On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 6:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I've managed to reproduce the failure locally when running postgres_fdw_x/
> regress in parallel (--num-processes 10). It reproduced for me on
> on 04a09ee94 (iterations 1, 2, 4), but not on 04a09ee94~1 (30 iterations
> passed).
>
> I'm goin
Hi
ne 26. 11. 2023 v 18:56 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>
napsal:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 06:28:53PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > so 18. 11. 2023 v 15:54 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>
> > napsal:
> > > As a side note, I'm intended to go one more time th
Hello Thomas,
03.12.2023 02:48, Thomas Munro wrote:
Thanks for finding this correlation. Yeah, poking around in the cfbot
history database I see about 1 failure like that per day since that
date, and there doesn't seem to be anything else as obviously likely
to be related to wakeups and timeout
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
I took a look for this commit, it looks correct to me
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> AFAICT the failures began around September 10th, which leads me to wonder
> if this is related to commit 04a09ee. That is little more than a wild
> guess, though. I haven't been able to deduce much else from the logs I can
> find, and I didn
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 07:36:29PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>> I started to think if this code is needed at all in production. How
>> about we do either of the following?
> Well, the fact that this code is hidden behind an off-by-default macro
> seems like a pretty
On 12/2/23 13:50, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 11:32 AM Joe Conway wrote:
1. Is supporting JSON array format sufficient, or does it need to
support some other options? How flexible does the support scheme need to be?
"JSON Lines" is a semi-standard format [1] that's basically
On 12/2/23 16:53, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 10:11:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
So if you are writing a production that might need to match
FORMAT followed by JSON, you need to match FORMAT_LA too.
Thanks for the pointer. That does seem to be the culprit.
diff --git a/src/b
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 07:36:29PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I started to think if this code is needed at all in production. How
> about we do either of the following?
Well, the fact that this code is hidden behind an off-by-default macro
seems like a pretty strong indicator that it is not
> On 2 Dec 2023, at 17:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Nov-30, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Recently, a new --filter option was added to pg_dump. I might be
>> wrong, but the syntax of the help message for this feels off. Is the
>> word 'on' not necessary after 'based'?
>>
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 10:11:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So if you are writing a production that might need to match
> FORMAT followed by JSON, you need to match FORMAT_LA too.
Thanks for the pointer. That does seem to be the culprit.
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/gram.y b/src/backend/parse
Guanqun Yang writes:
> We notice Postgres logs, pg_stat_statements and pg_stat_activity will
> record passwords when using "CREATE" statement to create user with
> password. Can we provide users with an option to obfuscate those passwords?
See the many, many prior discussions of this idea.
The sh
Hello Maciek,
Thanks for pointing that out. They are indeed super similar. Before I wrote
the patch I searched for
"explain" related ones. I guess I should have performed a better search.
Comparing the patches, there is one main difference: the existing patch
prints only the plan without
any inst
hey guys,
We notice Postgres logs, pg_stat_statements and pg_stat_activity will
record passwords when using "CREATE" statement to create user with
password. Can we provide users with an option to obfuscate those passwords?
Yours,
Guanqun
Have you seen the other recent patch regarding this? [1] The mailing
list thread was active pretty recently. The submission is marked as
Needs Review. I haven't looked at either patch, but the proposals are
very similar as I understand it.
[1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4345/
Hello hackers,
# MOTIVATION
My recent experiences with problematic queries in customers motivated
me to write this patch proposing a new feature to enhance visibility
on what active queries are doing.
PostgreSQL already offers 2 very powerful tools for query troubleshooting:
- EXPLAIN: gives us
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 11:32 AM Joe Conway wrote:
> 1. Is supporting JSON array format sufficient, or does it need to
> support some other options? How flexible does the support scheme need to be?
"JSON Lines" is a semi-standard format [1] that's basically just
newline-separated JSON values. (In
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 1:08 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> After further thought, I think the right solution is to change
> btree_gist (and probably also btree_gin) to use the common RT* strategy
> numbers.
Okay. That will mean bumping the version of btree_gist, and you must be running that versi
Hi,
> thread. I think you can compare the timing of regression tests in
> subscription, with and without the patch to show there is no
> regression. And probably some tests with a large number of tables for
> sync with very little data.
I have tested the regression test timings for subscription w
On 2023-Nov-30, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Recently, a new --filter option was added to pg_dump. I might be
> wrong, but the syntax of the help message for this feels off. Is the
> word 'on' not necessary after 'based'?
>
> > --filter=FILENAMEinclude or exclude objects an
Joe Conway writes:
>> I noticed that, with the PoC patch, "json" is the only format that must be
>> quoted. Without quotes, I see a syntax error. I'm assuming there's a
>> conflict with another json-related rule somewhere in gram.y, but I haven't
>> tracked down exactly which one is causing it.
On 12/1/23 18:09, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 02:28:55PM -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
I did a quick PoC patch (attached) -- if there interest and no hard
objections I would like to get it up to speed for the January commitfest.
Cool. I would expect there to be interest, given al
Hi,
I was recently looking at the code around the WAL_DEBUG macro and GUC.
When enabled, the code does the following:
1. Creates a memory context that allows pallocs within critical sections.
2. Decodes (not logical decoding but DecodeXLogRecord()) every WAL
record using the above memory context
On 01.12.23 17:41, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
I noticed that some header files included system header files for no
apparent reason, so I did some digging and found out that in a few cases
the original reason has disappeared. So I propose the attached patches
to remove the unneces
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:31 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> Attached is a rough start with Andres's earlier ideas, to get
> something concrete out there.
While looking at the assembly out of curiosity, I found a couple bugs
in the split API that I've fixed locally.
I think the path forward is:
- per
25 matches
Mail list logo
