On 2022/01/21 15:08, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Dear Fujii-san, Zhihong,
I attached the latest version.
Thanks for updating the patch!
+int
+TryDisableRemoteServerCheckingTimeout(void)
When more than one FDWs are used, even if one FDW calls this function to
disable the timeout, its
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 3:20 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 2:25 PM James Coleman wrote:
> > I've been chewing on this a bit, and I was about to go re-read the
> > code and see how easy it'd be to do exactly what you're suggesting in
> > generate_gather_paths() (and verifying i
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> We're starting to see more buildfarm animals producing this warning,
> so I took another look, and thought of a slightly less invasive way to
> silence it. I confirmed this works with clang 13.0.0 on Fedora 35.
LGTM. Tested on bleeding edge cla
Hi,
There's a bug in ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo, introduced by 8431e296ea,
which may cause failures when starting a replica, making it unusable.
The commit message for 8431e296ea is not very clear about what exactly
is being done and why, but the root cause is that at while processing
RUNNING
> The factor 10 should not be hardcoded in the planner, but should be
settable, just as cursor_tuple_fraction is.
I feel considerably out of my depth here, but I like the idea of a working
table size multiplier GUC, given the challenges of predicting the number of
iterations (and any adjustments t
I wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> Clang 13 on my machine and peripatus (but not Apple clang 13 on eg
>> sifika, I'm still confused about Apple's versioning but I think that's
>> really llvm 12-based) warns:
>> geqo_main.c:86:8: warning: variable 'edge_failures' set but not used
>> [-Wunused-but-s
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 08:55:26AM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> >
> > FYI, I've attached this thread to the CF item as an informational one,
> > but as there are some patches posted here, folks may get confused. For
> > th
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:31:38PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is another take on the patch with a couple of changes:
>
> * I've removed for now UniqueKeys parts. The interaction of skip scan &
> unique keys patch was actually not that big, so the main difference is
> that now
Greetings,
* Mark Dilger (mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2022, at 12:47 PM, Joshua Brindle
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I was able to reproduce that using REASSIGN OWNED BY to cause a user to
> >> own itself. Is that how you did it, or is there yet another way to get
> >> into tha
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > Since we now have the failsafe, the scheduling algorithm can afford to
> > not give too much special attention to table age until we're maybe
> > over the 1 billion age mark -- or even 1.5 billion+. But once the
> > scheduling stuff starts to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 01:02:41PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> My next steps:
>
> - Report a Debian bug for the sparc64+ext4 zeros problem.
(Not done yet.)
> - Try to falsify the idea that "write only the not-already-written portion of
> a WAL block" is an effective workaround. Specifically, m
"Euler Taveira" writes:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 3:45 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>> When reviewing some replica identity related patches, I found that when
>> adding
>> primary key using an existing unique index on not null columns, the
>> target table's relcache won't be invalidated.
>
In fa66b6dee, Micheal fixed test.sh to work back to v11, so I suppose nobody is
trying to run it with older versions, as I was endeavored to do.
With the attached patch, I'm able to test upgrades back to v9.6.
In 9.5, there are regression diffs from CONTEXT lines from non-error messages,
which is
Greetings,
* vrund shah (vrund3...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Thank you for your valuable guidance.
> I will surely look at the links and if have any queries then I will contact
> you.
On these mailing lists, we prefer that you reply 'in-line', as I'm doing
here, and not use 'top-posting' (as you did in
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 9:21 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:41 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Additionally, the description for pg_stat_subscription_workers should
>> describe what happens once the transaction represented by last_error_xid
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:41 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:41 PM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:30 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:00 PM David G. Johnston
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:55 AM
On 1/21/22 18:04, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-01-21 17:42:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> c.f. src/bin/pg_verifybackup/t/003_corruption.pl which says:
>>> my $source_ts_prefix = $source_ts_path;
>>> $source_ts_prefix =~ s!(^[A-Z]:/[^/]*)/.*!$1!;
>>>
On Saturday, January 22, 2022, James Coleman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:35 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:14 PM James Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Really? That's horrid, because that's directly useful advice.
> >>
> >> Remedied, but rewritten a bit
On 2022-Jan-22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> CREATE TABLE parent (a int primary key, b int not null, c varchar)
> PARTITION BY RANGE(a);
> CREATE TABLE child PARTITION OF parent FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (250);
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX b_index on child(b);
> ALTER TABLE child REPLICA IDENTITY using INDEX b_inde
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 05:28:05AM -0800, Kenaniah Cerny wrote:
> Thank you so much for the backtrace!
>
> This latest patch should address by moving the dumpRoleMembership call to
> before the pointer is closed.
Thanks! The cfbot turned green since:
https://cirrus-ci.com/github/postgresql-
Thank you so much for the backtrace!
This latest patch should address by moving the dumpRoleMembership call to
before the pointer is closed.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 1:11 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:01:21PM -0800, Kenaniah Cerny wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedbac
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:35 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:14 PM James Coleman wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Really? That's horrid, because that's directly useful advice.
>>
>> Remedied, but rewritten a bit to better fit with the new style/goal of
>> that tip).
>>
>> Version 3 i
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:45 PM Fabrice Chapuis
wrote:
>
> I keep your patch 0001 and I add these two calls in function
> WalSndUpdateProgress without modifying WalSndKeepaliveIfNecessary, it works
> too.
> What do your think of this patch?
>
I think this will also work. Here, the point was to
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:41 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:00 PM David G. Johnston
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:55 AM Amit Kapila
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Apart from this, I have changed a f
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:01:21PM -0800, Kenaniah Cerny wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I have attached an alternate version of the v5 patch that incorporates the
> suggested changes to the documentation and DRYs up some of the acl.c code
> for comparison. As for the databaseOid / Inva
25 matches
Mail list logo
