сб, 13 февр. 2021 г. в 05:39, Masahiko Sawada :
> > (BTW, I've been using txid_current() for my own "laptop testing", as a
> > way to work around this issue.)
> >
> > * More generally, if you really can't do recycling of pages that you
> > deleted during the last VACUUM during this VACUUM
Thanks for your review again.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 21:49, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:51 PM japin wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 at 17:50, Bharath Rupireddy
>> wrote:
>> We will get cell == NULL when we iterate all items in publist. I use it
>> to check whether the
Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> Right, we could as well have an inline function. My point was that why
> do we need to wrap MakeTupleTableSlot inside MakeSingleTupleTableSlot
> which just does nothing. As I said upthread, how about renaming
> MakeTupleTableSlot to
> MakeSingleTupleTableSlot which
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:38 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I agree that there already are huge problems in that case. But I think
> we need to consider an append-only case as well; after bulk deletion
> on an append-only table, vacuum deletes heap tuples and index tuples,
> marking some index pages
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:10 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:20 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thank you for working on this!
>
> I'm glad that I finally found time for it! It seems like it'll make
> things easier elsewhere.
>
> Attached is v3 of the index. I'll describe
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:37 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder, is there a specific reason that MakeTupleTableSlot is
>> wrapped up in MakeSingleTupleTableSlot without doing anything than
>> just returning the slot created
Hi,
How about the following patch ?
ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot() can return a bool to indicate whether the
base snapshot is set up.
For the call by SnapBuildCommitTxn(), it seems xid is top transaction. So
the return value doesn't need to be checked.
Cheers
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:40 PM
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:41 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 1/25/21 3:56 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> On 1/21/21 3:17 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> While looking at the two methods: NTT and simple-no-buffer, I realized
> >>> that in XLogFlush(), NTT patch
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:32:14AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> In the documentation, the "[ NO ]" option is listed in the synopsis for
> ALTER TRIGGER and ALTER FUNCTION, but not the others.
> Trivial patch attached.
There are two flavors to cover for 6 commands per gram.y, and you are
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 03:56:02PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> If the return from the first call is a subtransaction, the second call
> always obtain the top transaction. If the top transaction actualy did
> not exist, it's rather the correct behavior to cause SEGV, than
> creating a bogus
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 02:50:13PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> +1 for not back-patching whatever we do here.
+1.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:42:26PM +, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I wonder, why this patch hangs on commitfest for so long.
> The idea of the fix is clear, the code is correct and all tests pass, so, I
> move it to ReadyForCommitter status.
>
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 03:21:40PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The v3 drops the changes of the uuid_ossp contrib. I'm not sure the
> change of scram_HMAC_final is needed.
Meaning that v3 would fail to compile uuid-ossp. v3 also produces
compilation warnings in auth-scram.c.
> In v2,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:17 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> I also tested the fallback implementation from the simdjson library
> (included in the patch, if you uncomment it in simdjson-glue.c):
>
> mixed | ascii
> ---+---
> 447 |46
> (1 row)
>
> I think we should at least try
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/analyze.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/analyze.sgml
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> So maybe it'd better be __GNUC__ >= 6 not __GNUC__ >= 5. I think
>> we can wait a little bit for more reports before messing with that,
>> though.
> I've rechecked this in the documentation. no_sanitize attribute
I wrote:
> Looking around at other recent reports, it looks like we'll need to tweak
> the compiler version cutoffs a bit. I see for instance that spurfowl,
> with gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.11) 5.4.0 20160609, is whining:
> ...
> So maybe it'd better be __GNUC__ >= 6 not __GNUC__ >= 5. I
Just wanted to link to the discussion on this from HN for anyone intersted:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26114281
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I've updated buildfarm member longfin to use "-fsanitize=alignment
> -fsanitize-trap=alignment", and it just got through a run successfully
> with that. It'd be good perhaps if some other buildfarm owners
> followed suit (mumble JIT coverage
> (My reaction to your previous thread was that it was simply a question
> of blindly insisting on using BRIN indexes for a case that they're quite
> badly adapted to. The better answer is to not use BRIN.)
Apologies, perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the motivation for BRIN?
>From the
Noah Bergbauer writes:
> I am working on a project where I do not want Postgres to reuse free space
> in old pages (see
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABjy%2BRhbFu_Hs8ZEiOzaPaJSGB9jqFF0gDU5gtwCLiurG3NLjQ%40mail.gmail.com
> for details). I found that the HEAP_INSERT_SKIP_FSM flag
Hello,
As a very simple exploration of the possible gains from batching redo
records during replay, I tried to avoid acquiring and releasing
buffers pins and locks while replaying records that touch the same
page as the previous record. The attached experiment-grade patch
works by trying to give
Hello,
I am working on a project where I do not want Postgres to reuse free space
in old pages (see
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABjy%2BRhbFu_Hs8ZEiOzaPaJSGB9jqFF0gDU5gtwCLiurG3NLjQ%40mail.gmail.com
for details). I found that the HEAP_INSERT_SKIP_FSM flag accomplishes this.
For a
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 20:56, Mark Rofail wrote:
>Indeed you are right, to support the correct behaviour we have to use
>@>>(anycompatiblearray, anycompatiblenonarry) and >this throws a sanity error
>in opr_santiy since the left operand doesn't equal the gin opclass which is
Thanks for the patch, Mead.
For 'MAXVACUUMCOSTLIMIT", it would be nice to follow the current GUC
pattern to do define a constant.
For example, the constant "MAX_KILOBYTES" is defined in guc.h, with a
pattern like, "MAX_" to make it easy to read.
Best regards,
David
On 2021-02-08 6:48
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:13 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> I agree. I believe that Babelfish's efforts can be compared with the
> zedstore and zheap efforts: they require work in core before they can
> be integrated or added as an extension that could replace the normal
> heap tableam, and
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:04 AM Álvaro Hernández wrote:
> I'm sure if we embrace an open and honest conversation, we will be
> able to figure out what the integration costs are even before the source
> code gets published. As I said, this goes beyond the very technical
> detail of source
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 19:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:26 AM Álvaro Hernández wrote:
> > As I stated in the mentioned post, I believe Babelfish is a very
> > welcomed addition to the PostgreSQL ecosystem. It allows PostgreSQL to
> > reach other users, other use
On 12/2/21 19:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:26 AM Álvaro Hernández wrote:
>> As I stated in the mentioned post, I believe Babelfish is a very
>> welcomed addition to the PostgreSQL ecosystem. It allows PostgreSQL to
>> reach other users, other use cases, other
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:26 AM Álvaro Hernández wrote:
> As I stated in the mentioned post, I believe Babelfish is a very
> welcomed addition to the PostgreSQL ecosystem. It allows PostgreSQL to
> reach other users, other use cases, other markets; something which in my
> opinion PostgreSQL
I would like to share my thoughts in the list about the potential
PostgreSQL <-> Babelfish integration. There is already a thread about
protocol hooks [1], but I'd like to offer my PoV from a higher level
perspective and keep that thread for the technical aspects of the
protocol hooks. This
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > (gdb) p len
> > $1 = -4
> >
> > This VM had some issue early today and I killed the VM, causing PG to
> > execute
> > recovery. I'm tentatively blaming that on zfs, so this could conceivably
> > be a
> > data error (although
Isaac Morland writes:
> I was trying to use triggers, and ran into something I hadn't realized
> until now: triggers run, not as the owner of the table, but as the user who
> is doing the insert/update/delete.
If you don't want that, you can make the trigger function SECURITY
DEFINER. If we
On 2/12/21 5:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-02-12 00:42:04 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. I think it'd make sense to keep track of recent
FPIs and skip prefetching such blocks. But how exactly should we implement
that, how many blocks do we need to track? If
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 13:40, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:40 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On
On 2/12/21 2:48 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
ts=# \errverbose
ERROR: XX000: invalid memory alloc request size 18446744073709551613
#0 pg_re_throw () at elog.c:1716
#1 0x00a33b12 in errfinish (filename=0xbff20e "mcxt.c", lineno=959, funcname=0xbff2db
<__func__.6684> "palloc") at
I was trying to use triggers, and ran into something I hadn't realized
until now: triggers run, not as the owner of the table, but as the user who
is doing the insert/update/delete.
It seems to me that for a lot of the suggested uses of triggers this is not
the desired behaviour. For example, in
I've updated buildfarm member longfin to use "-fsanitize=alignment
-fsanitize-trap=alignment", and it just got through a run successfully
with that. It'd be good perhaps if some other buildfarm owners
followed suit (mumble JIT coverage mumble).
Looking around at other recent reports, it looks
On 17.01.2021 16:53, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 2020-12-31 04:28, David Fetter wrote:
This could probably use a lot of filling in, but having it in the
actual documentation beats needing to know folklore even to know
that the capability
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
I wonder, why this patch hangs on commitfest for so long.
The idea
> On 02/12/2021 1:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am seeing errors in replication in a test program that I've been running
> > for years with very little change (since 2017, really [1]).
Hi,
Here is a test program.
Em sex., 12 de fev. de 2021 às 03:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi <
horikyota@gmail.com> escreveu:
> At Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:54:46 -0300, Ranier Vilela
> wrote in
> > Hi,
> >
> > Per Coverity.
> >
> > The functions ExecGetInsertedCols and ExecGetUpdatedCols at ExecUtils.c
> > only are safe to call if
Em sex., 12 de fev. de 2021 às 03:56, Kyotaro Horiguchi <
horikyota@gmail.com> escreveu:
> At Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:12:38 -0300, Ranier Vilela
> wrote in
> > Hi,
> >
> > Per Coverity.
> >
> > If xid is a subtransaction, the setup of base snapshot on the top-level
> > transaction,
> > can be
Hi,
MakeSingleTupleTableSlot can be defined as a macro, calling
MakeTupleTableSlot().
Cheers
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder, is there a specific reason that MakeTupleTableSlot is
> wrapped up in
Hi, Thomas!
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:04 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Could we have both cfbot + buildfarm animals?
> For cfbot, yeah it does seem like a good idea to throw whatever code
> sanitiser stuff we can into the automated
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:08:34AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:00:06PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > On 1/17/21 10:41 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > >> On 12/30/20 12:59 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > >>> On Tue,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Jonah H. Harris
wrote:
> >> As Jan said in his last email, they're not proposing all the different
> >> aspects needed. In fact, nothing has actually been proposed yet. This
> >> is an
Hi,
I wonder, is there a specific reason that MakeTupleTableSlot is
wrapped up in MakeSingleTupleTableSlot without doing anything than
just returning the slot created by MakeTupleTableSlot? Do we really
need MakeSingleTupleTableSlot? Can't we just use MakeTupleTableSlot
directly? Am I missing
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:43 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:33 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > >
> > > * I think that the concerns raised by Tsunakawa-san in:
> > >
> > >
Hi Didier,
Have you ever had a look at the E-Maj extension.
Depending on the features you are really looking for, it may fit the needs.
Here are some pointers :
- github repo for the extension : https://github.com/dalibo/emaj
- github repo for the web client :
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am seeing errors in replication in a test program that I've been running
> for years with very little change (since 2017, really [1]).
>
> The symptom:
> HEAD-replication fails (most of the time) when cascading 3 instances
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:30 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> > If I disable parallel_leader_participation.
> >
> > For max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 4, It still have performance
> > degradation.
> >
> > For max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 2, the performance degradation will
> >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:40 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek
> > > wrote:
> > >> I have split it
Hello,
I am seeing errors in replication in a test program that I've been running for
years with very little change (since 2017, really [1]).
The symptom:
HEAD-replication fails (most of the time) when cascading 3 instances (master+2
replicas).
HEAD-replication works with 2 instances
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >> I have split it since it should be the start of progress reporting
> >> testing at all. If you better
Greg:
Thanks for more debugging.
Cheers
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:43 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:21 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
> > Greg:
> > bq. we should just return parsetree->hasModifyingCTE at this point,
> >
> > Maybe you can clarify a bit.
> > The if
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
>> I have split it since it should be the start of progress reporting
>> testing at all. If you better consider this as part of COPY testing,
>> feel free to move it to already
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:29 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 5:10 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> > Please find attached the new 2PC patch set v39*
> I started to review the patchset
> so, let me give some comments I have at this moment.
>
> (1)
>
> File :
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:10 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > to explain the exact case to you which is not very apparent. The basic
> > idea is that we ship/replay all transactions where commit happens
> > after the snapshot has a consistent state
At Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:31:15 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:31 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Attached is an updated version of the patch. Sorry for the delay.
>
> I noticed that I forgot to add new files. :-(. Please find attached
> an updated patch.
Thanks for
60 matches
Mail list logo
