pgsql: SnapBuildRestoreContents() void * argument for binary data

2025-02-23 Thread Peter Eisentraut
SnapBuildRestoreContents() void * argument for binary data Change internal snapbuild API function to take void * for binary data instead of char *. This removes the need for numerous casts. Reviewed-by: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/fd1fcedb-34

Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades.

2025-02-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 2025-02-22 Sa 9:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Furthermore, it can't be a coincidence that the four tables we are seeing relallvisible diffs for are exactly the four tables in the regression database that have hash indexes. Oh! If the source version is <= 9.6, old_9_6_invalidate_hash_inde

pgsql: backend libpq void * argument for binary data

2025-02-23 Thread Peter Eisentraut
backend libpq void * argument for binary data Change some backend libpq functions to take void * for binary data instead of char *. This removes the need for numerous casts. Reviewed-by: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/fd1fcedb-3492-4fc8-9e3e-74b

pgsql: Remove read/sync fields from pg_stat_wal and GUC track_wal_io_ti

2025-02-23 Thread Michael Paquier
Remove read/sync fields from pg_stat_wal and GUC track_wal_io_timing The four following attributes are removed from pg_stat_wal: * wal_write * wal_sync * wal_write_time * wal_sync_time a051e71e28a1 has added an equivalent of this information in pg_stat_io with more granularity as this now spreads

pgsql: Ignore hash's relallvisible when checking pg_upgrade from pre-v1

2025-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
Ignore hash's relallvisible when checking pg_upgrade from pre-v10. Our cross-version upgrade tests have been failing for some pre-v10 source versions since commit 1fd1bd871. This turns out to be because relallvisible may change for tables that have hash indexes, because the upgrade process forcib

Re: pgsql: Trial fix for old cross-version upgrades.

2025-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 2025-02-22 Sa 9:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not really seeing a better answer than hacking the comparison >> rules to ignore the relallvisible difference for these tables. >> That's darn ugly, and I suspect the implementation will be messy, >> but do we have another w