On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 03:05:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached an updated patch. The patch includes a regression test
> to detect the new violation as we discussed. I've confirmed that
> Cirrus CI tests pass. Please confirm on AIX and review the patch.
When the context of a "git
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 3:34 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 03:06:40PM +, [email protected] wrote:
> Splitting the program and its arguments makes sense.
Great.
> At the end I am finishing with the attached. I also saw an ove
At Tue, 05 Apr 2022 11:16:44 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> So, I have the following points in my mind for now.
>
> - We create the directory "since we know it is just tentative state".
>
> - Then, check that no directory in pg_tblspc when reaching consistency
> when allow_in_plac
Hi David:
I just came to the office today to double check this patch. I probably can
> finish it very soon.
>
I would share my current review result first and more review is still in
progress.
There is a lot of amazing stuff there but I'd save the simple +1 and just
share
something I'm not full
>
> The root cause is even ExecQual(winstate->runcondition, econtext) return
> false, we
> still return the slot to the upper node. A simple hack can avoid it.
>
Forget to say 0002 shows what I mean.
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:08 PM Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 03:05:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached an updated patch. The patch includes a regression test
> > to detect the new violation as we discussed. I've confirmed that
> > Cirrus CI tests pass. Please confi
At Tue, 05 Apr 2022 16:38:06 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> > However, while working on it, I found that I found that recovery faces
> > missing tablespace directories *after* reaching consistency. I'm
> > examining that further.
>
> Okay, it was my thinko. But I faced another obst
Hi,
Thanks for advices.
We have 4 branches, for each patch provided, you can check them out -
(come copy-paste from the very fist email, where the patches were proposed)
1) 1_toaster_interface
https://github.com/postgrespro/postgres/tree/toaster_interface
Introduces syntax for storage and formal to
> On 4 Apr 2022, at 15:08, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> We use snprintf() like that countless times, and approximately none of them
> check for overflow. So while you are right, this might not be the place to
> start a new policy.
Fair enough, I'll remove these hunks before committing and wil
At Tue, 05 Apr 2022 16:38:06 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Tue, 05 Apr 2022 11:16:44 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > So, I have the following points in my mind for now.
> >
> > - We create the directory "since we know it is just tentative state".
> >
> > - Then,
Hi Daniel,
> It also doesn't seem all that appealing that SimpleLruInit can
> return false on successful function invocation, it makes for a confusing
API.
Agree. I think using an additional `bool *found` argument would be less
confusing.
Noah, Pavel,
>> The default place for this kind of test
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:55 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 11:15 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > 1) Why can't rmid be chosen by the extensions in sequential order
> > from
> > (129 till 255), say, to start with a columnar extension can choose
> > 129, another extension can regi
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:15:56PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Have you measured the performance effects of this? On fast storage with large
> shared_buffers I've seen these loops in profiles. It's probably fine, but it'd
> be good to verify that.
I am wondering if we could make the function inl
> On 30 Mar 2022, at 00:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 29 Mar 2022, at 16:38, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> Most of these should probably be addressed separately from Tom's patch.
>
>> Yeah, I think so too.
>
> Agreed. I tried to confine my patch to mechanical chan
I spent some time thinking about a special case of evaluation of the row
filter and wrote a comment that might be useful (see the attachment). However
now I think that it's not perfect if the code really relies on the fact that
value of an indexed column cannot be TOASTed due to size restrictions.
On 2022-Apr-05, Amit Langote wrote:
> While at it, maybe it's better to rename ExecInitPruningContext() to
> InitPartitionPruneContext(), which I've done in the attached updated
> patch.
Good call. I had changed that name too, but yours seems a better
choice.
I made a few other cosmetic changes
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:10 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> I did some experiments over the weekend, exploring how to rework the
> sequence decoding in various ways. Let me share some WIP patches,
> hopefully that can be useful for trying more stuff and moving this
> discussion forward.
>
> I tried two
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:34 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 12:08 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > After thinking more about this I see there is some value of
> > remembering the dead tids in the conveyor belt. Basically, the point
> > is if there are multiple indexes and we do the in
Antonin Houska wrote:
> I spent some time thinking about a special case of evaluation of the row
> filter and wrote a comment that might be useful (see the attachment). However
> now I think that it's not perfect if the code really relies on the fact that
> value of an indexed column cannot be TO
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:52 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > I spent some time thinking about a special case of evaluation of the row
> > filter and wrote a comment that might be useful (see the attachment).
> > However
> > now I think that it's not perfect if the code re
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 07:13:35AM +, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you. I agree with the attached and I will carry it forward to the
> rest of the patchset.
No need to carry it forward anymore, I think ;)
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 12:55 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 07:13:35AM +, [email protected] wrote:
> No need to carry it forward anymore, I think ;)
Thank you for committing!
Cheers,
//Georgios
> --
> Michael
>
> Again, I don't have a strong opinion here. If you insist, I will place the
> tests to regress.c.
>
It is up to committer to decide, but I think it would be good to place
tests in regression.
In my opinion, many things from core may be used by extensions. And then it
is up to extension authors
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 19:38, Andy Fan wrote:
> 1. We can do more on PASSTHROUGH, we just bypass the window function
> currently, but IIUC we can ignore all of the following tuples in current
> partition
> once we go into this mode. patch 0001 shows what I mean.
Yeah, there is more performance
Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Antonin Houska wrote:
> >
> > Nevertheless, a comment in pgoutput_row_filter(), saying that TOASTed values
> > are not expected if old_slot is NULL, might be useful.
> >
>
> How about something like the attached?
Yes, that'd be sufficient. Thanks.
--
Antonin Houska
Web
Hi hackers,
>> Again, I don't have a strong opinion here. If you insist, I will place the
>> tests to regress.c.
>
> It is up to committer to decide, but I think it would be good to place tests
> in regression. In my opinion, many things from core may be used by extensions.
> And then it is up to
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:19 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I don't think that saving extra index passes is really a small gain.
> I think this will save a lot of IO if indexes pages are not in shared
> buffers because here we are talking about we can completely avoid the
> index passes for some of the in
On 4/3/22 22:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>> We've had bugs in pg_upgrade where post-upgrade xid horizons weren't
>> correctly
>> set. We've had bugs were indexes were corrupted during replay.
>>
>> The latter can be caught by wal_consistency
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:00 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Apr-05, Amit Langote wrote:
> > While at it, maybe it's better to rename ExecInitPruningContext() to
> > InitPartitionPruneContext(), which I've done in the attached updated
> > patch.
>
> Good call. I had changed that name too, but y
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:49 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 19:38, Andy Fan wrote:
> > 1. We can do more on PASSTHROUGH, we just bypass the window function
> > currently, but IIUC we can ignore all of the following tuples in
> current partition
> > once we go into this mode. pat
On 24.03.22 20:32, Robert Haas wrote:
Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.
This patch changed the delayChkpt field of struct PGPROC from bool to
int. Back-porting this change could be considered an API breaking
change for extensions using this field.
I'm not c
Hi:
In my recent work, I want to check if the xmin for all the tuples is
CurrentTransactioniId,
then I found we can improve the fastpath for
TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId
like below, would it be safe? This would be helpful if we have lots of
sub transactionId.
diff --git a/src/backend/a
Hi,
I wanted to have a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files of size, say
16MB. I'm wondering if the Full Page Images (FPIs) of a TOAST table
would help here. Please let me know if there's any way to generate
such large WAL records.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
On 3/30/22 14:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:02 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2022-02-15 08:06:58 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that if we want to do this,
>>> we should do it for variables and functions.
>> Btw, if we were t
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:21 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are my comments for the latest patch v6-0001.
>
> (I will post my v6-0002 review comments separately)
>
> PATCH v6-0001 comments
> ==
>
> 1.1 General - Option name
>
> I still feel like the option name is not ideal. Unf
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 15:13, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to have a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files of size, say
> 16MB. I'm wondering if the Full Page Images (FPIs) of a TOAST table
> would help here. Please let me know if there's any way to generate
> such large WAL recor
On 2022-Apr-05, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to have a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files of size, say
> 16MB. I'm wondering if the Full Page Images (FPIs) of a TOAST table
> would help here. Please let me know if there's any way to generate
> such large WAL records.
It's easi
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:02 AM Markus Wanner
wrote:
> And for this specific case: Is it worth reverting this change and
> applying a fully backwards compatible fix, instead?
I think it's normally our policy to avoid changing definitions of
accessible structs in back branches, except that we allow
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 3/30/22 14:37, Robert Haas wrote:
>> @RMT: Andres proposed upthread that we should plan to do this just
>> after feature freeze. Accordingly I propose to commit at least 0002
>> and perhaps 0001 if people want it just after feature freeze. I
>> therefore ask that the RM
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:46 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Apr-05, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to have a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files of size, say
> > 16MB. I'm wondering if the Full Page Images (FPIs) of a TOAST table
> > would help here. Please let me
On 4/4/22 16:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-03-30 17:26:18 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-03-22 19:00:42 +0300, Melih Mutlu wrote:
>>> Rebased it.
>>> I also removed the temp installation task and
>>> used NoDefaultCurrentDirectoryInExePath env variable instead.
>> H
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:02 AM Markus Wanner
> wrote:
>> And for this specific case: Is it worth reverting this change and
>> applying a fully backwards compatible fix, instead?
> I think it's normally our policy to avoid changing definitions of
> accessible structs in back
This is failing regression tests. I don't understand how this patch
could be affecting this test though. Perhaps it's a problem with the
json patches that were committed recently -- but they don't seem to be
causing other patches to fail.
diff -U3 /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/test/regress/expected/js
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Renaming it would constitute an API break, which is if anything worse
> than an ABI break.
I don't think so, because an API break will cause a compilation
failure, which an extension author can easily fix.
> While we're complaining at you, let me
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Renaming it would constitute an API break, which is if anything worse
>> than an ABI break.
> I don't think so, because an API break will cause a compilation
> failure, which an extension author can easily fix.
My point is
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Renaming it would constitute an API break, which is if anything worse
> >> than an ABI break.
>
> > I don't think so, because an API break will cause a compilation
> > f
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:41 AM Thom Brown wrote:
> I know it's been 8 years, but I still think it would be a useful note
> to add to the docs.
Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects.
I'm mildly uncomfortable with the phrase "WAL records generated over
the delay period" because it see
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:54 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:41 AM Thom Brown wrote:
> > I know it's been 8 years, but I still think it would be a useful note
> > to add to the docs.
>
Many points for bringing that one back :)
Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:58 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects.
>>
>> I'm mildly uncomfortable with the phrase "WAL records generated over
>> the delay period" because it seems a bit imprecise, but I'm not sure
>> what would be better and I think the m
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, the frontend error message rework in [1]. That has exactly
> the same constraint that it's likely to break other open patches,
> so it'd be better to do it after the CF cutoff. I think that doing
> that concurrently with Robert's thing shou
Greetings,
* David Steele ([email protected]) wrote:
> On 4/4/22 11:42 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >I noticed a couple of other things that can be removed. Since we no longer
> >wait on exclusive backup mode during smart shutdown, we can change
> >connsAllowed (in postmaster.c) to a boolean and
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Pretty much, yeah. I'm way more interested in cleaning up the code
> we have than in making things prettier for hypothetical future
> call sites. In particular, the problem with writing an API in a
> vacuum is that you have little evidence that i
Good day, David.
I'm looking on patch and don't get some moments.
`GrantLockLocal` allocates `LOCALLOCKOWNER` and links it into
`locallock->locallockowners`. It links it regardless `owner` could be
NULL. But then `RemoveLocalLock` does `Assert(locallockowner->owner != NULL);`.
Why it should not f
Here's a v8, where per my previous comment I removed some code that I
believe is no longer necessary.
I've omitted the patch that renames LogwrtResult subvariables into
LogWriteResult/LogWriteFlush; I still think the end result is better
after that one, but it's a pretty trivial change that can be
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:03 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 11:53:52AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > Sadly the cfbot is showing a patch conflict again. It's just a trivial
> > conflict in the regression test schedule so I'm not going to update
> > the status but it would be good
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated.
> There
> is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
> assertion involving it.
>
> What would having PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER and PGSTAT_KIND
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:15 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-02-25 13:23:31 +0900, Noboru Saito wrote:
> > I have created a patch that allows you to turn it on and off in \pset.
>
> The patch unfortunately causes tests to fail:
It doesn't seem like the originally proposed design here will be
ac
Hi,
I'm thinking if there's a way in core postgres to achieve $subject. In
reality, the sync/async standbys can either be closer/farther (which
means sync/async standbys can receive WAL at different times) to
primary, especially in cloud HA environments with primary in one
Availability Zone(AZ)/Re
On 4/5/22 11:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Please find attached an updated patch + commit message. Mostly, I just
went through and did a bit more in terms of updating the documentation
and improving the comments (there were some places that were still
worrying about the chance of a 'stray' backup
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:16 AM Gunnar "Nick" Bluth
wrote:
> That was meant to say "v10", sorry!
Hi,
>From my point of view, at least, it would be preferable if you'd stop
changing the subject line every time you post a new version.
Based on the test results in
http://postgr.es/m/42bfa680-7998-
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:10 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>> > I wanted to have a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files of size, say
>> > 16MB. I'm wondering if the Full Page Images (FPIs) of a TOAST table
>> > would help here. Please let me know if there's any way to generate
>> > such large WAL records.
>I nevertheless think that's not acceptable. The whole premise of the
> progress
>reporting infrastructure is to be low overhead. It's OK to require locking
> to
>initialize parallel progress reporting, it's definitely not ok to require
>locking to report progress.
Fair point.
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:25 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * David Steele ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On 4/4/22 11:42 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > >I noticed a couple of other things that can be removed. Since we no
> longer
> > >wait on exclusive backup mode during smart shutdow
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:25 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Right. The reason I used WARNINGs was because it matches vaguely
> related WARNINGs in vac_update_relstats()'s sibling function,
> vacuum_set_xid_limits().
Okay, pushed the relfrozenxid warning patch.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 3/26/22 11:10 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
Additionally, the RMT has set the feature freeze date to be April 7,
2022. This is the last day to commit features for PostgreSQL 15. In
other words, no new PostgreSQL 15 feature can be committed after April 8
0:00, 2022 AoE[1].
[1] https://en.wik
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:20 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > The checkpointer never takes heavyweight locks, so the opportunity
> > you're describing can't arise.
>
> Hmm, oh, you probably meant the buffer interlocking
> in SyncOneBuffer(). It's true that my most recent patch throws away
> more requ
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:42 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> >Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate
> > workers
> >with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress
> > fields
> >to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the l
Hi,
On 2022-04-05 08:49:36 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >
> > I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated.
> > There
> > is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
> > asserti
On 2022-04-05 16:42:28 +, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> >Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate
> > workers
> >with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress
> > fields
> >to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the lead
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:06 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, the frontend error message rework in [1]. That has exactly
> > the same constraint that it's likely to break other open patches,
> > so it'd be better to do it after the CF cutoff. I
Apologies -- I selected the wrong commit to extract the commit message
from. Here it is again. I also removed an obsolete /* XXX */ comment.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
>From 0b26f90f1b95f8e9b932eb34bbf9c2a50729cf60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
F
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 15:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:02:09PM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > Whether that's a problem in the future entirely depends on whether
> > there's some authentication method that considers the empty string a
> > sane and meaningful identit
On Tuesday, April 5, 2022, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-04-05 08:49:36 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more
> complicated.
> > > There
> > > is a *single* non-
>Can't the progress data trivially be inferred by the fact that the worker
>completed?
Yes, at some point, this idea was experimented with in
0004-Expose-progress-for-the-vacuuming-indexes-cleanup-ph.patch.
This patch did the calculation in system_views.sql
However, the view is complex an
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> My point is that we want that to happen in HEAD, but it's not okay
>> for it to happen in a minor release of a stable branch.
> I understand, but I am not sure that I agree. I think that if an
> extension stops compiling ag
Robert Haas writes:
> Do you care whether your commit
> or mine goes in first?
I do not. If they're not independent, at least one of us has messed up.
I have family commitments on Saturday, so if I don't get mine in
on Friday it'll likely not happen before Sunday.
regar
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:44 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> The whole idea of decoupling table and index vacuum
> supposes that there are situations in which it's worth performing the
> first heap pass where we gather the dead line pointers but where it's
> not necessary to follow that up as quickly as po
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, the initial version is attached here.
I've been meaning to look at this thread for some time but have not
found enough time to do that until just now. And now I have
questions...
1. Supposing we accepted this, how w
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Here's a new 0001 to keep CFBot happy.
This seems like it would conflict with the proposal from
http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmoad8wmn6i1mmuo+4znege3hd57ys8uv8uzm7cneqy3...@mail.gmail.com
which I still hope to advance in some form at an app
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 11:25:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Please find attached an updated patch + commit message. Mostly, I just
> went through and did a bit more in terms of updating the documentation
> and improving the comments (there were some places that were still
> worrying about the
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:22 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It's not just an enabler of more frequent index vacuuming (for those
> indexes that need it the most), though. It's also an enabler of more
> frequent lazy_scan_prune processing (in particular setting hint bits
> and freezing), which is proba
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 02:27, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> This is failing regression tests. I don't understand how this patch
> could be affecting this test though. Perhaps it's a problem with the
> json patches that were committed recently -- but they don't seem to be
> causing other patches to fail.
I
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> I had assumed that this would not be the case, because if the page is
> being accessed by the workload, it can be pruned - and probably frozen
> too, if we wanted to write code for that and spend the cycles on it -
> and if it isn't, pruning and
Hi,
On 2022-04-02 01:16:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I just noticed that the code doesn't appear to actually work like that right
> now. Whenever the timeout is reached, pgstat_report_stat() is called with
> force = true.
>
> And even if the backend is busy running queries, once there's conte
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:05 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> - added an architecture overview comment to the top of pgstat.c - not sure
> if
> it makes sense to anybody but me (and perhaps Horiguchi-san)?
>
>
I took a look at this, diff attached. Some typos and minor style stuff,
plus trying to bring
This is not passing regression tests due to some details of the plan
output - marking Waiting on Author:
diff -w -U3 c:/cirrus/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out
c:/cirrus/src/test/recovery/tmp_check/results/partition_prune.out
--- c:/cirrus/src/test/regress/expected/partition_prune.out
Hi,
On 2022-04-05 13:51:12 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:05 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > - added an architecture overview comment to the top of pgstat.c - not sure
> > if
> > it makes sense to anybody but me (and perhaps Horiguchi-san)?
> >
> >
> I took a look at
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-05 13:51:12 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> >, but rather add to the shared queue
>
> Queue? Maybe you mean the hashtable?
>
Queue implemented by a list...? Anyway, I think I mean this:
/*
* List of PgStat_EntryRefs with u
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:30 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > I had assumed that this would not be the case, because if the page is
> > being accessed by the workload, it can be pruned - and probably frozen
> > too, if we wanted to write code for th
Am 05.04.22 um 18:17 schrieb Robert Haas:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:16 AM Gunnar "Nick" Bluth
> wrote:
>> That was meant to say "v10", sorry!
>
> Hi,
Hi Robert,
and thx for looking at this.
> From my point of view, at least, it would be preferable if you'd stop
> changing the subject line ev
Hello Hackers,
Reporting a bug with the new MERGE statement. Tested against
75edb919613ee835e7680e40137e494c7856bcf9.
psql output as follows:
...
psql:merge.sql:33: ERROR: variable not found in subplan target lists
ROLLBACK
[local] joe@joe=# \errverbose
ERROR: XX000: variable not found in sub
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:30 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I had assumed that this would not be the case, because if the page is
> > > being accessed by the workload, it can be pruned - and
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:18 PM Joe Wildish wrote:
> Hello Hackers,
>
> Reporting a bug with the new MERGE statement. Tested against
> 75edb919613ee835e7680e40137e494c7856bcf9.
>
> psql output as follows:
>
> ...
> psql:merge.sql:33: ERROR: variable not found in subplan target lists
> ROLLBACK
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:35 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:18 PM Joe Wildish wrote:
>
>> Hello Hackers,
>>
>> Reporting a bug with the new MERGE statement. Tested against
>> 75edb919613ee835e7680e40137e494c7856bcf9.
>>
>> psql output as follows:
>>
>> ...
>> psql:merge.sql:3
Hi
Updated patch: we use the posix semantic features in Windows build 17763
and up.
We found an issue with this feature on Windows Server 2016 without
updates (Windows 1607 Build 14393)
Victor Spirin
Postgres Professional:http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
05.07.2021 16:
On 2022-04-05 14:43:49 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >
> > On 2022-04-05 13:51:12 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> >
> > >, but rather add to the shared queue
> >
> > Queue? Maybe you mean the hashtable?
> >
>
> Queue implemented by a
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:58 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects.
> >>
> >> I'm mildly uncomfortable with the phrase "WAL records generated over
> >> the delay period" because it seems a bit imprecis
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-04-04 00:50:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's hard to be totally sure, but I think what happened is that
>> gaur hit the in-hindsight-obvious race condition in this code:
>> we managed to execute a successful iteration of poll_query_until
>> before the postmaster ha
>> I would suggest to reorder the last chunk to:
>>
>>... retried retries failures serfail dlfail
>>
>> because I intend to add connection failures handling at some point,
>> and it would make more sense to add the corresponding count at the end
>> with other fails.
>
> Ok, I have adjusted t
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 01:42, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:58 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects.
> > >>
> > >> I'm mildly uncomfortable with the phrase "WAL records generat
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
