I made bunch of changes based on Andres' review and I split some more
indisputable 1 line changes from the large commit, hoping it will be easier to
review both. Several bits and pieces of the patch have been applied piecemeal,
but I was hoping to avoid continuing to do that.
I think at least the
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This patch was applied as f73293aba4d4. Thanks, Paul and Michael.
Thanks for the thread update, Alvaro. I completely forgot to mention
the commit on this thread.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
This patch was applied as f73293aba4d4. Thanks, Paul and Michael.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-May-20, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:44 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > This sounds more like an open item to me [1], not something that have to
> > be postponed until the next CF.
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_12_Open_Items
>
> Oh sorry, I a
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:22 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> If you could clean up the CF entry, and keep only the open item in the
> list, that would be nice. Thanks.
I withdrew the CF entry; hopefully that is all that needs to be done,
but if I should do anything else let me know.
Thanks,
Paul
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:55:46PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> You could link the CF entry from the wiki (the open item), but then it
> will have to be closed when the open entry will be closed, so double work
> for whoever does the cleaning up duties. Maybe, it's better to withdraw
> it now.
If
On 2019/05/21 13:47, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:44 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> This sounds more like an open item to me [1], not something that have to
>> be postponed until the next CF.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_12_Open_Items
>
> Oh sorry, I a
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:44 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> This sounds more like an open item to me [1], not something that have to
> be postponed until the next CF.
>
> [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_12_Open_Items
Oh sorry, I already created the CF entry. Should I withdraw it? I'll
a
On 2019/05/21 13:39, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:36 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch. To avoid it getting lost in the discussions of this
>> thread, it might be better to post the patch to a separate thread.
>
> Okay, I'll make a new thread and a new CF en
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:36 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. To avoid it getting lost in the discussions of this
> thread, it might be better to post the patch to a separate thread.
Okay, I'll make a new thread and a new CF entry. Thanks!
Hi Paul,
On 2019/05/21 13:25, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this or it's already been
> covered (I did scan though this whole thread and a couple others), but
> I noticed the docs at
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/ddl-partitioning.html still say
> you
Hello,
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this or it's already been
covered (I did scan though this whole thread and a couple others), but
I noticed the docs at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/ddl-partitioning.html still say
you can't create a foreign key referencing a partitioned tabl
Hi,
On 2019/05/21 7:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-20 13:20:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> @@ -3052,7 +3052,7 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$> count>:&l
>> simplifies ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION operations:
>> the partition dependencies need only be added or removed.
>>
Hi,
On 2019-05-20 13:20:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 05:43:33PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Thanks in advance for any review.
I find these pretty tedious to work with. I'm somewhat dyslexic, not a
native speaker. So it requires a lot of concentration to go through
th
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 05:43:33PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I reviewed docs like this:
> git log -p remotes/origin/REL_11_STABLE..HEAD -- doc
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 05:00:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> However most of what you are proposing does not seem necessary, and the
> current ph
Hi,
On 2019-04-08 09:18:28 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> From aae1a84b74436951222dba42b21de284ed8b1ac9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Justin Pryzby
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:24:35 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH v2 03/12] JIT typos..
>
> ..which I sent to Andres some time ago and which I noticed wer
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 14:17:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-04-22 13:27:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder
> >> also if it wouldn't be smart to explicitly check that the "guaranteeing"
> >> column is not attisdropped.
>
> > Yea, that probably would be smart. I don
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:10:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think we generally write this the way Justin suggests. It's
> more precise, at least if you're reading it in a way that makes
> text distinguishable from plain text: what to put into
> the config file is exactly "-1", and not for
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:56:47PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> -all autovacuum actions. Minus-one (the default) disables logging
>> +all autovacuum actions. -1 (the default)
>> disables logging
>>
>> There's nothing else that says "minus-one" anywhere
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:56:47PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> But here's some one-liner excerpts.
>
> - is 2 bits and maximum is 4095.
> Parameters for
> + is 2 bits and the maximum is
> 4095. Parameters for
>
> Adding "the" makes it a complete sentence and not a fragment.
Not s
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:44:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > But I think the biggest part of the patch is still not even reviewed ?
> > I'm referring to ./*review-docs-for-pg12dev.patch
>
> Nope. I looked at the patch, and a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> But I think the biggest part of the patch is still not even reviewed ?
> I'm referring to ./*review-docs-for-pg12dev.patch
Nope. I looked at the patch, and as mentioned upthread the suggested
changes did not seem like improvements a
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:50:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:19:55PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2019-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I think it'd be better just to fix s/the all/that all/.
> >
> > (and s/if's/if it's/)
>
> FWIW, I have noticed that
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:19:55PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think it'd be better just to fix s/the all/that all/.
>
> (and s/if's/if it's/)
FWIW, I have noticed that part when gathering all the pieces for what
became 148266f, still the full paragrap
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 13:18:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> >> (Possibly I'd not think this if I weren't fresh off a couple of days
> >> with my nose in the ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL code. But right now,
> >> I think that believing that that code does not and never will have
> >>
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 14:17:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-04-22 13:27:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder
> >> also if it wouldn't be smart to explicitly check that the "guaranteeing"
> >> column is not attisdropped.
>
> > Yea, that probably would be smart. I don
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-04-22 13:27:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder
>> also if it wouldn't be smart to explicitly check that the "guaranteeing"
>> column is not attisdropped.
> Yea, that probably would be smart. I don't think there's an active
> problem, because we remove NOT NULL
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 13:27:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > The computation of that variable above has:
>
> > * If the column is possibly missing, we can't rely on its (or
> > * subsequent) NOT NULL constraints to indicate minimum
> > attributes in
>
Andres Freund writes:
> The computation of that variable above has:
>* If the column is possibly missing, we can't rely on its (or
>* subsequent) NOT NULL constraints to indicate minimum
> attributes in
>* the tuple, so stop here.
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-04-22 12:33:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But TBH, now that I look at the code, I think the entire optimization
>> is a bad idea and should be removed. Am I right in thinking that the
>> presence of a wrong attnotnull marker could cause the generated code to
>> actu
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 09:43:56 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-22 12:33:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM that Michael's proposed wording change shows that the existing
> > comment is easily misinterpreted. I don't think these minor grammatical
> > fixes will avoid the misinterpretation pro
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 12:33:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM that Michael's proposed wording change shows that the existing
> comment is easily misinterpreted. I don't think these minor grammatical
> fixes will avoid the misinterpretation problem, and so some more-extensive
> rewording is called for.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 14:48:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> /*
>>> -* Check if's guaranteed the all the desired attributes are available in
>>> -* tuple. If so, we can start deforming. If not, need to make sure to
>>> -* fet
On 2019-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-22 14:48:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > /*
> > -* Check if's guaranteed the all the desired attributes are available in
> > -* tuple. If so, we can start deforming. If not, need to make sure to
> > -* fetch the missing column
Hi,
On 2019-04-22 14:48:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:43:01AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Thanks for committing those portions.
>
> I have done an extra pass on your patch set to make sure that I am
> missing nothing, and the last two remaining places which nee
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:43:01AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Thanks for committing those portions.
I have done an extra pass on your patch set to make sure that I am
missing nothing, and the last two remaining places which need some
tweaks are the comments from the JIT code you pointed out. A
Thanks for committing those portions.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 05:00:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am particularly referring to patches 0005
> (publications use "a superuser" in error messages as well which could
> be fixed as well?),
I deliberately avoided changing thesee "errhint" messa
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:18:28AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Find attached updated patches for v12 docs.
Thanks for taking the time to dig into such things.
> Note that Alvaro applied an early patch for log_statement_sample_rate, but
> unfortunately I hadn't sent a v2 patch with additional ch
Find attached updated patches for v12 docs.
Note that Alvaro applied an early patch for log_statement_sample_rate, but
unfortunately I hadn't sent a v2 patch with additional change from myon, so
there's one remaining hunk included here.
If needed I can split up differently for review, or resend a
I reviewed docs like this:
git log -p remotes/origin/REL_11_STABLE..HEAD -- doc
And split some into separate patches, which may be useful at least for
reviewing.
I'm mailing now rather than after feature freeze to avoid duplicative work and
see if there's any issue.
Note, I also/already mailed t
40 matches
Mail list logo
