On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:30 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:11 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > #3 0x009cf57e in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0x29cae8
> > "BarrierParticipants(>shared->batch_barrier) == 1",
> > errorType=, fileName=0x2ae561 "nodeHash.c",
> >
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 3:04 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:06 PM David Rowley
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 02:38, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I think WARNING is fine. After all, the parameter is called
>> > "jit_warn_above_fraction".
>>
>> I had a think about this
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 17:49, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated patch with these changes.
Thanks for making the changes. I started looking over this patch but
really feel like it needs quite a few more iterations of what we've
just been doing to get it into proper committable shape. There
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:36 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Did you see some old code I wrote towards this goal?
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150215044814.gl3...@alvh.no-ip.org
> The intention was that DDL would produce some JSON blob that accurately
> describes the DDL that was run;
>
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:40 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> That doesn't seem to be entirely inconsistent with what Tom describes.
> Instead of "throw an error" the function would return an error and
> possibly some extra info which the caller would use to handle the
> error appropriately.
I don't
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > The idea is to force skipping any direct data population (which can
> > potentially cause data inconsistency on the subscriber)
> > in CREATE AS and SELECT INTO command on the subscriber by forcing the
> > skipData flag in the intoClause
Le 08/04/2022 à 02:46, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 07:43:42PM +0200, Gilles Darold wrote:
Thanks for the review, all these changes are available in new version v6
of the patch and attached here.
This is failing in CI (except on macos, which is strangely passing).
Thanks for all the help Tom!
On 4/6/22, 6:07 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content is safe.
"Blake, Geoff" writes:
> Hi Tom, Andres,
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Thanks for your comments, the initial version is attached here.
>
> I've been meaning to look at this thread for some time but have not
> found enough time to do that until just now. And now I have
> questions...
>
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 08:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:19:15AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Here are patches for master and v14 to do things this way.
> > Comments?
>
> Thanks for the patches. They look correct.
+1, looks good to me and addresses my specific
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 05:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 02:56:15PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> I propose that we drop support for Windows versions older than
> >> 10/Server 2016 in the PostgreSQL 16 cycle,
>
> Do we have any data on what people are
At Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:14:59 +0300, Yura Sokolov
wrote in
> В Чт, 07/04/2022 в 16:55 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi пишет:
> > Hi, Yura.
> >
> > At Wed, 06 Apr 2022 16:17:28 +0300, Yura Sokolov
> > wrot
> > e in
> > > Ok, I got access to stronger server, did the benchmark, found weird
> > >
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:17 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are my comments for the latest patch v6-0002.
>
> PATCH v6-0002 comments
> ==
>
> 2.1 General - should this be an independent patch?
>
> In many ways, I think most of this patch is unrelated to the other
> "local_only"
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:21 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are my comments for the latest patch v6-0001.
>
> (I will post my v6-0002 review comments separately)
>
> PATCH v6-0001 comments
> ==
>
> 1.1 General - Option name
>
> I still feel like the option name is not ideal.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:19:35PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, that's exactly why I didn't do what Michael proposes. If we're
> going to go to this trouble to avoid changing the layout of a PGPROC,
> we must be doing that on the theory that extension code cares about
> delayChkpt. And if
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 12:40:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As long as the C11-isms are in MSVC-only code, it seems like this is
> exactly equivalent to setting a minimum MSVC version. I don't see
> an objection-in-principle there, it's just a practical question of
> how far back is reasonable to
Le jeu. 7 avr. 2022, 07:43, Michael Paquier a écrit :
>
> Looks clear to me that a different design is wanted here, and that
> this won't make it for v15, so I have marked the patch as returned
> with feedback in the CF app.
>
> Hello,
I agree with Michael, this won't be ready for PG15. I had
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
>
> Review comments:
> ===
> 1.
> +The WHERE clause expression is evaluated with the same
> +role used for the replication connection. i.e. the role specified in the
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
