On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:12, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 10. 6. 2020 v 12:26 odesílatel Amit Khandekar
> napsal:
>> Could you show an example testcase that tests this recursive scenario,
>> with which your earlier patch fails the test, and this v2 patch passes
>> it ? I am trying to understand
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:43 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there some mapping between GXID and XIDs allocated for each node or
> > will each node use the GXID as XID to modify the data? Are we fine
> > with parking the work for
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 09:01, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>
> > I've attached the new version patch set. 0006 is a separate patch
> > which introduces 'prefer' mode to foreign_twophase_commit.
>
> I hope we can use this feature. Thank you for making patches and
> discussions.
> I'm currently
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:06 PM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> >> > I think the problem mentioned above can occur with this as well or if
> >> > I am missing something then can you explain in further detail how it
> >> > won't create problem in the scenario I have used above?
> >>
> >> So the problem
At Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:17:07 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:31:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote in
> > On 2020-Jun-16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > I noticed the another issue. If some required WALs are removed, the
> > > slot will be "invalidated",
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:55 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:35 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Perhaps this'd could be sidestepped by funneling through MinimalTuples
> > instead of HeapTuples. Afaict that should always be sufficient, because
> > all system column accesses ought
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:33 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:49 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think one of the usages we still need is
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:49 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I think one of the usages we still need is in ReorderBufferForget
> > > because it can be called when we skip
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:35:58PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On June 16, 2020 8:24:29 PM PDT, Noah Misch wrote:
> >Suppose the initializing process does:
> >
> > pg_atomic_init_u64(>atomic, 123);
> > somestruct->atomic_ready = true;
> >
> >In released versions, any process observing
Andres Freund writes:
> On June 16, 2020 8:24:29 PM PDT, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Suppose the initializing process does:
>>
>> pg_atomic_init_u64(>atomic, 123);
>> somestruct->atomic_ready = true;
>>
>> In released versions, any process observing atomic_ready==true will
>> observe
>> the results
Hi,
On June 16, 2020 8:24:29 PM PDT, Noah Misch wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2020-06-14 18:55:27 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > Does something guarantee the write will be globally-visible by the
>time the
>> > first concurrent accessor shows up?
>>
I think someone planned to have XactLogCommitRecord() use its forceSync
parameter instead of reading the forceSyncCommit global variable, but that
didn't happen. I'd like to remove the parameter, as attached. This has no
functional consequences, as detailed in the commit message.
Author:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-06-14 18:55:27 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Does something guarantee the write will be globally-visible by the time the
> > first concurrent accessor shows up?
>
> The function comments say:
>
> *
> * Has to be done
At Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:40:56 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in
> On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On 2020/06/17 3:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > So InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() can terminate normal backends.
> > But do we want to do this? If we want, we should add the note about
On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/06/17 3:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() can terminate normal backends.
> But do we want to do this? If we want, we should add the note about this
> case into the docs? Otherwise the users would be surprised at
On 2020/06/17 3:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
While reading InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() code, I found another issue.
ereport(LOG,
(errmsg("terminating walsender %d because replication
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "master" is the default branch name established by git, is it not? Not
>> something we picked.
> Git itself is discussing this:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/41438a0f-50e4-4e58-a3a7-3daaecb55...@jramsay.com.au/T/#t
> and it seems that
At Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:31:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in
> On 2020-Jun-16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > I noticed the another issue. If some required WALs are removed, the
> > slot will be "invalidated", that is, restart_lsn is set to invalid
> > value. As the result we hardly see the
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:08 AM Alexey Bashtanov wrote:
>
> In [1] we found a situation where it leads to a suboptimal plan,
> as it bloats the overall cost into large figures,
> a decision related to an outer part of the plan look negligible to the
> planner,
> and as a result it doesn't
At Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:46:38 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> >> 2. InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() uses the loop to scan
> >> replication
> >> slots array and uses the "for" loop in each scan. Also it calls
> >>
Hi Hackers,
When I was working on an extension on Windows platform, I used the
command 'vcregress contribcheck' to run the regression test for my
module. However, this command will run the regression test for all the
modules, I couldn't find a way to regress test my module only. I think
it
On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> >> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> >> somewhat separate discussion to me, as
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml
> index 25b03f3b37..e29b55e5ac 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml
> @@ -395,15 +395,15 @@
>
> The base
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> >> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> >> somewhat separate
Hi,
On 2020-06-16 19:46:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I experimented with making the compiler warn about about some of these
> > kinds of mistakes without needing full test coverage:
>
> > I was able to get clang to warn about things like using palloc in signal
> >
On 2020-Jun-09, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> Can you agree to the following definitions? If no, we can alternatively
> formulate for each of them: "Under discussion - currently not defined". My
> proposals are inspired by chapter 2.2 Concepts: "Tables are grouped into
> databases, and a collection of
I've attached the new version patch set. 0006 is a separate patch
which introduces 'prefer' mode to foreign_twophase_commit.
I hope we can use this feature. Thank you for making patches and
discussions.
I'm currently understanding the logic and found some minor points to be
fixed.
I'm sorry
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
>> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
>> somewhat separate discussion to me, as it affects development
>> practices to some
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:24 AM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Thank you for patience. The documentation patch is attached. I think
> it requires review by native english speaker.
* "...paramaters that controls" should be "...paramaters that control".
* "with set of operator class specific
Andres Freund writes:
> I experimented with making the compiler warn about about some of these
> kinds of mistakes without needing full test coverage:
> I was able to get clang to warn about things like using palloc in signal
> handlers, or using palloc while holding a spinlock. Which would be
>
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
>changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
>somewhat separate discussion to me, as it affects development
>practices to some degree.
>
I'm OK
Hi,
On 2020-06-03 00:36:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Should we think about adding automated detection of this type of
> mistake? I don't like the attached as-is because of the #include
> footprint expansion, but maybe we can find a better way.
I experimented with making the compiler warn about
On 6/16/20 6:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing.
I like neither the new nor the old language much. I'd welcome input.
Why not multi-primary?
My understanding of
Hi,
On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
> > remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
> > attached series I replaced most of the uses.
> >
Hi Andres,
Thanks for doing this!
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
attached series I replaced most of the uses.
0001: tap tests: s/master/primary/
Hi,
On 2020-06-16 14:59:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:37 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > What do you think about 0002?
> >
> > With regard to the cost of the expensive test in 0003, I'm somewhat
> > inclined to add that to the buildfarm for a few days and see how it
> >
On 2020-Jun-15, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Also, I wonder if someone would be willing to set up a BF animal for this.
>
> FWIW, I've requested a buildfarm animal id for this a few days ago, but
> haven't received a response yet...
I did send it out, with name rorqual -- didn't you get that? Will
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:37 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> What do you think about 0002?
>
> With regard to the cost of the expensive test in 0003, I'm somewhat
> inclined to add that to the buildfarm for a few days and see how it
> actually affects the few bf animals without atomics. We can rip it
On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
> While reading InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() code, I found another
> issue.
>
> ereport(LOG,
> (errmsg("terminating walsender %d
> because replication slot \"%s\" is too far behind",
>
On 2020-Jun-16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I noticed the another issue. If some required WALs are removed, the
> slot will be "invalidated", that is, restart_lsn is set to invalid
> value. As the result we hardly see the "lost" state.
>
> It can be "fixed" by remembering the validity of a slot
Hi,
Sticking with precedent for the timing of a Beta 2, the RMT[1] has set
the PostgreSQL 13 Beta 2 release date to be June 25, 2020. As such, if
you have open items[2] that you can finish by the end of this weekend
(June 21 AOE), please do so :)
Thanks,
Jonathan
[1]
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 02:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * I had to invent some semantics for non-standardized functions,
>> particularly numeric_mod, numeric_gcd, numeric_lcm. This area
>> could use review to be sure that I chose desirable behaviors.
> I think the semantics
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:57 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I agree that won't be a common scenario but apart from that also I am
> not sure if we can conclude that the proposed patch won't cause any
> regressions. See one of the tests [1] done by Soumyadeep where the
> patch has caused regression in
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:42:52PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Is there some mapping between GXID and XIDs allocated for each node or
> > will each node use the GXID as XID to modify the data? Are we fine
> > with parking the work for global snapshots and atomic visibility to a
> > separate
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 07:38:45PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 11:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:34 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> But just reverting 4cad2534d will make this much worse, I think, as
> illustrated by the benchmarks I did in [1].
I share
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:22:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> Here using root seems a lot better than master anyway (master seems
> confusing in regard to inheritance scenarios). But perhaps parent
> would be better? Went with root since it's about the topmost
On 16/06/2020 18:28, Marc Cousin wrote:
> Oh, sorry about that, I forgot to detail this. I tested on both 10.13 (which
> is the production environment on which we faced this), and on 12.3, with the
> same problem.
>
> On 16/06/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Marc Cousin writes:
>>> Of course,
Oh, sorry about that, I forgot to detail this. I tested on both 10.13 (which is
the production environment on which we faced this), and on 12.3, with the same
problem.
On 16/06/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marc Cousin writes:
>> Of course, what happens here is that the histogram says that
Marc Cousin writes:
> Of course, what happens here is that the histogram says that max(a) is
> 100, and get_actual_variable_range verifies the real upper bound. And has
> to read quite a few dead index records.
We've revised that logic several times to reduce the scope of the
problem.
On 2020/06/16 14:00, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 16 Jun 2020 01:46:21 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
In short, it is known behavior but it was judged as useless to prevent
that.
That can happen when checkpointer removes up to the segment that is
being read by walsender. I think that that
Mark Dilger writes:
> I am a bit surprised to see that you are right about this, because non-latin
> languages often have transliteration/romanization schemes for writing the
> language in the Latin alphabet, developed before computers had wide spread
> adoption of non-ASCII character sets,
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 7:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Moreover, AFAIK, the following other languages do not use Latin-based
>>> alphabets:
>
>>> arabic arabic \
>>> greek greek \
>>> nepali nepali \
>>> tamil tamil
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:09 PM David Rowley wrote:
> To summarise what's all been proposed so far:
>
> 1. Use a constant, (e.g. 64) as the parallel step size
> 2. Ramp up the step size over time
> 3. Ramp down the step size towards the end of the scan.
> 4. Auto-determine a good stepsize based
Hi,
We're having an issue with planner performance when doing large deletes at the
same time as we have long running transactions, from what we gathered, because
of the scan to find the actual minimum and maximum values of the table.
Instead of trying to explain what happens, here is a very
Hi,
I noticed that there are several file layout assumptions in dbsize.c which
might not hold true for non heap relations attached with the TableAm API. It
seems logical that in order to retrieve the disk size of a relation, the
existing size method to be used instead.
A small patch is
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Moreover, AFAIK, the following other languages do not use Latin-based
>> alphabets:
>> arabic arabic \
>> greek greek \
>> nepali nepali \
>> tamil tamil \
> Hmm. I think all of those entries are ones that got
>> > I think the problem mentioned above can occur with this as well or if
>> > I am missing something then can you explain in further detail how it
>> > won't create problem in the scenario I have used above?
>>
>> So the problem you mentioned above is like this? (S1/S2 denotes
>> transactions
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > There are two cases where these two columns are not the same:
>
> > hindi english \
> > russian english \
>
> > The second one is old; the first one I added using the second one as
> >
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think one of the usages we still need is in ReorderBufferForget
> > because it can be called when we skip processing the txn. See the
> > comments in DecodeCommit where we call
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> There are two cases where these two columns are not the same:
> hindi english \
> russian english \
> The second one is old; the first one I added using the second one as
> example. But I wonder what the rationale for this is. Maybe for
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
Thank you for your reviews on 0003 patch. I've incorporated your
comments. I'll submit the latest version patch later as the design or
scope might change as a result of the discussion.
>
> Few more comments on v22-0003-Documentation-update
>
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 6/12/20 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we did that, you'd never see Inf in a
>> standard-conforming column, since SQL doesn't allow unconstrained
>> numeric columns IIRC.
> It does. The precision and scale are both optional.
> If the precision is missing, it's
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I'd be more worried about for example postmaster.pid, which would break a
> *lot* of scripts and integrations. postmaster is also exposed in the system
> catalogs.
Oooh, that's an excellent point. A lot of random stuff knows that file
name.
To be clear, I'm not
On 6/16/20 9:10 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/16/20 3:26 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>> postmaster is just a symlink, which we very well could just leave in
>> place... I was really just thinking of the code level stuff. And I think
Em ter., 16 de jun. de 2020 às 01:10, Justin Pryzby
escreveu:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:49:33PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > I can confirm that the problem is in pgrename (dirmod.c),
> > something is not OK, with MoveFileEx, even with the
> > (MOVEFILE_REPLACE_EXISTING) flag.
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:06 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 15:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Even the local
> > > > > server is not modified, since a resolver process commits prepared
> > > > >
On 6/16/20 3:26 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> postmaster is just a symlink, which we very well could just leave in
> place... I was really just thinking of the code level stuff. And I think
> there's some clarity reasons to rename
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 11:45, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:22 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:44 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > > Are you saying that the planner should take into account the state of
> > > the cursor specified in WHERE CURRENT OF to
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, June 15, 2020 3:20 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:45 PM Georgios gkokola...@protonmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Please add it to the commitfest at https://commitfest.postgresql.org/28/
> >
> > Thank you very much for your time. Added
On 6/16/20 8:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-06-09 09:33, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
>> The difference seems to be MSYS2, it also fails for me if I do not
>> include 'Win32::Symlink' with Perl 5.30.2.
>
> MSYS2, which is basically Cygwin, emulates symlinks with junction
>
On 2020-06-09 09:33, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
The difference seems to be MSYS2, it also fails for me if I do not
include 'Win32::Symlink' with Perl 5.30.2.
MSYS2, which is basically Cygwin, emulates symlinks with junction
points, so this happens to work for our purpose. We could
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 12:18, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-16 11:49, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > With [1], we could return 'Infinity', which would be more correct from
> > a mathematical point of view, and might be preferable to erroring-out
> > in some contexts.
>
> But the limit of the
On 6/15/20 2:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 03:00:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> My take would be to actually enforce that as a requirement for 14~ if
>> that works reliably, and of course not backpatch that change as that's
>> clearly an improvement and not a bug
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:02 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:17 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:37 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > Commit 911e7020770 added a variety of new support routines to index
> > > AMs. For example, it added a
On 2020-06-16 11:49, Dean Rasheed wrote:
With [1], we could return 'Infinity', which would be more correct from
a mathematical point of view, and might be preferable to erroring-out
in some contexts.
But the limit of the gamma function is either negative or positive
infinity, depending on
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:59 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The performance can vary based on qualification where some workers
> > discard more rows as compared to others, with the current system with
> > step-size as one, the probability of
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM Dean Rasheed
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 10:09, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> wrote:
> >
> > It is defined as NaN (or undefined), which is not in the realm of
> integer numbers. You might get a clear idea of the logic from [1], where
> they also make a case
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:10:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:14:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Well, I thought we copied everything except things tha can be specified
> > > as different in CREATE DATABASE, though I can see why we would
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:06 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 15:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Even the local
> > > > server is not modified, since a resolver process commits prepared
> > > > foreign transactions one by one another user could see an inconsistent
> >
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 04:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:56 PM Andrew Dunstan <
> > It seems pretty trivial to for example get all the steps out of check.log
> > and their timing with a regexp.
>
> Yeah, I don't see why we can't scrape this data
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Thanks Amit for the clarifications. Regarding partitioned table, one of the
> question was - if we are loading data into a partitioned table using COPY
> command, then the input file would contain tuples for different tables
>
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 10:09, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
wrote:
>
> It is defined as NaN (or undefined), which is not in the realm of integer
> numbers. You might get a clear idea of the logic from [1], where they also
> make a case for the error being ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO.
>
> [1]
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > Most common implementations do regard factorial as undefined for
> > anything other than positive integers, as well as following the
> > convention that factorial(0) = 1.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:39:57AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 08:46:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:07:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > > A customer's upgrade failed, and it
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:55 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > Most common implementations do regard factorial as undefined for
> > anything other than positive integers, as well as following the
> > convention that factorial(0) = 1.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have few more comments on the patch
> 0013-Change-buffile-interface-required-for-streaming-.patch:
>
Review comments on 0014-Worker-tempfile-use-the-shared-buffile-infrastru:
1.
The subxact file is only create if there
+ * are any suxact
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:31:21AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 06:00, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > Divison by zero is really undefined, 12345678 * 12345678 (just some
> > numbers) is out of range of say int4, but factorial of a negative number
> > has some meaning and
Thanks.
My conclusion on this is the async patch is not the cause of the
behavior change mentioned here.
At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:59:18 +0500, "Andrey V. Lepikhov"
wrote in
> > Could you tell me how did you get the first plan?
>
> 1. Use clear current vanilla master.
>
> 2. Start two
On 6/12/20 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We had a discussion recently about how it'd be a good idea to support
>>> infinity values in type numeric [1].
>
>> FWIW, I don't particularly like the idea. Back when I was an
>>
While I was updating the snowball code, I noticed something strange. In
src/backend/snowball/Makefile:
# first column is language name and also name of dictionary for
not-all-ASCII
# words, second is name of dictionary for all-ASCII words
# Note order dependency: use of some other language
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Another thing I spotted is that Win32::Symlink does not allow to
> detect properly if a path is a symlink using -l, causing one of the
> tests of pg_basebackup to fail when checking if a tablespace path has
> been updted. It would be
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 06:00, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Divison by zero is really undefined, 12345678 * 12345678 (just some numbers)
> is out of range of say int4, but factorial of a negative number has some
> meaning and is defined but PostgreSQL does not support it.
>
Actually, I think
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:41:31PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks! Pushed. I went ahead and made it void in master only.
Thanks.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:57:17PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> New test reproduces this issue well. Left it running for a couple of hours
> in repeat and it seems to be stable.
Thanks for testing. I have been thinking about the minimum xmin and
LSN computations on advancing, and actually I
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-06-15 19:54:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > > On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> > >> is a bit more
> I am afraid that this makes the error handling more complicated, with
> risks of having inconsistent partition trees. That's the point you
> raised. This one is going to need more thoughts.
> CIC is an operation that exists while allowing read and writes to
> still happen in parallel, so
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 08:46:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:07:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > A customer's upgrade failed, and it took me a while to
> > > figure out that the problem was that they
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:22 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:44 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Are you saying that the planner should take into account the state of
> > the cursor specified in WHERE CURRENT OF to determine which of the
> > tables to scan for the UPDATE? Note
98 matches
Mail list logo
