Hi,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 10:18:52AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:03:52AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed this in my first review, but instead of:
> >
> > - input: files('../../backend/storage/lmgr/lwlocknames.txt'),
> > + input:
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 09:16:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > Yes, I wrote exactly about that upthread and referenced my previous
> > investigation. But what I'm observing now, is that the failure probability
> >
The pg_amcheck reports a skip message if the layout of the index does
not match expectations. That message includes the bytes that were
expected and the ones that were found. But the found ones are arbitrary
bytes, which can have funny effects on the terminal when they are
printed. To avoid
Hi John,
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:44 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 9:01 AM jian he wrote:
> >
> > latency average = 147.782 ms
> > select * from bench_cstring_hash_unaligned(10);
> > latency average = 101.179 ms
> > select * from bench_cstring_hash_aligned(10);
> >
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have documentation on how to upgrade "publisher" and "subscriber"
> at [1], but currently we do not have any documentation on how to
> upgrade logical replication clusters.
> Here is a patch to document how to upgrade different
Dear Amit,
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:36 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > I love your proposal, so I want to join the review. Here are my first
> > comments.
> >
> > 01.
> > Should we restrict that `--subscriber-conninfo` must not have hostname or
> > IP?
> > We want users to
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:15 AM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> Using the same benchmark as we did for the SSE2 linear searches in
> XidInMVCCSnapshot() (commit 37a6e5d) [1] [2], I see the following:
I've been antagonistic towards the patch itself, but it'd be more
productive if I paid some nuanced
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:34 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 03.01.24 13:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 07.12.23 14:24, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> >> We have the same issue with integer conversion and need a fix.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I was using int8in() for the conversion of numeric
> >>
Hi,
Here's a quick status report after the first week:
Status summary:
Needs review: 238.
Waiting on Author: 44.
Ready for Committer: 27.
Committed: 36.
Moved to next CF: 1.
Withdrawn: 2.
Returned with Feedback: 3.
Rejected: 1.
Total: 352.
Here is a list of "Needs review" entries
On Sunday, January 7, 2024, jian he wrote:
> hi.
> Maybe this is a small printout err_position bug.
>
> create table atacc2 ( test int, a int, b int) ;
> success tests:
> alter table atacc2 add CONSTRAINT x PRIMARY KEY (id, b );
> alter table atacc2 add CONSTRAINT x PRIMARY KEY (id, b a);
>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 5:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 4:25 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:59 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > I was going the the patch set again, I have a question. The below
> > comments say that we keep the failover option as
On Fri Jan 5, 2024 at 12:24 PM CST, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:35 PM Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Wed Nov 29, 2023 at 11:48 AM CST, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > I am not completely in love with the code I have written. Lots of
> > conditional compilation which makes it hard to read.
hi.
Maybe this is a small printout err_position bug.
create table atacc2 ( test int, a int, b int) ;
success tests:
alter table atacc2 add CONSTRAINT x PRIMARY KEY (id, b );
alter table atacc2 add CONSTRAINT x PRIMARY KEY (id, b a);
alter table atacc2 add CONSTRAINT x PRIMARY KEYa (id, b);
tests
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:05 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
> >
> > I kept this the same, as I didn't see any need to tie the key size to
> > NAMEDATALEN.
>
> Thanks. A fresh look at the v5 patches
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:36 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I love your proposal, so I want to join the review. Here are my first
> comments.
>
> 01.
> Should we restrict that `--subscriber-conninfo` must not have hostname or IP?
> We want users to execute pg_subscriber on the target,
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 22:00, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> It's possible that we could get away with just summarily changing
> >> the argument type from text to regclass. ISTR that we did exactly
>
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:05 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> I kept this the same, as I didn't see any need to tie the key size to
> NAMEDATALEN.
Thanks. A fresh look at the v5 patches left me with the following thoughts:
1. I think we need to add some notes about this new way of getting
shared
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 14:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 11.09.23 13:59, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> > @Tom and @Robert, since you originally suggested extending the
> > protocol for this, I think some input from you on the protocol design
> > would be quite helpful. BTW, this protocol extension
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 19:15, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> > > > pg_replication_slot could be set back to null.
> > >
> > > In this case, since the basebackup was taken after the slot was
> > > invalidated, it
> > > does not require the WAL that was removed. But it seems that once the
> > >
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 25.12.23 13:10, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> I have committed this patch set.
>
> I couple of notes:
>
> You had included the moving of the AT_PASS_ADD_COL enum in the first
> patch. This is not a good style. Refactoring patches should not
On 8/1/2024 01:36, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/24 18:26, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 7/1/2024 17:51, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/24 11:22, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 7/1/2024 06:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's an interesting are for experiments, no doubt about it. And if you
choose to explore it,
Hi!
>
> I think we should add cassert-only infrastructure tracking whether we
> currently hold spinlocks, are in a signal handler and perhaps a few other
> states. That'd allow us to add assertions like:
..
> - no lwlocks or ... while in signal handlers
I *wish* lwlocks should *not* be held
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 9:01 AM jian he wrote:
>
> latency average = 147.782 ms
> select * from bench_cstring_hash_unaligned(10);
> latency average = 101.179 ms
> select * from bench_cstring_hash_aligned(10);
> latency average = 101.219 ms
Thanks for testing again! This looks closer to my
On Thu Jan 4, 2024 at 2:03 AM EST, jian he wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 7:26 AM Jim Nasby wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/24 5:05 PM, Dian Fay wrote:
> >
> > Another possibility is `index`, which is relatively short and not a
> > reserved keyword ^1. `position` is not as precise but would avoid the
> >
On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Yes, I wrote exactly about that upthread and referenced my previous
> investigation. But what I'm observing now, is that the failure probability
> greatly increased with c161ab74f, so something really changed in the test
>
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 3:26 PM Andy Fan wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > hi.
> > you don't need to change src/include/catalog/catversion.h
> > as mentioned in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_checklist
> > Otherwise, cfbot will fail many times.
>
> Thanks for the wiki.
>
> I checked the wiki and
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM jian he wrote:
>
> some tests after applying V33 and my small changes.
> setup:
> create table test_scalar1(js jsonb);
> insert into test_scalar1 select jsonb '{"a":"[12,13]"}' FROM
> generate_series(1,1e5) g;
> create table test_scalar2(js jsonb);
> insert into
Hi Tomas,
> See section 3.2 in this paper (the "view PDF" does not work for me, but
> the "source PDF" does download a postscript):
I believe that you are referring to a dynamic programming approach. It
is a 1-dimensional case! To find an optimal solution in the
M-dimensional case is an NP-hard
On 1/7/24 23:53, Alexander Cheshev wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
>> The thing I was proposing is that it should be possible to build
>> histograms with bins adapted to density in the given region. With
>> smaller buckets in areas with high density. So that queries intersect
>> with fewer buckets in
Hi Tomas,
> The thing I was proposing is that it should be possible to build
> histograms with bins adapted to density in the given region. With
> smaller buckets in areas with high density. So that queries intersect
> with fewer buckets in low-density parts of the histogram.
This is how
On 1/6/24 15:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway writes:
The only code specific comments were Tom's above, which have been
addressed. If there are no serious objections I plan to commit this
relatively soon.
I had not actually read this patchset before, but now I have, and
I have a few minor
On 1/7/24 18:26, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 17:51, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 1/7/24 11:22, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 06:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's an interesting are for experiments, no doubt about it. And if you
choose to explore it, that's fine. But it's
On 7/1/2024 17:51, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/24 11:22, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 7/1/2024 06:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's an interesting are for experiments, no doubt about it. And if you
choose to explore it, that's fine. But it's better to be aware it may
not end with a commit.
For the
07.01.2024 10:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 11:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Your suspicion was proved right. After
git show c161ab74f src/test/recovery/t/035_standby_logical_decoding.pl | git
apply -R
20 iterations with 20 tests in parallel performed
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 09:02:25AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> We had this:
>
> < 2023-12-25 04:06:20.062 MST telsasoft >ERROR: could not open file
> "pg_tblspc/16395/PG_16_202307071/16384/121010871": Input/output error
> < 2023-12-25 04:06:20.062 MST telsasoft >STATEMENT: commit
> <
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 03:26:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmph. I wonder if we shouldn't change that, because it's a lie.
> The value isn't actually coming from the config file, at least
> not yet.
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 03:15:20PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:40
On 1/7/24 11:22, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 06:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> It's an interesting are for experiments, no doubt about it. And if you
>> choose to explore it, that's fine. But it's better to be aware it may
>> not end with a commit.
>> For the multi-dimensional case, I
On 7/1/2024 06:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It's an interesting are for experiments, no doubt about it. And if you
choose to explore it, that's fine. But it's better to be aware it may
not end with a commit.
For the multi-dimensional case, I propose we first try to experiment
with the various
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> Furthermore caching RowDescription is also not super useful, most
> clients request it every time because it does not require an extra
> round trip, so there's almost no overhead in requesting it.
Just to point out, FWIW, that the .NET
39 matches
Mail list logo
