Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 03.02.2019, 02:06 -0800 schrieb Andres Freund:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-12-25 10:25:46 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Hallo Michael,
> >
> > > Yeah, new rebased version attached.
> >
> > Patch v8 applies cleanly, compiles, global & local make check are ok.
> >
> > A few
Hi,
On 2018-09-19 13:58:36 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> +/*
> + * Advance nextFullXid to the value after a given xid. The epoch is
> inferred.
> + * If lock_free_check is true, then the caller must be sure that it's safe to
> + * read nextFullXid without holding XidGenLock (ie during
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> > > contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:47 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Last patch set fails to apply properly, so moved to next CF waiting on
> author for a rebase.
Thanks. Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Synchronous-replay-mode-for-avoiding-stale-reads-v11.patch
Description:
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> As per $subject, CF 2019-01 is now closed for business. Here is the final
> score:
> Committed: 58.
> Moved to next CF: 113.
> Withdrawn: 4.
> Rejected: 3.
> Returned with Feedback: 52.
> Total: 230.
Wow, thank you so much for your hard work.
Hi all,
As per $subject, CF 2019-01 is now closed for business. Here is the
final score:
Committed: 58.
Moved to next CF: 113.
Withdrawn: 4.
Rejected: 3.
Returned with Feedback: 52.
Total: 230.
I have done a pass over all the remaining entries, updating them
according to their last status
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:45:48PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yes, very soon -- right now, in fact :-)
This needs a rebase. Moved to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On February 4, 2019 6:43:44 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:58:02PM +1100, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> If there are no objections, I'm planning to do a round of testing and
>> commit this shortly.
>
>Hm. That looks sane to me at quick glance. I am a bit on the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:22:48AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If we have well-designed answers to these questions, I'd imagine that
> the actual feature patch would be quite small. I was very surprised to
> see how large this patch is and how much code is moves around without
> much
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 02:21:44PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Just to be clear, although this patch is registered in the commitfest
> and currently applies and tests pass, it is prototype/WIP code with
> significant problems that remain to be resolved. I sort of wish there
> were a way to
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:02:16PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Maybe it would be better if you or some of your colleagues (Alexander,
> Arthur?)
> will post this new version, because the current one has some conflicts - so it
> would be easier for a reviewers. For now I'll move it to the next
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:38:27AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Is this still in development? Or should we mark this as returned with
> feedback?
Marked as returned with feedback, as it has already been two months.
If you have an updated patch set, please feel free to resubmit.
--
Michael
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:48:14PM +0300, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> Thank you for informing, attach is rebased patch against current
> master
copy.c conflicts on HEAD, please rebase. I am moving the patch to
next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:10:17AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 1/21/19 3:31 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > Here is a a stab at refactoring this so the object creation does not
> > happen in a callback.
>
> Rebased my patch on top of Andres's pluggable storage patches. Plus some
> minor
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 03:06:18PM +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
> This is the next version. A few more comments below.
Latest patch set fails to apply, so moved to next CF, waiting on
author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:49:05AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The latest patch set does not apply cleanly. Could you rebase it? I
> have moved the patch to CF 2018-10 for now, waiting on author.
It's been some time since that request, so I am marking the patch as
returned with feedback.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:23:31PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch series, merging fixes and changes to TAP
> tests proposed by Alexey. I've merged the fixes into the appropriate
> patches, and I've kept the TAP changes / new tests as separate patches
> towards the end of
Michael Paquier writes:
> Hm. That looks sane to me at quick glance. I am a bit on the edge
> regaring the naming "FullTransactionId", which is actually a 64-bit
> value with a 32-bit XID and a 32-bit epoch. Something like
> TransactionIdWithEpoch or EpochTransactionId sounds a bit better to
>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:34:49AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology here, but if not, I find
> this theory wildly implausible. *Most* people want read-your-writes
> behavior. *Few* people want to wait for a dead standby. The only
> application of the later
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:58:02PM +1100, Thomas Munro wrote:
> If there are no objections, I'm planning to do a round of testing and
> commit this shortly.
Hm. That looks sane to me at quick glance. I am a bit on the edge
regaring the naming "FullTransactionId", which is actually a 64-bit
In the name of god!
Hi,
What happens if checkpoint haven't completed until the next checkpoint
interval or max_wal_size?
thanks,
regards, Mohammad Sherafat.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 17:04, Edmund Horner wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 05:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Edmund Horner writes:
>> > My patch uses the same path type and executor for all extractable
>> tidquals.
>>
>> > This worked pretty well, but I am finding it difficult to reimplement
>> it
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 04:01:51PM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> All new distance functions except oiddist() are not leakproof,
> so I had to relax condition in opr_sanity.sql test:
This patch set needs a rebase because of conflicts caused by the
recent patches for pluggable storage.
--
Michael
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:45:46AM +0300, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> The attached patch use your suggestion uptread
This patch needs a rebase because of conflicts done recently for
pluggable storage, so moved to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:43:32PM +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> Hi, here is a rebased version. I hope it will get some review :)
This patch set is failing to apply, so moved to next CF, waiting for
author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 03:58:48PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that holding a buffer lock on an internal pages for as long as
> it takes to check all of the child pages is a non-starter. If you
> can't think of a way of not doing that that's race free with a
> relation-level
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 3:53 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This thread is curently marked as returned with feedback, set so
> 2018-12-01. Given there've been several new versions submitted since, is
> that accurate?
>
As part of this thread we have been reviewing and fixing the comment
for
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:03:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Eyeballing 0001, it has a few problems.
>
> 1. It's under-parenthesizing the txn argument of the macros.
>
> 2. the "has"/"is" macro definitions don't return booleans -- see
> fce4609d5e5b.
>
> 3. the remainder of this no longer
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:00:00PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Unfortunately, patch needs to be fixed - it doesn't pass "make -C ssl check"
>
> t/001_ssltests.pl .. 1/65 Bailout called. Further testing stopped:
> system pg_ctl failed
> FAILED--Further testing stopped: system pg_ctl failed
>
>
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:55 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:23:16AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > This thread is curently marked as returned with feedback, set so
> > 2018-12-01. Given there've been several new versions submitted since, is
> > that accurate?
>
> From the
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 02:17:49PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> It means to write own lexer and preparse source code before I start
> checking.
>
> I think so block level PRAGMA is significantly better solution
Please note that the latest patch is failing to apply, so I have moved
the patch to
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:44:37PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Just for the records, patch still has no conflicts and
> pass all the tests. Yura, do you have any plans about this patch, could you
> respond to the feedback? In the meantime I'm moving it to the next CF.
No
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:41:48AM +0500, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> Ok. It is used only for demonstration.
The latest patch set needs a rebase, so moved to next CF, waiting on
author as this got no reviews.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 16:45, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Rowley
> wrote:
> > I think we do need to ensure that the PartitionDesc matches between
> > worker and leader. Have a look at choose_next_subplan_for_worker() in
> > nodeAppend.c. Notice that a call is made
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> > contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see if you are around and
> > have some thoughts on it.
>
> Maybe we
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:29:56PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached a rebased patch which fixes up the recent conflicts. No
> other changes were made.
Moved to next CF, waiting for review.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Horiguchi-san, Bruce,
Thank you for telling me your ideas behind this feature. Frankly, I don't
think I understood the proposed specification is OK, but I can't explain it
well at this instant. So, let me discuss that in a subsequent mail.
Anyway, here are my review comments on 0001:
(1)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:51:46AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Oh, sorry. I've missed we have ERRCODE_TO_CATEGORY() here.
Note: patch set moved to next CF, still waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks. Actually I'm updating the patch set, changing API interface as
> I proposed before and improving the document and README. I'll submit
> the latest patch next week.
Cool, I have moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:23:16AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> This thread is curently marked as returned with feedback, set so
> 2018-12-01. Given there've been several new versions submitted since, is
> that accurate?
From the latest status of this thread, there have been new patches but
no
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:43:24AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Are you planning to update the patch, or should the entry be marked as
> RWF?
Moved the patch to next CF for now, waiting on author as the last
review happened not so long ago.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 06:32:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So at this point I'm not sure what to think, other than that things
> are inconsistent (and underdocumented).
Nagata-san, do you have some plans to do something about the comments
raised. The thread has been inactive for a couple of
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:59:38PM -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> I (finally) got a chance to go through these patches and they look
> great. Thank you for working on this!
This review is very recent, so I have moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see if you are around and
> have some thoughts on it.
Maybe we can use the same plpgsql loop as fsm.sql that exits after 1
tuple
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:24 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One more similar failure:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing=2019-02-04%2003%3A20%3A01
>
> So, basically, this is due to difference in the number of tuples
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:12:09PM +, Ideriha, Takeshi wrote:
> On this allocation stuffs I'm trying to handle it in another thread
> [1] in a broader way.
Based on the latets updates of this thread, this is waiting for
review, so moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:31:43PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I'll consider the last choice and will come up with a patch.
Update is recent, so I have just moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:39 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit
04.02.2019 5:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
> Moved to next CF, waiting on author as the patch conflicts with HEAD.
> --
> Michael
Hello Michael,
It's very strange, I looked at
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:48 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > And one on eelpout, which appears to be unrelated as well:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=eelpout=2019-02-03%2011%3A54%3A13
> None of these failures seem to
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Rowley
wrote:
> I think we do need to ensure that the PartitionDesc matches between
> worker and leader. Have a look at choose_next_subplan_for_worker() in
> nodeAppend.c. Notice that a call is made to
> ExecFindMatchingSubPlans().
Thanks for the tip. I see
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:43 PM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> OK. I will work on the doc changes.
>
Sorry for the delay.
Attached a draft patch of doc and comments changes that I worked upon.
Currently I added comments to the callbacks that are present in the
TableAmRoutine
structure and I
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:39 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit 0d1fe9f74e.
> > Attached is a rebased version. I have checked once that
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:31:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > The -Wno-declaration-after-statement approach takes eight lines of code, and
> > the filter-out approach takes one. On the other hand, using $(filter-out)
> > changes any runs of whitespace to single spaces
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:45:09PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Umm, this is established coding pattern in pg_basebackup.c.
> Stylistically I'd change all those cases to "fprintf(stderr,
> isatty(fileno(stderr)) ? "\r" : "\n")" but leave the string alone, since
> AFAIR it took some time to
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:06:45AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-12-25 10:25:46 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> About added tests: the node is left running at the end of the script, which
>> is not very clean. I'd suggest to either move the added checks before
>> stopping, or to stop again
Hi,
On February 1, 2019 8:14 PM +, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 2/1/19 4:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2019-Feb-01, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if misunderstood the purpose of $VACUUMDB_OPTS. I
>>> thought what the other developers suggested is to utilize it so that
>>>
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 07:45:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Other than those minor changes, I think we should just get this pushed
> and see what the buildfarm thinks. In the words of a famous PG hacker:
> if a platform ain't in the buildfarm, we don't support it.
Moved to next CF, waiting
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:15:51AM +, Alexey Bashtanov wrote:
> I'm sorry for the delay, feel free to move it to next commitfest if
> needed.
Done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:39 PM Nishant, Fnu wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Amit for your review.
> >
> > On 1/20/19, 6:55 AM, "Amit Kapila" wrote:
> > > I think you need to change below code as well
> >Assert(buffer2 ==
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:48:02PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Fixed doubious memory context usage.
That's quite something that we have here for 0005:
84 files changed, 6588 insertions(+), 7501 deletions(-)
Moved to next CF for now.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 12:23:00PM +0100, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
> I did not find any test for log_min_duration that could help me. LCOV indicate
> there is no tests on this part (look check_log_duration()):
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c.gcov.html
These would take
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 04:51:11AM +, Nagaura, Ryohei wrote:
> Sorry for my late.
Moved to next CF per the latest updates: there is a patch with no
reviews for it.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:08:03PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> maybe "supertype". It is one char shorter .. somewhere is term
> "supperclass, ..."
>
> In Czech language this term is short, "nadtyp", but probably it is not
> acceptable :)
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:29:06AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yes, that's an omission in the docs. Will fix.
Could you fix your patch then? I am moving it to next CF, waiting on
author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:20:29AM +0100, John Naylor wrote:
> That particular test could be removed -- it's just verifying behavior
> that's already been there for years and is a direct consquence of
> normal truncation combined with the addressing scheme of the FSM
> logic.
Moved to next CF,
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 04:07:34AM +, Ideriha, Takeshi wrote:
> Sure. I didn't have a strong opinion about it, so it's ok.
From what I can see this is waiting input from a native English
speaker, so for now I have moved this entry to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:48 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-01 07:14:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Here's a version of the patch implementing this approach. I assume this
> > solves the FreeBSD issue, but I'm running tests in a loop on Thomas'
> > machine.
>
> I pushed this,
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
The patch is ready for committer, so it has not attracted much
attention. Perhaps Teodor or Alexander could look at it?
I have moved the patch to next CF with the same status.
--
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
Moved to next CF, waiting on author as the patch conflicts with HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:14:03PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I definitely am. In fact, I was ages ago (was planning for early December,
> but hey, see wher that let me), so my apologies for failing at that. But it
> definitely remains on my list of things to get to!
So, Magnus, where are we
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:23:09PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> Unfortunately, I couldn't find much time for this activity, but as far as I
> understand, thread [1] only requires jsonpath documentation right now. So I
> extracted the relevant parts from this patch, reworked path expression
>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:21:03PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm not in favor of listing all these versions here. It's one more
> thing to keep updated. The version requirements are not outrageous, so
> we can assume that someone with a reasonably up-to-date development
> machine has
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:21:23PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 04/01/2019 00:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Besides that, I have a hard time considering this patch committable.
>> There are some good additions, but they are mixed with some wording
>> changes that seem to be there just
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:55:09AM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> attached is a new signal handing patch. Path is corrected and moved. The
> documentation is sightly streamlined in some places and expanded in others.
This has not been reviewed, so moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:38:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm setting this to "Waiting on Author", awaiting a new version based on
> pg_partition_root() once that one is done.
pg_partition_root() has not made it to the finish line yet, still it
would have been nice to see a rebase, and
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:44:24PM +0100, didier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Why are you not including a test for \set VERBOSITY verbose?
>>
>> Stability of the output would be a problem ...
>>
>> Yes it could moreover the functionality
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:46:42AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> Nobody give comments, but I revised my patches.
There are many patches in the bucket. I can see that you are
reviewing a bit other's patches, though those are really lower
complexity.
> In this update, I combined files, fixed
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 01:21:45PM +0300, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> at least for processing user argument i think it is better to use strtol or
> other
> function that have better error handling. i can make a patch that change
> usage
> of atoi for user argument processing after getting feedback
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:08:51PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Why then not split the original proposal into two patches, one to improve the
> documentation, and another to make it more user friendly?
Moved to next CF for now. From what I can see the latest patch
manipulates the same areas of
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:38:16AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am sending updated patch.
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:38:39PM +0300, s.cherkas...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
> Here are some fixes. But I'm not sure that the renaming of columns for the
> '\dAp' command is sufficiently laconic and informative. If you have any
> suggestions on how to improve them, I will be very grateful.
I have
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:48:14AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> That would be fine. But as I mentioned in another mail, I think
> "get read-only session" and "connect to standby" differ. So I find
> it better to separate parameters for those request;
> target_session_attr and
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:22 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:50:40AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yes, we should update the documentation in this regard, though it's
> > really an independent thing as that documentation should have been
> > updated in the original
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:27:05AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> +1 to the above changes. Thanks for working on it.
Okay, done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:11:50AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Perhaps "vacuum_shrink_enabled" would be even better.
>
> Naming it just vacuum_truncate and autovacuum_truncate (with aliases for
> toast and such), looks more natural to me.
Andrew Gierth writes:
> [ ryu11.patch ]
I can confirm this compiles and passes core regression tests on
my HPPA dinosaur.
regards, tom lane
I wrote:
> I've posted some preliminary design ideas at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15193.1548028...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> and
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15289.1548028...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> While there's a nontrivial amount of work needed to make that happen,
> I think it's doable,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 08:50:14AM +0200, David Steele wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > +files created by initdb. This option is
> ignored
> > +on Windows, which does not support
> > +POSIX-style group permissions.
>
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:00 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2019-Feb-01, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> > IMHO we could document this feature at a slightly higher level without
> > leaving out any really important user-facing behavior. Here's a quick
> > attempt to show what I am thinking:
> >
> >
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:04:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a bug tracking system that Nathan set up many years ago and
> apparently has kept going unattended. It seems to me that it's
> something that we could base a semi-official bug tracking system on.
>
>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit 0d1fe9f74e.
> Attached is a rebased version. I have checked once that the changes
> done by 0d1fe9f74e don't impact this patch. John,
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 07:07:36AM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Noah" == Noah Misch writes:
>
> >> I found it much simpler to strip out -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> >> instead:
> >>
> >> $(RYU_OBJS): override CFLAGS := $(filter-out
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement,$(CFLAGS))
>
>
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 28/01/2019 23:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Or put it at the end?
>>> WITH ctename AS ( query ) MATERIALIZED
>> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like an improvement.
>> If the query is very long (which isn't unlikely) I think
Noah Misch writes:
> The -Wno-declaration-after-statement approach takes eight lines of code, and
> the filter-out approach takes one. On the other hand, using $(filter-out)
> changes any runs of whitespace to single spaces ("$(filter-out foo,ab c)"
> yields "a b c"). We do risk that with
Hi,
On 2019-02-01 07:14:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Here's a version of the patch implementing this approach. I assume this
> solves the FreeBSD issue, but I'm running tests in a loop on Thomas'
> machine.
I pushed this, and the buildfarm so far is showing more love.
There's a failure on
Andrew Gierth writes:
> The spec doesn't require the inverse functions (asinh, acosh, atanh),
> but surely there is no principled reason to omit them?
+1 --- AFAICS, the C library has offered all six since C89.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:02 PM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > FYI, the second comment is still present in v20.
> >
>
> oops, forgot to include in commit after making a change, done now.
>
This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent
Re: Michael Paquier 2019-02-03 <20190203090737.ga18...@paquier.xyz>
> >> Attached is a patch doing that. Thoughts?
> >
> > WFM.
>
> Thanks, pushed.
Thanks. It makes much more sense that way round.
Christoph
--
Senior Berater, Tel.: +49 2166 9901 187
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080,
Hi
> I agree that this doesn't need to be solved as part of this patch.
Thank you!
> Are you planning to update the patch?
Sorry, i was busy last month. But, well, i already did such update:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9653601544523383%40iva8-37fc2ad204cd.qloud-c.yandex.net
v003
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
