Hi,
I think it's better to add other WAL statistics to the pg_stat_wal view.
I'm thinking to add the following statistics. Please let me know your
thoughts.
1. Basic wal statistics
* wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated
* wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated
Thanks Amit for the review comments.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Few comments:
> ==
> 1.
> + /* Report error with names of the missing localrel column(s). */
> + if (!bms_is_empty(missingatts))
> + {
> + StringInfoData missingattsbuf;
> + intmissingattcnt
> 26 марта 2019 г., в 19:46, Konstantin Knizhnik
> написал(а):
>
> Version of the patch correctly working when no compression algorithm are
> avaiable.
Thanks for this work, Konstantin.
PFA rebased version of this patch.
This compression seems very important to reduce network-induced replic
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:20 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Probably we can also replace sigHupHandler() in syslogger.c with
> >> SignalHandlerForConfigReload()? This would be separate patch, though.
> >>
> >
> > +1 to replace sigHupHandler() with SignalHandlerForConfigReload() as
> > the latch
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:34:05PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that we can also replace StartupProcSigHupHandler() in startup.c
> with SignalHandlerForConfigReload() by making the startup process use
> the general shared latch instead of its own one. POC patch attached.
> Thought?
That looks
On 2020/10/06 1:18, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:04 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/10/05 19:45, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Hi,
Autoprewarm module is using it's own SIGHUP(apw_sigterm_handler, got_sigterm)
and SIGTERM(apw_sighup_handler, got_sighup) handlers which are si
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:23:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:11:27AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> Maybe we could add a new hook for only queryid computation, and add a
>> GUC to let people choose between no queryid computed, core computation
>> (current pg_stat_sta
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:00 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:46:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Committed.
>
> Cool, thanks.
+1
> > Thomas, with respect to your part of this patch set, I wonder if we
> > can make the functions that you're using to write tests safe enoug
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:34 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 07:57:41PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:17:28AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:37 AM Tomas Vondra
> >
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:58 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Thanks Andres for the comments.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:11 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > The design:
> >
> > I think it'd be good if you could explain a bit more why you think this
> > safe to do in the way you have done it.
>
Hello Ajin.
I have done some review of the v6 patches.
I had some difficulty replying my review comments to the OSS list, so
I am putting them as an attachment here.
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia
Hello Ajin.
I have gone through the v6 patch changes and have a list of review
commen
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:24:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> (Also, did we decide _not_ to make the pg_stat_statements queryid
> always a positive value?)
This specific point has been discussed a couple of years ago, please
see cff440d and its related thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:07:33PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Honestly, I think you're over-thinking and over-engineering indisclustered.
>
> If "clusteredness" was something we offered to maintain across DML, I think
> that might be important to provide stronger guarantees. As it is now, I do
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 17:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:26 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 16:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When we discussed this before, I was thinki
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:00 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Thanks Amit for the review comments. I will post an updated patch soon.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > 6. I think we should add one test case for this in the existing
> > regression test (src/test/subscript
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:11:27AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I do think the queryid has to display independent of pg_stat_statements,
> > because I can see people using queryid for log file and pg_stat_activity
> > comparisons. I also think the ability to have queryid accessible is an
> > i
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 07:58:42PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Oct-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, I think this proposal is a mess. I was willing to hold my nose
> > > and have a queryId field in the internal Query struct w
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 11:42:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 03:08:32PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It means that we might do N catalog updates for a partition heirarchy
> > that's N
> > levels deep. Normally, N=2, and we'd clear indisclustered for the index as
>
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 03:08:32PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It means that we might do N catalog updates for a partition heirarchy that's N
> levels deep. Normally, N=2, and we'd clear indisclustered for the index as
> well as its parent. This is not essential, though.
Hmm. I got to think m
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:33 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 9:40 PM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 10:10 PM James Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:44 PM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 10:50:06AM -0400
Hi,
On 2020-10-01 19:21:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/1/20 4:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > # Note: on Windows, IPC::Run seems to convert \r\n to \n in program
> > output
> > # if we're using native Perl, but not if we're using MSys Perl. So do
> > it
> > # by hand in the
At Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:07:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote in
> > Yes, that is the version I was going to apply. I will do it today.
> > Thanks.
>
> Patch applied to master, and the first paragraph diff was applied to PG
> 12-13 too.
Thanks!
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Softwa
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 07:58:42PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Oct-05, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I think this proposal is a mess. I was willing to hold my nose
> > and have a queryId field in the internal Query struct without any solid
> > consensus about what its semantics are and w
On 2020/10/05 20:32, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
I see the errmsg() with plain texts in other places in the code base
as well. Is it that we look at the error message and if it is a plain
text(without database objects or table data), we decid
hornet has failed its last five runs with
2020-10-05 22:45:42.784 UTC [34734498:40] pg_regress/create_aggregate LOG:
statement: create aggregate my_percentile_disc(float8 ORDER BY anyelement) (
stype = internal,
sfunc = ordered_set_transition,
finalfunc = percentile
On 2020-Oct-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think this proposal is a mess. I was willing to hold my nose
> and have a queryId field in the internal Query struct without any solid
> consensus about what its semantics are and which extensions get to use it.
> Exposing it to end users seems like a bri
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I would like to apply this patch (I know it has been in the commitfest
> since July 2019), but I have some questions about the user API. Does it
> make sense to have a column in pg_stat_actvity and an option in
> log_line_prefix that will be empty unless pg_stat_statements
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:19:30PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Similarly to other fields in pg_stat_activity, only the queryid from the top
> level statements are exposed, and if the backends status isn't active then the
> queryid from the last executed statements is displayed.
>
> Also add a %
Hi, hackers!
I added some extra tests for different cases of use of automatic partition
creation.
v3-0002 can be applied on top of the original v2 patch for correct work
with some corner cases with constraints included in this test.
As for immediate/deferred I think that now only available now is
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:46:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 02:56:55PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Also, if a partitioned index is clustered, when we clear indisclustered for
> > other indexes, should we also propogate that to their parent indexes, if
> > any ?
>
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 02:02:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:25:08AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > >From 2978479ada887284eae0ed36c8acf29f1a002feb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:01:27 +0900
> > > >
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 09:30:00AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Split one patch about text search, added another one (sequences), added some
> info to commit messages, and added here.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2744/
Added an additional patch regarding spaces between function argument
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that I've seen this, I wonder whether add_child_join_rel_equivalences
>> might not be making duplicate EC entries even without GEQO. Is there any
>> guarantee that it's not called repeatedly on related join-rel sets?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:25:08AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > >From 2978479ada887284eae0ed36c8acf29f1a002feb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:01:27 +0900
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2] Allow directory name for GUC ssl_crl_file and
> > >
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 06:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm unsure whether to back-patch either of these. They both seem to be
>> just latent bugs so far as the core code is concerned, but the first one
>> in particular seems like something that could bite extension code.
>> Thoug
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:04 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2020/10/05 19:45, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Autoprewarm module is using it's own SIGHUP(apw_sigterm_handler,
> > got_sigterm) and SIGTERM(apw_sighup_handler, got_sighup) handlers which are
> > similar to standard signal hand
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 07:57:41PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:17:28AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:37 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>
>Thanks, Tomas for your feedback.
>
>> 9) attcompression ...
>>
>
On 13/07/2020 08:47, Amit Langote wrote:
It's been over 11 months since there was any significant commentary on
the contents of the patches themselves, so perhaps I should reiterate
what the patches are about and why it might still be a good idea to
consider them.
The thread started with some ve
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 9:40 PM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 10:10 PM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:44 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 10:50:06AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > > >On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:16 PM James Cole
On 05/10/2020 17:25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Oct-05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The code in sendFile() in basebackup.c seems suspicious in that regard. It
calls DataChecksumsNeedVerify() once before starting to read the file. Isn't
it possible for the checksums flag to change while it's re
On 2020/10/05 19:45, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Hi,
Autoprewarm module is using it's own SIGHUP(apw_sigterm_handler, got_sigterm)
and SIGTERM(apw_sighup_handler, got_sighup) handlers which are similar to
standard signal handlers(except for a difference [1]). Isn't it good to remove
them and
Thanks Amit for the review comments. I will post an updated patch soon.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> 6. I think we should add one test case for this in the existing
> regression test (src/test/subscription/t/008_diff_schema).
>
This patch logs the missing column names me
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:17:28AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:37 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >
> >Thanks, Tomas for your feedback.
> >
> >> 9) attcompression ...
> >>
> >> The main issue I see is what the patch does
On 2020-Oct-05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The code in sendFile() in basebackup.c seems suspicious in that regard. It
> calls DataChecksumsNeedVerify() once before starting to read the file. Isn't
> it possible for the checksums flag to change while it's reading the file and
> sending it to the c
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:34 PM Andy Fan wrote:
>
> Given the plan example:
>
> CREATE TABLE measurement (
> city_id int not null,
> logdate date not null,
> peaktempint,
> unitsales int
> ) PARTITION BY RANGE (logdate);
>
> CREATE TABLE measurement_y20
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If you run the core regression tests with geqo_threshold = 2
> (injected, say, via ALTER SYSTEM SET), you will notice the
> earlier tests showing some join ordering differences, which
> is unsurprising ... but when it gets to partition_join, that
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:17:28AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:37 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Thanks, Tomas for your feedback.
9) attcompression ...
The main issue I see is what the patch does with attcompression. Instead
of just using it to store a the compression method,
Replying to an older message in this thread:
+ /*
+ * If we reach this point with checksums in inprogress state, we notify
+ * the user that they need to manually restart the process to enable
+ * checksums. This is because we cannot launch a dynamic background worker
+ * directly from here, it
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:04 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 5, 2020 3:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < nforks; i++)
> > + {
> > + /* Get the total nblocks for a relation's fork */ nForkBlocks =
> > + smgrcachednblocks(smgr_reln, forkNum[i]);
> > +
> > + if (
po 5. 10. 2020 v 11:46 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2020-09-29 08:23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > This was an important issue if I remember well. Passing mandatory NULL
> > as OUT arguments solves this issue.
> > I fully agree so OUT arguments are part
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:26 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:38 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I have one question which is common to both this patch and parallel
> > inserts in CTAS[1], do we need to sk
I looked at patch v22, and I can see two main issues:
1. The one that Robert talked about earlier: A backend checks the local
"checksums" state. If it's 'off', it writes a page without checksums.
How do you guarantee that the local state doesn't change in between? The
implicit assumption seems
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:41 AM Euler Taveira
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While looking at an old wal2json issue, I stumbled on a scenario that a table
> with a deferred primary key is not updatable in logical replication. AFAICS it
> has been like that since the beginning of logical decoding and seems to
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > I see the errmsg() with plain texts in other places in the code base
> > as well. Is it that we look at the error message and if it is a plain
> > text(without database objects or table data), we decide to have no
> > translation? Or is ther
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:26 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:38 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> >
>
> I have one question which is common to both this patch and parallel
> inserts in CTAS[1], do we need to skip creating tuple
> queues(ExecParallelSetupTupleQueues) as we don't
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:26 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:38 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I think you still need to work on the costing part, basically if we
> > > > are parallelizing whole insert then plan is like below
> > > >
> > > > -> Gather
> > >
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:38 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I think you still need to work on the costing part, basically if we
> > > are parallelizing whole insert then plan is like below
> > >
> > > -> Gather
> > > -> Parallel Insert
> > > -> Parallel Seq Scan
> > >
> > > That me
Hi,
Autoprewarm module is using it's own SIGHUP(apw_sigterm_handler,
got_sigterm) and SIGTERM(apw_sighup_handler, got_sighup) handlers which are
similar to standard signal handlers(except for a difference [1]). Isn't it
good to remove them and use standard SignalHandlerForConfigReload and
SignalH
On 2020-09-29 08:23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
This was an important issue if I remember well. Passing mandatory NULL
as OUT arguments solves this issue.
I fully agree so OUT arguments are part of the procedure's signature.
Unfortunately, there is another difference
from functions, but I don't think
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 4:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I didn't try very hard to trace the commit history, but I did note that
> > almost all of the removed #includes dated to 1996 or so. I'm surprised
> > they survived Bruce's occasional attempts at removing unused #includes;
> > maybe his scr
On Monday, October 5, 2020 3:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < nforks; i++)
> + {
> + /* Get the total nblocks for a relation's fork */ nForkBlocks =
> + smgrcachednblocks(smgr_reln, forkNum[i]);
> +
> + if (nForkBlocks == InvalidBlockNumber) { nTotalBlocks =
> + InvalidBlockNumber; br
Hi,
Attached is the rebased patch (v18) to add support for Incremental
Materialized View Maintenance (IVM). It is able to be applied to
current latest master branch.
Also, this now supports simple CTEs (WITH clauses) which do not contain
aggregates or DISTINCT like simple sub-queries. This featur
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:26 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 16:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > When we discussed this before, I was thinking that we could have other
> > > statistics for physical slots in th
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 02:56:55PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Also, if a partitioned index is clustered, when we clear indisclustered for
> other indexes, should we also propogate that to their parent indexes, if any ?
I am not sure what you mean here. Each partition's cluster runs in
its own
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 16:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > When we discussed this before, I was thinking that we could have other
> > statistics for physical slots in the same statistics view in the
> > future. Having the view show only log
>
> Sorry for not being clear earlier, I mean the partition name
> 'tablename_partnum' can conflict with any existing table name.
> As per current impemetation, if I do the following it results in the table
> name conflict.
>
> postgres=# create table tbl_test_5_1(i int);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=
66 matches
Mail list logo
