On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:02:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 09:46:17AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> * Don't assume that you haven't broken the doc build if you make even
>> a trivial doc change. Removing a GUC can break instances in the
>> release notes where they'r
Add wait event for fsync of WAL segments
This has been visibly a forgotten spot in the first implementation of
wait events for I/O added by 249cf07, and what has been missing is a
fsync call for WAL segments which is a wrapper reacting on the value of
GUC wal_sync_method.
Reported-by: Konstantin
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> FWIW, I developed a document on committing for my own reference, with
> some help from Andres. A lot of it is about commit message style, the
> use of fields, and so on. But I've also developed a check list for
> committing, knowing that there a
On 2018-Jul-02, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Do a dry run before really pushing by using --dry-run.
>
> In addition to this, I'd recommend using 'git show' on the results of
> the --dry-run, so that you see what you're really about to push.
Since commit 653530c8b196 I use this little script I borr
On 2018-Jul-02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Add wait event for fsync of WAL segments
>
> This has been visibly a forgotten spot in the first implementation of
> wait events for I/O added by 249cf07, and what has been missing is a
> fsync call for WAL segments which is a wrapper reacting on the value
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:13 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 20 June 2018 at 13:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees
>
> Thanks for committing this fix.
>
> I think slightly more should have been done. There's still some dead
> code in expand_partition
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:07:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'd rather keep an elog(ERROR) than completely remove the check.
+1.
> Also, for the record, I think the subject line of Michael's commit
> message was pretty unclear about what it was actually doing.
How would you formulate it? Per
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 12:23:35PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wonder if we should backpatch this one all the way to pg10. I don't
> see no reason not to.
ABI breakage (if that's the correct wording?). Simply cherry-picking
the patch from master to back-branches would cause extensions and
p
On 3 July 2018 at 10:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:07:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'd rather keep an elog(ERROR) than completely remove the check.
>
> +1.
Attached
>> Also, for the record, I think the subject line of Michael's commit
>> message was pretty unclear
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:59 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
>> How would you formulate it? Perhaps the error message did not emphasize
>> enough on the fast that it actually blocked a behavior, say "Block mix
>> of temporary and permanent relations in partition trees" or such?
Yes.
> For me, reading th
10 matches
Mail list logo
