On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 7:28 PM Vitale, Anthony, Sony Music
wrote:
>
> Hello All
>
>
>
> Postgresql dblinks and dblink_fdw allow for the use of Server and user
> mapping to be able to store the user/password of a connection and save it in
> an encrypted manner.
>
>
>
> Logical replication subscr
On Jul 11, 2025 at 23:57 +0800, Tom Lane , wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli wrote:
> > > So, are both result sets technically correct given the absence of an ORDER
> > > BY clause?
>
> > The system is behaving within the requirements of the specific
the ORDER BY clause on windows function, were the regression
test results become deterministic.
Thanks in advance
Dinesh
From: Tom Lane
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:27 PM
To: David G. Johnston
Cc: Zhang Mingli ; PostgreSQL Hackers
Subject: Re: [Question] W
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli wrote:
>> So, are both result sets technically correct given the absence of an ORDER
>> BY clause?
> The system is behaving within the requirements of the specification. The
> query itself is bugged code that the query author
On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli wrote:
>
> Referring to the SQL 2011 standard, it states that if ORDER BY is
> omitted, the order of rows in the partition is undefined.
> While using a window function without ORDER BY is valid, the resulting
> output seems unpredictable.
>
> So, are both r
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 3:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > cases like UPDATE_MISSING, DELETE_MISSING, the existing code
> > ERRCODE_NO_DATA_FOUND seems to be an exact match. The LOG message
> > appears when we don't find the row to be updated or
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> typically signifies a serialization failure within a transaction under
> serializable isolation, so it
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 8:02 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > I mean, I'm not 100% against using existi
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 3:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> cases like UPDATE_MISSING, DELETE_MISSING, the existing code
> ERRCODE_NO_DATA_FOUND seems to be an exact match. The LOG message
> appears when we don't find the row to be updated or deleted while
> applying changes. This can happen if someone d
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > I mean, I'm not 100% against using exist
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
>
> Why?
>
> I mean, I'm not 100% against using existing error codes, but I feel
> like we might be distorting the meanings
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
>
> Why?
>
> I mean, I'm not 100% against using existing error codes, but I feel
> like we might be distorting the meanings
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
Why?
I mean, I'm not 100% against using existing error codes, but I feel
like we might be distorting the meanings of the existing error codes.
If we used new error codes, then peop
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:05 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was reviewing the code for conflict report
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> > > about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 1:25 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 9:45 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> > about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> > typically signifies a serialization failur
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> typically signifies a serialization failure within a transaction under
> serializable isolation, so it
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> > about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> > typically signifies a serialization f
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 9:45 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> typically signifies a serialization failure within a transaction under
> serializable isolation, so its
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 at 07:49, Ayush Vatsa wrote:
> That said, I’m wondering if this might not be necessary, given that
> Gather Merge already accomplishes similar functionality. Would
> love to hear your thoughts on whether there’s a distinct advantage to
> adding parallelism to Merge Append or if
> The input node to the Gather Merge needs to be sorted by
> something, and the output of the Gather Merge will be sorted by the
> same thing.
Ok now I got that. Thanks for the clarification.
Last small question:
As of now parallelism in merge append is not supported, but it could
be something we
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 at 01:47, Ayush Vatsa wrote:
> A small follow-up question - Gather merge won't gather and merge the
> output from child in sorted order, but will always need an explicit Sort
> node beneath it to do so. Correct?
Incorrect. The input node to the Gather Merge needs to be sorted b
> Merge Append does not support parallelism.
Thanks for the confirmation.
> We have Gather Merge, which handles executing some
sub-nodes and making sure the results get output in the correct order
A small follow-up question - Gather merge won't gather and merge the
output from child in sorted orde
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 07:31, Ayush Vatsa wrote:
> Are these Index Scans executed sequentially (one after the other as the Merge
> Append requests tuples)?
It's a fairly simple answer: Merge Append does not support parallelism.
> Or are they possibly executed in parallel, in advance, or concurre
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:26 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-03 09:58:30 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > I saw that a new errhint_internal() function was recently committed
> > [1]. I had also posted above asking about this same missing function a
> > month ago [2].
> >
> > But, your
Hi,
On 2025-04-03 09:58:30 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> I saw that a new errhint_internal() function was recently committed
> [1]. I had also posted above asking about this same missing function a
> month ago [2].
>
> But, your patch only added the new function -- it does not make any
> use of it
(I added Andres to this thread)
Hi Andres,
I saw that a new errhint_internal() function was recently committed
[1]. I had also posted above asking about this same missing function a
month ago [2].
But, your patch only added the new function -- it does not make any
use of it for existing code tha
Thanks for the quick fix. I was able to reproduce the assertion
failure and to confirm that it's resolved with the patch. Looks good
to me.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 21:40 Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2025-Mar-12, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Patch look good for committing?
>
> Ah sorry, I should have said so -- yes, it looks good to me.
Thanks (Maciek, Tender too) for the review.
I feel a
> slight dislike for using URL-escaped charact
On 2025-Mar-12, Amit Langote wrote:
> Patch look good for committing?
Ah sorry, I should have said so -- yes, it looks good to me. I feel a
slight dislike for using URL-escaped characters in the mailing list link
you added, because it means I cannot directly copy/paste the message-id
string into
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:09 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Mar-12, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > I was able to construct a test case that crashes due to this bug:
> >
> > CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM ('happy', 'sad', 'neutral');
> > CREATE FUNCTION mood_to_json(mood) RETURNS json AS $$
> > SELECT t
On 2025-Mar-12, Amit Langote wrote:
> I was able to construct a test case that crashes due to this bug:
>
> CREATE TYPE mood AS ENUM ('happy', 'sad', 'neutral');
> CREATE FUNCTION mood_to_json(mood) RETURNS json AS $$
> SELECT to_json($1::text);
> $$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE;
> CREATE CAST (mood
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:07 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 10:00 AM Tender Wang wrote:
> > Maciek Sakrejda 于2025年3月11日周二 08:12写道：
> >> While exploring the jsonb code, I noticed that in
> >> datum_to_jsonb_internal, the tcategory checks compares against
> >> JSONTYPE_JSON twic
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 10:00 AM Tender Wang wrote:
> Maciek Sakrejda 于2025年3月11日周二 08:12写道：
>> While exploring the jsonb code, I noticed that in
>> datum_to_jsonb_internal, the tcategory checks compares against
>> JSONTYPE_JSON twice. There's no reason for that, right?
>
> Yeah, the second JSONT
Maciek Sakrejda 于2025年3月11日周二 08:12写道：
> While exploring the jsonb code, I noticed that in
> datum_to_jsonb_internal, the tcategory checks compares against
> JSONTYPE_JSON twice. There's no reason for that, right?
>
Yeah, the second JSONTYPE_JSON seems redundant.
>
> ...
>
> Ok, so, to try to
I'm adding the author/committer and reviewer of 3c152a2, since I think
this may be a bug (my apologies if I'm misunderstanding this). See my
previous e-mail quoted below:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 5:11 PM Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
>
> While exploring the jsonb code, I noticed that in
> datum_to_jsonb_
On 2025/02/08 8:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about the comment of UpdateFullPageWrites() called
at the end of recovery (in StartupXLOG()):
/*
* Update full_page_writes in shared memory and write an XLOG_FPW_CHANGE
* record before resource manager writes c
Peter Smith writes:
> I noticed today that there is no 'errhint_internal' function partner
> for the 'errhint' function.
> Now, it might seem that hints are always intended for user output so
> of course, you'll always want them translated...
Yeah, I think that was the reasoning. If it needs a
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless there are more comments. I am
> planning to push this to HEAD as this is an improvement in existing
> docs and not any bug fix.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
It seems the issue was related to some misconfiguration of my postgresql
server,
I've migrated from pg 14 to 17 and now the issue has disappeared.
Also, I replaced relation_open with table_open
Le mar. 14 janv. 2025 à 15:40, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Giampaolo Capelli writes:
> > The function relat
hi Rahila, thank you for your response,
I mean Segmentation fault, this is what I see in psql
SSL SYSCALL error: EOF detected
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
!?>
this is the content of
in /var/log/postgresql/postgresql-14-main.log when a segmentation fault
happens
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 7:11 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:24 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:46 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Tables with a replica identity defined as NOTHING,
> > DEFAULT without a primary key, or USING
> > INDEX with a drop
I recommend you to review the documentation in
backend/executor/README. It explains in good detail how
the executor works. Specifically the section "Query Processing Control Flow"
explains what each of the hooks you reference are responsible for.
Also, be aware that there are operations, called uti
Giampaolo Capelli writes:
> The function relation_open returns a non NULL pointer in my extension, but
> then the last line in the following snippet crashes postgres.
> Relation rel;
> rel = relation_open(relid, AccessShareLock);
> Assert(rel != NULL);
> Assert(rel->rd_rel != NULL);
> Assert(rel
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:24 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:46 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:07 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 8:22 AM Robert Treat wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:55 AM Amit Kapila
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 5:08 PM Luca Ferrari wrote:
>
> In the file backend/executor/execMain.c there are the following hook types:
>
> /* Hooks for plugins to get control in ExecutorStart/Run/Finish/End */
> ExecutorStart_hook_type ExecutorStart_hook = NULL;
> ExecutorRun_hook_type ExecutorRun_ho
Hi,
>
>
> I want to call the function ReadBufferExtended
> to get the raw data of a given buffer
> and I've read in some examples that I need to call relation_open
> first, in order to get a Relation variable and also lock the relation.
>
> The function relation_open returns a non NULL pointer in
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 8:22 AM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> > > +If a table with replica identity set to NOTHING
> > > +
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
> > > tweaks the link to alter table replica statu
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
> > tweaks the link to alter table replica status.
> >
>
> IIUC, we have changed following to clarify the REPLICA ID
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
> tweaks the link to alter table replica status.
>
IIUC, we have changed following to clarify the REPLICA IDENTITY usage:
If a table without a replica identity is
- added to
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 12:58 AM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 10:41 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robert.
> >
> > The content and rendering of patch v2 LGTM.
> >
> > Should the word wrapping within the file
> > doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml be tidied up though?
> >
>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 10:41 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Robert.
>
> The content and rendering of patch v2 LGTM.
>
> Should the word wrapping within the file
> doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml be tidied up though?
>
Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
tweaks the
Hi Robert.
The content and rendering of patch v2 LGTM.
Should the word wrapping within the file
doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml be tidied up though?
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:46 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 4:23 AM Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smit
On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 4:23 AM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > > - how to set the replica identity. If a table wit
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica
> > > identity is
> > > + how to set the replica iden
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > is
> > + how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > + (or with repl
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 7:24 PM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 4:47 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > > - how to set the replica identity. If a tabl
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 2:50 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:17 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > While revisiting some old threads, I found this one that seemed to
> > reach a conclusion, but then it seemed nothing happened.
> >
> > After multiple suggestions AFAICT James prefe
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:17 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> While revisiting some old threads, I found this one that seemed to
> reach a conclusion, but then it seemed nothing happened.
>
> After multiple suggestions AFAICT James preferred the docs [1]
> modification suggested [2] by Laurenz.
>
> Shoul
While revisiting some old threads, I found this one that seemed to
reach a conclusion, but then it seemed nothing happened.
After multiple suggestions AFAICT James preferred the docs [1]
modification suggested [2] by Laurenz.
Should we make a CF entry for this with the status RfC, or was the
whol
Hello everyone,
I'd like to revisit the topic of auto VACUUM's interaction with stored
procedures that perform transactions, with a more technical clarification as
suggested earlier.
Let's consider the behavior of VACUUM and system table updates after
transaction commits in procedures that freq
egards,
Vyacheslav Kirillov
От: David G. Johnston
Отправлено: 21 октября 2024 г. 16:55
Кому: Кириллов Вячеслав
Копия: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
Тема: Re: Question about VACUUM behavior with sub-transactions in stored
procedures
On Monday, October 21, 2024,
On Monday, October 21, 2024, Кириллов Вячеслав wrote:
> I have a question regarding the behavior of the auto VACUUM in PostgreSQL
> in the context of using stored procedures with sub-transactions.
>
>
This is a general usage inquiry not suited to discussion on -hackers. We
have a -general mailin
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 30/06/2024 12:48, Andy Fan wrote:
>> for example, at the first use of outputTapes[x], it stores (1, 3, 5,
>> 7),
>> and later (2, 4, 6, 8) are put into it. so the overall of (1, 3, 5, 7,
>> 2, 4, 6, 8) are not sorted? Where did I go wrong?
>
> There's a distincti
On 30/06/2024 12:48, Andy Fan wrote:
merge sorts requires all the tuples in each input are pre-sorted (1),
and in tuplesort.c, when the workmem is full, we dumptuples into
destTape. (2). it looks to me that we need a unlimited number of Tapes
if the number of input tuples is big enough. However
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 10:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I added them here with minimal copy editing an no attempt to organize or
> > sort into groups:
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_checklist#Policies
> > If someone has thoughts on how to improve I am happy to make more changes.
>
> T
Joe Conway writes:
> On 6/6/24 14:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> To get a sense of how much of a problem we have, I grepped the git
>> history for comments mentioning project policies. Ignoring ones
>> that are really talking about very localized issues, what I found
>> is attached. It seems like it's l
On 6/6/24 14:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:25 AM Hannu Krosing wrote:
Not absolutely sure, but would at least adding a page to PostgreSQL
Wiki about this make sense ?
I feel like we need to do something. Tom says this is a policy, and
he's made that comme
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:25 AM Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Not absolutely sure, but would at least adding a page to PostgreSQL
>> Wiki about this make sense ?
> I feel like we need to do something. Tom says this is a policy, and
> he's made that comment before about other thing
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:25 AM Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Not absolutely sure, but would at least adding a page to PostgreSQL
> Wiki about this make sense ?
I feel like we need to do something. Tom says this is a policy, and
he's made that comment before about other things, but the fact that
they're
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:29 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Joe Conway writes:
> > I was having a discussion regarding out-of-support branches and effort
> > to keep them building, but could not for the life of me find any actual
> > documented policy (although I distinctly remember that we do something..
Joe Conway writes:
> I was having a discussion regarding out-of-support branches and effort
> to keep them building, but could not for the life of me find any actual
> documented policy (although I distinctly remember that we do something...).
> Is the policy written down somewhere, or is it onl
Thanks for the reply,yeah i know about FreeWaitEventSet() but that is being
used in few places but not for handling backends.
i got it that FDs like FeBeWaitSet->epoll_fd will be free'd when connection is
terminated but as i mentioned wouldn't it be an issue if the connection is long
living let
On 24/05/2024 15:17, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla wrote:
Hi PostgreSQL Community,
when a backend process starts, pq_init is called where it opens a FD during
CreateWaitEventSet()
if (!AcquireExternalFD())
{
/* treat this as though epoll_create1 itself returned EMFILE */
elog(ERROR, "epoll_create1
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 4:47 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica
> > > identity is
> > > + how to set the replica id
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 11:27 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > is
> > + how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > + (or with rep
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:57 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > is
> > + how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> > + (or with repl
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity is
> + how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> + (or with replica identity behavior the same as
> NOTHING) is
> added to a p
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 11:12 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:04 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:04 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:22 PM Laurenz Albe
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, James C
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:04 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:04 AM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:22 PM Laurenz Albe
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, James Coleman wrote:
> > > > We recently noticed some behavior that seems reaso
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:04 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:22 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, James Coleman wrote:
> > > We recently noticed some behavior that seems reasonable but also
> > > surprised our engineers based on the docs.
> > >
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:22 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, James Coleman wrote:
> > We recently noticed some behavior that seems reasonable but also
> > surprised our engineers based on the docs.
> >
> > If we have this setup:
> > create table items(i int);
> > inser
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 15:12 -0500, James Coleman wrote:
> We recently noticed some behavior that seems reasonable but also
> surprised our engineers based on the docs.
>
> If we have this setup:
> create table items(i int);
> insert into items(i) values (1);
> create publication test_pub for all t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:24 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on radix tree patch[1], John Naylor found that dsa.c
> doesn't already use shared locks even in dsa_dump(). dsa_dump() seems
> a pure read-only function so I thought we could use a shared lock mode
> there. Is there a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 4:43 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:24 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While working on radix tree patch[1], John Naylor found that dsa.c
> > doesn't already use shared locks even in dsa_dump(). dsa_dump() seems
> > a pure read-only
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:24 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on radix tree patch[1], John Naylor found that dsa.c
> doesn't already use shared locks even in dsa_dump(). dsa_dump() seems
> a pure read-only function so I thought we could use a shared lock mode
> there. Is there a
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:29 PM Xiang Gao wrote:
>
> Thank you for your detailed explanation.
> Can I do some testing and submit this patch?
Please do, thanks.
On Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:05:43PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:44=E2=80=AFPM Xiang Gao wrote:
>> * function. We could instead adopt the behavior of Arm's vmaxvq_u32(), i=
>.e.
>> * check each 32-bit element, but that would require an additional mask
>> * operation on
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:44 PM Xiang Gao wrote:
> * function. We could instead adopt the behavior of Arm's vmaxvq_u32(), i.e.
> * check each 32-bit element, but that would require an additional mask
> * operation on x86.
> */
> But I still don't understand why the vmaxvq_u32 intrinsic is not
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 01:01:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 08:47:33AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:16:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> What
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 08:47:33AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:16:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
> > >> c
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:16:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
> >> called again". That provides a hint that retry is the appropriate
> >> re
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
>> called again". That provides a hint that retry is the appropriate
>> response to a failure. Admittedly, it's not 100% clear, but your
>> v
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:11:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Okay, I added "_successful_ calls", attached. I am not sure what else
> > to add.
>
> What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
> called again". That provides a hint that retry is t
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Okay, I added "_successful_ calls", attached. I am not sure what else
> to add.
What I'm objecting to is removal of the bit about "if they need to be
called again". That provides a hint that retry is the appropriate
response to a failure. Admittedly, it's not 100% clear
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:58:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I modified your patch, attached, that I would like to apply to all
> > supported versions.
>
> This seems to have lost the information about what to do if these
> functions fail. I think probably the only possi
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I modified your patch, attached, that I would like to apply to all
> supported versions.
This seems to have lost the information about what to do if these
functions fail. I think probably the only possible failure cause
in nonblock mode is "unable to enlarge the buffer be
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
