On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-30 10:13:29 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Any chance you could write a tap test exercising a few of these cases?
> &g
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:21 PM Suraj Kharage
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Noticed that an extra semicolon in a couple of test cases related to
> postgres_fdw. Removed that in the attached patch. It can be backported till
> v11 where we added those test cases.
>
Thanks for identifying this, the changes
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:34 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v68*
>
> Differences from v67* are:
>
> * Rebased to HEAD @ today.
>
> * v68 fixes an issue reported by Vignesh [1] where a scenario was
> found which still was able to cause a generated GID clash.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-26 07:58:58 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I suggest we wait doing anything about this until we know if the shared
> > > stats patch gets in or not (I'd give it
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:40 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 14:00, vignesh C wrote:
> > Have you intentionally not
> > written any tests as it will be difficult to predict the xid. I just
> > wanted to confirm my understanding.
>
> Yeah, that's t
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:46 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 13:04, vignesh C wrote:
> > The above content looks sufficient to me.
>
> Good, thanks. Based on that, I'm adding v7 of the patch.
>
Thanks for the updated patch.
@@ -440,7 +441,8 @@ pg_decode_
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:22 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 12:18, vignesh C wrote:
> > But in prepare_filter_cb callback, by stating "other systems ..." it is
> > not very clear who will change the GID. Are we referring to
> > publisher/subscriber deco
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:30 PM Markus Wanner <
markus.wan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 11:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Okay, but just in the previous sentence ("However, reuse of the same
> > gid for example by a downstream node using
> > multiple subscriptions may lead to it not
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:09 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 1:35 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:03 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Missed the patch - 0001, resending.
> >> >
> >>
>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 3:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> While reviewing/testing subscriber-side work for $SUBJECT [1], I
> noticed a problem that seems to need a broader discussion, so started
> this thread. We can get prepare for the same GID more than once for
> the cases where we have defined
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > &
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I think something on these lines should be much
>> easier than the spool-file implementation unless we see any problem
>> with this idea.
>>
>
> Here's a new patch-set that implements
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I think something on these lines should be much
>> easier than the spool-file implementation unless we see any problem
>> with this idea.
>>
>
> Here's a new patch-set that implements
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This seems to be a new low frequency failure, I didn't see it mentioned
> > > already:
> > >
> >
>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:59 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The 2pc decoding added in
>
> commit a271a1b50e9bec07e2ef3a05e38e7285113e4ce6
> Author: Amit Kapila
> Date: 2021-01-04 08:34:50 +0530
>
> Allow decoding at prepare time in ReorderBuffer.
>
> has a deadlock danger when used in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:07 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> Thanks for the review comments.
>
> But can you please resend it with each feedback enumerated as 1. 2.
> 3., or have some other clear
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:46 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached the latest patch set v57*
> >
> > Differences from v56* are:
> >
> > * Rebased to HEAD @ today
> >
> > * Addresses the following feedback issues:
> >
> > (24)
Hi,
I was reviewing logical decoding of two-phase transactions feature,
while reviewing the feature I was checking if there is any impact on
publisher/subscriber upgrade.
I checked the existing pg_upgrade behaviour with logical replication.
I made a logical replication data instance with
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:46 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v54*
>
> Differences from v53* are:
>
> * Rebased to HEAD @ today
>
> * Addresses some recent feedback issues for patch 0001
>
> Feedback from Amit @ 7/March [ak]
> - (36) Fixed. Comment about the psf
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:09 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I think in case of two_phase option, replicatedPtr and sentPtr never
> &g
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:14 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:58 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_TYPE = 'Y',
> > + LOGICAL_REP_MSG_BEGIN_PREPARE = 'b',
> > + LOGICAL_REP_MSG_PREPARE = 'P',
> > +
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:20 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:25 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:25 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
>
> Created new patch v53:
Thanks for the updated patch.
I had noticed one issue, publisher does not get stopped normally in
the following case:
# Publisher steps
psql
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:17 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v52*
>
Few comments:
+logicalrep_read_begin_prepare(StringInfo in,
LogicalRepBeginPrepareData *begin_data)
+{
+ /* read fields */
+ begin_data->final_lsn = pq_getmsgint64(in);
+ if
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:21 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:53 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > [05a] Now syncing the psf file at prepare time
>
> The patch v46-0008 does not handle spooling of streaming prepare if
> the Subscription is configured for both two-phase and
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Greg Nancarrow writes:
> > I've marked this as "Ready for Committer".
>
> I've pushed this after whacking it around a fair amount. A lot of
> that was cosmetic, but one thing that wasn't is that I got rid of the
> proposed "which_primary_host"
Hi,
I noticed there is buildfarm failure in crake, it fails with the
following error:
Mar 02 21:22:56 ./src/test/recovery/t/001_stream_rep.pl: Variable
declared in conditional statement at line 88, column 2. Declare
variables outside of the condition.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:33 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:20 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have a minor comment regarding the below:
> > +
> > +
> > + two_phase bool
> > +
> > +
> &g
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 6:37 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Few minor comments on 0002 patch
> > =
> > 1.
> > ctx->streaming &= enable_streaming;
> > - ctx->twophase &= enable_twophase;
> > +
> > }
> >
> > Spurious
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:23 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Few comments on 0002 patch:
> > =
> > 1.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Disable two-phase here, it will be set in the core if it was
> > + * enabled whole creating the
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've updated snapshot_was_exported_at_ member to
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:26 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> >
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > I've updated snapshot_was_exported_at_ member to pg_replication_slots as
> > well.
> > Do have a look and let me know if there are any comments.
>
> Update with both patches.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:06 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 4:48 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > I plan to split this into two patches next. But do review and let me
> > know if you have any comments.
>
> Attaching an updated patch-set with the changes for
>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM wrote:
>
>
> > On 2021.02.15. 12:31 Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > > > I compiled just now a binary from HEAD, an
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I compiled just now a binary from HEAD, and a binary from HEAD
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
> > On 02/13/2021 11:49 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:00 PM wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 02/12/2021 1:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:07 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:09 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Modified.
> > These comments are handled in v22 patch posted in my earlier mail.
> >
>
> Thanks, just one minor thing I missed in doc/src/sgml/
Thanks for the comments Greg, please find my comments inline below.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:27 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think what we want to do is mark default_transaction_read_onl
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:47 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think what we want to do is mark default_transaction_read_only as
> > > GUC_REPORT, instead. That will give a reliable report of what
changes suggested and
rebased it with the head code.
Attached v21 patch which has the changes for the same.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
From 9d85abfe1e4b43d67ee746891830abe53077c0e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:23:31 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v21] Enhance the libpq "target_sessio
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> vignesh C writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:04 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >> Are these superuser and permission checks enough from a security
> >> standpoint that we don't expose some se
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:04 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > > 4) How about following
> > > > + errmsg(
Thanks Bharath for your comments.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > 4) How about following
> > > + errmsg("must be a superuser to print backtrace
> > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:01 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh,
> >
> >>
> >> I have handled the above scenario(drop sc
Thanks Bharath for your review comments. Please find my comments inline below.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:40 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, I have fixed and attached an updated patch
> > with the
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-01-27 19:05:16 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > /*
> > + * LogBackTrace
> > + *
> > + * Get the backtrace and log the backtrace to log file.
> > + */
> >
tions. It includes the following fixes: 1)
Removal of support to get callstack of all postgres process, user can
get only one process callstack. 2) Update the documentation. 3) Added
necessary checks for pg_print_callstack similar to
pg_terminate_backend. 4) Changed LOG to LOG_SERVER_ONLY.
Though
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:48 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:42 PM Dilip Kumar
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > &g
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:18 PM japin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 17:18, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >> >
> >
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:21 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Creating/altering subscription is successful when we specify a
> > publication which does not exist in the publisher.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM japin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 00:51, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Creating/altering subscription is successful w
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:14 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM japin wrote:
> > > 2) Can't we know whether the publications exist on the publisher with
> > > the existing (or modifying it a bit if required) query in
> > > fetch_table_list(), so that we can avoid
Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
>>
>> I have handled the above scenario(drop schema should automatically
>> remove the schema entry from publication schema relation) & addition
>> of tests in the
From 2e7a6e41f789f7f1717058e9c78441ae8d5faf9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:38:54 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1] Identify missing publications from publisher while
create/alter subscription.
Creating/altering subscription is successful when we specify a publication
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's got security hazards as well. If we restricted the
> >> feature to cause a trace of only one process at a time, and required
> >> that process to be
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:26 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:10 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021, at 09:34, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > &g
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As Amit pointed out earlier, the behaviour when schema dropped, I
> think we should also consider when schema is altered, say altered to a
> different name, maybe we should change that in the
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:21 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > This feature adds schema option while creating publication. Users will
> > >
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:10 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021, at 09:34, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-01-15 09:53:05 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > O
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-15 09:53:05 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-12-08 10:38, vignesh C wrote:
> > > I have implemented printing of backtrace based on handling it in
> > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. This patch als
Thanks Rahila for your comments, please find my thoughts below.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:16 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> I had a look at the patch, please consider following comments.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:45 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:21 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > > I think this feature can be useful, in case a user has a lot of tables
> > >
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:14 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> One more point - if the publication is created for a schema with no or
> some initial tables, will all the future tables that may get added to
> the schema will be replicated too?
>
I agree on this, when a relation is added to the
Thanks for your comments Bharath, please find my opinion below.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> I think this feature can be useful, in case a user has a lot of tables
> to publish inside a schema. Having said that, I wonder if this feature
> mandates users to create the
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > This feature adds schema option while creating publication. Users will
> > be able to specify one or more schemas while creating publication,
> > when th
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:30 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> Posting an updated set of patches to address recent feedback:
>
> - Removed conditional-locking code used in parallel-safety checking
> code (Tsunakawa-san feedback). It turns out that for the problem test
> case, no parallel-safety
production_quarterly_publication DROP SCHEMA production_july;
Attached is a POC patch for the same. I felt this feature would be quite useful.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From f9b5134182229f718bbc1a9162b6043f879a6410 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:38
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:07 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Few comments:
> > - /*
> > -* To allow parallel inserts, we need to ensure that they are safe
> > to be
> > -* performed in
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 9:16 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:28 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 01:56:50PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > > Hi,
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:25 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:22 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > w.r.t. v17-0004-Enable-CTAS-Parallel-Inserts-For-Append.patch
> >
> > + * Push the dest receiver to Gather node when it is either at the top of
> > the
> > + * plan or under top
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:47 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:32 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I have completed reviewing 0001, I don't have more comments, just one
> > question. Soon I will review the remaining patches.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > +/* If parallel inserts are
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
performing better.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 2:28 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 9:20 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > +-- parallel inserts must occur
> > +select explain_pictas(
> > +'create table parallel_write as sele
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 1:07 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:25 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > You could change intoclause_len = strlen(intoclausestr) to
> > strlen(intoclausestr) + 1 and use intoclause_len in the remaining
> > places. We can avoid th
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:05 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> > Yes this optimization can be done, I will handle this in the next patch
> > set.
> >
>
> I have a suggestion for the parallel safety-check.
>
> As designed, The leader does not participate in the insertion of data.
> If User use
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:28 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 01:56:50PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Added missing copy related data structures to typedefs.list, these
> > data structures were added while copy files were split during
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:25 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:32 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> >
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:32 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> Attaching v14 patch set that has above changes. Please consider this
> for further review.
>
Few comments:
In the below case, should create be above Gather?
postgres=# explain
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:11 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:35 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Most of the code present in
> > v9-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT.patch is
> > applicable for parallel copy patch also. The pa
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> > Attached v11 patch has the fix for this, it also includes the changes to
> > rebase on top of head.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> I think there is still chances we can know the size.
>
> +* line_size will be set. Read
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:35 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:44 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> >
> > Posting an updated set of patches, with some additional testing and
> > documentation updates, and including the latest version of the
> > Parallel Insert patch.
> > Any
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:15 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > It should be quite doable to emit such backtraces directly to stderr,
> > > instead of using appendStringInfoString()/elog(
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From d656c2f0bfbf68f5ceb98a0eb205e5e77f21602f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:48:31 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Added missing copy related data structures.
Added missing copy related data structures to typedefs.list, these data
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
> > It should be quite doable to emit such backtraces directly to stderr,
> > instead of using appendStringInfoString()/elog().
>
> No, please no.
>
> (1) On lots of logging setups (think syslog), anything that goes to
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:55 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> vignesh C writes:
> > The idea here is to implement & expose pg_print_callstack function,
> > internally what this function does is, the connected backend will send
> > SIGUSR1 signal by setting PMSIGNAL_BACK
the same.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From c1006110bdeac2135d1c8e9220f65d50cd49ab63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:58:24 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Print backtrace of postgres process that are part of this
instance.
The i
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 7:01 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:33 PM Hou, Zhijie
wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >
> > > my $bytes = $ARGV[0];
> > > for(my $i = 0; $i < $bytes; $i+=8){
> > > print "longdata&qu
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 2:07 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've done a bit more testing today, and I think the parsing is busted in
> some way. Consider this:
>
> test=# create extension random;
> CREATE EXTENSION
>
> test=# create table t (a text);
> CREATE TABLE
>
>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:42 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:12 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
&g
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 2:26 PM Daniel Westermann (DWE)
wrote:
>
> On 27/10/2020 15:36, vignesh C wrote:
> >> Attached v9 patches have the fixes for the above comments.
>
> >I did some testing:
>
> I did some testing as well and have a cosmetic remark:
>
> post
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:36 PM Hou, Zhijie
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I found some issue in v9-0002
>
> 1.
> +
> + elog(DEBUG1, "[Worker] Processing - line position:%d, block:%d,
unprocessed lines:%d, offset:%d, line size:%d",
> +write_pos, lineInfo->first_block,
> +
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 27/10/2020 15:36, vignesh C wrote:
> > Attached v9 patches have the fixes for the above comments.
>
> I did some testing:
>
> /tmp/longdata.pl:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> #
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:12 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I have worked to provide a patch for the parallel safety checks. It
> &
llowed, for example need to identify whether table
> or one of its partitions has any constraint/expression which is
> parallel-unsafe.
>
I have worked to provide a patch for the parallel safety checks. It
checks if parallely copy can be performed, Parallel copy cannot be
performed for the fo
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:33 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >
> > my $bytes = $ARGV[0];
> > for(my $i = 0; $i < $bytes; $i+=8){
> > print "longdata";
> > }
> > print "\n";
> >
> >
> > postgres=# copy longdata from program 'perl /tmp/longdata.pl 1'
> > with (parallel 2);
> >
> after
> > feature freeze.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 12:49 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, I have attached a v5 patch with the
> > changes where the translation should not have any problem.
> >
>
> I
t follow the grammar rules. You will have "replicação
> conexão autorizada" instead of "conexão de replicação autorizada". The former
> isn't grammatically correct. Avoid splitting sentences that are translated.
>
Thanks for the explanation, I have attached a v5 pat
>
> See attached patches.
>
Thanks for providing the patches.
I had reviewed
v6-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT.patch, please find
my comments:
-> commandType is not used, we can remove it.
+ * Prepare for entering parallel mode by assigning a FullTransactionId, to
be
+ *
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:33 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> While looking at the parallel copy patches, it started to annoy me how
> large copy.c is. It confuses my little head. (Ok, it's annoyed me many
> times in the past, but I haven't done anything about it.)
>
+1 for having copy from &
1201 - 1300 of 1513 matches
Mail list logo
