Michael Paquier writes:
> I don't disagree with your point, still I'm not sure that this can be
> made entirely bullet-proof. Anyway, I think that we should still
> improve this test and make it more robust for parallel operations:
> installcheck fails equally on HEAD if there is a prepared
Hello Tom and Michael,
29.04.2024 08:11, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
If you grep the source tree, you'd notice that a prepared transaction
named gxid only exists in the 2PC tests of ECPG, in
src/interfaces/ecpg/test/sql/twophase.pgc. So the origin of the
failure comes from a race
On Friday, March 15, 2024 10:45 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 02:22:44AM +, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the standby_slot_names patch has been committed, I am attaching
> > the last doc patch for review.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> 1 ===
>
>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:11:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Up to now, we've only worried about whether tests running in parallel
> within a single test suite can interact. It's quite scary to think
> that the meson setup has expanded the possibility of interactions
> to our entire source tree.
>
> I've splitted it to7 patches.
> each patch split one into separate new files.
>
Seems like a good start. Looking at the diffs of these, I wonder if we
would be better off with a func/ directory, each function gets its own file
in that dir, and either these files above include the individual
Michael Paquier writes:
> If you grep the source tree, you'd notice that a prepared transaction
> named gxid only exists in the 2PC tests of ECPG, in
> src/interfaces/ecpg/test/sql/twophase.pgc. So the origin of the
> failure comes from a race condition due to test parallelization,
> because the
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:45:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > My preference would be to limit this section to a single example. The
> > numeric one, as it provides values for more output columns. I would
> change
> > the output
Hello Richard,
29.04.2024 04:12, Richard Guo wrote:
Does anyone have any clue to this failure?
FWIW, after another run of this test, the failure just disappears. Does
it suggest that the test case is flaky?
I think this could be caused by the ecpg test twophase executed
simultaneously with
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:12:48AM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> Does anyone have any clue to this failure?
>
> FWIW, after another run of this test, the failure just disappears. Does
> it suggest that the test case is flaky?
If you grep the source tree, you'd notice that a prepared transaction
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:56 PM Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17:54AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:58 PM Kirill Reshke
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > While working on [0] i have noticed this comment in
> > > TerminateOtherDBBackends function:
> > >
> > > /*
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:45:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> My preference would be to limit this section to a single example. The
> numeric one, as it provides values for more output columns. I would change
> the output format to expanded from default, in order to show all columns
> and
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:11 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 7:21 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > Please find the attached v35 patch.
> >
> > The documentation says about both 'active' and 'inactive_since'
> > columns of pg_replication_slots say:
> >
> > ---
> >
On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 9:26 PM Sushrut Shivaswamy <
sushrut.shivasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion on using postgres background worker.
>
> I tried creating one following the implementation in worker_spi and am
> able to spawn a background worker successfully.
>
> However, the
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 17:24, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Melanie
> Plageman and Richard Guo, who have accepted invitations to become our
> newest PostgreSQL committers.
>
> Please join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 16:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:01 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 6:29 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The attached patch
> > > v7-0001-Table-sync-missed-due-to-race-condition-in-subscr.patch
> > >
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:25 PM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> I found an interesting case.
>
> CREATE TABLE t1 AS
> SELECT (i % 10)::numeric AS x,(i % 10)::int8 AS y,'abc' || i % 10 AS
> z, i::int4 AS w
> FROM generate_series(1, 100) AS i;
> CREATE INDEX t1_x_y_idx ON t1 (x, y);
> ANALYZE t1;
>
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, jian he wrote:
>
>
> after checking the definition of [1], [2],
> maybe here we should use
>
Possibly, though I’d be curious to see how consistent we are on this point
elsewhere before making a point of it.
>
> and also add `(1 row)` information.
Doesn’t seem
Hi Richard
Thank you so much for your tireless work on this,I see the new version
of the patch improves some of the comments .I think it can commit in July
Thanks
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 11:28, Richard Guo wrote:
> Here is another rebase with a commit message to help review. I also
>
hi.
select * from pg_input_error_info('420', 'integer')
select message, detail from pg_input_error_info('1234.567', 'numeric(7,4)')
I found above two examples at [0] crammed together.
select * from pg_input_error_info('420',
'integer')
Yesterday I noticed a failure on cirrus-ci for the 'Right Semi Join'
patch. The failure can be found at [1], and it looks like:
--- /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/test/regress/expected/prepared_xacts.out
2024-04-27 00:41:25.831297000 +
+++
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Why is it that the .gitrevision file is only created here, instead of
> being added to the tarball that "git archive" produces? Adding an
> argument like
> --add-virtual-file $(distdir)/.gitrevision:$(GIT_REFSPEC)
> to the git archive call should suffice.
I think
On 27/04/2024 11:27, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
Hello!
Maybe add PGDLLIMPORT to
extern bool LoadedSSL;
and
extern struct ClientSocket *MyClientSocket;
definitions in the src/include/postmaster/postmaster.h ?
Peter E noticed and Michael fixed them in commit 768ceeeaa1 already.
--
Heikki
On 2024-Apr-26, Tom Lane wrote:
> --- mk-one-release.orig 2024-04-23 17:30:08.983226671 -0400
> +++ mk-one-release2024-04-26 15:17:29.713669677 -0400
> @@ -39,13 +39,17 @@ mkdir pgsql
> git archive ${gitref} | tar xf - -C pgsql
>
> # Include the git ref in the output tarballs
> +#
I wrote:
> Here's a draft patch that attacks that. It seems to fix the
> problem with test_pg_dump: no dangling pg_init_privs grants
> are left behind.
Here's a v2 that attempts to add some queries to test_pg_dump.sql
to provide visual verification that pg_shdepend and pg_init_privs
are updated
Joseph Koshakow writes:
>> Attached is a patch that fixes some overflow/underflow hazards in
>> `timestamp_pl_interval`. The microseconds overflow could produce
>> incorrect result. The month overflow would generally still result in an
>> error from the timestamp month field being too low, but
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 08:18:42AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I will explore this. Do we copy extended stats when we do CREATE
> > TABLE ... PARTITION OF? I think we need to do the same here.
>
> Right, they're not copied because an extended stats objs on the parent
> does something
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>
> When we deal with mixed ownership, say, bob is an owner of a
> partitioned table, but not an owner of a partition, should we
> allow him to perform merge with that partition?
>
>
Attaching via alter table requires the user to own both the
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>
> When we deal with mixed ownership, say, bob is an owner of a
> partitioned table, but not an owner of a partition, should we
> allow him to perform merge with that partition?
>
>
IIUC Merge causes the source tables to be dropped, their data
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:04:54AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thank you for your review. Please check v9 of the patchset [1].
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:26 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > This patch also/already fixes the schema issue I reported. Thanks.
> >
> > If you
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 28.04.2024 03:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > The revised patchset is attached. I'm going to push it if there are
> > no objections.
>
> I have one additional question regarding security, if you don't mind:
> What permissions should a
Hello,
28.04.2024 03:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
The revised patchset is attached. I'm going to push it if there are
no objections.
I have one additional question regarding security, if you don't mind:
What permissions should a user have to perform split/merge?
When we deal with mixed
On 2024-Apr-26, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Melanie Plageman
> and Richard Guo, who have accepted invitations to become our newest
> PostgreSQL committers.
>
> Please join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
May your commits
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 at 16:09, David Rowley wrote:
> Here are a few more to see if it motivates anyone else to do a more
> thorough search for another batch.
I've pushed these now.
David
27.04.2024 18:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Please look also at another script, which produces the same error:
I've discovered yet another problematic case:
CREATE TABLE tbl1 (a int GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY, b text)
PARTITION BY LIST (a);
CREATE TABLE tbl2 (b text, a int NOT NULL);
34 matches
Mail list logo
