch things that aren't clear bug fixes.
Hello Amit,
thanks for your very quick response.
On 08.02.21 11:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
/*
* It is possible that this transaction is not decoded at prepare time
* either because by that time we didn't have a consistent snapshot or it
* was decoded earlier but we have restarted. We can't
HI all,
I update the patch.
I modified code according to review comments of Tsunakawa san and Horiguchi san.
And I fixed some bugs.
> This patch should address the following:
> 1. fix 3 bugs
> 1.1 -1 output in "Query" message
The cause of this bug is that it call in pqFlush() function before
Greg, all
Thanks a lot for your work on this.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:53 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> Posting an updated set of patches.
I've been looking at these patches, initially with an intention to
review mainly any partitioning-related concerns, but have some general
thoughts as well
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:17 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As a quick test, I hacked up pg_utf8_verifystr() to use Lemire's
> algorithm from the simdjson library [1], see attached patch. I
> microbenchmarked it using the the same test I used before [2].
I've been looking at various iterations of
At Sun, 07 Feb 2021 13:55:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
>
> This looks like you're trying to force case-insensitive behavior
> whether that is appropriate or not. Does not sound like a good idea.
Thanks for your reply.
I raise this issue because I thought all SQL command should be
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote
> > in
> > > > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > > > ‘paused’ to
On 05/02/2021 23:22, Stephen Frost wrote:
Unless there's anything else on this, I'll commit these sometime next
week.
One more thing: Instead of using 'effective_io_concurrency' GUC
directly, should call get_tablespace_maintenance_io_concurrency().
- Heikki
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:22 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 8, 2021 1:44 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
>
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 11:36 AM Peter Smith
> > wrote:
> > > 2. For the 004 test case I know the test is needing some PK constraint
> > > violation # Check
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 8:40 PM Petr Jelinek
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We had a bit high-level discussion about this patches with Amit
> off-list, so I decided to also take a look at the actual code.
>
Thanks for the discussion and a follow-up review.
> My main concern originally was the potential for
Hi, hackers!
It seems that if btree index with a unique constraint is corrupted by
duplicates, amcheck now can not catch this. Reindex becomes impossible as
it throws an error but otherwise the index will let the user know that it
is corrupted, and amcheck will tell that the index is clean. So
On 07/02/2021 22:24, John Naylor wrote:
Here is a more polished version of the function pointer approach, now
adapted to all multibyte encodings. Using the not-yet-committed tests
from [1], I found a thinko bug that resulted in the test for nul bytes
to not only be wrong, but probably also
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:01 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> Amit, Ajin, hackers,
>
> testing logical decoding for two-phase transactions, I stumbled over
> what I first thought is a bug. But comments seems to indicate this is
> intended behavior. Could you please clarify or elaborate on the design
Hi Hackers
When reading code related ECPG I found 75220fb was committed in PG13 and master.
I don't know why it shouldn't be backpatched in PG12 or before.
Can anyone take a look at this and kindly tell me why.
Regards,
Tang
Amit, Ajin, hackers,
testing logical decoding for two-phase transactions, I stumbled over
what I first thought is a bug. But comments seems to indicate this is
intended behavior. Could you please clarify or elaborate on the design
decision? Or indicate this indeed is a bug?
What puzzled
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:05 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Greg Nancarrow writes:
> > Posting an updated set of patches.
>
> I've reviewed and pushed most of v20-0001, with the following changes:
>
> * I realized that we had more moving parts than necessary for
> in_hot_standby. We don't really need
> > Did it actually use a parallel plan in your testing?
> > When I ran these tests with the Parallel INSERT patch applied, it did
> > not naturally choose a parallel plan for any of these cases.
>
> Yes, these cases pick parallel plan naturally on my test environment.
>
> postgres=# explain
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> > > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > > ‘paused’ to ‘pause requested’ so I think pg_wal_replay_pause should
> > > > >
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 04:35:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 06:43:44PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > I changed it to PROCESS_TOAST.
>
> Thanks. PROCESS_TOAST sounds good to me at the end for the option
> name, so let's just go with that.
>
> > Done.
>
> While
Hi, Horiguchi-san, Kuroda-san:
Thank you for reviewing.
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>FWIW, directly embedding /unixsocket/path syntax in a URL is broken in
>the view of URI. It is the reason why the current connection URI takes
>the way shown above. So I think we want to remove that code rather
At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > ‘paused’ to ‘pause requested’ so I think pg_wal_replay_pause should
> > > > take
> > > > care of that.
> > >
> > > It makes sense to take care of this in
> Did it actually use a parallel plan in your testing?
> When I ran these tests with the Parallel INSERT patch applied, it did
> not naturally choose a parallel plan for any of these cases.
Yes, these cases pick parallel plan naturally on my test environment.
postgres=# explain verbose insert
Thank you Ashutosh.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:18 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:12 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> >
> > Currently the cost_sort doesn't consider the number of columns to sort,
> which
> > means the cost of SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY a; equals with the SELECT *
> >
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:00 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> > Posting an updated set of patches.
>
> A minor comment about doc.
>
> +
> +Where the above target table features are determined to be, at worst,
> +parallel-restricted, rather than parallel-unsafe, at least a parallel
> table
> +
At Sun, 07 Feb 2021 13:55:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> "Tang, Haiying" writes:
> > When using psql I found there's no tab completion for upper character
> > inputs. It's really inconvenient sometimes so I try to fix this problem in
> > the attached patch.
>
> This looks like you're trying
85 matches
Mail list logo
