retreating the value of
replication_slot_xmin.
+*/
+
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
roducing a new
option.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Kt67RdW0WTR-LTxasj3pyukPCYhfA0arDUNnsz2wh03A%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
nced hackers on the trade-offs for the
> above, and I'd be open to work on that if there is a clear winner. For me (3)
> is a decent solution for the problem.
>
>From the discussion above it is not very clear that adding maintenance
costs in this area is worth it even though that can give better
results as far as this feature is concerned.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
is a good idea to remove 'already_locked' parameter,
especially in back branches as this is an exposed API.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have reproduced it manually. For this, I had to manually make the
> debugger call ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(false) via path
> SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts()->LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot()->LogicalConfi
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One idea to fix this issue is that in
> ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(), we compute the minimum xmin
> while holding both ProcArrayLock and ReplicationSl
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:38 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:56:33 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > >
> > > The GUC is not stored in a catalog, but.. oh... it is multiplied by
> > > 1000.
> >
> > Which part of the pat
that is not processed by the plugin. So, in
such cases, the downstream can timeout. To avoid that we try to send a
keepalive message if required. Trying to send a keepalive message
after every change has some overhead, but testing showed there is no
noticeable overhead if we do it after every ~100 changes."
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:20 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 11:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > One thing that looks a bit odd is that we will anyway have a similar
> > check in replorigin_drop_guts() which is a static function and called
> > from
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:43 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 30 Jan 2023 08:51:05 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:32 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Sat, 28 Jan 2023 04:28:29 +, "Takamichi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:40 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Patch v88-0001 LGTM.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 9:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Amit, Sawada-san,
> > >
> > >
c create a replication slot with
> > NOEXPORT_SNAPSHOT option. I think in this case, CreateInitDecodingContext()
> > is
> > called with need_full_snapshot = false, and slot->effective_xmin is not
> > updated.
>
> Right. This is how we create a slot used by an apply worker.
>
I was thinking about how that led to this problem because
GetOldestSafeDecodingTransactionId() ignores InvalidTransactionId. It
seems that is possible when both builder->xmin and
replication_slot_catalog_xmin precede replication_slot_catalog_xmin.
Do you see any different reason for it?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:32 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sat, 28 Jan 2023 04:28:29 +, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)"
> wrote in
> > On Friday, January 27, 2023 8:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > So, you have changed min_apply_de
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 9:36 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 27, 2023 8:16 PM Amit Kapila
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:45 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 10:52, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
*/
+ now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
+ if (wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START] < now)
+ wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START] =
TimestampTzPlusSeconds(wakeup[LRW_WAKEUP_SYNC_START], 1);
Do we see unnecessary wakeups without this, or delay in sync?
BTW, do we need to do something about wakeups in
wait_for_relation_state_change()?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:45 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 10:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, this is done to prevent concurrent drops of origin drop say by
> > exposed API pg_replication_origin_drop(). See the discussion in [1]
> > related to
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:18 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:26 PM Amit Kapila
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attach the new patch.
> > >
> &g
r subowner?
2.
+
+ diffms = TimestampDifferenceMilliseconds(GetCurrentTimestamp(),
+ TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(finish_ts, MySubscription->minapplydelay));
The above code appears a bit unreadable. Can we store the result of
TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds() in a separate variable say "TimestampTz
delayUntil;"?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
hich is processing
running_xacts via SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts()? Isn't that walsender
slot's effective_xmin have a non-zero value? If not, then why?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
e comments for the callback.
Additionally, I think we should have a test case to show we don't time
out because of not processing non-transactional messages. See
pgoutput_message for cases where it doesn't process the message.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v7-0001-Fix-the-logical-re
ations between
servers."
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-replication.html
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ly of
> > send_feedback to "has_unprocessed_change".
> >
> > At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:27:58 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > > send_feedback():
> > > > +* If the subscriber side apply is delayed (because of
> > time-delayed
&
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:15 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > 1.
> > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ int logical_decoding_work_mem;
> > static const Size max_changes_in_memory = 4096; /* XXX for restore only */
> &
ansaction.
> ==
> src/include/replication/reorderbuffer.h
>
> 3.
> @@ -18,14 +18,14 @@
> #include "utils/timestamp.h"
>
> extern PGDLLIMPORT int logical_decoding_work_mem;
> -extern PGDLLIMPORT int logical_decoding_mode;
> +extern PGDLLIMPORT int logical_replication_mode;
>
> Probably here should also be a comment to say "/* GUC variables */"
>
Okay, we can do this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
_syncing_table_states() to ensure that invalidation has been
processed; (c) print rel states and relids from table_states_not_ready
in process_syncing_tables_for_apply() to see if t2 has ever appeared
in that list.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:44 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Attached the updated patch v19.
> > >
> > &g
ok at the both two varaibles instead.
>
I think this is true without this patch, so why that has not been
followed in the first place? One comment, I see in this regard is as
below:
/* It's legal to not pass a recvpos */
if (recvpos < last_recvpos)
recvpos = last_recvpos;
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
LOGs to be in reverse order as it
doesn't make much sense to me to first say that we are skipping
changes and then say the transaction is delayed. What do you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 6:17 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:36:13 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 6:12 PM Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached the updated pat
help
us to make it move forward.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB586668E50FC2447AD7F92491F5E89%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:46 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 9:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 6. defGetMinApplyDelay
> > >
> ...
> > >
> > > 6b.
> > > I thought this function should be implemented as st
publisher and subscriber but not really sure
whether that will simplify the usage.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uDzddK_ZUsB2qBJUbW_ZODYGoUHTaS5pVcYE2tzATCVXQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
feature? Currently,
it doesn't care whether the changes of a particular xact are skipped
or not. I think that might be okay because anyway the purpose of this
feature is to make subscriber lag from publishers. What do you think?
I feel we can add some comments to indicate the same.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
sql
>
> 9. Add new test?
>
> Should there be an additional test to check redundant parameter
> setting -- eg. "... WITH (min_apply_delay=123, min_apply_delay=456)"
>
I don't think that will be of much help. We don't seem to have other
tests for subscription parameters.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:24 PM Zheng Li wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Foreign Tables can also be considered replicated with DDL replication
> > > because we
> > > don't even need to replicat
mentioned in the comments in
process_syncing_tables_for_sync() before the start of the second
transaction which leads to this change. See the report and discussion
about that race condition in the email [1].
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoAw0Oofi4kiDpJBOwpYyBBBkJj=sluon4gd2gjuakg...@mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
o prevent.
>
IIRC, this is done to prevent concurrent drops of origin drop say by
exposed API pg_replication_origin_drop(). See the discussion in [1]
related to it. If we want we can optimize it so that we can acquire
the lock on the specific origin as mentioned in comments
replorigin_drop_by_n
ck multiple times (it is already checked inside
OutputPluginUpdateProgress). So, I would prefer a neat code here.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
al' is used for different purposes on
> > subscriber and standby nodes.
>
> Using the existing parameter makes sense to me. But if we use
> logical_decoding_mode also on the subscriber, as Shveta Malik also
> suggested, probably it's better to rename it so as not to conf
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 2:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Let me try to summarize the discussion till now. The problem we are
> trying to solve here is to allow a shutdown to complete when walsender
> is not able to send the entire WAL. Currently, in such cases, the
> shutdown fa
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:03 AM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thurs, Jan 19, 2023 at 19:18 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:20 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > When I was reading the "Logical Decod
> e.g.
> BEFORE
> ctx->update_progress(ctx, ctx->write_location, ctx->write_xid, false);
> AFTER
> OutputPluginUpdateProgress(ctx, false);
>
We already check whether ctx->update_progress is defined or not which
is the only extra job done by OutputPluginUpdateProgress but probably
we can consolidate the checks and directly invoke
OutputPluginUpdateProgress.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
cify the reason for not
allowing this combination in the comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
subscription. If you agree this can be 0002
> patch.
>
Do we have any similar stats for recovery_min_apply_delay? If not, I
suggest let's postpone this to see if users really need such a
parameter.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:13 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > + */
> > + ReorderBufferUpdateProgressCB update_progress;
> >
> > Are you suggesting changing the name of the above variable? If so, how
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:20 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > When I was reading the "Logical Decoding Output Plugins" chapter in pg-doc
> > [1],
> > I think in the summary s
hese to be more reader friendly. So I tried to write
> a patch for these and attach it.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
This looks mostly good to me. I have made minor adjustments in the
attached. Do those make sense to you?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v2-0001-Improve-the-description-of-Output-Plugin-Callback.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:39 AM Zheng Li wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 8:58 PM Zheng Li wrote:
> > >
>
> Foreign Tables can also be considered replicated with DDL replication because
> we
> d
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:50 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Here are some review comments for patch v79-0002.
> >
>
> So, this is about the latest v84-0001-Stop-extra-worker-if-GUC-was-changed.
>
> &g
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 5:37 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:49 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 13:29 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > wro
ght. When you say 'all', how do you
think it will help to support DDL replication for foreign tables,
materialized views, views, etc where changes to such relations are
currently not supported by logical replication? We should also think
about initial sync for all those objects as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ng-running transactions that can
block parallel apply for a bit longer time). I know with this as well
it may not be straightforward to test the functionality because we
can't be sure how many changes would be required for a timeout to
occur. This is just for brainstorming other options to test the
partial serialization functionality.
Thoughts?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I am a bit worried about the indirections that the wrappers and hooks
> > > create. Output plugins call OutputPluginUpdateProgress() in
o get completed after the subscription is disabled
then we can anyway do it later as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
be contended.
> >
> > Thanks for the comment and I think your suggestion makes sense.
> > I have added the check before getting the leader pid. Here is the new
> > version patch.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch. Looks good to me.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
moting in the middle of
> delay.
>
What causes such a transaction to be visible after promotion? Ideally,
if the commit doesn't succeed, the transaction shouldn't be visible.
Do, we allow the transaction waiting due to delay to get committed on
promotion?
> I'm not sure if I should make the time-delayed LR aligned with this behavior.
> Does someone has an opinion for this ?
>
Can you please explain a bit more as asked above to understand the difference?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 10:06 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 13:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> > > O
the patch and document the risks related to (a); (2) Fix
both (a) and (b); (3) Do nothing and document that users need to
unblock the subscribers to complete the shutdown.
Thoughts?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:35 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, I have added the comments in get_transaction_apply_action() and
> &
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:30 AM Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> While working on some logical replication patch,
> I've find a typo on HEAD.
> Attached the modification patch for this.
>
LGTM.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:35 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I have added the comments in get_transaction_apply_action() and
> > updated the comments to refer to the enum TransApplyAction where all
>
procpid)
> ~
>
> 3b.
> It may be unrelated to this patch, but it seems strange to me that the
> nulls[28]/values[28] assignments are done where they are. Every other
> nulls/values assignment of this function here is pretty much in the
> correct numerical order except this one, so IMO this code ought to be
> relocated to later in this same function.
>
This is not related to the current patch but I see there is merit in
the current coding as it is better to retrieve all the fields of proc
together.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
nother type of protocol message with the transactional vs.
> non-transactional behavior, similar to "logical messages" except that in
> this case the worker does not ignore that.
>
> Also, I think get_transaction_apply_action() would deserve better
> comments explaining how/why it makes the decision
anges
in the comments, docs, and commit message. I am planning to push this
next week by Tuesday unless you or others have any major comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
v81-0001-Display-the-leader-apply-worker-s-PID-for-parall.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 7:32 AM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> There seem to be a small typo in backup.sgml
> (archive_command is unnecessarily
> repeated). Attached is a patch to fix that.
>
LGTM.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 2:44 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 10.01.23 07:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Yeah, we can do that but not sure if it is worth doing any of those
> > because there are already other places that don't use the exact
> > context.
>
> Ok, up
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:33 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 2:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM
it = remote_apply? In that case, won't it ensure that
apply has also happened? If so, then shouldn't the time delay feature
also cause a similar problem for physical replication as well?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 8:25 AM Ted Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:31 AM Ted Yu wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:55 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
>> > wrote:
>> >>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:06 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:56 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > 3.
> >
> >
> > + leader_pid integer
> > +
> > +
> > + Process ID of the lead
st.received_lsn,
> st.last_msg_send_time,
>
> IMO it would be very useful to have an additional "kind" attribute for
> this view. This will save the user from needing to do mental
> gymnastics every time just to recognise what kind of process they are
> looking at.
>
This could be a separate enhancement as the same should be true for
sync workers.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:21 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:54 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
> > >
> > > 5.
t #1 about terminology)
>
> "apply_leader_pid" --> "leader_apply_pid"
>
How about naming this as just leader_pid? I think it could be helpful
in the future if we decide to parallelize initial sync (aka parallel
copy) because then we could use this for the leader PID of parallel
sync workers as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:39 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-05 16:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:12 PM jian he wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I changed the src/test/regress/sql/interval.sql, How can I generate t
allel mode.
>>
>
>
> I think even though the chance is rare, we shouldn't leak resource.
>
But that is true iff we are never able to start the worker. Anyway, I
think it is probably fine either way but we can change it as per your
suggestion to make it more robust and probably for the code clarity
sake. I'll push this tomorrow unless someone thinks otherwise.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> We could just not fix it in the back branches. I'd argue that this is
> >>> as much a definition change as a bug fix, so
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:38 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 5:29 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > >> I think one way to fi
eader apply worker, if this process is a parallel apply worker.
NULL if this process is a leader apply worker or does not participate
in parallel apply, or a synchronization worker."?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:24 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> On 1/10/23 10:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:13 AM Jonathan S. Katz
> > wrote:
>
> > One can use local or higher
> > for reducing the latency for COMMIT when synchrono
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:13 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> On 9/12/22 1:23 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 11:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for pushing the patch. I have closed this entry in commitfest.
> > I will wait for some more time
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:24:40PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Thanks for noticing this. I'll take care of this and some other typo
> > patches together.
>
> Does this include 0010? I was just looking at
; >
> > It seems to matter because otherwise the translators sometimes re-type
> > the view name, which (not surprisingly) can get messed up, which is how
> > I mentioned having noticed this.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 05:41:58PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
&g
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:21:03 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > Pushed the first (0001) patch.
>
> It added the following error message.
>
> + seg = dsm_attach(handle);
> + if (!seg)
&
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 6:18 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 02.01.23 13:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 4:17 PM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Most callers of BufFileRead() want to check whether they read the full
> >> s
?
Another minor point: Don't we need to set the launcher's latch after
removing the entry from the hash table to avoid the launcher waiting
on the latch for a bit longer?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
ack-branch. Another way is to modify function
> pg_get_publication_tables()'s return value to contain all supported columns if
> no column list is specified, and we don't need to change system view.
>
That sounds like a reasonable approach to fix the issue.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
gain with commit message.
>
Pushed the first (0001) patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:21 PM Japin Li wrote:
>
> Commit 216a784829 change the src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c file
> mode
> from 0644 to 0755, which is unwanted, right?
>
Right, it is by mistake. I'll fix it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
API via reorder buffer as suggested previously [2] similar to other
reorder buffer APIs instead of directly using reorderbuffer API to
invoke plugin API.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS3PR01MB6275DFFDAC7A59FA148931529E209%40OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
[2] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BfQjndoBOFUn9Wy0hhm3MLyUWEpcT9O7iuCELktfdBiQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
But otherwise, it should
be okay w.r.t DDLs because this patch allows the leader worker to
restart logical replication for subscription parameter change which
will in turn stop/restart parallel workers if required.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
eem easy to write a stable test for this.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
>
> Fix looks good to me. Thanks for working on this.
>
Pushed!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
action id and spec
token number. As this is not a very critical issue and is not reported
till now, so it may be better to leave backpatching it. What do you
think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
IZE_IN_PROGRESS it will frequently call
> pa_get_fileset_state() consecutively 2 times, and I think we can
> easily achieve the same behavior with just one call.
>
This is just to keep the code easy to follow. As this would be a rare
case, so thought of giving preference to code clarity.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
looks good to me. Have you tried this in PG-14 where it was introduced?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:49 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:34:37AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:16 AM Nathan Bossart
> > wrote:
> >> In v12, I moved the restart for two_phase mode to the end of
> >> proces
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 12:28 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> I tried to fix them in the attached patch.
>
Don't we need a similar handling for generated columns? We don't send
those to the subscriber side, see checks in proto.c.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
rc/test/regress/expected/interval.out
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
n miss something important even after detailed reviews
by others but I think the chances will be much lower.
You are an extremely valuable person for this project and I wish that
you continue working with the same enthusiasm.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:16 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:12:37PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:09:12AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> But there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that the result for
> >&g
1601 - 1700 of 4797 matches
Mail list logo
