On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 9:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not
> >> useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC
> >> as GUC_REPORT.
>
> > I agree with
Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I've tried to build using
this source rpm
https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/repos/yum/srpms/13/redhat/rhel-9-x86_64/postgresql13-13.9-1PGDG.rhel9.src.rpm
on a RHEL 9 system and gotten the follow error:
rpmbuild -bb SPECS/postgresql-13.spec
warning: line
Pavel Luzanov writes:
> What if this long output will be available only for \du+, and for \du
> just show distinct (without duplicates)
> roles in the current array format? For those, who don't care about these
> new membership options, nothing will change.
> Those, who need details will use
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not
>> useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC
>> as GUC_REPORT.
> I agree with that. I think we need some method for optionally
> reporting
Hi hackers,
Parallelism has been in core since 9.6, it's a great feature that got
several
upgrades since then. However, it lacks metrics to determine if and how
parallelism is used and help tune parameters related to it.
Currently, the only information available are
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm skeptical that pg_buffercache_summary() is a good idea at all
>
> Why? It's about two orders of magnitude faster than querying the equivalent
> data by aggregating in SQL. And knowing how many free and dirty buffers are
> over time is
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not
> useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC
> as GUC_REPORT.
I agree with that. I think we need some method for optionally
reporting values, so that stuff like
> From: Masahiko Sawada
> > >
> > > 3. The apply worker launches the tablesync workers for tables that
> > > need to be synchronized.
> > >
> > > There might be DDLs executed on the publisher for tables before the
> > > tablesync worker starts. But the apply worker needs to apply DDLs
> > > for
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
>
> > minor nitpick:
> > +
> > + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
> > + /* FALLTHROUGH */
> >
> > Do we need to
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Also, I don't think there is any reason why we want to exclude only
>> the autovacuum launcher.
>
> My rationale is that the launcher is the only other process type which
> might
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:29 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> There seems to be a comment typo in the recent commit "Perform logical
> replication actions as the table owner" [1].
>
> /*
> * Switch back to the original user ID.
> *
> * If we created a new GUC nest level, also role back any changes that
Hi,
On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Maybe we could change the doc with something among those lines instead?
"
Existing logical slots on standby also get invalidated if wal_level on primary
is reduced to
less than 'logical'. This
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
>
> minor nitpick:
> +
> + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
> + /* FALLTHROUGH */
>
> Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways?
>
Few minor comments
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 8:59 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On further thinking, as such this shouldn't be a problem because all
> > the WAL records before PARAMETER_CHANGE record will have
On 15.03.23 08:14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I have identified several open issues with the documentation build under
Meson (approximately in priority order):
Some work has been done on this. Here is my current assessment.
1. Image files are not handled at all, so they don't show up in the
On 01.03.23 10:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
SQL:2023 should be published within the next 2 months, so I want to
update our SQL conformance information for our PostgreSQL release later
this year.
Attached are patches that update the keywords list and the features list
as usual. (Some of the
Hi,
On 4/5/23 8:59 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On further thinking, as such this shouldn't be a problem because all
the WAL records before PARAMETER_CHANGE record will have sufficient
information so that they can get decoded. However, with the
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 18:03, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm planning to generate the 15->16 differential code coverage, once the
> feature freeze has been reached.
Cool!
> I think for now it'd likely be a small script that'd generate the code
> coverage across versions. Do we want to have that in
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 10:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:35:14PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Yeah. The patch as it stands allow for disabling specific types rather than
>> all-or-nothing, which is why the name was "ignore".
>
> FWIW, I agree with Robert's points
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:47 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:16:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thanks! It looks good to me so I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
>
> + case 'P': /* Parallel progress reporting */
> + {
> +
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:35:14PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Yeah. The patch as it stands allow for disabling specific types rather than
> all-or-nothing, which is why the name was "ignore".
FWIW, I agree with Robert's points here:
- disable_event_triggers or ignore_event_triggers = off
Hi,
On 4/5/23 2:33 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 14:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Thanks for your continued work on $SUBJECT. I just took a look at
0004,
Thanks Robert for the feedback!
and I think that at the very least the commit message needs
work.
Agree.
Perhaps a
Hi,
On 4/4/23 8:13 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 11:42 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Done in V58 and now this is as simple as:
Minor comments on 0004 (address if you agree):
Thanks for the review!
* Consider static inline for WalSndWakeupProcessRequests()?
Agree and
Hi,
On 4/4/23 7:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-04-04 18:54:33 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
if (check_on_xid)
{
if (terminating)
appendStringInfo(_msg, _("terminating process %d to release replication slot
\"%s\" because it conflicts with
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 20:36, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> * clean up permission checks after 599b33b94
>>
>> I believe that the actual bug fixes are in, and what's left is just a test
>> case that people weren't very excited about adding. So maybe
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:16:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks! It looks good to me so I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
+ case 'P': /* Parallel progress reporting */
+ {
+ /* Call the progress reporting callback */
+
On 04.04.2023 22:02, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder if, while we're here, we should apply the idea of
>> joining-with-newlines-not-commas to the
On 16.03.23 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09.03.23 20:14, Jeff Davis wrote:
Let's come back to that after dealing with the other two.
Leaving 0001 open for now.
I suspect making a change like this now would result in a bloodbath on
the build farm that we could do without. I suggest
Dear hackers,
> Dear Fujii-san, Tom,
>
> Thank you for giving a suggestion! PSA new version.
I have reviewed and revised patches by myself.
* Fix handing of poll() based on the Horiguchi-san's point
* Fix WARNING message that shows user name which is used for connection
* PQconnCheck(),
On 2023-Apr-04, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2023-04-04 Tu 08:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Surely this can be made cleaner.
> >
> > By the way -- that comment about clauses being non-standard, can you
> > spot exactly *which* clauses that comment applies to?
>
> Sadly, I don't think we're
Hi.
About 0001:
+ * VacuumFailsafeActive is a defined as a global so that we can determine
+ * whether or not to re-enable cost-based vacuum delay when vacuuming a table.
+ * If failsafe mode has been engaged, we will not re-enable cost-based delay
+ * for the table until after vacuuming has
Hi Tom:
Sorry for the delayed response! I think my knowledge has been refreshed
for this discussion.
> One thing I'm not at all clear about is whether we need to restrict
> the optimization so that it doesn't occur if the subquery contains
> outer references falling outside available_rels.
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 07:27, Koshi Shibagaki (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> I found out that there is a mistake written in
> contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c.
Thanks for the report, fixed.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:39 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > From 56a9559555918a99c202a0924f7b2ede9de4e75d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: bdrouvotAWS
> > > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 08:59:47 +
> > > Subject: [PATCH v52 3/6] Allow
101 - 134 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
