Improve performance of "simple expressions" in PL/pgSQL.
For relatively simple expressions (say, "x + 1" or "x > 0"), plpgsql's
management overhead exceeds the cost of evaluating the expression.
This patch substantially improves that situation, providing roughly
2X speedup for such trivial express
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Ensure that plpgsql cleans up cleanly during parallel-worker exit.
plpgsql_xact_cb ought to treat events XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_COMMIT and
XACT_EVENT_PARALLEL_ABORT like XACT_EVENT_COMMIT and XACT_EVENT_ABORT
respectively, since its goal is to do process-local cleanup. This
oversight caused plpgsql'
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 3/26/20 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> I don't think this belongs in installcheck, we should add
>>> 'NO_INSTALLCHECK = 1' to the Makefile.
>> Why? The other src/test/modules/ modules with TAP tests do not
>> specify that, with the exception
On 3/26/20 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 3/26/20 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Why is jacana doing it differently?
>> longfin is also running it (first) here
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=longfin&dt=2020-03-26%2014%3A39%3A51&stg=ssl_pa
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 3/26/20 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is jacana doing it differently?
> longfin is also running it (first) here
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=longfin&dt=2020-03-26%2014%3A39%3A51&stg=ssl_passphrase_callback-check
Oh, I missed that.
On 3/17/20 9:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:37:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As of this morning, the only active animal ("active" meaning "has
>> built HEAD in the last month") that is not running REL_11 is
>> hamerkop. I think we could proceed.
> +1.
Hamerkop has
On 3/26/20 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 3/25/20 9:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> jacana has just exposed a different problem: it's not configured
>>> --with-openssl, but the buildfarm script is trying to run this
>>> new test module anyway. I'm confused about the reason.
Document that pg_checksums exists in checksums README
Author: Daniel Gustafsson
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/eff5b245df259c73d8342e2f04dba5a832d2ea0a
Modified Files
--
src/backend/storage/page/README | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 inserti
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 3/25/20 9:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> jacana has just exposed a different problem: it's not configured
>> --with-openssl, but the buildfarm script is trying to run this
>> new test module anyway. I'm confused about the reason.
>> "make installcheck" in src/test/modules d
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
Drop slot's LWLock before returning from SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits didn't
release the slot's io_in_progress_lock.
This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A
possible way to get into this situation is if the offendin
On 3/25/20 9:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 3/25/20 7:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't actually see why we need the localhost port at all --- it doesn't
>>> look like this test ever attempts to connect to the server. So couldn't
>>> we just drop that?
>> Seems reasonabl
21 matches
Mail list logo
