I played around with incremental backup yesterday and tried $subject
The WAL summarizer is running on the standby server, but when I try
to take an incremental backup, I get an error that I understand to mean
that WAL summarizing hasn't caught up yet.
I am not sure if that is working as
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:05 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Ok, I pushed commits to backport BackgroundPsql down to v12. I used
> "option 2", i.e. I changed background_psql() to return the new
> BackgroundPsql object.
>
>
Don't we need to add install and uninstall rules for the new module,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:58:54PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> attached v2 patch stack.
Rebased. This applies on top of three patches from
https://postgr.es/m/20240629024251.03.nmi...@google.com. I'm attaching those
to placate cfbot, but this thread is for review of the last patch only.
Author:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 01:17:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > Pushed. Buildfarm member prion is failing the new inplace-inval.spec,
> > almost
> > surely because prion uses -DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE and inplace-inval.spec is
> > testing an extant failure to inval a cache
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 1:10 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> I need to sign in to github to add my review comments. So those who do not
> have a github account can not use it for review. But I don't think that can
> be fixed. We need a way to know who left review comments.
I don't think Jelte was
Thanks for the feedback!
> On Jun 28, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Sami Imseih writes:
>> Reattaching the patch.
>
> I feel like this is fundamentally a wrong solution, for the reasons
> cited in the comment for pg_usleep: long sleeps are a bad idea
> because of the resulting
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Therefore, rather than "improving" pg_usleep (and uglifying its API),
> the right answer is to fix parallel vacuum leaders to not depend on
> pg_usleep in the first place. A better idea might be to use
> pg_sleep() or equivalent code.
In case
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:04 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> I've implemented these review points in the attached v4.
I realized the docs had a compilation error. Attached v5 fixes that as
well as three bugs I found while using this patch set more intensely
today.
I see Michael has been working
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 2:53 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:03 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > I've rebased the attached v10 over top of the changes to
> > lazy_scan_heap() Heikki just committed and over the v6 streaming read
> > patch set. I started testing them and see
Sami Imseih writes:
> Reattaching the patch.
I feel like this is fundamentally a wrong solution, for the reasons
cited in the comment for pg_usleep: long sleeps are a bad idea
because of the resulting uncertainty about whether we'll respond to
interrupts and such promptly. An example here is
> We want patches to be in the pgsql-hackers archives, not temporarily
> accessible via some link.
>
> …Robert
>
Moving to another email going forward.
Reattaching the patch.
0001-Handle-Sleep-interrupts.patch
Description: Binary data
Regards,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services
A documentation comment came in [1] causing me to review some of our backup
documentation and I left the current content and location of the standalone
backups was odd. I propose to move it to a better place, under file system
backups.
Adding to commitfest.
David J.
[1]
> I think you need to find a way to disable this "Attachment protected
> by Amazon" thing:
Yes, I am looking into that. I only noticed after sending the email.
Sorry about that.
Sami
Hi,
I think you need to find a way to disable this "Attachment protected
by Amazon" thing:
http://postgr.es/m/01000190606e3d2a-116ead16-84d2-4449-8d18-5053da66b1f4-000...@email.amazonses.com
We want patches to be in the pgsql-hackers archives, not temporarily
accessible via some link.
> 46ebdfe164 will interrupt the leaders sleep every time a parallel workers
> reports
> progress, and we currently don't handle interrupts by restarting the sleep
> with
> the remaining time. nanosleep does provide the ability to restart with the
> remaining
> time [1], but I don't think it's
Attachment protected by Amazon:
[0001-Handle-Sleep-interrupts.patch]
https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/fcdc82ce-7887-4aa1-af9e-c1161a6b1d6f/bc81fa24-41de-48f9-a767-a6d15801754b
Amazon has replaced attachment with download link. Downloads will be available
until July 28, 2024, 19:59
On 28.06.24 11:56, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 09:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Getting that right in Markdown can be quite tricky.
I agree that in some cases it's tricky. But what's the worst case that
can happen when you get it wrong? It renders weird on github.com.
I
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:06 PM wrote:
> OK. I would like to understand more about your proposed patch. I
> have also registered as a reviewer in the commitfests entry.
Great!
> Although I haven't looked on your patch yet, if it's difficult to know
> how it can optimize during the planning
On 6/18/24 08:47, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:36 PM Richard Guo wrote:
Here is another rebase over master so it applies again. I also added a
commit message to help review. Nothing else has changed.
AFAIU currently we do not add Memoize nodes on top of join relation
paths.
Hello hackers,
15.08.2019 10:17, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
So that leads to the thought that "the infinite_recurse test is fine
if it runs by itself, but it tends to fall over if there are
concurrently-running backends". I have absolutely no idea how
Hi Alexander,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> 28.06.2024 09:15, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the report. Yeah, those comments that got added in
> > 7081ac46ace are obsolete.
> >
>
> Thanks for paying attention to that!
>
>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:06 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
> I recently got write access to the cfbot repo[1] and machine from
> Thomas. And I deployed a few improvements this week. The most
> significant one is that it is now much easier to use GitHub as part of
> your patch review workflow.
>
>
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 03:15:22PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:55 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM
> I've been thinking about this some more. I think the most value here
> would be to just improve the plain-text formatting, so that there are
> consistent list styles, header styles, indentation, some of the
> ambiguities cleared up -- much of which your 0001 patch does. You
> might as well be
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> > The usage help mentions exit code 2 specifically while describing --check
> > option but it doesn't mention exit code 1. Neither does the README. So I
> > don't think we need to document exit code 3 anywhere. Please
Sorry for delay, but here's next version of the patchset for review.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:09:58PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't understand the dependency with the
> > buildfarm module. Will the
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:56 PM Paul Jungwirth
wrote:
> I did add a relperiods column, but I have a mostly-complete branch here (not
> included in the
> patches) that does without. Not maintaining that new column is simpler for
> sure. The consequence is
> that the relcache must scan for
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 9:44 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> # Benchmark results
>
> * Test-1: parallel heap scan on the table without indexes
>
> I created 20GB table, made garbage on the table, and run vacuum while
> changing parallel degree:
>
> create unlogged table test (a int) with
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 10:59, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 00:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Typically, no, it won't be. But there's really no telling for sure.
> > The access patterns for a composite index on '(a, b)' with a qual
> > "WHERE b = 5" are identical to a qual
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 3:14 PM jian he wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 7:48 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attempted that in the attached 0001, which removes
> > > JsonExpr.coercion_expr and a bunch of code around it.
> > >
> > > 0002 is now the original patch minus the changes to
Hi Tomas and All,
Attached file is a new patch including:
6) Add stats option to explain command
7) The patch really needs some docs (partly)
>4) Add new node (resolve errors in cfbot and prepared statement)
I tried adding a new node in pathnode.h, but it doesn't work well.
So, it
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:47 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > It seems disabling subscriptions on the primary can make the primary
> > stop functioning for some duration of time. I feel we need some
> > solution where after converting to subscriber, we disable and drop
> > pre-existing
On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 at 22:30, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Unfortunately, the buildfarm log doesn't contain regress_log_002_limits,
> but I managed to reproduce the failure on that my device, when it's storage
> as slow as:
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=./test count=1024 oflag=dsync bs=128k
> 1024+0
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 09:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Getting that right in Markdown can be quite tricky.
I agree that in some cases it's tricky. But what's the worst case that
can happen when you get it wrong? It renders weird on github.com.
Luckily there's a "code" button to go to the plain
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:55 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:30:26PM
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 00:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Typically, no, it won't be. But there's really no telling for sure.
> The access patterns for a composite index on '(a, b)' with a qual
> "WHERE b = 5" are identical to a qual explicitly written "WHERE a =
> any() AND b = 5".
Hmm, that's
Hi Amit,
28.06.2024 09:15, Amit Langote wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for the report. Yeah, those comments that got added in
7081ac46ace are obsolete.
Thanks for paying attention to that!
Could you also look at comments for transformJsonObjectAgg() and
transformJsonArrayAgg(), aren't they
On 15.05.24 14:26, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Another aspect of platform/flavour was to make the markdown version easy to
maintain for hackers writing content. Requiring the minimum amount of markup
seems like the developer-friendly way here to keep productivity as well as
document quality high.
On 18/06/2024 9:01 am, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi all,
On HEAD, xlog.c has the following comment, which has been on my own
TODO list for a couple of weeks now:
* TODO: With a bit of extra work we could just start with a pgstat file
* associated with the checkpoint redo location
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:30:26PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 11:21, Peter Smith
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:54 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 5:59 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> > I noticed that this patch changes the plan of a query in join.sql from
> > a semi join to right semi join, compromising the original purpose of
> > this query, which was to test the fix
On 24.05.24 20:54, Jacob Champion wrote:
Our documentation implies that the ldapurl setting in pg_hba is used
for search+bind mode only. It was pointed out to me recently that this
is not true, and if you're dealing with simple bind on a non-standard
scheme or port, then ldapurl makes the HBA
Le 27/06/2024 à 10:38, Matthias van de Meent a écrit :
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, 07:34 Philippe BEAUDOIN, wrote:
Hi,
I have just tested PG17 beta1 with the E-Maj solution I maintain. The
only issue I found is the removal of the adminpack contrib.
In the emaj extension, which is the heart of the
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 5:59 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> I noticed that this patch changes the plan of a query in join.sql from
> a semi join to right semi join, compromising the original purpose of
> this query, which was to test the fix for neqjoinsel's behavior for
> semijoins (see commit
Hi Tomas,
The attached patch does not correspond to the above comment.
> But it does solve some of the issues mentioned in previous threads.
>
Oops, I made a mistake sending a patch on my previous email.
Attached patch is the right patch.
Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada
Here is an updated patch for this.
I have added some more documentation based on the discussions, including
some examples taken directly from the emails here.
One thing I have been struggling with a bit is the correct use of
LIKE_FALSE versus LIKE_ABORT in the MatchText() code. I have made
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:30:26PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 11:21, Peter Smith wrote:
> > >> Perhaps the comment should say something like it used to:
Hi Alexander,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure I've chosen the most appropriate thread for reporting the
> issue, but maybe you would like to look at code comments related to
> SQL/JSON constructors:
>
> * Transform JSON_ARRAY() constructor.
>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 7:48 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > I've attempted that in the attached 0001, which removes
> > JsonExpr.coercion_expr and a bunch of code around it.
> >
> > 0002 is now the original patch minus the changes to make
> > JSON_EXISTS(), JSON_QUERY(), and JSON_VALUE() behave
49 matches
Mail list logo
