On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:53 AM tender wang wrote:
> Hi hackers,
> I encounter a problem, as shown below:
>
> query:
> select
> ref_0.ps_suppkey as c0,
> ref_1.c_acctbal as c1,
> ref_2.o_totalprice as c2,
> ref_2.o_orderpriority as c3,
> ref_2.o_clerk as c4
> from
> public.parts
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:51 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 4/2/23 10:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> restart_lsn = s->data.restart_lsn;
> >> -
> >> -/*
> >> - * If the slot is already invalid or is fresh enough, we
> >> don't need to
> >> -
Attached file included table schema information, but no data.
tender wang 于2023年4月4日周二 10:53写道：
> Hi hackers,
> I encounter a problem, as shown below:
>
> query:
> select
> ref_0.ps_suppkey as c0,
> ref_1.c_acctbal as c1,
> ref_2.o_totalprice as c2,
> ref_2.o_orderpriority as c3,
>
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 07:47, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
> The referenced patch was committed March 19th but there's been no
> comment here. Is this patch likely to go ahead this release or should
> I move it forward again?
Thanks for the reminder on this.
I have done some work on it but just
Dear Amit,
Thank you for responding!
>
> Yeah, it is good to have the Copyright to keep it consistent with
> other test files and otherwise as well.
>
> --- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/001_basic.pl
> +++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/t/001_basic.pl
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> +# Copyright (c) 2022-2023, PostgreSQL G
FYI, the WIP patch does not seem to apply cleanly anymore using the latest HEAD.
See the cfbot rebase logs [1].
--
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_42_4225.log
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 7:25 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> While reading codes, I noticed that pg_upgrade/t/001_basic.pl and
> pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl do not contain the copyright.
>
> I checked briefly and almost all files have that, so I thought they missed it.
> PSA the patch to f
I sent this one to the next commitfest and marked it as waiting-on-author
and targeted for v17. I'm aiming to have something that addresses the
latest feedback ready for the July commitfest.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 04:33:27PM -0400, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
> Is this still a WIP? Is it targeting this release? There are only a
> few days left before the feature freeze. I'm guessing it should just
> move to the next CF for the next release?
I moved it to the next commitfest and mar
> Maybe, but is there any field demand for that?
I don't think there is.
> We clearly do need to fix the
> reported rowcount for cases where ExecutorRun is invoked more than
> once per ExecutorEnd call; but I think that's sufficient.
Sure, the original proposed fix, but with tracking the es_tota
On Friday, March 31, 2023 6:31 AM Peter Smith wrote:
Hi,
>
> It seems that lately, the patch attachments are lacking version numbers. It
> causes unnecessary confusion. For example, I sometimes fetch patches from
> this thread locally to "diff" them with previous patches to get a rough
> overv
"Imseih (AWS), Sami" writes:
> I wonder if the right answer here is to track fetches as
> a separate counter in pg_stat_statements, in which fetch
> refers to the number of times a portal is executed?
Maybe, but is there any field demand for that?
IMV, the existing behavior is that we count one
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:26:09PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/3/23 21:17, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 10:26:01PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> Feel free to mess around with threads (but I'd much rather see the patch
> >>> progress for zstd:long).
> >>
> >> OK, underst
> Why should that be the definition? Partial execution of a portal
> might be something that is happening at the driver level, behind the
> user's back. You can't make rational calculations of, say, plan
> time versus execution time if that's how "calls" is measured.
Correct, and there are also dr
Hi hackers,
I encounter a problem, as shown below:
query:
select
ref_0.ps_suppkey as c0,
ref_1.c_acctbal as c1,
ref_2.o_totalprice as c2,
ref_2.o_orderpriority as c3,
ref_2.o_clerk as c4
from
public.partsupp as ref_0
left join public.nation as sample_0
inner join pu
"Imseih (AWS), Sami" writes:
>> Also, I'm doubtful that counting calls this way is a great idea,
>> which would mean you only need one new counter field not two. The
>> fact that you're having trouble defining what it means certainly
>> suggests that the implementation is out front of the design.
> * Yeah, it'd be nice to have an in-core test, but it's folly to insist
> on one that works via libpq and psql. That requires a whole new set
> of features that you're apparently designing on-the-fly with no other
> use cases in mind. I don't think that will accomplish much except to
> ensure that
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 12:05:29PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-04-02 at 20:21 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The most-plausible-to-me attack involves an ENABLE ALWAYS trigger
> > that logs
> > CURRENT_USER to an audit table.
>
> How does requiring that the subscription owner have SET ROL
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:17 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/3/23 8:10 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 4/3/23 7:35 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:26 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> Agreed, even Bertrand and myself discussed the same approach few
>
Hi,
Looks like fairywren is possibly seeing something I saw before and spent many
days looking into:
https://postgr.es/m/20220909235836.lz3igxtkcjb5w7zb%40awork3.anarazel.de
which led me to add the following to .cirrus.yml:
# Cirrus defaults to SetErrorMode(SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX | ...). That
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 02:49, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> v9 attached.
I've made a pass on the v9-0001 patch only. Here's what I noted down:
v9-0001:
1. In the documentation and comments, generally we always double-space
after a period. I see quite often you're not following this.
2. Doc: We co
David Rowley writes:
> I think there would be quite a bit of work to do before we could ever
> start to think about that. The planner does quite a bit of writing on
> the parse, e.g adding new RangeTblEntrys to the query's rtable. We'd
> either need to fix all those first or make a copy of the pa
Andres Freund writes:
> It sounds too hard compared to the gains, but another way could be to plan
> with the relevant path generation hard disabled, and plan from scratch, with
> additional scan types enabled, if we end up being unable to generate valid
> plan.
Actually, I kind of like that. It
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:18, Andres Freund wrote:
> It sounds too hard compared to the gains, but another way could be to plan
> with the relevant path generation hard disabled, and plan from scratch, with
> additional scan types enabled, if we end up being unable to generate valid
> plan.
I thin
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 14:04:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:13 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally, I'd get rid of disable_cost altogether if I could.
> >> I'm not in a hurry to extend its use to more places.
>
> > I agree. I've wondered if we should put
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
Did a code review pass here; here is some feedback.
+ /* If p
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:08 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Melanie Plageman writes:
> > > v13 attached with requested updates.
> >
> > I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
> > but better late than never. I'm okay with letti
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 5:12 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Upon Alexander reverting patches v15 from master, I've rebased what
> was correction patches v4 in a message above on a fresh master
> (together with patches v15). The resulting patch v16 is attached.
Pavel, thank you for you review, revisions
This looks like it was a good discussion -- last summer. But it
doesn't seem to be a patch under active development now.
It sounds like there were some design constraints that still need some
new ideas to solve and a new patch will be needed to address them.
Should this be marked Returned With Fe
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:11 AM Pavel Luzanov
wrote:
> In the previous version, I didn't notice (unlike cfbot) the compiler
> warning. Fixed in version 6.
>
>
I've marked this Ready for Committer.
My opinion is that this is a necessary modification due to the
already-committed changes to the me
> On 3 Apr 2023, at 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 29 Sep 2022, at 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I find this behavior a bit surprising:
>>>
>>> +SELECT
>>> array_dims(array_sample('[-1:2][2:3]={{1,2},{3,NULL},{5,6},{7,8}}'::int[],
>>> 3));
>>> + array_dims
>>> +---
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 05:25, Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> My plan was to get [1] done before resuming working on the "Split index and
> table statistics into different types of stats" one.
> [1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/42/4106/
Generate pg_stat_get_xact*() functions with Macros ([1]
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 29 Sep 2022, at 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find this behavior a bit surprising:
>>
>> +SELECT
>> array_dims(array_sample('[-1:2][2:3]={{1,2},{3,NULL},{5,6},{7,8}}'::int[],
>> 3));
>> + array_dims
>> +-
>> + [-1:1][2:3]
>> +(1 row)
>>
>> I can buy
Amit Langote writes:
> [ v38 patchset ]
I spent a little bit of time looking through this, and concluded that
it's not something I will be wanting to push into v16 at this stage.
The patch doesn't seem very close to being committable on its own
terms, and even if it was now is not a great time in
It looks like in November 2022 Tomas Vondra said:
> I did a quick initial review of the v20 patch series.
> I plan to do a
more thorough review over the next couple days, if time permits.
> In
general I think the patch is in pretty good shape.
Following which Antonin Houska updated the patch resp
> On 3 Apr 2023, at 16:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:15 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2023, at 15:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I continue to think it's odd that the sense of this is inverted as
>>> compared with row_security.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. Do you pr
On 4/3/23 21:17, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 10:26:01PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> Feel free to mess around with threads (but I'd much rather see the patch
>>> progress for zstd:long).
>>
>> OK, understood. The long mode patch is pretty simple. IIUC it does not
>> change t
> On 29 Sep 2022, at 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Martin Kalcher writes:
>> New patch: array_shuffle() and array_sample() use pg_global_prng_state now.
>
> I took a closer look at the patch today.
Since this seems pretty close to going in, and seems like quite useful
functions, I took a look to
Given that there's been no updates since September 22 I'm going to
make this patch Returned with Feedback. The patch can be resurrected
when there's more work done -- don't forget to move it to the new CF
when you do that.
--
Gregory Stark
As Commitfest Manager
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:48, Egor Rogov wrote:
>
> Done.
> There is one thing I'm not sure what to do about. This check:
>
> if (typentry->typtype != TYPTYPE_RANGE)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_DATATYPE_MISMATCH),
>errmsg("expected arr
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:40 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Doh, sorry, my bad. I read and wrote 1.0.1 but was thinking about 1.0.2. You
> are right, in 1.0.1 that API does not exist. I'm not all too concerned with
> skipping this tests on OpenSSL versions that by the time 16 ships are 6 years
>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:13 AM Pavel Luzanov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I found that the 'standalone backend' backend type is not documented
> right now.
> Adding something like (from commit message) would be helpful:
>
> Both the bootstrap backend and single user mode backends will have
> backend_typ
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 17:17, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:28:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > A quick grep for pg_usleep with large intervals finds rather more
> > than you touched:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Did you have reasons for excluding the rest of these?
>
> I'm still lo
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 00:30, Michał Kłeczek wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I just wanted to ask about the status and plans for this patch.
> I can see it being stuck at “Waiting for Author” status in several commit
> tests.
Sadly it seems to now be badly in need of a rebase. There are large
hunks failin
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 05:41, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> I think this patch requires an up-to-date summary and explanation. The
> thread is over a year old and the patch has evolved quite a bit. There
> are some test changes that are not explained. Please provide more
> detail so that the patc
Hi Alvaro,
03.04.2023 20:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So I pushed 0001 on Friday, and here are 0002 (which I intend to push
shortly, since it shouldn't be controversial) and the "JSON query
functions" patch as 0003. After looking at it some more, I think there
are some things that need to be addr
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 21:24, David Rowley wrote:
>
> I've moved this patch to the next CF. This patch has a dependency on
> what's being proposed in [1].
The referenced patch was committed March 19th but there's been no
comment here. Is this patch likely to go ahead this release or should
I mov
> On 3 Apr 2023, at 21:04, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 31 Mar 2023, at 19:59, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> I can make that change; note that it'll also skip some of the new tests
>>> with OpenSSL 1.0.1, where there's no SSL_CTX_set_cert_
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 17:34:52 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Apr-03, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * Report terminating or conflicting message.
> > + *
> > + * For both, logical conflict on standby and obsolete slot are handled.
> > + */
> > +static void
> > +ReportTerminationInva
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:09 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Right. Please find enclosed V2 also taking care of BTPageIsRecyclable()
> and _bt_pendingfsm_finalize().
Pushed that as too separate patches just now. Thanks.
BTW, I'm not overly happy about the extent of the changes to nbtree
from commi
On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 10:26:01PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Feel free to mess around with threads (but I'd much rather see the patch
> > progress for zstd:long).
>
> OK, understood. The long mode patch is pretty simple. IIUC it does not
> change the format, i.e. in the worst case we could le
On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 10:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Not very much. I think the biggest risk is user confusion, but I
> don't
> think that's a huge risk because I don't think this scenario will
> come
> up very often. Also, it's kind of hard to imagine that there's a
> security model here which
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Melanie Plageman writes:
> > v13 attached with requested updates.
>
> I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
> but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum
> processes reload config files more often th
>
> Yeah, it's somewhat hard to believe that the cost/benefit ratio would be
> attractive. But maybe you could mock up some examples of what the input
> could look like, and get people on board (or not) before writing any
> code.
>
>
tl;dr - I tried a few things, nothing that persuades myself let
On Sun, 2023-04-02 at 20:21 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> The most-plausible-to-me attack involves an ENABLE ALWAYS trigger
> that logs
> CURRENT_USER to an audit table.
How does requiring that the subscription owner have SET ROLE privileges
on the table owner help that case? As Robert pointed out, u
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 1:36 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 31 Mar 2023, at 19:59, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > I can make that change; note that it'll also skip some of the new tests
> > with OpenSSL 1.0.1, where there's no SSL_CTX_set_cert_cb. If that's
> > acceptable, it should be an easy swit
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 14:25:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/3/23 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023-03-28 19:17:21 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-28 18:21:02 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> Here's a draft patch.
> >>
> >> Attached is v2, with a stupid bug fixed and
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 2:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. In some places it would not be too hard; for example, if we
> generated seqscan paths last instead of first for baserels, the rule
> could be "generate it if enable_seqscan is on OR if we made no other
> path for the rel". It's much messier
Hi
po 3. 4. 2023 v 19:37 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > po 27. 3. 2023 v 5:36 odesílatel Kirk Wolak napsal:
> >> I have marked the item Ready for Commiter...
>
> > Thank you for doc and for review
>
> I'm kind of surprised there was any interest in this proposal at al
"Anton A. Melnikov" writes:
> Now there are no any pending questions, so moved it to RFC.
I did not think this case was worth memorializing in a test before,
and I still do not. I'm inclined to reject this patch.
regards, tom lane
Melanie Plageman writes:
> v13 attached with requested updates.
I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum
processes reload config files more often than now. However,
I object to allowing ProcessConfigFile to be
Hi,
On 4/3/23 8:10 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 4/3/23 7:35 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:26 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
Agreed, even Bertrand and myself discussed the same approach few
emails above. BTW, if we have this selective logic to wake
physical/logical walsenders a
Fujii Masao writes:
> Regarding 0001 patch, on second thought, to me, it seems odd to expose
> a function that doesn't have anything to directly do with PostgreSQL
> as a libpq function. The function simply calls poll() on the socket
> with POLLRDHUP if it is supported. While it is certainly conve
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:13 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally, I'd get rid of disable_cost altogether if I could.
>> I'm not in a hurry to extend its use to more places.
> I agree. I've wondered if we should put some work into that. It feels
> bad to waste CPU cycles generat
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I've managed to reproduce it using the following script:
> for ((i=1;i<=10;i++)); do
> echo "iteration $i"
> echo "
> CREATE ROLE sub_user;
> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION testsub CONNECTION 'dbname=db'
> PUBLICATION testpub WITH (connect = false);
On 2023/03/13 16:05, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
Thank you so much for your reviewing!
Now we can wait comments from senior members and committers.
Thanks for working on this patch!
Regarding 0001 patch, on second thought, to me, it seems odd to expose
a function that doesn't have anythi
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:13 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally, I'd get rid of disable_cost altogether if I could.
> I'm not in a hurry to extend its use to more places.
I agree. I've wondered if we should put some work into that. It feels
bad to waste CPU cycles generating paths we intend to basica
Pavel Stehule writes:
> po 27. 3. 2023 v 5:36 odesílatel Kirk Wolak napsal:
>> I have marked the item Ready for Commiter...
> Thank you for doc and for review
I'm kind of surprised there was any interest in this proposal at all,
TBH, but apparently there is some. Still, I think you over-engine
"Imseih (AWS), Sami" writes:
>> So... The idea here is to set a custom fetch size so as the number of
>> calls can be deterministic in the tests, still more than 1 for the
>> tests we'd have. And your point is that libpq enforces always 0 when
>> sending the EXECUTE message causing it to always
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 10:28 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patches. Here are comments for 0001, 0002,
> and 0003 patches:
Thanks for the review!
v13 attached with requested updates.
> 0001:
>
> @@ -391,7 +389,7 @@ heap_vacuum_rel(Relation rel, VacuumParams *params,
>
> participating clients to receive GUC configured format. I do not
> > think that libpq's result format being able to be overridden by GUC
>> > is a good idea at all, the library has to to participate, and I
>> > think can be made to so so without adjusting the interface (say, by
>> > resultForma
On 2023-Apr-03, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> +/*
> + * Report terminating or conflicting message.
> + *
> + * For both, logical conflict on standby and obsolete slot are handled.
> + */
> +static void
> +ReportTerminationInvalidation(bool terminating, bool islogical, int pid,
> +
Hi,
On 4/2/23 10:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Btw, most of the patches have some things that pgindent will change (and some
that my editor will highlight). It wouldn't hurt to run pgindent for the later
patches...
done.
Pushed the WAL format change.
Thanks!
On 2023-04-02 10:27:45
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:54 PM Kumar, Sachin wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Masahiko Sawada
> > > > I was thinking each TableSync process will call pg_dump --table,
> > > > This way if we have N tableSync process, we can have N pg_dump --
> > table=table_name called in para
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:09 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 at 13:24, Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > Your diff LGTM.
> >
> > Earlier upthread in [1], Bharath had mentioned in a review comment about
> > removing the global variables that he would have expected the analogous
> > globa
On 2023/04/01 22:34, Joseph Koshakow wrote:
The patch updated the guc table for is_superuser in
src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
Yes, this patch moves the descriptions of is_superuser to config.sgml
and changes its group to PRESET_OPTIONS.
However, when I look at the code on master I do
On 4/3/23 15:19, Dag Lem wrote:
> Dag Lem writes:
>
>> I sincerely hope this resolves any blocking issues with copyright /
>> legalese / credits.
>>
>
> Can this now be considered ready for commiter, so that Paul or someone
> else can flip the bit?
>
Hi, I think from the technical point of vie
Thank you for this email. It's very helpful to get your opinion on this.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 11:21 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:00:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > The dangerous cases seem to be something along the lines of a security-
> > > invoker trigger function th
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:46 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> I guess the "more convenient" is where I'm confused, because the "grant
> subscription_owner to table owner with set role true" is not likely to
> be conveniently already present; it would need to be issued manually to
> take advantage of this sp
Onur Tirtir writes:
> Thank you for sharing your proposal as a patch. It looks much nicer and
> useful than mine.
> I've also tested it for a few cases --by injecting a memory error on
> purpose-- and seen that it helps reporting the problematic query.
> Should we move forward with v3 then?
OK,
Upon Alexander reverting patches v15 from master, I've rebased what
was correction patches v4 in a message above on a fresh master
(together with patches v15). The resulting patch v16 is attached.
Pavel.
v16-0002-Add-EvalPlanQual-delete-returning-isolation-test.patch
Description: Binary data
v
Hi Joseph,
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:02 AM Joseph Koshakow wrote:
>
> I've attached a patch with all of the errcontext calls removed. None of
> the existing out of range errors have an errdetail call so I think this
> is more consistent. If we do want to add errdetail, then we should
> probably
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:15 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 3 Apr 2023, at 15:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:46 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> All comments above addressed in the attached v5, thanks for review!
> >
> > I continue to think it's odd that the sense of this
Hi Joseph,
thanks for addressing comments.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 10:53 PM Joseph Koshakow wrote:
> So I added a check for FLOAT8_FITS_IN_INT64() and a test with this
> scenario.
I like that. Thanks.
>
> For what it's worth I think that 2147483647 months only became a valid
> interval in v15 as
Hi, Alexander!
On 2023-04-02 03:37:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 8:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Given that the in-tree state has been broken for a week, I think it probably
> > is time to revert the commits that already went in.
>
> The revised patch is attached.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 3:47 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-02 03:37:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 8:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Given that the in-tree state has been broken for a week, I think it
> > > probably
> > > is time to revert the commits that
Dear hackers,
While reading codes, I noticed that pg_upgrade/t/001_basic.pl and
pg_upgrade/t/002_pg_upgrade.pl do not contain the copyright.
I checked briefly and almost all files have that, so I thought they missed it.
PSA the patch to fix them.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
ad
Hi,
Sorry about the list. Since it was a question about the specifications I
thought I had to ask it first in the general list. I will reply in the hackers
list only for new features.
Replicating from orcl to postgres was difficult. You mentionned renaming of
columns, the ordinal position of a
Thomas Munro writes:
> I think this experiment worked out pretty well. I think it's a nice
> side-effect that you can see what memory the regexp subsystem is
> using, and that's likely to lead to more improvements. (Why is it
> limited to caching 32 entries? Why is it a linear search, not a has
Dag Lem writes:
> I sincerely hope this resolves any blocking issues with copyright /
> legalese / credits.
>
Can this now be considered ready for commiter, so that Paul or someone
else can flip the bit?
Best regards
Dag Lem
> On 3 Apr 2023, at 15:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:46 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> All comments above addressed in the attached v5, thanks for review!
>
> I continue to think it's odd that the sense of this is inverted as
> compared with row_security.
I'm not sure I f
Hi,
> > Outside the scope of special TimescaleDB tables and the speculated
> > pg_partman old-style table migration, will this proposed new feature
> > have any other application? In other words, do you know if this
> > proposal will be of any benefit to the *normal* users who just have
> > native
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:46 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> All comments above addressed in the attached v5, thanks for review!
I continue to think it's odd that the sense of this is inverted as
compared with row_security.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> On 2 Apr 2023, at 21:48, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> + gettext_noop("Disable event triggers for the duration
> of the session."),
>
> Why does is it say "for the duration of the session" ?
>
> It's possible to disable ignoring, and within the same session.
> GUCs are typical
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Has this problem been fixed? I was under the impression that it had
> been, but I spent some 20 minutes now looking for code, commits, or
> patches in the archives, and I can't find anything relevant. Maybe it
> was fixed in some different way that's not so obviously con
Hi John,
Many thanks for all the great feedback!
> Okay, the changes look good. To go further, I think we need to combine into
> two patches, one with 0001-0003 and one with 0004:
>
> 1. Correct false statements about "shutdown" etc. This should contain changes
> that can safely be patched all
On 4/3/23 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-03-28 19:17:21 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-03-28 18:21:02 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Here's a draft patch.
>>
>> Attached is v2, with a stupid bug fixed and a bit of comment / pgindent
>> polish.
>
> I'd welcome some review (
Quan Zongliang writes:
> I found that the enable_hashjoin disables HashJoin completely.
Well, yeah. It's what you asked for.
> Instead, it should add a disable cost to the cost calculation of
> hashjoin.
Why? The disable-cost stuff is a crude hack that we use when
turning off a particular pl
I've now pushed up v8-0004. Can rebase the remaining 2 patches on top
of master again and resend?
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 08:11, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I still have a few open questions:
> - what the initial value of ring_size for autovacuum should be (see the
> one remaining TODO in the code
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I don't think run_as_owner is terrible, despite the ambiguity. It's
> talking about the owner of the object on which the property is being
> set.
>
I find this justification quite reasonable to keep the option name as
run_as_owner. So, +1 to
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
