Re: Missing examples for hash partitioning

On Sun, 5 May 2024 at 19:27, David Rowley wrote: > There are examples of hash partitioning in [1]. Maybe we should add a > link so those can be more easily found. I see the link is already there, per: "See CREATE TABLE for more details on creating partitioned tables and partitions." David >

Re: Missing examples for hash partitioning

On Sun, 5 May 2024 at 08:13, PG Doc comments form wrote: > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/ddl-partitioning.html > Description: > > There is no example showing the syntax of Hash Partitioning in this section > of the documentation, it's missing. There are examples of ha

Missing examples for hash partitioning

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/ddl-partitioning.html Description: There is no example showing the syntax of Hash Partitioning in this section of the documentation, it's missing.

Re: Missing | ?

Laurenz Albe writes: > On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 09:37 +, PG Doc comments form wrote: >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-security-label.html >> FOREIGN TABLE object_name >> >> ...probably should have a following "|", I think? > Absolutely! Indeed. Will fix, thanks for report!

Re: Missing | ?

On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 09:37 +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-security-label.html > > FOREIGN TABLE object_name > > ...probably should have a following "|", I think? Absolutely! Yours, Laurenz Albe

Missing | ?

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-security-label.html Description: Hi, FOREIGN TABLE object_name ...probably should have a following "|", I think? Cheers Tim

Re: Missing information on '-X' in section 26.3.6.1.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:19 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2024, at 21:43, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:30 PM PG Doc comments form < > nore...@postgresql.org > wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been

Re: Missing information on '-X' in section 26.3.6.1.

> On 23 Jan 2024, at 21:43, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:30 PM PG Doc comments form > wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/continuous-archiving.html

Re: Missing information on '-X' in section 26.3.6.1.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:30 PM PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/continuous-archiving.html > Description: > > I noticed, that in section 26.3.6.1. it's not specified, what the -X >

Missing information on '-X' in section 26.3.6.1.

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/continuous-archiving.html Description: Hi! I'm reading through the documentation and so far I have to say this is the best documentation I have ever encountered, thank you! I noticed,

Missing "CONSTRAINT" keyword in ADD CONSTRAINT form?

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-alterdomain.html Description: (apologies, I managed to send this too soon, just now, somehow) The example for ALTER DOMAIN shows: ALTER DOMAIN zipcode ADD CONSTRAINT zipchk CHECK

Re: Missing "CONSTRAINT" keyword in ADD CONSTRAINT form?

On Monday, December 4, 2023, Tim Needham wrote: > Bah, scratch that, sorry again. It's because "CONSTRAINT" is implied by > the reference to CREATE DOMAIN, isn't it? > Yes, we require the reader to go to the create domain page to read the “domain_constraint” portion of the syntax. David J.

Re: Missing "CONSTRAINT" keyword in ADD CONSTRAINT form?

Bah, scratch that, sorry again. It's because "CONSTRAINT" is implied by the reference to CREATE DOMAIN, isn't it? Sorry. On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:29 PM PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page:

Re: Documentation of FOR ROLE clause of ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES missing

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:50:19PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-alterdefaultprivileges.html > Description: > > The documentation of ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

Re: Missing documentation for FETCH FIRST in chapter 7.6

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:17:55PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > 2018-05-16 10:22 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form : > > The documentation of the SELECT statement lists FETCH FIRST/OFFSET as an > > alternative to the proprietary LIMIT clause. > > > >

Re: Missing ;

> On 10 Nov 2023, at 22:00, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-select.html > Description: > > Hi, > > To be consistent, the "with" example should end in a ";". > > WITH t AS ( >

Missing ;

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-select.html Description: Hi, To be consistent, the "with" example should end in a ";". WITH t AS ( SELECT random() as x FROM generate_series(1, 3) ) SELECT * FROM t UNION ALL

Re: Missing word? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL

>>> "Another way to archive is to use a custom archive module as the >>> archive_library" >> >> shouldn't this read: >> "Another way to archive this is to use a custom archive module as the >> archive_library" >That would be worse than the original. What is "this"? >I'd suggest "Another way to

Re: Missing word? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL

On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 13:15 +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > "Another way to archive is to use a custom archive module as the > archive_library" > > shouldn't this read: > "Another way to archive this is to use a custom archive module as the > archive_library" That would be worse than

Missing word? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL

Hi, "Another way to archive is to use a custom archive module as the archive_library" shouldn't this read: "Another way to archive this is to use a custom archive module as the archive_library" Regards Daniel

Re: Missing closing ]

PG Doc comments form writes: > In the example session at > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rangetypes.html#RANGETYPES-EXAMPLES > there are missing closing square bracket ] > Take a look below > CREATE TABLE reservation (room int, during tsrange); > INSERT INTO

Missing closing ]

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/rangetypes.html Description: In the example session at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rangetypes.html#RANGETYPES-EXAMPLES there are missing closing square bracket ] Take a look

Re: missing GRANTED BY explanations

On Saturday, September 30, 2023, PG Doc comments form < nore...@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > In the documentation for revoke command, there is no description for > GRANTED > BY clause. > > As the doc says read the grant page for more detailed information. Repeating everything here was deemed

Re: missing GRANTED BY explanations

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:56 PM PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-revoke.html > Description: > > Hi, > In the documentation for revoke command, there is no description for > GRANTED >

missing GRANTED BY explanations

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-revoke.html Description: Hi, In the documentation for revoke command, there is no description for GRANTED BY clause. please explain that what will happen when using this clause in

Re: Add missing meson arguments in docs

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:24:37AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Yeah, this is just in the long tail of things to work through. I am going through that, and found out what can be done to do coverage reports. I will post a patch separately on -hackers. -- Michael signature.asc Description:

Re: Add missing meson arguments in docs

On 22.02.23 02:57, Michael Paquier wrote: -Db_coverage is part of the core options of meson because it is not listed in meson_options.txt, no? Documenting the switch is fine, but it seems like we lack contents here. The paragraph describing -Db_coverage links to regress-coverage, still this

Re: Add missing meson arguments in docs

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Jelte Fennema wrote: > The -Dcassert and -Db_coverage of the meson build didn't show in the > docs that they needed to be passed true or false. All other options > specified the arguments they expected. This patch fixes that. Indeed, values have to be

Re: February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

On 2/20/23 8:57 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 4:55 PM Jonathan S. Katz Well, that gives me an idea. In the release announcement, we could put a line that says "You can send any corrections or suggestions to the public pgsql-...@lists.postgresql.org

Add missing meson arguments in docs

The -Dcassert and -Db_coverage of the meson build didn't show in the docs that they needed to be passed true or false. All other options specified the arguments they expected. This patch fixes that. 0001-Add-missing-meson-arguments-in-docs.patch Description: Binary data

Re: February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 4:55 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 2/19/23 3:55 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:05 PM Jonathan S. Katz > > wrote: > > > > The release announcements go through the news system, which does not > > have a feedback

Re: February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

On 2/19/23 3:55 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:05 PM Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: The release announcements go through the news system, which does not have a feedback collection mechanism as anyone can post news. Emailing pgsql-docs, or

Re: February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:05 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 2/15/23 1:59 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote: > > It looks like a simple bad reference name: > > > > On this line: > > > > * Fix the |psql| > > commands > > |\sf| and |\ef| to

Re: February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

On 2/15/23 1:59 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote: It looks like a simple bad reference name: On this line: * Fix the |psql|  commands |\sf| and |\ef| to handle SQL-language functions that have SQL-standard function bodies

February 9th, 2023 Release links to a missing page

It looks like a simple bad reference name: On this line: - Fix the psql commands \sf and \ef to handle SQL-language functions that have SQL-standard function bodies

Fwd: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage

: Views "missing" from information_schema.view_table_usage To: Erik Wienhold Cc: Hi Erik - sorry I missed your reply when I replied to David's. That is indeed the issue. The object that the view is querying is a materialized view. Thanks for the link. Jon On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 3:

Logical replication missing information

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/logical-replication-row-filter.html Description: There are several things missing here and some of them I found to be highly important: 1. How can I find why a logical replication failed

Re: Missing documentation

Thanks! This helps. On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 18:40 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2022-Nov-03, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Stefan Badenhorst writes: > > > I am using a prometheus exporter: > > > https://github.com/prometheus-community/postgres_exporter/ > > > > Hmm, well, maybe prometheus is doing something

Re: Missing documentation

On 2022-Nov-03, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Badenhorst writes: > > I am using a prometheus exporter: > > https://github.com/prometheus-community/postgres_exporter/ > > Hmm, well, maybe prometheus is doing something with that part of the URL. > There's no such behavior in Postgres itself, though.

Re: Missing documentation

I am using a prometheus exporter: https://github.com/prometheus-community/postgres_exporter/ Turning JIT off definitely made a big difference to all our environments. When using JIT it causes OOM on postgres server after a few days. Adding jit=off resolved the issue. I have tested this now for

Re: Missing documentation

Stefan Badenhorst writes: > I am using a prometheus exporter: > https://github.com/prometheus-community/postgres_exporter/ Hmm, well, maybe prometheus is doing something with that part of the URL. There's no such behavior in Postgres itself, though. regards, tom lane

Re: Missing documentation

Stefan Badenhorst writes: > This is working: > postgresql://USERNAME:PASSWORD@server > :5432/the_database?sslmode=disable=off Again, not for me: $ psql 'postgresql://postgres@localhost:5432/mydb?sslmode=disable=off' psql: error: invalid URI query parameter: "jit" I suspect something in your

Re: Missing documentation

This is working: postgresql://USERNAME:PASSWORD@server :5432/the_database?sslmode=disable=off Maybe I was looking at the wrong documentation page? On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 14:58, Tom Lane wrote: > PG Doc comments form writes: > > On this page: > > >

Re: Missing documentation

PG Doc comments form writes: > On this page: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-PARAMKEYWORDS > There is a list of keywords that can be specified as part of the connection > string. > Specifying `jit=off` or `jit=on` is functional in practice, but `jit` is > not

Missing documentation

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/libpq-connect.html Description: On this page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-PARAMKEYWORDS There is a list of keywords that can be specified as part of

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:18:42PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 07:58:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 18.08.22 20:10, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Thus: > > > > Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but > > > > RECURSIVE > > > > is the terminology

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 07:58:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 18.08.22 20:10, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Thus: > > > Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but > > > RECURSIVE > > > is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee." > > > > > > Because the above sounds

Re: Section 40.1 Overview of Event Trigger Behavior, and Table 40.1 missing needed details

On 2022-Aug-27, PG Doc comments form wrote: > Section 40.1. Overview of Event Trigger Behavior says: > "The table_rewrite event occurs just before a table is rewritten by some > actions of the commands ALTER TABLE and ALTER TYPE." > Issue: Neither the section nor the table describe which actions

Section 40.1 Overview of Event Trigger Behavior, and Table 40.1 missing needed details

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/event-trigger-matrix.html Description: RE: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/event-trigger-matrix.html Section 40.1. Overview of Event Trigger Behavior says: "The table_rewrite

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On 18.08.22 20:10, Bruce Momjian wrote: Thus: Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but RECURSIVE is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee." Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not recursion" it should be set off by a comma. I went with

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Drew DeVault writes: > > Minor grammatical fix. > > Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before. > > >      > > -    Strictly speaking, this

Re: 52.88. pg_shmem_allocations, missing units

> On 15 Aug 2022, at 04:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:56 AM Euler Taveira wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, at 5:43 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote: >> >> Could someone add the units of size & allocated_size on the documentation >> for pg_shmem_allocations?

Re: 52.88. pg_shmem_allocations, missing units

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:56 AM Euler Taveira wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, at 5:43 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > Could someone add the units of size & allocated_size on the documentation > for pg_shmem_allocations? Currently there aren't any listed. > > According to ShmemIndexEnt

Re: 52.88. pg_shmem_allocations, missing units

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, at 5:43 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote: > Could someone add the units of size & allocated_size on the documentation > for pg_shmem_allocations? Currently there aren't any listed. According to ShmemIndexEnt struct: /* this is a hash bucket in the shmem index table */ typedef

52.88. pg_shmem_allocations, missing units

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/view-pg-shmem-allocations.html Description: Could someone add the units of size & allocated_size on the documentation for pg_shmem_allocations? Currently there aren't any listed.

Re: "Getting Started" guide is missing a critical step?

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/tutorial-createdb.html > Description: > > Hello, > > I'm new to postgres so following through the steps in "Chapter 1. Getting

"Getting Started" guide is missing a critical step?

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/tutorial-createdb.html Description: Hello, I'm new to postgres so following through the steps in "Chapter 1. Getting Started". I was surprised to see that the chapter goes directly

Re: Docs for string_to_array missing for Postgres 14

PG Doc comments form writes: > At the bottom of the docs on "Array Functions and Operators" for Postgres 14 > (see https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/functions-array.html) there is a > NOTE with the text "There are two differences in the behavior of > string_to_array from pre-9.1...". However I

Docs for string_to_array missing for Postgres 14

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/functions-array.html Description: At the bottom of the docs on "Array Functions and Operators" for Postgres 14 (see https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/functions-array.html) there is a

Re: Incorrect and missing docs for range_intersect_agg

Shay Rojansky writes: > range_intersect_agg is documented to return anymultirange (on this > page[1]), but it actually returns a range. The form with anyrange input, yeah. > In addition, range_intersect_agg also accepts a multirange as its > parameter, but that's not documented on the same

Incorrect and missing docs for range_intersect_agg

Hi all, range_intersect_agg is documented to return anymultirange (on this page[1]), but it actually returns a range. In addition, range_intersect_agg also accepts a multirange as its parameter, but that's not documented on the same page. Note that range_agg does *not* accept a multirange

Re: role attributes are missing from this page

SELECT "old" FROM pg_roles; > > Look closer. That column is "oid" not "old". > > > Issue #2: > > You do not have ALL role attributes documented on this page. Please add > and > > document the missing role attributes. > > https://www.post

Re: role attributes are missing from this page

have ALL role attributes documented on this page. Please add and > document the missing role attributes. > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/role-attributes.html AFAICS this page is merely trying to document the role properties that can reasonably be considered to be kinds of priv

role attributes are missing from this page

s; Issue #2: You do not have ALL role attributes documented on this page. Please add and document the missing role attributes. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/role-attributes.html This is a list of all role attributes: SELECT rolname,rolsuper,rolinherit,rolcreaterole,rolcreatedb,rolcan

Re: Missing example for SAVEPOINT using the same savepoint name

Hello! The new sample code looks clearer I agree! Seb From: David G. Johnston Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:41 PM To: Sebastien Flaesch ; Pg Docs Subject: Re: Missing example for SAVEPOINT using the same savepoint name EXTERNAL: Do not click links or open

Re: Missing example for SAVEPOINT using the same savepoint name

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 9:43 AM PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-savepoint.html > Description: > > The "Compatibility" section deserves some code example to illustrate the > behavior

Missing example for SAVEPOINT using the same savepoint name

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-savepoint.html Description: The "Compatibility" section deserves some code example to illustrate the behavior when reusing the same savepoint name. Maybe this could help: CREATE

Re: Missing tags ALTER ROUTINE and DROP ROUTINE in Event Trigger Firing Matrix

ctively "DROP PROCEDURE" and "DROP FUNCTION" tags). Thanks for the report. Indeed, the table is missing that ALTER ROUTINE would fire the events ddl_command_start and ddl_command_end. DROP ROUTINE fires on sql_drop, ddl_command_start and ddl_command_end. I have applied a patch to

Re: Missing information about CREATE TRIGGER on temporary tables

PG Doc comments form writes: > The reference page about CREATE TRIGGER should indicate if it's allowed to > create triggers on temp tables. > This seems to be the supported, but I was wondering what happens with the > trigger name when created on a temp table. The page already says The name

Re: Missing information about CREATE TRIGGER on temporary tables

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:25 AM PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-createtrigger.html > Description: > > To be confirmed by the developer community... > The reference page about CREATE

Missing information about CREATE TRIGGER on temporary tables

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-createtrigger.html Description: To be confirmed by the developer community... The reference page about CREATE TRIGGER should indicate if it's allowed to create triggers on temp

Missing tags ALTER ROUTINE and DROP ROUTINE in Event Trigger Firing Matrix

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/event-trigger-matrix.html Description: Hi, "ALTER ROUTINE" and "DROP ROUTINE" are not listed in the "Event Trigger Firing Matrix" documentation page, even though these tags seem

Re: missing a white space in the last sentence of 51.6. Executor

On 1/17/22 2:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: PG Doc comments form writes: The last sentence of 51.6. Executor appears: "...feeding that up toModifyTable to perform the insertion." Hm, the space is definitely there in the source file: A simple INSERT ... VALUES command creates a trivial

Re: missing a white space in the last sentence of 51.6. Executor

PG Doc comments form writes: > The last sentence of 51.6. Executor appears: > "...feeding that up toModifyTable to perform the insertion." Hm, the space is definitely there in the source file: A simple INSERT ... VALUES command creates a trivial plan tree consisting of a single Result

missing a white space in the last sentence of 51.6. Executor

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/executor.html Description: The last sentence of 51.6. Executor appears: "...feeding that up toModifyTable to perform the insertion." The below might be correct: "...feeding that up to

Re: "(process)" is missing for some terms about process in glossary

On 2022/01/08 1:41, Tom Lane wrote: Fujii Masao writes: In glossary, the title of each term about process seems to consist of the process name and "(process)", e.g., Checkpointer (process). But I found that "(process)" is missing for the following three terms abo

Re: "(process)" is missing for some terms about process in glossary

Fujii Masao writes: > In glossary, the title of each term about process seems to consist of the > process name and "(process)", e.g., Checkpointer (process). But I found that > "(process)" is missing for the following three terms about process. Attached &g

"(process)" is missing for some terms about process in glossary

Hi, In glossary, the title of each term about process seems to consist of the process name and "(process)", e.g., Checkpointer (process). But I found that "(process)" is missing for the following three terms about process. Attached is the patch to add "(process)"

Re: Query size limitation missing in documentation

=?UTF-8?B?TWFydMOtbiBNYXJxdcOpcw==?= writes: > I was looking at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/limits.html > (was brought up by a customer) and found we are missing the limitation > of the string of the SQL to be executed (it's 1GB which is the longest > string postgres can h

Query size limitation missing in documentation

Hello, I was looking at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/limits.html (was brought up by a customer) and found we are missing the limitation of the string of the SQL to be executed (it's 1GB which is the longest string postgres can hold) ``` /* It's possible we could use a different value

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> ... although I think this text is mine, so naturally I'd think >> that. Anyone else have an opinion? > > If I read that aloud to myself there is a comma after iteration.

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Drew DeVault writes: > > Minor grammatical fix. > > Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before. > > > > > -Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but > > +Strictly speaking, this process is iteration,

Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

Drew DeVault writes: > Minor grammatical fix. Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before. > > -Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but > +Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, not recursion, but > RECURSIVE is the terminology chosen by

[PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

Minor grammatical fix. --- doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml index 516fbcbf37..0f3d9ce7f8 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml @@ -2172,7 +2172,7 @@

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 09:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > WFM. > > This has been applied and backpatched as of 1ba8410. Thank you! Yours, Laurenz Albe

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > WFM. This has been applied and backpatched as of 1ba8410. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:21:40PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > Good point. However, I prefer "if set". WFM. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021, at 7:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > Thanks, and +1 from me. > > maintenance_work_mem would be used in the context of autovacuum if > autovacuum_work_mem is -1, but it seems to me that the suggested > wording

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > Thanks, and +1 from me. maintenance_work_mem would be used in the context of autovacuum if autovacuum_work_mem is -1, but it seems to me that the suggested wording sounds like only autovacuum_work_mem is used and that it would never

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 17:45 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 10:40 AM, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > > Yes that reads better still. > I'm attaching a patch with Laurenz's words. Thanks, and +1 from me. Yours, Laurenz Albe

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 10:40 AM, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > Yes that reads better still. I'm attaching a patch with Laurenz's words. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/ From 41f814b15349bcc8eb8ffa4624ed5af80f3476ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Euler Taveira Date: Wed, 22 Sep

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

> Why not keep it simple with > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once per vacuum, > > after the heap has been completely scanned. It may happen multiple times per > > vacuum if maintenance_work_mem (or, in the case of autovacuum, > > autovacuum_work_mem) is

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 08:07 +, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > I can see in > src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c > that compute_max_dead_tuples uses autovacuum_work_mem when it is given. > > The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has: > > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

Hi, There was no follow up to my message below so I'm raising it again. I can see in src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c that compute_max_dead_tuples uses autovacuum_work_mem when it is given. > The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has: > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen

Re: Keyword docs missing, or mislabelled keywords

"David G. Johnston" writes: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:11 AM PG Doc comments form > wrote: >> Missing: >> RESTRICTED (as found in CREATE FUNCTION (PARALLEL RESTRICTED)) >> SAFE (as found in CREATE FUNCTION (PARALLEL SAFE)) >> UNSAFE (as found in CREATE F

Re: Keyword docs missing, or mislabelled keywords

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:11 AM PG Doc comments form wrote: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-keywords-appendix.html > > Missing: > > RESTRICTED (as found in CREATE FUNCTION (PARALLEL RESTRICTED)) > SAFE (as found in CREATE FUNCTION (PARALLEL SAFE)) > UNSAFE (as

Keyword docs missing, or mislabelled keywords

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-keywords-appendix.html Description: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-keywords-appendix.html Missing: BUFFERS (as found in EXPLAIN) COSTS (as found in EXPLAIN) MODULUS (as found

Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes

Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 05:15:23AM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > > >On Thu, Jul  1, 2021 at 10:01:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > >Only the first mention of "factorial()" uses a link;  the second item > > >doesn't have any

Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 05:15:23AM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > >On Thu, Jul  1, 2021 at 10:01:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > >Only the first mention of "factorial()" uses a link;  the second item > >doesn't have any link. > > There are other places as well, like this on: > "The

Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, at 11:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> I have avoided doing that since the link is about the roles, not about >> the term "predefined roles". > > I tend to agree that it’s about the roles, but it isn’t about just one of > them … I think it is clear that "predefined roles"

  1   2   3   >