On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 3:14 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch that was used for the same. The patch is written
> on top of the parallel copy patch.
> The design Amit, Andres & myself voted for that is the leader
> identifying the line bound design and sharing it in shared memory is
>
At Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:26:43 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote
in
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:04 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > And I made a quick hack on do_pg_start_backup. And I found that
> > pg_basebackup copies in-place tablespaces under the *current
> > directory*, which is not ok at all:(
>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:15 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I haven't yet gone through the patch, but I have a question about the
> > > idea. Suppose I want to set up a logical replication like,
> > > node1->node2->node3->node1. So how would I create the subscriber at
> > > node1? only_local=on
Le 06/03/2022 à 16:04, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:39:37AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
>> Attached a new patch version that adds the -N | --exclude-schema option
>> to the vacuumdb command as suggested. Documentation updated too.
>>
>> +pg_log_error("cannot
Dear Vignesh,
> I felt changing only_local option might be useful for the user while
> modifying the subscription like setting it with a different set of
> publications. Changes for this are included in the v2 patch attached
> at [1].
+1, thanks. I'll post if I notice something to say.
> Shall
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 11:45 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:20 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:26 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vignesh, I also have not looked at the patch yet, but I have what
> > > seems like a very fundamental (and possibly
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:10:35AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I don't see why patch 5 shouldn't be applied forthwith.
Only applying 0005 would result in a failure in the TAP test for a
problem whose fix is attempted in 0006. This is an issue unrelated to
this thread.
FWIW, I am a bit
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 5:12 PM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> > > So, why does the patch use syntax option 1?
>
> IMU it might be useful for the following case.
>
> Assuming that multi-master configuration with node1, node2.
> Node1 has a publication pub1 and a subscription
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:20 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:26 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh, I also have not looked at the patch yet, but I have what
> > seems like a very fundamental (and possibly dumb) question...
> >
> > Basically, I do not understand the choice
Dear Peter,
> > So, why does the patch use syntax option 1?
IMU it might be useful for the following case.
Assuming that multi-master configuration with node1, node2.
Node1 has a publication pub1 and a subscription sub2, node2 has pub2 and sub1.
From that situation, please consider that new
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 06:35:45AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> this patch should be rejected. There is no consensus.
Thanks for the confirmation, I will take care of it!
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 4:12 PM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> > In logical replication, currently Walsender sends the data that is
> > generated locally and the data that are replicated from other
> > instances. This results in infinite recursion in circular logical
> >
Hi
po 7. 3. 2022 v 3:31 odesílatel Julien Rouhaud napsal:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:27:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 07:31:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > I got a short look at what was proposed in the patch a couple of
> > > months ago, and still
On Monday, March 7, 2022 12:01 PM Shi, Yu/侍 雨 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 5:39 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached an updated patch v26.
> >
>
> Thanks for your patch. A comment on the document.
Hi, thank you for checking my patch !
> @@ -7771,6 +7771,16 @@
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:26 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh, I also have not looked at the patch yet, but I have what
> seems like a very fundamental (and possibly dumb) question...
>
> Basically, I do not understand the choice of syntax for setting things up.
>
> IMO that "only-local"
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:59:03AM +0300, Ekaterina Sokolova wrote:
>
> I apply the new version of patch.
>
> I wanted to measure overheads, but could't choose correct way. Thanks for
> idea with auto_explain.
> I loaded it and made 10 requests of pgbench (number of clients: 1, of
> threads:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:56 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh, I also have not looked at the patch yet, but I have what
> seems like a very fundamental (and possibly dumb) question...
>
> Basically, I do not understand the choice of syntax for setting things up.
>
> IMO that "only-local"
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:31:40AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I was actually waiting a bit to make sure that Pavel could read the thread,
> since it was the weekend and right now it's 3:30 AM in Czech Republic...
Sorry about that. I have reset the state of the patch.
--
Michael
Hi Vignesh, I also have not looked at the patch yet, but I have what
seems like a very fundamental (and possibly dumb) question...
Basically, I do not understand the choice of syntax for setting things up.
IMO that "only-local" option sounds very similar to the other
PUBLICATION ("publish")
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 9:26 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:59 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > > Here there are two problems for the user: a) incremental
> > > synchronization of table sending both local data and replicated
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comment. +1.
>
> I've attached updated patches.
>
Pushed the first patch. Fixed one typo in the second patch and
slightly changed the commit message, otherwise, it looks good to me.
I'll push this tomorrow unless there
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 9:26 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:59 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > Here there are two problems for the user: a) incremental
> > synchronization of table sending both local data and replicated data
> > by walsender b) Table synchronization of table using
On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:19 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> The choice of names in my example wasn't accidental. If the granted
> role is a login role, then the superuser's intention was to vest the
> privileges of that role in some other role, and it is surely not right
> for that role to be able to
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:59 AM vignesh C wrote:
> Here there are two problems for the user: a) incremental
> synchronization of table sending both local data and replicated data
> by walsender b) Table synchronization of table using copy command
> sending both local data and replicated data
>
>
FYI, the v2 patch did not apply to HEAD
[postgres@CentOS7-x64 oss_postgres_misc]$ git apply
../patches_misc/v2-0001-Skip-replication-of-non-local-data.patch
--verbose
...
error: patch failed: src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c:231
error: src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c: patch does not apply
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 07:10:49PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 6:23 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 12:37:00PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is one example (same query, q, is concerned).
> > > At t1, q is performed, leaving one row in
On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 6:23 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 12:37:00PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > The current design of pg_stat_statements doesn't have the concept of
> > observation.
> >
> > By observation I mean scenarios where pg_stat_statements is read by
> people
> >
On Friday, March 4, 2022 3:55 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> Here are some comments on v26 patch:
Thank you for your review !
> +/*
> + * Disable the current subscription.
> + */
> +static void
> +DisableSubscriptionOnError(void)
>
> This function now just
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 5:39 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Attached an updated patch v26.
>
Thanks for your patch. A comment on the document.
@@ -7771,6 +7771,16 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$iteration
count:
+ subdisableonerr bool
+
+
+ If true, the
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 12:50 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 3/3/22 21:07, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless Tomas or Euler feels otherwise.
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
>
> +1
>
Thanks, Pushed
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:27:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 07:31:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I got a short look at what was proposed in the patch a couple of
> > months ago, and still found the implementation confusing with the way
> > aliases are
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:43:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This is actually setting up a function in the context of a single call
> where we fill the tuplestore with all its values, so instead I have
> settled down to name that SetSingleFuncCall(), to make a parallel with
> the existing
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:36:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 09:31:33AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > PSA patch to fix a comment typo.
> >
> > (The 'OR' should not be uppercase - that keyword is irrelevant here).
>
> I was looking at the whole routine, and your
On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 07:31:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I got a short look at what was proposed in the patch a couple of
> months ago, and still found the implementation confusing with the way
> aliases are handled, particularly when it came to several layers of
> pl/pgsql. I am fine
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 12:37:00PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> The current design of pg_stat_statements doesn't have the concept of
> observation.
>
> By observation I mean scenarios where pg_stat_statements is read by people
> doing performance tuning.
>
> Here is one example (same query, q, is
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > > I've polished & pushed the first part adding sequence decoding
> >
Hi,
On 2022-03-06 17:30:15 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> 0003, the removal of code level support for Python 2, is now a good bit bigger
> bigger, due to the removal of the last remnants of the Py2/3 porting layer.
Oh, huh. Something here seems to be broken, causing a crash on windows, but
not
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 09:31:33AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> PSA patch to fix a comment typo.
>
> (The 'OR' should not be uppercase - that keyword is irrelevant here).
I was looking at the whole routine, and your suggestion looks like an
improvement to me. Will apply if there are no
Hi,
On 2022-03-07 01:12:07 +0200, Victor Yegorov wrote:
> пн, 7 мар. 2022 г. в 00:34, Andres Freund :
>
> > One thing that's likely worth doing as part of the cross version upgrade
> > test,
> > even if it wouldn't even help in this case, is to run amcheck post
> > upgrade. Just dumping data
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:32 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022, at 2:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> The LSN of the transaction that contains the change violating the
> constraint and the replication origin name can be found from the
> server log (LSN 0/14C0378 and replication origin
>
Mark Dilger writes:
> On Mar 6, 2022, at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think this is materially different from what we do with
>> permissions on (say) functions. If you want to revoke the public
>> SET privilege on some USERSET variable, you instantiate the default
>> and then revoke.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:55 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:38 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 12:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > After more thoughts, should we do both AbortOutOfAnyTransaction() and
> > > error
> > >
пн, 7 мар. 2022 г. в 00:34, Andres Freund :
> One thing that's likely worth doing as part of the cross version upgrade
> test,
> even if it wouldn't even help in this case, is to run amcheck post
> upgrade. Just dumping data isn't going to touch indices at all.
>
> A sequence of
> pg_upgrade;
> On Mar 6, 2022, at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I don't think this is materially different from what we do with
> permissions on (say) functions. If you want to revoke the public
> SET privilege on some USERSET variable, you instantiate the default
> and then revoke. You end up with an
Mark Dilger writes:
>> On Mar 6, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Or, if that's our position, why are there
>> per-GUC changes at all, rather than just redefining what the
>> context values mean? (That is, why not redefine USERSET and
>> SUSET as simply indicating the default ACL to be
> On Mar 6, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 1. If we need to change these two contrib modules, doesn't that imply
> a lot of changes forced on external modules as well? What are the
> security implications if somebody doesn't make such a change?
>
> 2. It looks to me like if someone
Hi,
On 2022-03-06 07:46:04 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This is an area not currently touched by the buildfarm's cross version
> upgrade testing, which basically compares a pre-upgrade and post-upgrade
> dump of the databases. The upgraded cluster does contain
> contrib_regression_ltree.
>
>
PSA patch to fix a comment typo.
(The 'OR' should not be uppercase - that keyword is irrelevant here).
--
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
v1-0001-Fix-comment-typo-CheckCmdReplicaIdentity.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 8:17 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 06:10:44PM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
> > Looking at pg_stat_statements, there doesn't seem to be timestamp column
> > for when the underlying query is performed.
> > Since the same query can be run multiple times,
On 3/3/22 21:07, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless Tomas or Euler feels otherwise.
> Sounds good to me.
>
+1
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 9:53 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > ... Suppose the superuser grants "admin" to both "joe" and "sally".
> > Now "joe" can SET ROLE to "admin" and revoke it from "sally", and the
> > superuser has no tool to prevent this.
>
> Really?
>
> regression=# grant
On 3/6/22 08:09, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for this terrible oversight by me.
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:13 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita
Robert Haas writes:
> ... Suppose the superuser grants "admin" to both "joe" and "sally".
> Now "joe" can SET ROLE to "admin" and revoke it from "sally", and the
> superuser has no tool to prevent this.
Really?
regression=# grant admin to joe;
GRANT ROLE
regression=# grant admin to sally;
GRANT
On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 10:19 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:20 PM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > I think I disagree. Or, at least, the superuser has full control of
> > dictating how role membership is modified and that seems sufficient.
>
> The point is that the superuser
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed, this is not something to move on quickly. We might want
>> to think about adjusting pg_dump to use explicit GRANTED BY
>> options in GRANT/REVOKE a release or two before making incompatible
>> changes.
> Uggh. I
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 05:30:03PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I tried to use it, but saw that no caching was happening, and debugged
> it. Which yielded that it can't be used due to the way output files are
> specified (and due to multiple files, but that can be prevented with an
> msbuild
Hi All,
Sorry for the delay in the new patch, I've attached my most recent
patch to this email. I ended up reworking a good portion of my previous
patch so below I've included some reasons why, notes on my current
approach, and some pro/cons to the approach.
* The main reason for the rework had
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> If we are not tracking the grantors of role authorizations,
> then we are doing it wrong and we ought to fix that.
Hmm, so maybe that's the place to start. We are tracking it in the
sense that we record an OID in the catalog, but nothing that
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:20 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> I think I disagree. Or, at least, the superuser has full control of
> dictating how role membership is modified and that seems sufficient.
The point is that the superuser DOES NOT have full control. The
superuser cannot prevent
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:39:37AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Attached a new patch version that adds the -N | --exclude-schema option
> to the vacuumdb command as suggested. Documentation updated too.
>
> + pg_log_error("cannot vacuum all tables in schema(s) and and
> exclude
On 3/4/22 15:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>>> So, we probably have corrupted indexes that were updated since such
>>> "incomplete" upgrade of ltree.
>> IIRC pg_upgrade is not expected to upgrade extensions - it keeps the
>> installed
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 8:07 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> > Another rebase due to conflicts in 0003. Attaching v6 for review.
>
> I recently touched the topic of multi_insert, and I remembered this
> patch. I had to dig a bit to find it, but as it's still open I've
> added some comments:
Le 04/03/2022 à 11:56, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:11:28AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
>> The attached patch implements that. Option -n | --schema can be used
>> multiple time and can not be used together with options -a or -t.
> Yes, thanks.
>
> I suggest there should
63 matches
Mail list logo
