On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:56:47PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> But here's some one-liner excerpts.
>
> - is 2 bits and maximum is 4095.
> Parameters for
> + is 2 bits and the maximum is
> 4095. Parameters for
>
> Adding "the" makes it a complete sentence and not a fragment.
Not
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:22:18PM +0200, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 14:49, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 10:30, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello David,
> > >
> > > >>> I noticed that there wasn't a bulk way to see table logged-ness in
> > > >>>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:44:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > But I think the biggest part of the patch is still not even reviewed ?
> > I'm referring to ./*review-docs-for-pg12dev.patch
>
> Nope. I looked at the patch, and
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 14:22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > * They are hard to explain
> >
> > That can be true, but we generally get there if not the first time
> > then after a few iterations. Authors and committers of the
> > improvements are likely to be able to help find suitable wording.
>
>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 02:04:33PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 11:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:46:15PM -0400, Adam Brusselback wrote:
> > > As a user, I am interested in the optimizer changes for sure, and I
> > > actually had wished they
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 11:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:46:15PM -0400, Adam Brusselback wrote:
> > As a user, I am interested in the optimizer changes for sure, and I
> > actually had wished they were highlighted more in previous releases.
> >
> > > I think planner
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:05:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> The version that I posted left it to GetNextTempTableSpace to assert
> that. That seemed cleaner to me than an Assert that has to depend
> on interXact.
Okay, no objections for that approach as well. Are you
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:55:34AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-26, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I think a better overall fix is that that when creating the generated
> column (or altering a column to make it generated) we should look for
> existing an existing sequence and take ownership
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:17:22PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> But I think the biggest part of the patch is still not even reviewed ?
> I'm referring to ./*review-docs-for-pg12dev.patch
Nope. I looked at the patch, and as mentioned upthread the suggested
changes did not seem like improvements
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:21:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think feature freeze precludes adding new test cases.
I think as well that adding this stuff into v12 would be fine. Now if
there is any objection let's wait for later.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
> name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
Maybe, but the fact that the ItemIdData struct consists of bit fields
that are all named "lp_*" offers a hint.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:53:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1. Maybe say "... which requires only a
> SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock."
Thanks for the review. Committed with your suggested change.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I was proposing that we not rename any struct at all, and continue to
> call ItemId[Data]s "line pointers" only.
Yeah, I'd be fine with that, although the disconnect between the type
name and the comment terminology might confuse some people.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> ItemId[Data] is somewhat less widely referenced, but I'm still not
> much in favor of renaming that type. I think fixing comments to
> uniformly call it an item ID would be more reasonable. (We should
> leave the "line pointer" terminology in
Ashwin Agrawal writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> ISTM that the
>> least confusing way of removing the ambiguity would be to no longer
>> refer to ItemIds as item pointers, without changing anything else.
How many places would we be changing to clean that up?
>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:23 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> How about we rename ItemPointerData to TupleIdentifier or ItemIdentifier
> instead and leave ItemPointer or Item confined to AM term, where item can be
> tuple, datum or anything else ?
I'm not a fan of that idea, because the reality is
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:46:15PM -0400, Adam Brusselback wrote:
> As a user, I am interested in the optimizer changes for sure, and I
> actually had wished they were highlighted more in previous releases.
>
> > I think planner smarts are arguably one of our weakest areas when
> > compared to the
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> itemid.h introduces the struct ItemIdData as follows:
>
> /*
> * An item pointer (also called line pointer) on a buffer page
>
> Meanwhile, itemptr.h introduces the struct ItemPointerData as follows:
>
> /*
> * ItemPointer:
> *
> *
I went ahead and pushed the stopgap patches, along with regression tests
based on yours. The tests show the current (i.e. wrong) behavior for
index comment and relfilenode reuse. I think that whenever we fix that,
we can just adjust the expected output instead of adding more tests.
itemid.h introduces the struct ItemIdData as follows:
/*
* An item pointer (also called line pointer) on a buffer page
Meanwhile, itemptr.h introduces the struct ItemPointerData as follows:
/*
* ItemPointer:
*
* This is a pointer to an item within a disk page of a known file
* (for
Hi,
On 2019-04-26 17:29:56 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Win32 implement cannot have symbolic link feature as Linux-like
> OSes for some restrictions. (Windows 7 and 10 behave differently,
> as I heard.)
>
> So the 0002 patch implemnets "fake" symbolic link as mentioned in
> its commit
Hi,
I have created a shared hash table in partitioned mode inside the postgres
server code. In order to guard the partitions, I'm trying to initialize an
array of LWLocks. The code that I'm trying to use for that is
void RequestNamedLWLockTranche
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Um, this one doesn't apply because of yesterday's 87259588d0ab.
Before we spend too much time on minutiae, we should ask ourselves whether
this patch is even going in the right direction. I'm not sure.
One point is that if we simply adopt the old index as-is, we won't
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:50:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:19:55PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2019-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I think it'd be better just to fix s/the all/that all/.
> >
> > (and s/if's/if it's/)
>
> FWIW, I have noticed
Etsuro Fujita writes:
> (2019/04/26 3:24), Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we do leave it like this, then the only way for postgres_fdw to
>> avoid trouble is to not have any entries in fdw_exprs that exactly
>> match entries in fdw_scan_tlist. So that pretty much devolves back
>> to what I said before:
Hello Aya-san,
Thanks for this review.
There is space (+--' '). Please delete it. It is cause of regression test
failed.
Indeed, unsure how I could do that. Fixed.
IMHO this new setting should be on by default: few people know about \; so
it would not change anything for most, and I do
Thanks! Pushed. Marking the open item as closed too.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-Apr-26, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> What do you think of the patch I just posted on this thread to
> remove ownership automatically when the default is dropped, as Michael
> suggested? I think that would make things much more intuitive from
> the user's perspective.
I think a better overall
Hi,
Please trim the quoted text in your reply.
On 2019-Apr-26, Amit Langote wrote:
> Per Alvaro's report, regression tests added weren't portable. Fixed that
> in the attached updated patch.
Um, this one doesn't apply because of yesterday's 87259588d0ab.
--
Álvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Apr-26, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:11:24AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I just noticed this thread. What do we think of adding this test to
>>> pg12? (The patch doesn't apply verbatim, but it's a small update to get
>>> it to
On 2019-Apr-26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:11:24AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I just noticed this thread. What do we think of adding this test to
> > pg12? (The patch doesn't apply verbatim, but it's a small update to get
> > it to apply.)
>
> Could you let me
Michael Paquier writes:
> I think that one piece is missing from the patch. Wouldn't it be
> better to add an assertion at the beginning of OpenTemporaryFile() to
> make sure that PrepareTempTablespaces() has been called when interXact
> is true? We could just go with that:
> Assert(!interXact
Amit Langote writes:
> I couldn't find old discussions or source code comments about this, but
> has someone encountered the following error and wondered whether it's
> working that way for a reason?
> select a::text, b from foo order by 1, 2 collate "C";
> ERROR: collations are not supported
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
>> explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
>> creation and replacement steps. This should be updated to
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 04:11, Donald Dong wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use the SPI to save the executed plans in the ExecutorEnd. When
> the plan involves multiple workers, the insert operations would trigger an
> error: cannot execute INSERT during a parallel operation.
>
> I wonder if
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-04-25 17:12:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> I was wondering if we should just pass in the pg_class tuple as an "out"
>>> argument, instead of pointers to relfilnode/relfrozenxid/relminmxid.
>> Yeah, possibly. The whole business with xids
Hi, I've updated Thomas's quick PoC.
>From: Ideriha, Takeshi [mailto:ideriha.take...@jp.fujitsu.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:07 PM
>>From: Ideriha, Takeshi [mailto:ideriha.take...@jp.fujitsu.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 2:42 PM
>>Subject: RE: Copy data to DSA area
>
>Things
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:11:24AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I just noticed this thread. What do we think of adding this test to
> pg12? (The patch doesn't apply verbatim, but it's a small update to get
> it to apply.)
Could you let me have a look at it? I have not tested on Windows, but
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 14:49, Rafia Sabih wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 10:30, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello David,
> >
> > >>> I noticed that there wasn't a bulk way to see table logged-ness in psql,
> > >>> so I made it part of \dt+.
> > >>
> > >> Applies, compiles, works for me.
On 2019-Apr-25, Amit Langote wrote:
> BTW, this will need to be back-patched to 11.
Done, thanks for the patch. I added the test in master, but obviously
it doesn't work in pg11, so I just verified manually that relispartition
is set correctly. I don't think it's worth doing more, though there
I just noticed this thread. What do we think of adding this test to
pg12? (The patch doesn't apply verbatim, but it's a small update to get
it to apply.)
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:55:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:54:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
I think that'd make sense. The rest of the RMT probably isn't awake
however, so I think it'd be good to give them 24h to object.
It would be nice to clean all that
On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 15:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > So if one tries to convert a "serial" column to an identity column,
> > the following can happen:
> >
> > test=> CREATE TABLE ser(id serial);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > test=> ALTER TABLE ser ALTER id ADD GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY;
> >
On 2019-04-14 17:51, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Identity columns don't work if they own more than one sequence.
Well, they shouldn't, because then how do they know which sequence they
should use?
> So if one tries to convert a "serial" column to an identity column,
> the following can happen:
>
>
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 10:30, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> Hello David,
>
> >>> I noticed that there wasn't a bulk way to see table logged-ness in psql,
> >>> so I made it part of \dt+.
> >>
> >> Applies, compiles, works for me.
> >>
> >> ISTM That temporary-ness is not shown either. Maybe the
(2019/04/26 3:24), Tom Lane wrote:
PG Bug reporting form writes:
[ this crashes if ft4 is a postgres_fdw foreign table: ]
select exists(select c1 from ft4), avg(c1) from ft4 where c1 = (select
max(c1) from ft4);
Hm, the max() subquery isn't necessary, this is sufficient:
select
On 2019-04-26 05:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:34:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> The documentation has a section called "Routine Reindexing", which
>> explains how to simulate REINDEX CONCURRENTLY with a sequence of
>> creation and replacement steps. This should be
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 09:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > test=> INSERT INTO ser (id) VALUES (DEFAULT);
> > ERROR: more than one owned sequence found
>
> Yes this should never be user-triggerable, so it seems that we need to
>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:56 PM amul sul wrote:
> Attached version is rebase atop of the latest master head(fdc7efcc30), also
> incorporates the Ashutosh's suggestion, thanks.
>
Thanks for rebase patch, patches applied cleanly on PG head.
I did some crash testing with extra test case [0006
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:11 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > For the second issue, I've changed lazy vacuum so that it reports both
> > the number of kilobytes we freed and the number of kilobytes can be
> > freed after index cleanup.
>
> I
(2019/04/26 13:58), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2019/04/26 13:20), Amit Langote wrote:
+ Note that this function is also called when inserting routed tuples
into
+ a foreign-table partition or executingCOPY FROM on
+ a foreign table, in which case it is called in a different way than it
+ is in
Hello. Thank you for looking this.
At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:58:20 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote in
<18581.1556193500@localhost>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> > Hello. As mentioned before [1], read_page callback in
> > XLogReaderState is a cause of headaches. Adding another
> > remote-controlling
Hello.
Win32 implement cannot have symbolic link feature as Linux-like
OSes for some restrictions. (Windows 7 and 10 behave differently,
as I heard.)
So the 0002 patch implemnets "fake" symbolic link as mentioned in
its commit message.
Also I fixed 0001 slightly.
regards.
At Thu, 25 Apr 2019
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Is there (easy) way to assert for that assumption? If yes, then can add the
> same and make it not rickety.
IsTransactionState() would be enough?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:45:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still remain concerned that invoking catalog lookups from fd.c is a darn
> bad idea, even if we have a fallback for it to work (for some value of
> "work") in non-transactional states. It's not really hard to envision
> that kind of
55 matches
Mail list logo
