On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:41:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I think you probably intended to write: 1<<2
Thanks, fixed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:39 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> >Can you share with me the script you used to generate the data & the ddl of
> >the table, so that it will help me check that >scenario you faced the
> >>problem.
>
> Unfortunately I can't directly share it (considered
Hi,
on a regular basis I remember a builtin function's name, or can figure it out
using \df etc, but can't remember the argument order. A typical example is
regexp_*, where I never remember whether the pattern or the input string comes
first.
Unfortunatly \df does not really help with that:
=#
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have fixed all the comments except
..
> 3. +# Change the local values of the extra columns on the subscriber,
> +# update publisher, and check that subscriber retains the expected
> +# values
> +$node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
Hello hackers,
You don't need to call stat() just to find out if a dirent is a file
or directory, most of the time. Please see attached.
From cc2f0fd4a078728a67d862e2deec0332fb8b3555 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Munro
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:15:09 +1200
Subject: [PATCH] Skip
Hi,
Postgres's describe-config option prints reset_val for int & real
configuration parameters which is not useful as it is not updated.
Printing boot_val is better in this case. reset_val is updated with
boot_val while the server is getting started but in case of postgres
--describe-config this
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:24:10PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:00:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:48:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > On 2020-Sep-01, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >> The question isn't whether to use a parenthesized
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 02:54, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 03:52, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There'll be a significant reduction in increase in performance.
>
> So I did a very rough-cut change to the patch to have the caching be
> part of Nested Loop. It can be applied on top
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 10:31 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:02:28 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
> wrote in
> > On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:05 PM (GMT+9), Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Today, again thinking about this point it occurred to me that during
> >
Amit Kapila writes:
> Even if the relation is locked, background processes like checkpointer
> can still touch the relation which might cause problems. Consider a
> case where we extend the relation but didn't flush the newly added
> pages. Now during truncate operation, checkpointer can still
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:01 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:02:28 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
> wrote in
> > On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:05 PM (GMT+9), Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Today, again thinking about this point it occurred to me that during
> > >
> diff --git a/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h b/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h
> index 47d4c07306..23840bb8e6 100644
> --- a/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h
> +++ b/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h
> @@ -3352,6 +3352,7 @@ typedef struct ConstraintsSetStmt
> /* Reindex options */
> #define
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:45:30AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:47:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote in
> > OK, I have developed the attached patch based on yours. I reordered the
> > tests, simplified the documentation, and removed the hint since they
>
> Looks good to
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:00:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:48:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Sep-01, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> The question isn't whether to use a parenthesized option list. I realized
> >> that
> >> long ago (even though Alexey
On 2020-09-02 10:58:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Asim and Sawada-san, thanks for the review! I pushed the patch.
Thanks for all your combined work!
On 2020/08/28 21:20, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 10:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/08/27 15:59, Asim Praveen wrote:
On 26-Aug-2020, at 11:10 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
I added the following comments based on the suggestion by Sawada-san upthread.
Thought?
+ *
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:29:28PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Seems sensible, but only to be done when actually needed, right?
Of course.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello.
At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:47:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote in
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 01:59:25PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:34:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote
> > in
> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:56:58PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > Ok, this
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:29:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Once this gets done, we should then be able to get rid of the extra
> session locking taken when building the list of partitions, limiting
> session locks to only be taken during the concurrent reindex of a
> single partition (the
I'd like make a subtle correction.
At Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:31:22 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> By the way
>
> > #define BUF_DROP_THRESHOLD 500 /* NBuffers divided by 2 */
>
> NBuffers is not a constant. Even if we wanted to set the macro as
> described in the comment,
Hello.
At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:02:28 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:05 PM (GMT+9), Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Today, again thinking about this point it occurred to me that during
> > recovery
> > we can reliably find the relation size and after Thomas's
On 2020-Sep-02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, I am all for removing "concurrent" from ReindexStmt, but I don't
> think that the proposed 0002 is that, because it is based on the
> assumption that we'd want more than just boolean-based options in
> those statements, and this case is not justified
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:48:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Sep-01, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> The question isn't whether to use a parenthesized option list. I realized
>> that
>> long ago (even though Alexey didn't initially like it). Check 0002, which
>> gets
>> rid of "bool
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> ISTM that it's only going to be a matter of time before that will be
>> exceeded. Why have a limit at all? Accept whatever StringInfo accepts.
> Hmm, that would require some refactoring of simple_prompt for starters.
To use StringInfo, we have to move
On 2020-Aug-12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Jul-15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (There seem to be some other problems as well, but most of the 54 complaints
> > are related to partitioned indexes/constraints.)
>
> In my run of it there's a good dozen remaining problems, all alike: we
> do DROP TYPE
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:28:07AM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> 2020-11 is also now showing as "in progress", is that correct?
It was not. Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2020/09/01 10:43, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:37:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
We are going to be in September in a couple of hours, meaning that the
second commit fest for Postgres 14 will begin soon. Do we have any
volunteers to take the role of CFM this time?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This open item hasn't received any replies. I think Peter knows how to
> fix it already, but no patch has been posted ... It'd be good to get a
> move on it.
I picked this up again today.
It's not obvious what we should do. It's true that
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 01:25:27PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> Yes, this version is good.
Thanks. I have added an extra comment for the case of RELKIND_INDEX
with REINDEXOPT_MISSING_OK while on it, as it was not really obvious
why the parent relation needs to be locked (at least
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:43:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As of the moment this message is written, 10 hours remain until we are
> the 1st of September AoE, where I'll switch the commit fest as
> officially in progress. It will not be possible to register new
> patches to 2020-09 after
On 2020-Jul-30, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Commit 896ddf9b added prefetching to logtape.c to avoid excessive
> fragmentation in the context of hash aggs that spill and have many
> batches/tapes. Apparently the preallocation doesn't actually perform
> any filesystem operations, so the new mechanism
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 4:48 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> v1-0001: As suggested by Robert, it provides the syntax support for
> setting the compression method for a column while creating a table and
> adding columns. However, we don't support changing the compression
> method for the existing
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:46 AM John Naylor wrote:
> The fact that that logic extends by 20 * numwaiters to get optimal
> performance is a red flag that resources aren't being allocated
> efficiently.
I agree that that's pretty suspicious.
> I have an idea to ignore fp_next_slot entirely if we
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:09 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> >* Instead of changing the order directly, now patch creates another patch
> >with
> > modifier order of clauses. It does so for the normal sort as well as for
> > incremental sort. The whole thing is done in two steps: first it finds a
> >
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> ISTM that it's only going to be a matter of time before that will be
> exceeded. Why have a limit at all? Accept whatever StringInfo accepts.
Hmm, that would require some refactoring of simple_prompt for starters.
I agree there's no hard reason why we have to have
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:19 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> FWIW I suspect some of this difference may be due to logical vs.
> physical I/O. iosnoop only tracks physical I/O sent to the device, but
> maybe we do much more logical I/O and it simply does not expire from
> page cache for the sort. It might
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 05:08:25PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
+1 on fixing this, since the ability to change stats target is new in
pg13.
On 2020-Aug-31, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Maybe it should have a comma, like ", STATISTICS %s"?
It does need some separator. Maybe a comma is sufficient,
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:58:59PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 11:19 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Why? I don't think we need to change costing of in-memory HashAgg. My
assumption was we'd only tweak startup_cost for cases with spilling
by
adding something like
On 2020-09-01 02:54, Tom Lane wrote:
Therefore, I propose setting this up with a #define symbol in
pg_config_manual.h and leaving it at that. Giving documentation in
pg_config_manual.h seems sufficient to me. Attached is a revised
version of Nathan's patches that does it like that.
I set the
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 01:15:31PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
Hi,
Better late than never, to follow up on the original thread [1] I would like to
continue the discussion with the another version of the patch for group by
reordering optimization. To remind, it's about reordering of group by
+1 on fixing this, since the ability to change stats target is new in
pg13.
On 2020-Aug-31, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Maybe it should have a comma, like ", STATISTICS %s"?
It does need some separator. Maybe a comma is sufficient, but I'm not
sure: that will fail when we add cross-relation stats,
On 8/31/20, 5:55 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> I set the proposed limit at 1024 bytes, but given that we now know
> of use-cases needing up to 800 bytes, maybe there should be a little
> more headroom? I don't want to make it enormous, though, seeing that
> we're allocating static buffers of that
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 11:19 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Why? I don't think we need to change costing of in-memory HashAgg. My
> assumption was we'd only tweak startup_cost for cases with spilling
> by
> adding something like (cpu_operator_cost * npartitions * ntuples).
The code above (the
I wrote:
> Note this patch is intended to be applied over my patch at [2],
> since it modifies the test case added there.
I've now pushed that patch, so the patch in my previous mail should
directly apply to HEAD.
I'd originally been wondering whether we need to back-patch this patch.
But unless
On 2020-Aug-27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:40 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > To mark it detached means to set pg_inherits.inhdetached=true. That
> > column name is a bit of a misnomer, since that column really means "is
> > in the process of being detached"; the pg_inherits
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 06:14:45AM +, Junfeng Yang wrote:
>> Data in file "/tmp/data".
>>
>> 122,as\.d,adad
>> 133,sa dad,adadad
> So, you are using comma as the delimiter, but have \. (backslash-period)
> as a data value. You need to double-up backslashes in your
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 06:14:45AM +, Junfeng Yang wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> As described in the doc https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html,
> the TEXT format recognizes
> backslash-period (\.) as end-of-data marker.
>
> The example below will raise an error for the line
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:05:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > copy test from '/tmp/data' DELIMITER ',';
> >
> > An end-of-copy marker corrupt error will be raised.
> >
> > This requires users to escape the end-of-data marker manually in their data.
> > Why we don't have a mechanism to
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 12:20 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, I think that if we're going to do this, we should do it for all
> AMs, not just table AMs, since surely index AMs also want extensible
> reloptions; and I think that makes the 'validate' mechanism dead code
> and so we should remove
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 2:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> So I think Kasahara-san's point is that the shared memory stats collector
> might wipe out those costs, depending on how it's implemented. (I've not
> looked at that patch in a long time either, so I don't know how much it'd
> cut the
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi,
I will humbly disagree with the current review. I shall refrain from
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:05 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 06:14:45AM +, Junfeng Yang wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >
>
> > Data in file "/tmp/data".
> >
> > 122,as\.d,adad
> > 133,sa dad,adadad
> >
> > Then execute
> >
> > copy test from '/tmp/data' DELIMITER ',';
> >
> > An
Greetings,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
> Attached is a patch against 12.4 for the build system in case anyone wants
> to play (I'll do it properly against the head branch later). I'm guessing
> this will work for < 12, as with 12 I'm now getting the following which
> looks like it's
On 2020-Aug-31, Jeff Davis wrote:
> fillRelOptions() validates when filling in a struct to make sure there
> aren't "leftover" options. It does this using a hard-coded parsing
> table that is not extensible.
Hmm, I think that if we're going to do this, we should do it for all
AMs, not just table
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:22 PM Dave Page wrote:
> I was experimenting with building with MIT Kerberos support on 64 bit
> Windows using MSVC and ran into a number of linker errors along the lines
> of:
>
> "C:\Users\dpage\Downloads\postgresql-12.4\pgsql.sln" (default target) (1)
> ->
>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 06:14:45AM +, Junfeng Yang wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> As described in the doc https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html,
> the TEXT format recognizes
> backslash-period (\.) as end-of-data marker.
>
> The example below will raise an error for the line
On 2020-Sep-01, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:40:18AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The advantage of using a parenthesized option list is that you can add
> > *further* options without making the new keywords reserved. Of course,
> > we already reserve CONCURRENTLY and
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 01:59:25PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:34:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote in
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:56:58PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > Ok, this is that. If we spcify clientcert=no-verify other than for
> > > "cert"
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:40:18AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Aug-11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:39:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > > The grammar that has been committed was the one that for the most
> > > support, so we need to live with that. I
On 2020-Aug-11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:39:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The grammar that has been committed was the one that for the most
> > support, so we need to live with that. I wonder if we should simplify
> > ReindexStmt and move the "concurrent" flag
I was experimenting with building with MIT Kerberos support on 64 bit
Windows using MSVC and ran into a number of linker errors along the lines
of:
"C:\Users\dpage\Downloads\postgresql-12.4\pgsql.sln" (default target) (1) ->
"C:\Users\dpage\Downloads\postgresql-12.4\zic.vcxproj" (default target)
Fujii Masao writes:
> The patch looks good to me, except the following minor thing.
> + if (fgets(buf.data + buf.len, buf.maxlen - buf.len - 1, fp) ==
> NULL)
> IIUC fgets() reads the data with the specified size - 1, so ISTM that -1 of
> "buf.maxlen - buf.len - 1" is not necessary.
On Sep 1, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick
mailto:barw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2020年9月1日(火) 19:37 Li Japin mailto:japi...@hotmail.com>>:
Hi, hackers
When I setup a stream replication I found that the documentation says that
promote_trigger_file
parameter can only be set in the
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Version 2 of the patch, implements a useful feature. Based on the
> On 28 Jul 2020, at 04:33, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:43:00AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> The attached v19 fixes a few doc issues I had missed.
>
> + They can also be enabled or disabled at a later timne, either as an
> offline
> => time
Fixed.
> + *
> On 1 Sep 2020, at 15:34, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 01.09.2020, 15:29 +0200 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson:
>> Isn't "modified in-place" a more accurate description of the process?
>
> AIUI we do rewrite the whole file (block by block, after updating the
> page header with the
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 02:05:10AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:14 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
from the archive
Ahh, so perhaps that's the key.
Maybe. For the record, the commands look like this:
archive_command = 'gzip -1 -c %p > /mnt/raid/wal-archive/%f.gz'
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:14 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> from the archive
Ahh, so perhaps that's the key.
> I've tested this applied on 6ca547cf75ef6e922476c51a3fb5e253eef5f1b6,
> and the failure seems fairly similar to what I reported before, except
> that now it happened right at the very
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 01.09.2020, 15:29 +0200 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson:
> > On 1 Sep 2020, at 15:13, Michael Banck wrote:
> > the pg_checksums docs mention that "When enabling checksums, every file
> > in the cluster is rewritten".
> >
> > From IRC discussions, "rewritten" seems ambiguous, it
> On 1 Sep 2020, at 15:13, Michael Banck wrote:
> the pg_checksums docs mention that "When enabling checksums, every file
> in the cluster is rewritten".
>
> From IRC discussions, "rewritten" seems ambiguous, it could mean that a
> second copy of the file is written and then switched over,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 06:57:20PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:47 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 02:58:44PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:47 AM Tomas Vondra
>> Any luck trying to reproduce thigs? Should I try again and collect
Hi,
the pg_checksums docs mention that "When enabling checksums, every file
in the cluster is rewritten".
>From IRC discussions, "rewritten" seems ambiguous, it could mean that a
second copy of the file is written and then switched over, implying
increased storage demand during the operation.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:05 PM (GMT+9), Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:33 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 1:53 AM Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > >> We could also just use pg_class.relpages. It'll probably mostly be
> > >> accurate
Hi ,
Thank you for looking into this
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 9:48 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> }
> else
> has_nonconst_input = true;
> @@ -3382,7 +3395,47 @@ eval_const_expressions_mutator(Node *node,
>
> +
> +
2020年9月1日(火) 19:37 Li Japin :
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> When I setup a stream replication I found that the documentation says that
> promote_trigger_file
> parameter can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the server
> command line, however, it
> can also be put into postgresql.auto.conf. If
Hi,
Better late than never, to follow up on the original thread [1] I would like to
continue the discussion with the another version of the patch for group by
reordering optimization. To remind, it's about reordering of group by clauses
to do sorting more efficiently. The patch is rebased and
Hi, hackers
When I setup a stream replication I found that the documentation says that
promote_trigger_file
parameter can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the server command
line, however, it
can also be put into postgresql.auto.conf. If I use include to import a new
config, it
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 09:18, Jeff Davis wrote:
> A custom table access method might want to add a new reloption to
> control something specific to that table access method. Unfortunately,
> if you add a new option of type RELOPT_KIND_HEAP, it will
On 2020-09-01 13:12, Justin Pryzby wrote:
This patch seems to be missing a call to RelationAssumeNewRelfilenode()
in
reindex_index().
That's maybe the related to the cause of the crashes I pointed out
earlier this
year.
Alexey's v4 patch changed RelationSetNewRelfilenode() to accept a
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 07:41, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 08:16:19AM +, Georgios wrote:
>
> > Please find version 7 attached which hopefully addresses the error along
> > with a proper
> > expansion of the test coverage and
On 01.09.2020 04:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have added some extra comments. There is one in
ReindexRelationConcurrently() to mention that there should be no extra
use of MISSING_OK once the list of indexes is built as session locks
are taken where needed.
Great, it took me a moment to
Hi,
as a continuation of [1], I've split-off the zero page header case from
the last patch, as this one seems less contentious.
Michael
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/28/2308/
--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email:
This patch seems to be missing a call to RelationAssumeNewRelfilenode() in
reindex_index().
That's maybe the related to the cause of the crashes I pointed out earlier this
year.
Alexey's v4 patch changed RelationSetNewRelfilenode() to accept a tablespace
parameter, but Michael seemed to object
Hi Vignesh,
>Can you share with me the script you used to generate the data & the ddl of
>the table, so that it will help me check that >scenario you faced the >problem.
Unfortunately I can't directly share it (considered company IP),
though having said that it's only doing something that is
On 2020/08/24 21:00, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2020-08-24 20:45, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
Hi, thanks for useful comments.
I agree to expose the number of WAL write caused by full of WAL buffers.
It's helpful when tuning wal_buffers size. Haribabu separated that number
into two fields in his
> On 14 Aug 2020, at 20:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The logic to keep track number of used slots used is baroque, though -- that
> could use a lot of simplification.
What if slot_init was an integer which increments together with the loop
variable until max_slots is reached? If so, maybe it
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:41:31 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find in attachment v5 of the patch set rebased on master after various
> conflicts.
>
> Regards,
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:04:53 +0200
> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
>
> > Demote now keeps backends
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 17:03 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
So I'm wondering if the hashagg is not ignoring similar non-I/O costs
for the spilling case. In particular, the initial section computing
startup_cost seems to ignore that we may
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 23:39, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:07 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > You've removed the description about executing VACUUM with
> > DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING option on the target relation after using
> > pg_surgery functions from the doc but I guess it’s
Am Montag, den 31.08.2020, 18:48 -0400 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > So confirmed.
>
>
> Patch applied through 13.
Thanks!
Hi,
The WAL size for "SSD, full_page_writes=on" was 36GB. I currently don't have
the exact size for the other rows because my test VMs got auto-deleted. I can
possibly redo the benchmark to get pg_waldump stats for each row.
Best,
Talha.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Frost
Sent:
Hi hackers,
As described in the doc https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html,
the TEXT format recognizes
backslash-period (\.) as end-of-data marker.
The example below will raise an error for the line contains `\.`.
CREATE TABLE test (
id int,
name text,
dep text
)
Data in file
On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 17:03 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> So I'm wondering if the hashagg is not ignoring similar non-I/O costs
> for the spilling case. In particular, the initial section computing
> startup_cost seems to ignore that we may need to so some of the stuff
> repeatedly - for example
A custom table access method might want to add a new reloption to
control something specific to that table access method. Unfortunately,
if you add a new option of type RELOPT_KIND_HEAP, it will immediately
fail because of the validation that happens in fillRelOptions().
Right now, heap
94 matches
Mail list logo
