>But anyways this looks like just a syntactic sugar. LATERAL
>JOINS should logically work just fine. Any optimisation should
>deal with the LATERAL syntax style anyway.
Agreed.
However, if a rewrite is implemented, it then becomes encoded into
PostgreSQL code what ASOF maps to. Anyone
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:11:16PM +0300, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> There was some interest in implementing ASOF joins in Postgres, see
> e.g. this prototype patch by Konstantin Knizhnik:
>
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:45:06PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 11:04 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > > Rebased patches attached. I will change status back to "Ready for
> > > Committer"
> >
> > The CI showed a crash on freebsd, which I reproduced.
> >
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:29:51AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > On 11/17/21, 11:39 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> > wrote:
> >> Please review the attached v2.
> >
> > LGTM. I've marked this one as ready-for-committer.
>
> One issue
Hi Tom, Justin, and Andrey,
Thanks everybody for your feedback so far! I agree, there are a few
unknowns for the design and impact and there are many details to iron out.
*Benchmarking* - Overall I think it's best to explore improvements with
benchmarking. The key goal of this proposal pertains
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 05:54:30PM +, Hans Buschmann wrote:
> My skills with git are minmal yet and I am working on a correct
> development platform, so sorry for any inconveniances from my side.
No need to worry here. We all learn all the time. I have been able
to apply your patch with a
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:29:51AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 11/17/21, 11:39 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
>> Please review the attached v2.
>
> LGTM. I've marked this one as ready-for-committer.
One issue that I have with this patch is that there are zero
regression tests. Could
On 11/20/21, 1:58 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" writes:
>> I did find some missing control-C handling in
>> pg_receivewal/pg_recvlogical, though. Attached is a patch for those.
>
> Meh ... I'm inclined to fix those programs by just moving their pqsignal
> calls down to after their
On 11/20/21 11:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Yeah, so I think at this stage we're just waiting for you to update
>> prairiedog and we can make this change.
> Oh! I was intentionally waiting to do that, with the idea of verifying
> that the version-detection test works ;-).
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 11/19/21, 9:17 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> Hmm, initdb's prompt-for-superuser-password might need it.
> I'm able to cancel the superuser password prompt in initdb already.
> It looks like the signal handlers aren't set up until after
> get_su_pwd().
Right; I misread
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:11:03AM +1100, Todd Hubers wrote:
>> - Google Document with Commenting turned on
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u6mVKEHfKtR80UrMLNYrp5D6cCSW1_arcTaZ9HcAKlw/edit?usp=sharing.
> You proposed a PQ protocol version of SET ROLE/SET SESSION
On 17/11/2021 00:04, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2021-11-16 16:30:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm still not entirely clear on whether you prefer v1-0002, v2-0002,
or something else.
I think it basically doesn't matter much. It's such a small piece of the cost
compared to either the cost of a
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:11:03AM +1100, Todd Hubers wrote:
> I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a
> proposal. I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a
> Problem and Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront
> exploration of the
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for looking into it.
My skills with git are minmal yet and I am working on a correct development
platform, so sorry for any inconveniances from my side .
When upgraded Microsoft jumped directly from Preview 7 to Preview 7.1 of VS2022
by skipping the release version of
Hi Todd!
> I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a proposal.
> I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a Problem and
> Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront exploration of the
> code.
>
> See:
>
> * Google Document with
Andres Freund writes:
> On November 19, 2021 12:31:00 PM PST, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might be feasible to drop the visibility map for toast tables, though.
> I think it be a bad idea - the VM is used by vacuum to avoid rereading
> already vacuumed ranges. Loosing that for large toast tables
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Yeah, so I think at this stage we're just waiting for you to update
> prairiedog and we can make this change.
Oh! I was intentionally waiting to do that, with the idea of verifying
that the version-detection test works ;-). I'm prepared to do it as
soon as you push an
Hi,
I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a
proposal. I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a
Problem and Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront
exploration of the code.
See:
- Google Document with Commenting turned on
On 11/20/21 10:03, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger was created precisely because it's
> not always easy to create application code in such a way that it
> generates no redundant updates. However, there is a cost to using it,
> and the break even
>
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger was created precisely because it's
> not always easy to create application code in such a way that it
> generates no redundant updates. However, there is a cost to using it,
> and the break even point can be surprisingly high. It should therefore
> be used
On 11/19/21 12:57, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> I get the idea of letting the server centralize logic like this -
> but frankly if the application is choosing to send all that data
> across the wire just to have the server throw it away the
> application is wasting network I/O. If
Hi,
It seems like the same macro names for
SnapBuildOnDiskNotChecksummedSize and SnapBuildOnDiskChecksummedSize
are being used in slot.c and snapbuild.c. I think, in slot.c, we can
rename them to ReplicationSlotOnDiskNotChecksummedSize and
ReplicationSlotOnDiskChecksummedSize
similar to the other
On 11/15/21 12:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So, discounting prairiedog's intentionally trailing-edge installation,
> the oldest stuff in the buildfarm is 0.98, of which there are five
> instances belonging to four different owners.
>
> Based on this, I'm inclined to think we should select 0.98 as the
On 11/18/21 15:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> If we change the name, and I support the idea that we do, I think a
>> good name would be "wal replay". I think "recovery" is not great
>> precisely because in a standby there is likely no crash that we're
>> recovering from.
>
On 11/19/21 19:17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 11/19/21, 7:56 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> That leads me to wonder about server-side solutions. It's easy
>> enough for the server to see that it's used a password with an
>> expiration N days away, but how could that be reported to the
>> client?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:58 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > The problematic case is attaching the partition *after* the subscriber
> > has already marked the root parent as synced and/or ready for
> > replication. Refreshing the
26 matches
Mail list logo
