Re: Chapter 43.8. "Transaction Management" fails to state two critical restrictions

2019-09-30 Thread Bryn Llewellyn
Hello, Bruce. (We met at the OUGN conference last March on the Oslo-Kiel ferry.) Thanks for your reply. 1. About AUTOCOMMIT It’s very hard to get a clear account of what AUTOCOMMIT really is. So consider the example from the docs section that I cited, and run these psql commands at its

Logical replication conflict and trying to use `pg_replication_origin_advance`

2019-09-30 Thread PG Doc comments form
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/logical-replication-conflicts.html Description: I have a pretty detailed setup, and can provide more details if desired, but the real issue is that I am seeing an error like the

Re: Most-common value docs in PG 12

2019-09-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > Now, maybe the table should be defined somewhere in perform.sgml - I > > > don't recall why exactly I chose not to do that, maybe because there is > > > no universal definition (one country uses text, another number, ...) > > > >

Re: PREPARE and GUC plan_cache_mode

2019-09-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:05:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, agreed. I can do it, or do you want to? > Uh, I am feeling I can't do anything with the tree until Friday because > of the PG 12 packaging, right? There's not a freeze on docs, as far as I'm concerned.

Re: PREPARE and GUC plan_cache_mode

2019-09-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:05:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Our current docs have this text for PREPARE: > >Prepared statements can use generic plans rather than re-planning > >with each set of supplied EXECUTE values. This occurs immediately > >

Re: PREPARE and GUC plan_cache_mode

2019-09-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Our current docs have this text for PREPARE: >Prepared statements can use generic plans rather than re-planning >with each set of supplied EXECUTE values. This occurs immediately >for prepared statements with no parameters; otherwise it occurs >

PREPARE and GUC plan_cache_mode

2019-09-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Our current docs have this text for PREPARE: Prepared statements can use generic plans rather than re-planning with each set of supplied EXECUTE values. This occurs immediately for prepared statements with no parameters; otherwise it occurs only after five or more

Re: Chapter 43.8. "Transaction Management" fails to state two critical restrictions

2019-09-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:11:47AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/plpgsql-transactions.html > Description: > > This chapter fails to state: > > (1) If a PL/pgSQL procedure

Re: Do not use C++ style comments (// comments). Strict ANSI C compilers do not accept them.

2019-09-30 Thread Anders Åstrand
Thanks for your attention! That sentence made me believe the style guide was outdated, but then I found fairly recent posts referring to it and got confused.On Sep 26, 2019 10:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:On 2019-09-25 00:13, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> PostgreSQL 12 requires

Chapter 43.8. "Transaction Management" fails to state two critical restrictions

2019-09-30 Thread PG Doc comments form
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/plpgsql-transactions.html Description: This chapter fails to state: (1) If a PL/pgSQL procedure issues "commit" then it must be called with AUTOCOMMIT set to On. This is

RE: Required locks for ANALYZE

2019-09-30 Thread Aramaki Zyake
Hi, I’m terribly sorry for the delay of response. >This does not really seem like an improvement. The second formulation is >pedantically correct, but also unintelligible. > > Maybe we could make it say "run in parallel with non-DDL activity" ? I completely agree with you, therefore, I amended