> Vigneshwaran C
>
> New PostgreSQL Major Contributors:
>
> Julien Rouhaud
> Stacey Haysler
> Steve Singer
>
> Congratulations to all the new contributors!
Thank you,
Rahila syed
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:39 PM Simon Riggs
wrote:
> Hi Rahila,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 07:37, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> >> I would like to bring up a few points that I came across while looking
> into the vacuum code.
> >&
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 10:15 AM Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:53 PM Simon Riggs
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 23:56, Simon Riggs
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > I haven't checked the rest of the patch, but +1 for
as compared to current
lazy vacuum which
acquires a new snapshot just before scanning the table.
So, while I understand the need of the feature, I am wondering if there
should be some mention
of above caveats in documentation with the recommendation that VACUUM
should be run outside
a transaction, in general.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
y to iterate
> through all
> 901 +* the parents of the partition and retreive the record for
> the parent
> 902 +* that exists in pg_publication_rel.
> 903 +*/
The above comment in fetch_remote_table_info() can be changed as the
recursive query
is no longer used.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
.
4. Missing documentation
5. Latest comments(last two messages) by Peter Smith.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 8:11 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Sep-04, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
blishing columns that they don't want to publish. I think as a user I
> would rather get an error in that case:
ERROR: invalid column list in published set
> DETAIL: The set of published commands does not include all the replica
> identity columns.
Added this.
Also added some more tests. Please find attached a rebased and updated
patch.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
v4-0001-Add-column-filtering-to-logical-replication.patch
Description: Binary data
54,6 @@ logicalrep_rel_open(LogicalRepRelId remoteid,
> LOCKMODE lockmode)
>
> attnum = logicalrep_rel_att_by_name(remoterel,
> NameStr(attr->attname));
> -
> entry->attrmap->attnums[i] = attnum;
>
> There are quite a few places in the patch that contains spurious line
> additions or removals.
>
>
Thank you for your comments, I will fix these.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
Ok, Thank you for your opinion. I agree that giving an explicit error in
this case will be safer.
I will include this, in case there are no counter views.
Thank you for your review comments. Please find attached the rebased and
updated patch.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
v3-0001-Add-column-filtering-to-logical-replication.patch
Description: Binary data
they
> have dealt with it in some other way unless they are unaware of this
> problem.
>
>
The column comparison for row filtering happens before the unchanged toast
columns are filtered. Unchanged toast columns are filtered just before
writing the tuple
to output stream. I think this is the case both for pglogical and the
proposed patch.
So, I can't see why the not logging of unchanged toast columns would be a
problem
for row filtering. Am I missing something?
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
hes oids and simply
doing Schema oid = liinital_oid(search_path)); should be enough.
2. In the same function should there be an if else condition block instead
of a switch case as
there are only two cases.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
arenly there's some confusion - the code expects the
> list to contain PublicationTable nodes, and tries to extract the
> RangeVar from the elements. But the list actually contains RangeVar, so
> this crashes and burns. See the attached backtrace.
>
>
Thank you for the report, Thi
gt; Removed.
> I got warnings from "git am" about trailing whitespace being added by
> the patch in two places.
>
> Should be fixed now.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
v1-0001-Add-column-filtering-to-logical-replication.patch
Description: Binary data
.
About having such a functionality, I don't immediately see any issue with
it as long
as we make sure replica identity columns are always present on both
instances.
However, need to carefully consider situations in which a server subscribes
to multiple
publications, each publishing a different subs
checks are underway. I will post an updated patch with those
changes soon.
Kindly let me know your opinion.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
0001-Add-column-filtering-to-logical-replication.patch
Description: Binary data
"test_sub2", table
> "pgbench_branches" has started
>
> ... this message. The code that reports this error is from the COPY
> command.
> Row filter modifications has no control over it. It seems somehow your
> subscriber close the replication connection causing this issue. Can you
> reproduce it consistently? If so, please share your steps.
>
> Please ignore the report.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
g lost.
I didn't investigate it more, but looks like we should maintain the
existing behaviour when table synchronization fails
due to duplicate data.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
not exist on the subscriber. It would be good if ALTER SUBSCRIBER
REFRESH PUBLICATION
would help fetch such existing rows from publishers that match the qual
now(either because the row changed
or the qual changed)
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:35 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Eu
of defining a new
struct?
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
document. Thus,
explaining
impact on referencing tables here, as it already describes behaviour of
UPDATE on a partitioned table.
Thank you.
Rahila Syed
ion update is missing from the patches.
>
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
list
+ of schemas in the publication with the specified one. The ADD
There is a typo above s/SET TABLE/SET SCHEMA
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
does not
exist. I think this is counterintuitive, it should throw a warning and
continue adding the rest.
> Drop some schema from the publication:
> ALTER PUBLICATION production_quarterly_publication DROP SCHEMA
> production_july;
>
> Same for drop schema, if one of these schemas does n
Hi David,
The feature seems useful to me. The code will need to be refactored due to
changes in commit : b05fe7b442
Please see the following comments.
1. Is there a specific reason behind having new relstate for truncate?
The current state flow is
(i int) PARTITION BY LIST((tbl_test_5))
CONFIGURATION (values in
('(1)'::tbl_test_5), ('(3)'::tbl_test_5) default partition tbl_default_5);
ERROR: relation "tbl_test_5_1" already exists
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
>
gt;
4. Typo in default_part_name
+VALUES IN ( class="parameter">partition_bound_expr [, ...] ), [(
> partition_bound_expr [, ...]
> )] [, ...] [DEFAULT PARTITION class="parameter">defailt_part_name]
> +MODULUS numeric_literal
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
I am not sure. I think it is a reasonable change. It is even
indicated in the
comment above index_set_state_flags() that it can be made transactional.
At the same time, probably we can just go ahead with current
inconsistent update of relisreplident and indisvalid flags. Can't see what
will break with that.
Th
Hi,
I couldn't test the patch as it does not apply cleanly on master.
Please find below some review comments:
1. Would it better to throw a warning at the time of dropping the
REPLICA IDENTITY
index that it would also drop the REPLICA IDENTITY of the parent table?
2. CCI is used after
cation of empty txns with and without
the patch remains similar.
Having said that, these are initial findings and I understand better
performance tests are required to measure
reduction in consumption of network bandwidth and impact on synchronous
replication and replication lag.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
Hi Amit,
Can you please rebase the patches as they don't apply on latest master?
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 16:36, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 14:02, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 01:02, Rahila Syed
>
mins.pl
Also, there aren't any errors in logs indicating the cause.
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
alog.pg_replication_slots
# WHERE slot_name = 'master_physical';
#
# expecting this output:
# t
# last actual query output:
#
# with stderr:
# ERROR: syntax error at or near "FROM"
# LINE 3: FROM pg_catalog.pg_replication_slots
Thank you,
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
h
spite of that,
>if any required rows get removed on standby, the slot gets dropped.
IIUC, you mean `if any required rows get removed on *the master* the slot
gets
dropped`, right?
Thank you,
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
Hi,
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 21:40, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Hi Rahila, thanks for reviewing.
>
> On 2019-Mar-25, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> > Please see few comments below:
> >
> > 1. Makecheck fails currently as view definition of expected rules.out
> does
> >
;rs_nblocks - startblock +
+ hscan->rs_cblock;
+
+ return blocks_done;
I think parallel scan equivalent bpscan->phs_nblocks along with
hscan->rs_nblocks should be used similar to startblock computation above.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 23:46, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
overlap, some are mutually exclusive
hence
may be skipped etc. reporting `phase number versus total phases` does
provide
valuable information.
We are able to give user a whole picture in addition to reporting progress
within phases.
Thank you,
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQ
33
Planning Time: 0.353 ms
Execution Time: 3793.572 ms
(8 rows)
postgres=# commit;
COMMIT
postgres=# select xact_commit from pg_stat_database where datname =
'postgres';
xact_commit
-
161
(1 row)
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com <h
en rectified in the latest patch as I now get
'table scan' phase in output as I do CREATE INDEX on table with 100
records
Thank you,
.--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
t cleared
the blocks_done entry from previous phases. I think this can be confusing
as the blocks_done does not correspond to the tuples_done in the current
phase.
--
Rahila Syed
Performance Engineer
2ndQuadrant
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
his
until
* the index is fully valid. (Broken HOT chains shouldn't matter,
though;
* see comments for IndexCheckExclusion.)
*/
if (indexInfo->ii_ExclusionOps != NULL)
IndexCheckExclusion(heapRelation, indexRelation, indexInfo);
*/
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
41 matches
Mail list logo
