Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2019/03/01 20:00), Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > It's still unclear to me why add_foreign_ordered_paths() passes the input
> > relation (input_rel) to estimate_path_cost_size(). If it passed the output
> > rel
> > (i.e. ordered_rel in this case)
Hi Fabien and Alvaro,
I found that I have already reviewed this thread before,
so I tried to apply the patch, but part of the chunk failed,
because of the unused line below which was already removed in the
recent related commit.
> PGResult*res;
I removed the line and fixed the
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 04:10 Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 07:58:26AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum
> > verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing.
> However
> > it would have side
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 03:33:12PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I've made some more iterations looking for ideas how to improve the
> patch and found non.
> Code style, docs, tests, make-check worlds, bit status, everything
> seems OK. A little bit of copied code from dblink (there is no
>
Bonjour Michaël,
I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum
verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing. However
it would have side effects, such as interfering deeply with the server page
cache, which may or may not be desirable.
In what
Some comments on
v13-0002-make-heap-TID-a-tie-breaker-nbtree-index-column.patch below.
Mostly about code comments. In general, I think a round of copy-editing
the comments, to use simpler language, would do good. The actual code
changes look good to me.
/*
* _bt_findinsertloc() --
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 6:23 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > The Cybertec proposed patches are doing the encryption at the instance
> > level, AFAIK, the current discussion is also trying to reduce the scope of
> > the
> > encryption to
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > WAL encryption will follow as an additional feature.
>
> I don't think WAL encryption is an optional feature. You can argue
> about whether it's useful to encrypt the disk files in
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 3/1/19 2:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Indeed, but I'm not sure that the use-cases are the same. In particular,
> >> unless somebody has done some rather impossible magic, it would be
> >> disastrous to apply
Hello.
At Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:53:37 +1100, Haribabu Kommi
wrote in
> Thanks for confirmation of that PostgreSQL runs as service.
>
> Based on the following details, we can decide whether this fix is required
> or not.
> 1. Starting of Postgres server using pg_ctl without service is of
>
Thomas Munro writes:
> With a simple socket test program I can see that if you send a single
> packet after the remote end has closed and after it had already read
> everything you sent it up to now, you get EPIPE. If there was some
> outstanding data from a previous send that it hadn't read yet
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > The whole thing reminds me of the recent bug #15598:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/87k1iy44fd.fsf%40news-spur.riddles.org.uk
>
> Yeah, if errors get moved to later exchanges
David Rowley writes:
> [ v13-0001-Forgo-generating-single-subpath-Append-and-Merge.patch ]
I continue to think that this is the wrong way to go about it,
and as proof of concept present the attached, which reproduces
all of the regression-test plan changes appearing in v13 ---
with a whole lot
On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:01:50AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> About the output: I'd suggest to indent one line per row, something like:
>
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES
> (..., ..., ..., ...),
> (..., ..., ..., ...),
> (..., ..., ..., ...);
>
> so as to avoid very very very very very
Rebased.
No commit hit this but I fixed one space error.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From d048aedbee48a1a0d91ae6e009b7a7903f272720 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:03:21 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] TAP test for
On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 01:49:51PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> This might be not the right way, but I can't think of a better way
> to not switch to a different method than split of lastSourceFailed
> processing and starting new source. Something like refactoring in
> first attached patch. I
Hi Andres,
(2019/03/02 3:57), Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, I pushed the EPQ patch, doing this conversion blindly. It'd be
awesome if you'd check that it actually works...
I'll start the work later this week. I think I can post an (initial)
report on that next week, maybe.
Best regards,
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 07:58:26AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I agree that having a server function (extension?) to do a full checksum
> verification, possibly bandwidth-controlled, would be a good thing. However
> it would have side effects, such as interfering deeply with the server page
>
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:51:48AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I still think that an external checksum verification tool has some
> merit, given that basebackup does it and the current offline requirement
> is really not useful in practise.
I am not going to argue again about the way checksum
>From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki [mailto:tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com]
>> [Size=800, iter=1,000,000]
>> Master |15.763
>> Patched|16.262 (+3%)
>>
>> [Size=32768, iter=1,000,000]
>> Master |61.3076
>> Patched|62.9566 (+2%)
>
>What's the unit, second or millisecond?
Millisecond.
>Why is the number of
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 10:44:10AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks for committing and adding me as an author.
Sure. A good portion of the changes suggested on the backend was
mainly yours, so that looked right to me.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2/25/19 4:21 AM, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
Great, to hear that you are working on that. Do you think I can help you
with this? I did some groundwork to make it possible. I can help in
coding/reviewing or even can take lead if you want to.
Hi Ibrar,
I'd love some help with this! I submitted my
On 2019/03/02 18:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right, while you'd get zero rows out for a non-partitioned table.
>> WFM.
>
> Exactly. I have committed a patch doing exactly that, and I have
> added test cases with a partitioned table
On 3/3/19 1:08 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> jsonb_util.c
>
>
> I see we're now handling NaN values in convertJsonbScalar(). Isn't it
> actually a bug that we don't do this already? Or is it not needed for
> some reason?
>
JSON standard numerics don't support NaN, Infinity etc., so
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > I wonder if we really want this behavior. Should a setting that
> > > controls the degree of parallelism when scanning the table also affect
> > > VACUUM? I tend to think that we
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 07:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I still regularly see list overhead matter in production workloads. A
> > lot of it being memory allocator overhead, which is why I'm concerned
> > with a rewrite that doesn't reduce the number of memory allocations.
>
>
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:12:51AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> You and Andres may be right that trying to verify checksums online
> without close interaction with the server is ultimately futile (or at
> least overly complex). But I'm not sure those issues (torn pages and
> partial reads) are
On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 04:43:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks for confirming, Konstantin. Let's wait a couple of days to see
> if anybody has objections or comments, and I'll try to commit this
> patch.
Done and backpatched down to 9.4, with Andrew's suggestion from
upthread
Hi Amit,
Greetings! Thank you so much for your previous feedbacks!
It seems the old patch is broken with latest master branch. So, I have rebased
the patch, now it can be applied to the latest master without conflicts.
Btw, since the commitfest was created:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 4:09PM (GMT+9), Fabien COELHO wrote:
>Basically same thing about the tcp_user_timeout guc v8, especially:
> do you have any advice about how I can test the feature, i.e.
> trigger a timeout?
>
>> Patch applies & compiles cleanly. Global check is ok, although there
>> are
Hello,
We corrected our previously held belief that it's safe to retry
fsync(). We still haven't dealt with the possibility that some
kernels can forget about write-back errors due to inode cache
pressure, if there is a time when no process has the file open. To
prevent that we need to hold
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 11:06, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 04:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You absolutely will get errors during btree insertions and searches
> >> if a datatype's btree comparison functions ever return NULL (for
> >> non-NULL inputs).
>
> > I
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 04:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You absolutely will get errors during btree insertions and searches
>> if a datatype's btree comparison functions ever return NULL (for
>> non-NULL inputs).
> I understand this is the case if an index happens to be used, but
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 04:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 17:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (At the code level, this is implicit in the fact that the comparison
> >> function will be called via FunctionCall2Coll or a sibling, and those
> >> all throw an error if
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 09:57:25PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 7:14 PM David Fetter wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 09:14:59AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > + url = psprintf("
> >
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 7:14 PM David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 09:14:59AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > + url = psprintf("
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/%s/%s.html;,
> > +
> strstr(PG_VERSION, "devel") ? "devel" : PG_MAJORVERSION,
> > +
Hi,
Is there any documentation change required for this patch?
Cheers
Ram 4.0
I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Patch proposed by Christoph Berg is here:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190228151336.GB7550%40msg.df7cb.de
> Meh. That doesn't silence only the zero-bytes case, and I'm also
> rather afraid of the fact that it's changing COMMERROR to something
>
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
Hi,
thank you for your work on this patch.
Patch #1 is
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-03-02 18:11:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder what test cases Andres has been looking at that convince
>> him that we need a reimplementation of Lists.
> My main observation was from when the expression evaluation was using
> lists all over. List iteration
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 09:14:59AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + url =
> psprintf("https://www.postgresql.org/docs/%s/%s.html;,
> +
> strstr(PG_VERSION, "devel") ? "devel" : PG_MAJORVERSION,
>
Hi,
Here are some initial comments from a review of the 0001 part. I plan to
do more testing on a large data set and additional round of review over
the next week. FWIW I've passed this through valgrind and the usual
battery of regression tests, and there were no issues.
I haven't looked at 0002
so 2. 3. 2019 v 6:15 odesílatel Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:36 AM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached 34th version of the patches.
> >
> > 1. Partial jsonpath support:
> >- Fixed copying of jsonb with vars jsonb_path_query()
David Rowley writes:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 17:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (At the code level, this is implicit in the fact that the comparison
>> function will be called via FunctionCall2Coll or a sibling, and those
>> all throw an error if the called function returns NULL.)
> Ah okay. I can get
On 26/02/2019 12:31, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:32 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I spent some time first trying to understand the current algorithm, and
then rewriting it in a way that I find easier to understand. I came up
with the attached. I think it optimizes for the
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 17:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> (At the code level, this is implicit in the fact that the comparison
> function will be called via FunctionCall2Coll or a sibling, and those
> all throw an error if the called function returns NULL.)
>
> Now, it doesn't say in so many words that the
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 02.03.2019, 11:08 -0500 schrieb Stephen Frost:h
> * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 01.03.2019, 18:03 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas:
> > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:37 AM Michael Banck
> > > wrote:
> > > > I have added a retry for this as
Indeed, the patch needs a rebase & conflit resolution. I'll do it. Later.
Here is an update:
- take advantage of pg_bitutils (although I noted that the "slow"
popcount there could be speeded-up and shorten with a bitwise operator
implementation that I just removed from pgbench).
-
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:42:16AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> For example, the TAP test infrastructure sets PGAPPNAME to allow
> identifying clients in the server log. But this environment variable is
> also inherited by temporary servers started with pg_ctl and is then in
> turn used by
49 matches
Mail list logo
