On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:13 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> I have added the log validation to the existing tests that are present
> for authentication.
>
I took a look at v3 patch. Here are some comments.
1. Why are the input strings(not the newly added GSS log message
string) to test_access()
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 9:04 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> > +$node->append_conf('postgresql.conf', "logging_collector= 'on'");
> > +$node->append_conf('postgresql.conf', "log_connections= 'on'");
> >
> > booleans don't need quotes.
> >
>
> I think that's not correct. If I'm right, the snippet
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:35 PM Euler Taveira
wrote:
>
> + appendStringInfo(, "replication ");
> +
> + appendStringInfo(, "connection authorized: user=%s",
> + port->user_name);
> + if (!am_walsender)
> + appendStringInfo(, " database=%s", port->database_name);
> +
> + if (port->application_name
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 03:22:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:59:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is by design wanted to provide an experience
> > transparent to the user similar to what a plain REINDEX would do, at
> > least that's the
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 02:48:49PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 05:56:40AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to comments
> > in
> > *.[ch].
> >
> > I'm not passionate about this, but it serves the purpose of
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 03:35:51PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
It occurs to mean that statistics collector stats such as
pg_statio_*_tables.idx_blks_hit are highly misleading in practice
because they fail to take account of the difference between internal
pages and leaf pages in B-Tree
Hello Ekaterina,
seems like an interesting and useful improvement. I did a quick review
of the patch - attached is a 0002 patch with a couple minor changes (the
0001 is just your v1 patch, to keep cfbot happy).
1) There's a couple changes to follow project code style (e.g. brackets
after "if"
I wrote:
> * It's not apparent why, if ANALYZE's sample is all nulls, we wouldn't
> conclude stadistinct = 0 and thus arrive at the desired answer that
> way. (Since we have a complaint, I'm guessing that ANALYZE might
> disbelieve its own result and stick in some larger stadistinct. But
> then
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:23:27PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2020, at 16:54, Georgios Kokolatos
> > wrote:
>
> > I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
>
> I assume you mean s/failing/passing/? I noticed the red Travis and Appveyor
> runs, will fix
Tomas Vondra writes:
> So I'm not sure I understand what would be the risk with this ... Tom,
> can you elaborate why you dislike the patch?
I've got a couple issues with the patch as presented.
* As you said, it creates discontinuous behavior for stanullfrac = 1.0
versus stanullfrac = 1.0 -
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 09:32:22PM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
I find I am allowed to create an ordered-set aggregate with a non-empty
direct argument list and no finisher function. Am I right in thinking
that's kind of nonsensical, as nothing will ever look at the direct args?
Also, the syntax
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 03:01:41PM +, Zhenghua Lyu wrote:
Hi,
when group by multi-columns, it will multiply all the distinct values
together, and if one column is all null,
it also contributes 200 to the final estimate, and if the product is over
the relation size, it will be clamp.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:26:08PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:06 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:37:31AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:28 AM Jaime
On 31/10/2020 00:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
But if you do:
postgres=# explain verbose update tab set a = 1, b = 2;
QUERY PLAN
-
Update on
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 16:54, Georgios Kokolatos
> wrote:
> I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
I assume you mean s/failing/passing/? I noticed the red Travis and Appveyor
runs, will fix over the weekend. Thanks for the heads-up.
cheers ./daniel
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's quite a few copies of this code that look exactly the same,
> except for the be_tls_get_* call. Do you see a way to have fewer copies
> of the same code?
There's really only two of the same, and two sets of those. I tried some
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> But if you do:
> postgres=# explain verbose update tab set a = 1, b = 2;
> QUERY PLAN
> -
> Update on public.tab (cost=0.00..269603.27 rows=0
On 30/10/2020 22:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I agree this design looks simpler. I'm a bit worried about serializing
the parsing like this, though. It's true the current approach (where the
first phase of parsing happens in the leader) has a similar issue, but I
think it would be easier to improve
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:01:27PM +, Georgios Kokolatos wrote:
Hi,
thank you for your contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is failing for this patch.
Please try to address the issues if you can for the upcoming commitfest.
I took a look at the patch today - the regression
On 30/10/2020 23:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
I also did some quick performance testing with a simple update designed
as a worst-case scenario:
vacuum tab; update tab set b = b, a = a;
In this case, the patch fetches the old tuple, but it wouldn't really
need to,
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I also did some quick performance testing with a simple update designed
> as a worst-case scenario:
> vacuum tab; update tab set b = b, a = a;
> In this case, the patch fetches the old tuple, but it wouldn't really
> need to, because all the columns are updated.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:26:08PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:06 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:37:31AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:28 AM Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> Can you please create an entry in the commitfest for
Hi,
On 2020-10-29 16:45:58 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > - What does " and it is up to the client whether to continue work
> >without compression or report error" actually mean for a libpq parameter?
> It can not happen.
> The client request from server use of compressed protocol only
Justin Pryzby writes:
> Not sure if Tom saw this yet.
Indeed, I'd not been paying attention. Fix looks good, pushed.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 06:41:41PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30/10/2020 18:36, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I find this design to be very complicated. Why does the line-boundary
information need to be in shared memory? I think this would be much
simpler if each worker grabbed a
Hi,
I've done a bit more testing today, and I think the parsing is busted in
some way. Consider this:
test=# create extension random;
CREATE EXTENSION
test=# create table t (a text);
CREATE TABLE
test=# insert into t select random_string(random_int(10, 256*1024))
On 29/10/2020 15:03, Amit Langote wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 11:44 AM Amit Langote wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 7:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
Here are the commit messages of the attached patches:
[PATCH v3 1/3] Overhaul how updates compute a new tuple
I tried to assess the performance
Hi,
thank you for your contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is failing for this patch.
Please try to address the issue for the upcoming commitfest.
Cheers,
//Georgios
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/dave-cramer.html
Hi,
thank you for you contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is failing for this patch.
Please try to address the issues for the upcoming Commitfest.
Cheers,
//Georgios
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/magnus-hagander.html
Hi,
thank you for your contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is failing for this patch.
Please try to address the issues if you can for the upcoming commitfest.
Cheers,
//Georgios
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/esteban-zimanyi.html
Not sure if Tom saw this yet.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:56:01AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:58 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Assertion added in commits 6b2c4e59d016 is failing with following test:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE sales
> > (
> > prod_id int,
> >
Hi,
thank you for your contribution.
I did notice that the cfbot [1] is not failing for this patch.
Cheers,
//Georgios
[1] http://cfbot.cputube.org/daniel-gustafsson.html
Hi,
I noticed that according to the cfbot this patch no longer applies.
As it is registered in the upcoming commitfest, it would be appreciated
if you could rebase it.
Cheers,
//Georgios
Thanks!
> 27 окт. 2020 г., в 16:43, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> gbt_ts_cmp(), gbt_time_cmp_sort() and gbt_date_cmp_sort() still have the
> above issue, they still compare "upper" for no good reason.
Fixed.
>> +static Datum
>> +gbt_bit_abbrev_convert(Datum original, SortSupport ssup)
>>
This is the other doc fix as suggested in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201027220555.GS4951%40momjian.us
There is already a compatibility section, so put there.
--
John Naylor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
v1-doc-fix-revoke-role.patch
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:06 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:37:31AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:28 AM Jaime Casanova
> > wrote:
> >> Can you please create an entry in the commitfest for this one so we
> >> don't lose track of it?
> >
>
> We're
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> John Naylor writes:
> > Okay, along those lines here's a patch using "this view" in a new
> paragraph
> > for simplicity.
>
> Basically OK with me, but ...
>
>
> It seems fairly weird to use a nonspecific reference first and then a
> specific
On 30/10/2020 18:36, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Whether the leader process finds the EOLs or the worker processes, it's
pretty clear that it needs to be done ASAP, for a chunk at a time,
because that cannot be done in parallel. I think some refactoring in
CopyReadLine() and friends would be in
John Naylor writes:
> Okay, along those lines here's a patch using "this view" in a new paragraph
> for simplicity.
Basically OK with me, but ...
It seems fairly weird to use a nonspecific reference first and then a
specific one. That is, I'd expect to read "The pg_settings view ..."
and then
On 2020-10-30 11:57, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
On 26.10.20 15:53, David G. Johnston wrote:
Removing -docs as moderation won’t let me cross-post.
Hi,
I applied 0009-architecture-vs-master.patch to head
and went through architecture.sgml (only that file),
then produced the attached .diff
And I
On 30/10/2020 18:36, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I find this design to be very complicated. Why does the line-boundary
information need to be in shared memory? I think this would be much
simpler if each worker grabbed a fixed-size block of raw data, and
processed that.
In your patch, the leader
On 27/10/2020 15:36, vignesh C wrote:
Attached v9 patches have the fixes for the above comments.
I find this design to be very complicated. Why does the line-boundary
information need to be in shared memory? I think this would be much
simpler if each worker grabbed a fixed-size block of raw
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> John Naylor writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:51 PM Fujii Masao <
> masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Also I think this note should be in the different paragraph from the
> >> paragraph
> >> of "The pg_settings view cannot be
Status update for a commitfest entry.
I see quite a few unanswered questions in the thread since the last patch
version was sent. So, I move it to "Waiting on Author".
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 9:16 AM Anastasia Lubennikova <
lubennikov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Status update for a commitfest entry.
>
> It looks like there was no real progress on this issue since April. I see
> only an experimental patch. What kind of review does it need right now? Do
> we need more
Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> Status update for a commitfest entry.
> It looks like there was no real progress on this issue since April. I see
> only an experimental patch. What kind of review does it need right now? Do we
> need more testing or maybe production statistics for such queries?
Status update for a commitfest entry.
It looks like there was no real progress on this issue since April. I see only
an experimental patch. What kind of review does it need right now? Do we need
more testing or maybe production statistics for such queries?
David, are you going to continue
John Naylor writes:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:51 PM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
>> Also I think this note should be in the different paragraph from the
>> paragraph
>> of "The pg_settings view cannot be inserted into or deleted from"
>> because
>> they are different topics. Thought?
> Agreed on
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:51 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/10/29 21:54, John Naylor wrote:
>
> > The pg_settings does not display
> > customized options
> > that have been set before the relevant extension module has been
> loaded.
>
> I guess that someone can misread this as
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:57 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-10-28 16:20:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I would personally prefer a completely seprate page
>
> Same.
>
Ok, that's two votes for a separate page, and one for a new section on the
same page, so it looks like it's a new page.
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I do think it'd be good to find a way to check every once in a while
> >> even when we aren't going to delay though. Not sure what the best
> >> answer there is.
>
> > Maybe
Jimmy Angelakos writes:
> Please find attached my first patch (the tiniest of doc patches) :
> I found the wording around convalidated in pg_catalog documentation a bit
> confusing/ambiguous.
Seems reasonable; pushed.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 09:43, vignesh C wrote:
>
> Attached v3 patch has the change for the same.
>
>
Hi Vignesh,
+ appendStringInfo(, "replication ");
+
+ appendStringInfo(, "connection authorized: user=%s",
+ port->user_name);
+ if (!am_walsender)
+ appendStringInfo(, " database=%s",
Thanks for the comments Bharath.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> 1. Instead of just "on/off" after GSS %s in the log message, wouldn't it be
> informative if we have authenticated and/or encrypted as suggested by Stephen?
>
> So the log message would look like this:
On Fri, 2020-10-30 at 05:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > But as I said in the other thread, changing wal_level emits a WAL
> > record, and I am sure that recovery will refuse to proceed if
> > wal_level < replica.
>
> Yes. What I meant was such a safe guard needs to be implemented.
That should
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 17:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I don't like the word 'Enumize' in commit message. How about changing
> it to something like: (a) Add defines for logical replication protocol
> messages, or (b) Associate names with logical replication protocol
> messages.
>
I have used
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 14:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:50 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IIUC getting rid of the default from the switch can make the missing
> > > enum detection easier because then you
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 09:16, Amit Kapila wrote
>
> 1.
> + LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_ABORT = 'A',
> +} LogicalRepMsgType;
>
> There is no need for a comma after the last message.
>
> Done. Thanks for noticing it.
> 2.
> +/*
> + * Logical message types
> + *
> + * Used by logical replication wire
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > I saw the CF-bot failure too yesterday, although it seems that it's
> > because the bot is trying to apply the patch version meant for v11
> > branch onto HEAD branch. I just checked
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > IIUC getting rid of the default from the switch can make the missing
> > enum detection easier because then you can use -Wswitch option to
> > expose the problem (instead of
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Comment: I dont think a tablesync worker will use streaming, none of
> > the other stream APIs check this, this might not be relevant for
> > stream_prepare either.
> >
>
> Yes, I think this is right. See pgoutput_startup where we are
>
At Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:33:01 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:38:30 +0900, Amit Langote
> wrote in
> I'm not sure how we should construct our won mapping, but the
> difference made by we simply moved to JIS0208.TXT based as Ishii-san
> suggested the
At Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:38:30 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > So ping-pong between Unicode and SJIS behaves like this:
> >
> > U+2212 => 0x817c@sjis => U+ff0d => 0x817c@sjis ...
>
> Is it the following piece of code in
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:59:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is by design wanted to provide an experience
> transparent to the user similar to what a plain REINDEX would do, at
> least that's the idea behind it, so.. This qualifies as a bug to me,
> in spirit.
And in
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Hi Amit
>
> > You mentioned in the beginning that you prefer to use Enum instead of
> > define so that switch cases can detect any remaining items but I have
> > tried adding extra enum
Attached updated patches based on recent the discussion at:
* Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c *
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqHpmMjenQqNpMHrhg3DRhqqQfby2RCT1HWVwMin3_5vMA%40mail.gmail.com
0001 adjusts how ForeignScanState.resultRelInfo is initialized for use
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:23 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > This patch looks reasonable to me at a quick glance. I'm a bit worried
> > or unhappy about the impact on FDWs, though. It doesn't seem nice that
> > the ResultRelInfo is not
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:09 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > IIUC, below is code for this workaround:
> >
> > +MaxRelParallelHazardForModify(Oid relid,
> > + CmdType commandType,
> > + max_parallel_hazard_context *context)
> > +{
> > +
68 matches
Mail list logo
