On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
I don't think that this thread has reached a conclusion yet. From what
I can see the last patch does not apply, so I have moved the patch to
next CF with "waiting on author".
--
Michael
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in
>>> separate extension (as in this patch), in db_link, in som
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> And here is a rebased patch for the original feature. I think this
>> addresses all raised concerns and suggestions now.
>
> Thanks for the new versio
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Speaking of which... I have a meeting in 15 minutes to discuss moving to a
> server with 4TB of memory. With current limits shared buffers maxes at 16TB,
> which isn't all that far in the future. While 16TB of shared buffers might
> not be a good
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> The lwlock would be released when an exception occurs, so I don't think
> that TRY-CATCH is necessary here. Or it's necessary for another reason?
+PG_CATCH();
+{
+LWLockRelease(LogicalRepLauncherLock);
+PG_RE_THROW();
+
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/1/17 10:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This looks fine to me.
This could go without the comments, they are likely going to be
forgotten if any updates happen in the future.
> If someone wants to proactively commit this, the CF entry is
> http
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> pq_sendcountedtext() does some encoding conversion, which is why I
>> haven't used because we deal only with integers in this patch... Now
>> if you
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> Please find the attached file rebased patch of parallel index-only
> scan on the latest Parallel index-scan patch [1].
Moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Moved to next CF with "needs review" status.
There has not been much interest in this patch, moved again, this time
to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Any Comments on the approach?
I have moved this patch to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hacker
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Attached is the new version of the patch. I also addressed other comments
> from you: moved rewriting the fdw_scan_tlist to postgres_fdw.c,
> added/revised comments, and added regression tests for the case where a
> pushed down UPDATE/DELETE
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> Okay, here is v3 with some small fixes and rebased on top of rename.
> Also it's rebased without the
> 0005-Add-separate-synchronous-commit-control-for-logical--v18.patch as I
> don't expect that one to go further for now.
>
> Thanks for testi
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Rebased series attached, on top of current master (which includes
> logical replicaiton).
>
> I'm inclined to think I should split out a few of the changes from
> 0005, roughly along the lines of the bullet points in its commit
> message. Anyo
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> If we want to save the 4 bytes per xmin advance (probably not worth
> caring) we can instead skip setting it on the standby, in which case
> it'll be potentially wrong until the next checkpoint. I'd rather make
> sure it stays correct.
Those
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> On 2016/12/23 14:21, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> Currently an Append plan node does not execute its subplans in
>> parallel. There is no distribution of workers across its subplans. The
>> second subplan starts running only after the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ in the service of closing out this thread... ]
>
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
>> Finally, 0003-* is a Valgrind suppression borrowed from my parallel
>> CREATE INDEX patch. It's self-explanatory.
>
> Um, I didn't find it all that self-explanatory.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
>>
> The patch needs a rebase after the commit 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec4.
Is an update going to be provided? I have moved this patch to next CF
with "waiting on author" as status.
--
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nikita Glukhov writes:
>> On 25.01.2017 23:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think you need to take a second look at the code you're producing
>>> and realize that it's not so clean either. This extract from
>>> populate_record_field, for example, is pr
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
>> HashMetaPage _hash_getcachedmetap(Relation rel, Buffer *metabuf, bool
>> force_refresh);
>>
>> If the cache is initialized and force_refresh is not true, then this
>> just returns the cached data, and the metabuf argument isn't used.
>> Otherwis
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Updated and rebased v7 attached.
Moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Moser wrote:
> [reviews and discussions]
The patch proposed has rotten. Please provide a rebase. By the way, I
am having a hard time applying your patches with patch or any other
methods... I am moving it to CF 2017-03 because of the lack of
reviews.
--
Mic
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/15/17 5:53 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> the regress test fails
>>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> 0x007bbc2b in pattern_char_isalpha (locale_is_c=0 '\000',
>> locale=0x1a73220, is_multibyte=1 '\001',
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I noticed that this patch is conflicting with 665d1fa (Logical
> replication) so I rebased this. Only executor/Makefile
> conflicted.
The patches still apply, moved to CF 2017-03. Be aware of that:
$ git diff HEAD~6 --check
contrib/post
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I'll mark this patch as ready for commiter
Moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> There is no code yet. Code review and testing is where things get firmer.
>
> My personal stance right now is that I'd like to see catalog-decared typed
> variables. I would prefer them to be transactional and would at least oppose
> anything
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't you think we should try to identify the reason of the deadlock
>>> error reported by you up thread [1]? I know that you and Ashutosh are
>>> not able to reproduce it, bu
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Jesper Pedersen
> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2016 01:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> After recent commit's 7819ba1e and 25216c98, this patch requires a
>>> rebase. Attached is the rebased patch.
>>>
>>
>> This need
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Attached is v4, which fixes a couple of relatively minor bugs. There
> are still things to tackle before this is committable, but coding review
> of the new executor node would be welcome.
Moved to CF 2017-03 because of a lack of reviews.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Moved to next CF with "needs review" status.
Same, this time to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Other changes:
> * I went back to make_outerrel_subquery and make_innerrel_subquery, which
> are flags to indicate whether to deparse the input relations as subqueries.
> is_subquery_rel would work well for handling the cases of full joins wi
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I propose that we should finish the job by inventing CatalogTupleDelete(),
>> which for the moment would be a trivial wrapper around
>> simple_heap_delete(), maybe just a macro for it.
>>
>> If there's no objections I'll go make that happen
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Other changes:
>
> * Also modified CreateLocalJoinPath so that we pass outer/inner paths, not
> outer/inner rels, because it would be more flexible for the FDW to build the
> local-join path from paths it chose.
> * Fixed a bug that I missed
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Here are patches for following
Those patches have received no code-level reviews, so moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.p
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> The latest patch available still applies, one person has added his
> name (John G) in October though there have been no reviews. There have
> been a couple of arguments against this patch, and the thread has had
> no activity
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Review comments:
>> 1.
>> + bool is_partial);
>> +
>>
>> Seems additional new line is not required.
> Fixed
This patch has a patch, no new reviews. Moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> Attached is V7 of the patch.
>>
>> I am doing some testing. First, some superficial things from first pass:
>>
>> [Vari
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> I have reviewed the latest patch and I don't have any more comments.
>>> So if there is no objection from other reviewers I can m
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Patch received feedback at the end of commitfest.
> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "moved to next CF".
> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
And the thread has died as well weeks ago. I am marking that
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Patch moved to CF 2017-01.
>
> And nothing has happened since, the patch rotting a bit because of a
> conflict in pg_dump's TAP tests. Attached is a reb
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi
>> wrote:
>>> I applied your fixed patch and new one, and confirmed the applied source
>>>
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Ok. I see that there is a new compelling reason to move the ring
> buffer to the sender side: then I think lag tracking will work
> automatically for the new logical replication that just landed on
> master. I will try it that way. Thanks
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> Okay, this version looks good to me, marked as RfC.
The patches still apply, moved to CF 2017-03 with same status: RfC.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
> Let's wait for the committer's opinion.
I have moved this patch to CF 2017-03 to wait for this to happen.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com]
>> I think it is better to document in some way if we decide to go-ahead with
>> the patch.
>
> Sure, I added these sentences.
Patch has been moved to CF 2017-03. There is a recent ne
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Six new syscaches in 665d1fa was conflicted and 3-way merge
> worked correctly. The new syscaches don't seem to be targets of
> this patch.
To be honest, I am not completely sure what to think about this patch.
Moved to next CF as there
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> okay. Thanks. I have done changes on top of this patch.
Moved to CF 2017-03 as there is a new patch, no reviews.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
ht
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Sorry, I attached wrong version patch of pg_fdw_xact_resovler. Please
> use attached patch.
This patch has been moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> I've attached the patch with the modified changes. PFA.
>
> Can this patch check contrib/bloom?
Only full pages are applied at redo by the generic WAL facility. So
you would finish by c
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, the question even for that case is whether it really costs
> anything. My bet is that it is nearly free when it doesn't help, but
> that could be wrong. My experience running pgbench tests is that
> prewarming all of pgbench_accounts on
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> That's where you've misunderstood - it isn't committed yet. The point or
> this change is to allow us to do logical decoding at the PREPARE TRANSACTION
> point. The xact is not yet committed or rolled back.
Yes, I got that. I was looking for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Sorry, I have a little more nitpicking.
Thanks for the input.
> How about having
> printsimple() use pq_sendcountedtext() instead of pq_sendint()
> followed by pq_sendbytes(), as it does for TEXTOID?
>
> Other than that, this looks fine to m
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> And here is a rebased patch for the original feature. I think this
> addresses all raised concerns and suggestions now.
Thanks for the new version. That looks good to me after an extra lookup.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
> 31 янв. 2017 г., в 9:50, Michael Paquier
> написал(а):
>
>> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback.
>
> Michael, sorry, but why?
Because I have been through many patches today.
> If I understood ev
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> As of the current score of the CF, for a total of 155 patches, 52 have
> been committed, 3 rejected and 7 marked as returned with feedback. It
> may look low, but actually it is not that bad by experience looking at
> those n
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Dilip Kumar
>> wrote:
>> > I have changed as per the comments. 0002 and 0003 are changed, 0001 is
>> > still the same.
>>
>> There is just one line c
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Awesome, glad to hear it. This is also on my list of patches that I'm
> planning to look at, just so folks know.
There is a patch, no new reviews, so moved to CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Borodin wrote:
> I'll summarize here my state of studying concurrent methods of page unlinking.
>
> GIN B-tree does not have "high key". That means, that rightmost key on
> a page is maximal for the non-leaf page.
> But I do not see anything theoretical in a
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 1/26/17 10:11 PM, Beena Emerson wrote:
>>> In that case, we could add the file location parameter. By default it
>>> would store in the cluster directory else in the location provided. W
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Vitaly Burovoy
wrote:
> I'm almost ready to mark it as Ready for committer.
> The final round.
Moved to next CF with same status, waiting on author as the last patch
and the last review are very fresh.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I have broken this up into a patch series, harmonised the private vs
> shared hash table code paths better and fixed many things including
> the problems with rescans and regression tests mentioned upthread.
> You'll see that one of the patch
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 1/26/17 1:20 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>> > > Ok, but doing in that way the syn
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 January 2017 at 02:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I took an extremely quick look over the patch
>
> Thank you for the feedback. It took some time for me to think about all
> suggestions and notes.
Okay, I am marking th
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> true, I am sorry
Last status is a new patch and no reviews. On top of that this thread
is quite active. So moved to next CF. Pavel, please be careful about
the status of the patch on the CF app, it was set to "waiting on
author"...
--
Micha
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Now, if it's simpler to just xlog the gid at COMMIT PREPARED time when
> wal_level >= logical I don't think that's the end of the world. But
> since we already have almost everything we need in memory, why not
> just stash the gid on ReorderBu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Now, if it's simpler to just xlog the gid at COMMIT PREPARED time when
>> wal_level >= logical I don't think that's the end of the world. Bu
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
> I apologize for a silence since the last CF.
> I've tested your last patch and have several nitpickings:
Last update is a review from 3 weeks ago, this patch is marked as
returned with feedback.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers maili
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Thank you for review
Moved to next CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I think that I have done what you required.
>
> I have documented the fact that now the feature does not work if compound
> commands contain empty queries, which is a very minor drawback for a pgbench
> script anyway.
>
> Attached are the patc
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 1/10/17 1:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I don't see any problems with 0001.
>>
>> I was wondering, should we rename funcname ->
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I found a error - I sent mail only to author 2016-12-31 :( - It is my
> mistake. I am sorry
Ah... Thanks for the update. No problem.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Nikhil Sontakke
wrote:
>>> CheckPointTwoPhase() in (5) does not sync this prepared transaction
>>> because the checkpointer's KnownPreparedList is empty.
>>
>> And that's why this needs to be stored in shared memory with a number
>> of elements made of max_prepared
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I tested new set of these patches and I found some regressions there -
> mentioned in my last mail.
>
> Maybe I miss new update, bit I don't know about it.
The last update I am aware of is that saying: "lot of patches. I hope
I look on these
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Korotk
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Mon, 26 Dec 2016 14:24:33 +0100, Pavel Stehule
> wrote in
> pavel.stehule> 2016-12-26 9:40 GMT+01:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > >:
>>
>> > > Thanks for reviewing but I ran out of time for this CF..
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> It seems like everyone was generally in favor of this. I looked around
> the internet for caveats but everyone was basically saying, you should
> definitely do this.
>
> Why not for EXEC_BACKEND?
>
> O_CLOEXEC is a newer interface. There
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Nikhil Sontakke
wrote:
>>> I wonder what's the best location for this in the common case when we
>>> do shutdown of standby. We could add code in XLOG_CHECKPOINT_SHUTDOWN
>>> and XLOG_CHECKPOINT_ONLINE xlog_redo code path.
>>
>> ShutdownXLOG() calls CreateRestartP
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On a first read-through of this patch -- I have not studied it in
>> detail yet -- this looks pretty good to me. One concern is that this
>> patch adds a bit of code to XLogInsert(), w
Hi all,
This is a follow up of the refactoring that has been discussed in the
thread to increase the default size of WAL segments:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqq4hynrlq+w1jrryvsysoxuqa40pyb2uw5uqkkag4h...@mail.gmail.com
The discussion has resulted in the creation of a84069d9 that
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>>> I've not done like the most careful review ever, but I'm in favor of the
>>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/src/backend/replication/basebackup.c
>>> b/src/backend/replication/basebackup.c
>>
>>> @@ -148,6 +149,9 @@ static const c
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Moved to next CF with " needs review" status.
Same, to CF 2017-03 this time.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> Do you think that expanding the wait query by default could be
>>> intrusive fo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Craig,
>>>
>>> This is a gentle reminder.
>>>
>>&g
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Rename nothing
>> 2. Rename directory only
>> 3. Rename everything
>
>
> 3 or 1 (with a slight preference for 3).
>
> Not sure if my vote counts, but for me as ex-DBA
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> Though, I know the community is against behaviour changing GUCs. I
>> will not spend more time on this, before I get positive feedback from
>> others.
>
> That's too bad. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful..
You make a constructive d
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> The latest proposed patch still having problems.
> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "moved to next CF" status because of a bug
> fix patch.
> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
And moved to CF 2017-03..
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I am attaching that to next CF.
Moved to CF 2017-03. Both patches still apply.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailp
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> This however reminds me that perhaps pg_mv_statistic is not the best name. I
> know others proposed pg_statistic_ext (and pg_stats_ext), and while I wasn't
> a big fan initially, I think it's a better name. People generally don't know
> what '
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Haribabu Kommi writes:
>> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michael Paquier
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> #define USER_A
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/25/17 8:51 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> > # select * from copy_srf('echo "x\ty"',true) as t(x text, y text);
>>
>> I find these parameters weird. Just looking at this, one
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:37:33PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> There is currently plenty of room for pseudo-MV implementations,
>>> and may be for a while. It's a good indicat
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, this is the revised version of character conversion using radix tree.
Thanks for the new version, I'll look at it once I am done with the
cleanup of the current CF. For now I have moved it to the CF 2017-03.
--
Michael
--
Sent
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Attached is the patch, which extend the existing wait event infrastructure
> to implement the wait events for the disk I/O. Basically pg_stat_activity's
> wait event information to show data about disk I/O as well as IPC primitives.
>
> Imp
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
wrote:
>> --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>> @@ -9573,6 +9573,7 @@ xlog_redo(XLogReaderState *record)
>> (errmsg("unexpected timeline ID %u (should be %u)
>> in checkpoint recor
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> I don't have anything more to review in this patch. I will leave that
>>>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So, if I understood correctly, the problem scenario is:
>
> 1. Create and write to a file.
> 2. fsync() the file.
> 3. Crash.
> 4. After restart, the file is gone.
Yes, that's a problem with fsync's durability, and we need to achieve
t
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Two things I forgot in this patch:
> - documentation for the new wait event
> - the string for the wait event or this would show up as "???" in
> pg_stat_activity.
> There are no default clauses in the pgstat_
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:49 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/27/17 3:19 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
>> I have split the patch into two different
>> pieces. One is to determine if the recovery can start at all and other
>> patch deals with the incomplete recovery situation.
>
> I think the first pa
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/27/17 6:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-01-27 09:09:36 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> My preferred scenario would be to replace the Windows build system by
>>> this first, then refine it, then get rid of Autoconf.
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> tgl wrote:
>> > I spent awhile hacking on this, and made a lot of things better, but
>> > I'm still very unhappy about the state of the comments.
>>
>> I made another pass over this, work
1101 - 1200 of 5507 matches
Mail list logo
