On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 4:34 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2021-08-17 10:54:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 5. How can we provide a strict mechanism to not allow to use dsm APIs
> > for non-dsm FileSet? One idea could be that we can have a variable
> > (probably bool) in SharedFileSet structure
Hello.
pg_veryfybackup can fail with a valid backup when the backup was taken
from TLI > 1.
=
# initdb
$ pg_ctl start (just to make sure)
$ pg_ctl stop
$ touch $PGDATA/standby.signal
$ pg_ctl start
$ pg_ctl promote
$ psql
postgres=# select pg_switch_wal();
pg_switch_wal
---
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's right that we use "STREAM STOP" rather than "STREAM END" in many
> > > > places such as elog messages, a
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:23 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 9:17 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I took a quick look at the v2 patch and noticed a typo.
> > >
> > > + * backends and
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:23 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 9:17 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I took a quick look at the v2 patch and noticed a typo.
> >
> > + * backends and render it read-only. If missing_ok is true then it will
> > return
> > +
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 02:14 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-08-17 10:44:51 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-08-01 at 13:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > We maintain last_report as GetCurrentTransactionStopTimestamp(), but then
> > > use
> > > a separate timestamp in
> Patch 0001 fixes the "double parens" issue discussed elsewhere in this
> thread, and patch 0002 tweaks CREATE STATISTICS to treat "(a)" as a simple
> column reference.
> From: Tomas Vondra
> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:19:33 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fix: identify single-attribute references
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > It's right that we use "STREAM STOP" rather than "STREAM END" in many
> > > places such as elog messages, a callback name, and source code
> > > comments. As far as I have
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 9:17 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I took a quick look at the v2 patch and noticed a typo.
>
> + * backends and render it read-only. If missing_ok is true then it will
> return
> + * NULL if file doesn not exist otherwise error.
> */
> doesn not=> doesn't
>
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 10:45 -0700, Paul Martinez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:41 AM Jack Christensen wrote:
> > The only way to ensure a user can only be a member of a group in the same
> > tenant is to user_group_memberships.tenant_id be part of the foreign key.
> > And
> > that will only
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:11 PM John Naylor
wrote:
> I'm not sure it's essential to have "far" fewer categories, if the
> closed-to-open transition is made less granular through some other mechanism.
See my remarks to Andres about FSM_CATEGORIES from earlier. (It may
not matter if you don't
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:24 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I am trying to think of something simple we could test to see the
> benefit, with few downsides. I assume the case you are considering is
> that you have a 10 8k-page table, and one page is 80% full and the
> others are 81% full, and if
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:46 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:30 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:54 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is another
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 03:34:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:06:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> You patch removes the warning but by doing that also removes the
>> feature that is being tested.
>
> Oops. If kept this way, this test scenario is going to need
Hi,
I took a quick look at the v2 patch and noticed a typo.
+ * backends and render it read-only. If missing_ok is true then it will return
+ * NULL if file doesn not exist otherwise error.
*/
doesn not=> doesn't
Best regards,
Houzj
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:08:59AM +, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
>> Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline
>> subroutines,
>> but the fix introduced a performance regression as
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 04:47:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> One argument
> against this approach is that if pg_rewind fails in the middle of its
> operation then we would have done a set of fsync() for nothing, with
> the data folder still unusable.
I was skimming through the patch this
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:06:59AM +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I have a local test suite that I've been writing against libpq. With
> the new ssldatabase connection option, one tricky aspect is figuring
> out whether it's supported or not. It doesn't look like there's any way
> to tell, from a
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:48 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't know what the right degree of stickiness is, but I can easily
> believe that we want to have more than none. Part of Peter's point, at
> least as I understand it, is that if a page has 100 tuples and you
> delete 1 or 2 or 3 of them, it
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
Sure. aef8948 gets down because of the performance impact. ccf4e27
was a cleanup following up aef8948, that loses its meaning. And
c3826f8 cannot be let alone
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:34:45AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Uh, I don't see those commits, e.g.:
>>
>> $ git diff 0d70d30
>> fatal: ambiguous argument '0d70d30': unknown revision or path not in
>> the working tree.
>>
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 19:22 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Another rebase to work around the recent changes in the ssl Makefile.
I have a local test suite that I've been writing against libpq. With
the new ssldatabase connection option, one tricky aspect is figuring
out whether it's supported
On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 8/17/21, 2:13 PM, "alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org"
> wrote:
>
> > So, why isn't it that we call Register in XLogInsertRecord, and
> > Notify in XLogWrite?
>
> We do. However, we also call NotifySegmentsReadyForArchive() in
> XLogInsertRecord() to handle the
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> I suspect that one other fairly fundamental issue is that we are very
> reticent updating the FSM with information about free space. As long as
> that's the case a smarter placement logic would often not have a better
> place to choose from.
On 8/17/21, 2:13 PM, "alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org" wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
>> The main reason for registering the boundaries in XLogInsertRecord()
>> is that it has the required information about the WAL record
>> boundaries. I do not think that XLogWrite() has this
On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> The main reason for registering the boundaries in XLogInsertRecord()
> is that it has the required information about the WAL record
> boundaries. I do not think that XLogWrite() has this information.
Doh, of course. So, why isn't it that we call
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 1:47 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 02:42, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Since create_partial_distinct_paths() calls
> create_final_distinct_paths(), I wonder if numDistinctRows can be passed to
> create_final_distinct_paths() so that the latter doesn't need to
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 02:42, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Since create_partial_distinct_paths() calls create_final_distinct_paths(), I
> wonder if numDistinctRows can be passed to create_final_distinct_paths() so
> that the latter doesn't need to call estimate_num_groups().
That can't be done. The two
The thing I still don't understand about this patch is why we call
RegisterSegmentBoundaryEntry and NotifySegmentsReadyForArchive in
XLogInsertRecord.
My model concept of this would have these routines called only in
XLogFlush / XLogWrite, which are conceptually about transferring data
from
On 8/17/21, 12:11 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote:
> On 8/17/21, 11:28 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote:
>> I can't actually see that there's any kind of hard synchronization
>> requirement here at all. What we're trying to do is guarantee that if
>> the timeline changes, we'll pick up the timeline history
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:36 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> Open and closed pages
> -
> This stickiness concept is called "hysteresis" by some DB researchers,
> often when discussing UNDO stuff [8]. Having *far less* granularity
> than FSM_CATEGORIES/255 seems essential to
On 8/17/21, 11:28 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote:
> I can't actually see that there's any kind of hard synchronization
> requirement here at all. What we're trying to do is guarantee that if
> the timeline changes, we'll pick up the timeline history for the new
> timeline next, and that if files are
Hi
I created some roles in extension. I will try to implement some security
checks. When I dropped this extension, the roles were not dropped.
Is it expected behaviour?
Regards
Pavel
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> With your proposed approach, what I'm seeing is that the worker calls
> GetTransactionSnapshot() at some point, which then builds a new
> snapshot, and results in increasing TransactionXmin (probably because
> another concurrent transaction
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 1:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Right. If pg_upgrade explicitly ignores template0 then its OID
> need not be stable ... at least, not unless there's a chance it
> could conflict with some other database OID, which would become
> a live possibility if we let users get at "WITH
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:56:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 3:41 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > I have fixed all the issues and now the patch is working as expected.
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm changing the subject line since the patch does something which was
> discussed on that
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:33 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> Sorry, I think my note was not very clear. I agree that a flag should
> be used for this purpose, but I think we should just use a regular
> bool protected by a spinlock or LWLock instead of an atomic. The file
> atomics.h has the
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:15:36PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to have a local cache for a shared resource --
> that's the problem. You actually need some kind of basic locking or
> lease system, so that 10 backends don't all decide at the same time
> that one particular
On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I think we are in agreement. If we assume that the flush pointer
> jumps along record boundaries and segment boundaries, the solution
> would be to avoid using the flush pointer when it points to a segment
> boundary (given that the segment boundary is
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Actually though ... I've not read the patch, but what does it do about
> > the fact that the postgres and template0 DBs do not have stable OIDs?
> > I cannot imagine any way to force
On 8/17/21, 10:44 AM, "alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org" wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I've been thinking about the next steps for this one, too. ISTM we'll
>> need to basically assume that the flush pointer jumps along record
>> boundaries except for the cross-segment records. I
I wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> The only hard requirement for this feature is if we
>> use the database OID for some kind of encryption or integrity checking
>> or checksum type feature.
> It's fairly unclear to me why that is so important as to justify the
> amount of klugery that this line
Robert Haas writes:
> I wasn't able to properly understand that comment, and to be honest
> I'm not sure I precisely understand your concern either. I don't quite
> see why the template0 database matters. I think that database isn't
> going to be dumped, or restored, so as far as pg_upgrade is
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:41 AM Jack Christensen wrote:
>
> The only way to ensure a user can only be a member of a group in the same
> tenant is to user_group_memberships.tenant_id be part of the foreign key. And
> that will only work with a unique key on id and tenant_id in both users and
>
On 2021-Aug-17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 8/16/21, 5:09 PM, "alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org"
> wrote:
> > The reason for the latter is that I suspect the segment boundary map
> > will also have a use to fix the streaming replication issue I mentioned
> > earlier in the thread. This also makes me
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually though ... I've not read the patch, but what does it do about
> the fact that the postgres and template0 DBs do not have stable OIDs?
> I cannot imagine any way to force those to match across PG versions
> that would not be an
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Take DB2's version of the FSM, FSIP [7]. This design usually doesn't
> > ever end up inserting *any* new logical rows on a heap page after the
> > page first fills -- it is initially "open" when first allocated, and
> > then quickly becomes
Stephen Frost writes:
> Also agreed on this, though I wonder- do we actually need to explicitly
> make CREATE DATABASE q WITH OID = 1234; only work during binary upgrade
> mode in the backend? That strikes me as perhaps doing more work than we
> really need to while also preventing something
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> > > for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
> >
> > OK, but
On 8/17/21, 5:53 AM, "Dipesh Pandit" wrote:
>> I personally don't think it's necessary to use an atomic here. A
>> spinlock or LWLock would probably work just fine, as contention seems
>> unlikely. If we use a lock, we also don't have to worry about memory
>> barriers.
>
> History file should
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > To me, adding a separate TOC entry for a thing that is not really a
> > separate object seems like a scary hack that might come back to bite
> > us. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about pg_dump to say exactly
> > how
Robert Haas writes:
> To me, adding a separate TOC entry for a thing that is not really a
> separate object seems like a scary hack that might come back to bite
> us. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about pg_dump to say exactly
> how it might come back to bite us, which leaves wide open the
>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 3:41 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> I have fixed all the issues and now the patch is working as expected.
Hi,
I'm changing the subject line since the patch does something which was
discussed on that thread but isn't really related to the old email
subject. In general, I think
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:01 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 4:37 PM Paul Martinez wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems like a somewhat useful feature. If people think it would be
>> useful to
>> implement, I might take a stab at it when I have time.
>>
>>
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> > for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
>
> OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:58 AM Denis Hirn
wrote:
> > The tests fail when you build with assertions enabled (configure
> --enable-cassert).
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. The new version of this patch fixes that.
> The tests are working properly now. All style related issues are fixed as
>
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:59 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:07, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Can you attach updated patch so that we know more detail about the two
> new functions; create_final_distinct_paths and
> > create_partial_distinct_paths ?
>
> Must've fallen off in transit
Here is another set of preparatory patches that clean up various special
cases and similar in the node support.
0001-Remove-T_Expr.patch
Removes unneeded T_Expr.
0002-Add-COPY_ARRAY_FIELD-and-COMPARE_ARRAY_FIELD.patch
0003-Add-WRITE_INDEX_ARRAY.patch
These add macros to handle a few cases
Em ter., 17 de ago. de 2021 às 10:22, Greg Nancarrow
escreveu:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:13 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >
> > If that's conditions happen, all *result.index* touches are garbage.
> >
>
> The patch looks valid to me, as the "index" member is not set in the
> "btp == NULL" case,
David Rowley writes:
> I'd been looking at the code in ExecInitModifyTable() that's the same
> as what you pasted thinking you meant that. I think for the check for
> partitioned tables in ExecModifyTable() then it's likely just dead
> code. It seems to be causing a bit of confusion though, so
Michael Paquier writes:
> In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
regards, tom lane
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-08-16 15:36:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's a policy question here, which is when does an operation on
>> a pre-existing object within an extension script cause the object
>> to be absorbed into the extension? You might naively say "never",
>> but that's not
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:40 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Abstractly it'd be
>>>
>>> createpub := CREATE PUBLICATION pubname FOR cpitem [, ... ] [ WITH ... ]
>>>
>>> cpitem := ALL TABLES |
>>> TABLE name |
>>> ALL
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:13 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> If that's conditions happen, all *result.index* touches are garbage.
>
The patch looks valid to me, as the "index" member is not set in the
"btp == NULL" case, and so has a junk value in the caller, and it's
being used to index an array,
Hi,
On 2021-08-16 10:35:45 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Problems
>
>
> The FSM gives out space without considering the passage of time, or
> the likelihood that a particular transaction or client will consume
> its requested free space in a more or less predictable and steady way
>
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 4:44 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> I have reviewed the v13-0001 patch.
>
> Apply / build / test was all OK
>
> Below are my code review comments.
>
> //
>
> Comments for v13-0001
> =
>
> 1. Patch comment
>
> =>
>
> Probably this comment should
> The tests fail when you build with assertions enabled (configure
> --enable-cassert).
Thank you for pointing that out. The new version of this patch fixes that.
The tests are working properly now. All style related issues are fixed as well.
Best wishes,
-- Denis
Thanks for the feedback.
> + StatusFilePath(archiveStatusPath, xlog, ".ready");
> + if (stat(archiveStatusPath, _buf) == 0)
> + PgArchEnableDirScan();
> We may want to call PgArchWakeup() after setting the flag.
Yes, added a call to wake up archiver.
> > + * -
> On 12 Aug 2021, at 15:32, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Barring objections I will go ahead with your proposed patch on HEAD and
> backpatch it all the way, once I've done more testing on it.
I’ve tested this with old and new OpenSSL versions, and have now applied it
backpatched to 9.6 as it’s
Hi, hackers.
Here is the new version of patch that add printing of min, max and total
statistics for time and rows across all loops to EXPLAIN ANALYSE.
1) Please add VERBOSE to display extra statistics.
2) Format of extra statistics is:
a) FORMAT TEXT
Loop min_time: N max_time: N
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 19:06, 李杰(慎追) wrote:
> Your answer explains that we still need to ModifyTable node without Leaf
> partitions.
> You are right about this.
>
> But you can review the source code again,
I'd been looking at the code in ExecInitModifyTable() that's the same
as
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:28:10PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:42:48PM -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Aug-16, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the reversal patch for the 14 branch. (It applies cleanly to
> > > master, but the unused member of
Hi,
On 2021-08-16 15:36:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's a policy question here, which is when does an operation on
> a pre-existing object within an extension script cause the object
> to be absorbed into the extension? You might naively say "never",
> but that's not our historical behavior,
Em ter., 17 de ago. de 2021 às 05:04, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 06:22:56PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Em qui., 1 de jul. de 2021 às 17:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor <
> > mahi6...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >> Please can we try to hit this rare condition by any test case.
On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline
>subroutines,
>but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and
>fixed at 607f8ce74.
>
>Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL
Hi,
On 2021-08-17 10:54:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 5. How can we provide a strict mechanism to not allow to use dsm APIs
> for non-dsm FileSet? One idea could be that we can have a variable
> (probably bool) in SharedFileSet structure which will be initialized
> in SharedFileSetInit based on
Em ter., 17 de ago. de 2021 às 00:43, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 02:06:31PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > uint64 and size_t in 64 bits are equivalents.
> > uint64 and size_t in 32 bits can be weird, but anyway size_t at 32 bits
> can
> > handle 1GB.
>
> There is
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:07, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Can you attach updated patch so that we know more detail about the two new
> functions; create_final_distinct_paths and
> create_partial_distinct_paths ?
Must've fallen off in transit :)
David
parallel_distinct_v2.patch
Description: Binary
Hi,
On 2021-08-16 13:13:55 -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Another possible problem is that before the revert, we accept
> ALTER TABLE some_partitioned_table SET (autovacuum_enabled=on/off);
> (also autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor and autovacuum_analyze_threshold)
> but after the revert this is
Hi,
On 2021-08-16 17:42:48 -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-16, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Here's the reversal patch for the 14 branch. (It applies cleanly to
> > master, but the unused member of PgStat_StatTabEntry needs to be
> > removed and catversion bumped).
>
> I have pushed
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:40 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR
> > TABLE t1,t2,t3, ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2,
> > SEQUENCE seq1,seq2, ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA s3,s4;
> >
> > Abstractly
Hi,
On 2021-08-17 10:44:51 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-08-01 at 13:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > We maintain last_report as GetCurrentTransactionStopTimestamp(), but then
> > use
> > a separate timestamp in pgstat_send_connstats() to compute the difference
> > from
> >
On 20.07.21 13:15, Denis Hirn wrote:
In the next version of the patch, would you be so kind as to include
updated documentation of the feature and at least one regression test
of same?
As requested, this new version of the patch contains regression tests and
documentation.
The tests fail
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 1:30 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > 5. How can we provide a strict mechanism to not allow to use dsm APIs
> > for non-dsm FileSet? One idea could be that we can have a variable
> > (probably bool) in SharedFileSet
On Sun, 2021-08-01 at 13:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Since
>
> commit 960869da0803427d14335bba24393f414b476e2c
> Author: Magnus Hagander
> Date: 2021-01-17 13:34:09 +0100
>
> Add pg_stat_database counters for sessions and session time
>
> pgstat_report_stat() does another timestamp
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:53 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> I've attached the updated patches. FYI I've included the patch
> (v8-0005) that fixes the assertion failure during shared fileset
> cleanup to make cfbot tests happy.
Hi
Thanks for your patch. I met a problem when using it. The
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:07 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 16:51, David Rowley wrote:
> > The patch is just some plumbing work to connect all the correct paths
> > up to make it work. It's all fairly trivial.
>
> I looked at this patch again and realise that it could be done
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 06:22:56PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em qui., 1 de jul. de 2021 às 17:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor <
> mahi6...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> Please can we try to hit this rare condition by any test case. If you have
>> any test cases, please share.
Yeah, this needs to be
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > > I think we can extend this API but I guess it is better to then do it
> > > > for dsm-based as well so that these
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 06:18:03PM +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> I modified the copy_file_range() patch using the below logic:
>
> If the first call of copy_file_range() fails with errno EXDEV or
> ENOTSUP, pg_rewind
> would not use copy_file_range() in rest code, and if copy_file_range() fails
> we
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> One more comment:
> @@ -2976,39 +2952,17 @@ subxact_info_write(Oid subid, TransactionId xid)
> ..
> + /* Try to open the subxact file, if it doesn't exist then create it */
> + fd = BufFileOpenShared(xidfileset, path, O_RDWR, true);
> + if
Hi, David
Your answer explains that we still need to ModifyTable node without Leaf
partitions.
You are right about this.
But you can review the source code again,
```
/*
* Fetch rows from subplan, and execute the required table modification
* for each row.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:18 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > > I think we can extend this API but I guess it is better to then do it
> > > > for dsm-based as well so that these
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:06:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> You patch removes the warning but by doing that also removes the
> feature that is being tested.
Oops. If kept this way, this test scenario is going to need a comment
to explain exactly that.
> I'm not sure what's the best way to
Hi Amit and Andres,
Here's updated patch
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:14 AM Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 11:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021-07-12 17:28:15 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM
95 matches
Mail list logo
