On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:38 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I agree that there already are huge problems in that case. But I think
> > we need to consider an append-only case as well; after bulk deletion
> > on an append-only table, vacuum d
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:27 PM Victor Yegorov wrote:
> I'd like to outline one relevant case.
>
> Quite often bulk deletes are done on a time series data (oldest) and
> effectively
> removes a continuous chunk of data at the (physical) beginning of the table,
> this is especially true for the a
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 5:23 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Patrick Handja writes:
> > I would like to know if there is a better way to pass a relation or if
> the
> > relation name (CString) as a parameter in a C function and thus be able
> to
> > manipulate its tuples. The documentation is available her
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov writes:
> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Once this does settle, should we consider back-patching so that it's
> >>> possible to run alignment checks in the back branches too?
>
> >> +1
>
>
Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 20:32, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 05:37:32PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > IMO there is no necessity in back-patching.
>
> You are missing the point here. What you are proposing here would not
> be backpatched. However, reusing the same
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 05:37:32PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> IMO there is no necessity in back-patching.
You are missing the point here. What you are proposing here would not
be backpatched. However, reusing the same words as upthread, this has
a cost in terms of *future* maintenance. In sh
I wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Once this does settle, should we consider back-patching so that it's
>>> possible to run alignment checks in the back branches too?
>> +1
> Let's make sure we have a clean set of builds and then do that
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2021-02-12 00:42:04 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Yeah, that's a good point. I think it'd make sense to keep track of recent
> > FPIs and skip prefetching such blocks. But how exactly should we implement
> > that, how many blocks do we n
Patrick Handja writes:
> I would like to know if there is a better way to pass a relation or if the
> relation name (CString) as a parameter in a C function and thus be able to
> manipulate its tuples. The documentation is available here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/xfunc-c.html#id-1.8.3.
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> No is_match differences were detected, good!
> However, there were 23 cases where what got captured differed:
These all stem from the same oversight: checkmatchall() was being
too cavalier by ignoring "pseudocolor" arcs, which are arcs that
match start-of-string or end-o
Hi,
Patch v4 corrects a small typo:
+ (errmsg("BaseSnapshot cant't be setup at point %X/%X",
Cheers
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:58 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 17:48, Zhihong Yu
> escreveu:
>
>> Hi,
>> + (errmsg("BaseSnapshot cant't be set
Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 17:48, Zhihong Yu
escreveu:
> Hi,
> + (errmsg("BaseSnapshot cant't be setup at point %X/%X",
> + (uint32) (lsn >> 32), (uint32) lsn),
> +errdetail("Top transaction is running.")));
>
> Did you mean this errdetail:
Hi,
+ (errmsg("BaseSnapshot cant't be setup at point %X/%X",
+ (uint32) (lsn >> 32), (uint32) lsn),
+errdetail("Top transaction is running.")));
Did you mean this errdetail:
Top transaction is not running.
Cheers
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:34
Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 17:35, Ranier Vilela
escreveu:
>
> Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 01:07, Zhihong Yu
> escreveu:
>
>> Hi,
>> How about the following patch ?
>>
>> ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot() can return a bool to indicate whether the
>> base snapshot is set up.
>>
>> For the call
Em sex., 12 de fev. de 2021 às 22:47, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 03:21:40PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The v3 drops the changes of the uuid_ossp contrib. I'm not sure the
> > change of scram_HMAC_final is needed.
>
> Meaning that v3 would fail to compile uuid-os
Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 01:07, Zhihong Yu
escreveu:
> Hi,
> How about the following patch ?
>
> ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot() can return a bool to indicate whether the
> base snapshot is set up.
>
> For the call by SnapBuildCommitTxn(), it seems xid is top transaction. So
> the return val
Greetings!
I would like to know if there is a better way to pass a relation or if the
relation name (CString) as a parameter in a C function and thus be able to
manipulate its tuples. The documentation is available here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/xfunc-c.html#id-1.8.3.13.11. But it is
not
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> In total, I scraped the first-page of some ~50k websites,
> which produced 45M test rows to import,
> which when GROUP BY pattern and flags was reduced
> down to 235k different regex patterns,
> and 1.5M different text string subjects.
This seems like an incredibly usefu
Hi Tom,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, at 05:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>0001-invent-rainbow-arcs.patch
>0002-recognize-matchall-NFAs.patch
Many thanks for working on the regex engine,
this looks like an awesome optimization.
To test the correctness of the patches,
I thought it would be nice with some real-life
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:14 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> There is another snowball release out, and I have prepared a patch to
> integrate it. It's very big and mostly boring, so I'm not attaching it
> here, but you can see it at
>
> https://github.com/petere/postgresql/commit/d0aa6c2148bcef10
Hi,
On 2021-02-13 17:37:29 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Agreed, if we relied purely on flush location of a slot, there would
> be no need for origins to track the lsn.
And we would be latency bound replicating transactions, which'd not be
fun for single-insert ones for example...
> AFAIK this i
>
> On 13 Feb 2021, at 17:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-02-10 08:02:17 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:08 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>> If by successfully confirmed, you mean that once the subscriber node
>> has received, it won't be sent again then as fa
Hi,
On 2021-02-10 08:02:17 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:08 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:57 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I think similar happens without any of the work done in PG-14 as well
> > > if we restart the apply worker before the commit
Hi,
On 2021-02-09 18:48:21 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> In order to be eligible for cleanup, the final tuple in the
> corresponding PHOT/HOT chain must also be eligible for cleanup, or all
> indexes must have been updated later in the chain before any visible
> tuples.
This sounds like it migh
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 12:35, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>psql:type-test.sql:165: WARNING:
>SQL queries produced different results:
>SELECT '285970053'::pg_catalog."numeric" =
>ANY(ARRAY['285970053']::pg_catalog.float4[])
>false
>SELECT '285970053'::pg_catalog."numeric" <<@
>ARRAY['285970053']::pg_ca
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:17 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > W.R.T the attached patch, In HeapTupleHeaderGetDatum, we don't even
> > attempt to detoast if there is no external field in the tuple, in POC
> > I have got rid of that check, but I think
I'm attaching the patch for $SUBJECT, which applies atop the four patches from
the two other threads below. For convenience of testing, I've included a
rollup patch, equivalent to applying all five patches.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:35:18AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> More details on the semantic
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Noah Bergbauer wrote:
>
> A btree index on the same column is 700x the size of BRIN, or 10% of
relation itself. It does not perform significantly better than BRIN. The
issue here is twofold: not only does slotting these tuples into older pages
significantly reduce t
> On 02/13/2021 11:49 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:00 PM wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/12/2021 1:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am seeing errors in replication in a test program that I've been
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 20:56, Mark Rofail wrote:
>Attachments:
>anyarray_anyelement_operators-v2.patch
I've created a quite sophisticated test in PL/pgSQL,
that takes advantage of all the test data produced
by the official PostgreSQL regression test suite.
It goes through all tables and columns
I think to get a size of -4 you would be trying to read a varlena
pointer pointing to four nul bytes. I bet if you run dd on the
corresponding block you'll find a chunk of nuls in the page. That
perhaps makes sense with ZFS where if a new page was linked to the
tree but never written it would be an
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:00 PM wrote:
>
> > On 02/12/2021 1:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am seeing errors in replication in a test program that I've been
> > > running for years with very little chang
Hey Joel,
test opr_sanity ... FAILED
>
> AND binary_coercible(p2.opcintype, p1.amoplefttype));
> amopfamily | amopstrategy | amopopr
> +--+-
> -(0 rows)
> + 2745 |5 |6105
> +(1 row)
>
> -- Operators that
Hey Joel,
+ oprresult = DatumGetBool(FunctionCallInvoke(locfcinfo));
> -+ if (oprresult)
> ++ if (!locfcinfo->isnull && oprresult)
> + return true;
> + }
>
> Is checking !locfcinfo->isnull due to something new in v2,
> or what is just a correction for a problem also in v1?
>
The “!locfcinfo->isnul
Hi again Mark,
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 20:56, Mark Rofail wrote:
>Attachments:
>anyarray_anyelement_operators-v2.patch
One regression test fails on my machine:
make installcheck
test opr_sanity ... FAILED 3994 ms
1 of 202 tests failed.
Hi Mark,
>On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 20:56, Mark Rofail wrote:
>Attachments:
>anyarray_anyelement_operators-v2.patch
Some more code review comments:
Comparing the v1 and v2 patch, I noticed this change in array_contains_elem():
+ oprresult = DatumGetBool(FunctionCallInvoke(locfcinfo));
-+ if (oprr
36 matches
Mail list logo
