On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:33 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
> Thanks for reviewing. Here is V3 patch that addressed it.
>
> BTW, I also did some tests to confirm the catalog_xmin could still be
> ahead in some case, and here is an example:
>
> 1. Create a failover replication slot named 'logi
On 28.04.25 16:41, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:14:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
This initdb output seems, well, kinda fake, which it is by its own
admission.
Agreed.
Could we do this less fake maybe like this:
selecting default "max_connect
On 24.04.25 18:20, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 7:59 AM Tom Lane wrote:
I'm still content with the idea of deciding that 3.6 is now our
cutoff.
Seems like no one is pushing hard for an earlier version, yet, so
here's a patch with your suggested wording from upthread. I'm not
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:38 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find patch v3 with the paragraph's 2nd sentence restored as requested.
>
Thanks, Pushed!
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:54 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 5:07 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:43 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The second can mislead the use
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 08:18:58AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Attached is my proposed fix. 0001 disables use of the new oauth_*
> options in our FDWs. 0002 changes dispchar.
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] oauth: Disallow OAuth connections via postgres_fdw/dblink
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] oauth: Classify
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:03 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question - is there any interest to backport the solution into
> > > existing major releases?
> >
> > As long as this is the bug, it should be backpatched to
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > I have a question - is there any interest to backport the solution into
> > existing major releases?
>
> As long as this is the bug, it should be backpatched to all supported
> affected releases.
Yes, but I think we cannot back-patch
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 04:54:08AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 12:43 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:32 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 08:33:24PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:10
Hi Vignesh.
Some trivial review comments for DOCS patch v20250428-0005.
==
doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
1.
+ Publications may currently only contain tables or sequences. Objects must be
+ added explicitly, except when a publication is created using
+ FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA, or F
> You have a bad drop table cleanup command, and I’d drop the entire alter
event trigger owner test.
My bad, removed the bad drop table and also removed the alter owner test.
> The other thing I’m wondering, but haven’t gotten around to testing, is
whether a role affected by the event trigger is
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:46 AM Jacob Champion
wrote:
> Are there any readers who feel like an internal ABI version for
> `struct pg_conn`, bumped during breaking backports, would be
> acceptable? (More definitively: are there any readers who would veto
> that?)
To keep things moving: I assume t
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:08 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:33 AM David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> > ...
> > > In the column list I would stick to mentioning what cannot be specified,
> > > since it would be assumed
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 05:35:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Possibly better idea: can we add something like
>> Assert(!OidIsValid(reltoastrelid)) in the code that is making this
>> assumption?
> Yeah, we could add something like that to replorigin_create() pretty
> easil
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 01:12:18PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> If I had a dollar for every time I asked a user to check for duplicate
> indexes :) So
> I think it's a good idea to provide some way to detect these ( besides
> a query in the
> Wiki ), but I don't think we should prevent it.
>
> Whil
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:07:16PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 04:03:57PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I also wanted to draw attention to this note in 0003:
>>
>> /*
>> * XXX: The below line is a hack to deal with the fact that we
>>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 05:35:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Possibly better idea: can we add something like
> Assert(!OidIsValid(reltoastrelid)) in the code that is making this
> assumption?
Yeah, we could add something like that to replorigin_create() pretty
easily. The comment for that would be
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:44:51PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 05:33:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't see any comments in this patch that capture the real
>>> reason for removing pg_replication_origin's TOAST table,
>>> namely (IIUC) that
Hi Robert,
Thanks for raising that question. The idea behind including a 24-bit
length field alongside the 1-byte algorithm ID is to ensure that each
compressed datum self-describes its metadata size. This allows any
compression algorithm to embed variable-length metadata (up to 16 MB)
without the
What are the economics of this? I used PostgreSQL and Cygwin 25 years ago
and am amazed it is still a thing.
How much effort is it to support PostgreSQL on Cygwin?
How many actual users are using PostgreSQL on cygwin in production? (I
should hope none!)
I would say it is something that should be a
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 4:33 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 5:33 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:44:51PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 05:33:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see any comments in this patch that capture the real
>> reason for removing pg_replication_origin's TOAST table,
>> namely (IIUC) that we'd like to be able to acces
On Apr 25, 2025, at 15:23, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Thank you for the review. Here’s v3*.
V4 removes “/extension” from the end of the `extension_control_path` value.
Best,
David
v4-0001-Flesh-out-docs-for-the-prefix-make-variable.patch
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 10:10:09PM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Should the execution privileges on the function be restricted to a role
> like pg_monitor?
I am not sure that it would be a good thing here, forcing tests to
implement an extra step when requiring a restrictive role if this role
needs
(Creating new thread from https://postgr.es/m/Z-MaPREQvH5YB0af%40nathan.)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 04:03:57PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I also wanted to draw attention to this note in 0003:
>
> /*
>* XXX: The below line is a hack to deal with the fact that we
>
On Apr 25, 2025, at 17:18, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
> Ok, I was testing using extension_control_path = '$system:/my/custom/path'
> (starting with the macro) and it was working as expected, testing with
> the macro at the end does not work.
Great example of why it’s useful to do as much testing a
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:00:01PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Thank you for the references! Unfortunately I still can't see where the
> lack of upgrade log files is discussed.
That was briefly discussed here:
https://postgr.es/m/644cf995-e3a5-4f69-9398-7db500e2673d%40dunslane.net
O
On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 5:07 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > The second can mislead the user
> > > for a long period in cases where prepare and commit have a large time
> > > g
> > > I've had this idea before, and even wrote a quick POC at one point, but I
> > > had it simply throw a warning rather than an
> > > error. That avoids the need for any GUC, which I agree is not a good
> > > idea. And it still allows people to create a
> > > duplicate index if they really wan
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 1:17 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't looked closely at this version but I did notice that you do
> > > not document that parallel vacuum disables eager scanning. Imagine you
> > > are a user who has se
Hello Nathan,
28.04.2025 18:15, Nathan Bossart wrote:
I see a couple of other pg_upgrade failures on drongo and fairywren that
look similar, although these are for different tests:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=drongo&dt=2025-03-10%2019%3A26%3A35
http
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 2:49 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Sawada-san,
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. I have been reviewing and below are comments
> for now.
Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
> 01.
> Sorry if I forgot something, but is there a reason that
> parallel_vacuum_c
>
> > I've had this idea before, and even wrote a quick POC at one point, but
> I had it simply throw a warning rather than an
> > error. That avoids the need for any GUC, which I agree is not a good
> idea. And it still allows people to create a
> > duplicate index if they really want to.
> >
>
>
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 5:20 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Sawada-san,
>
> Here are some review comments for the patch v16-0002
>
> ==
> Commit message
>
> 1.
> Missing period.
> /cleanup, ParallelVacuumState/cleanup. ParallelVacuumState/
> ~~~
>
> 2.
> Typo /paralel/parallel/
>
> ~~~
>
> 3.
> H
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 10:27 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Sawada-san.
>
> I was revisiting this thread after a long time. I found most of my
> previous review comments from v11-0001 were not yet addressed. I can't
> tell if they are deliberately left out, or if they are accidentally
> overlooked.
... sigh, this time with the patch actually attached.
regards, tom lane
diff --git a/contrib/bloom/blcost.c b/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
index a38fcf3c579..4359b81d196 100644
--- a/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
+++ b/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
@@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ blcostestimate(PlannerInfo
Per the discussion at [1], genericcostestimate() produces estimates
that are noticeably off for small indexes, because it fails to
discount the index metapage while computing numIndexPages.
Here's a first-draft attempt at improving that.
The basic issue is that the calculation of numIndexPages is
On 2025-Apr-23, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:37:20AM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I'd add a note about these two things to the open items page, and wait
> > to see if we get some of these limitations fixed, so that if we don't,
> > we remember to note this limitation in
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the updated patches.
> Would it be useful to put the logic of the above function under #define
> > USE_INJECTION_POINT. This approach would make it possible to
> > distinguish between cases where no injection points are attached and
> > instances where the build does no
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:20 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 12:33 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > I also adjusted the commit message to mention the commit f49a80c4
> > as suggested by Amit.
> >
>
> Pushed.
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 5:32 PM Vitaly Davydov wrote:
> Thank you for the review. I apologize for a late reply. I missed your email.
>
> > 1) As ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN() is called each time we need
> > to advance the position of WAL needed by replication slots, the usage
> > pattern pr
On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 05:00:01PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Both happened on Windows, but what's worse is that the failure logs
> contain no information on the exact reason. We can see:
> # Failed test 'pg_upgrade with transfer mode --swap: stdout matches'
> # at
> C:/tools/xmsys64/hom
Hi,
A comment in relcache.c mentions that RelationBuildRowSecurity
adds a default-deny policy when no policy exists on table. This
does not seem to be the case. The default deny policy is added
later on, inside get_row_security_policies(). Also it mentions that
there can never be zero policies for
On 2025-Apr-26, jian he wrote:
> I am wondering if we need to change the following comments in getTableAttrs.
>
> * We track in notnull_islocal whether the constraint was defined directly
> * in this table or via an ancestor, for binary upgrade. flagInhAttrs
> * might modify this
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:15 AM Nikhil Kumar Veldanda
wrote:
> a. 24 bits for length → per-datum compression algorithm metadata is
> capped at 16 MB, which is far more than any realistic compression
> header.
> b. 8 bits for algorithm id → up to 256 algorithms.
> c. Zero-overhead when unused if a
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:14:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> This initdb output seems, well, kinda fake, which it is by its own
>> admission.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Could we do this less fake maybe like this:
>> selecting default "max_connections", "autovacuum_worker_sl
On 2025-Apr-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> 2.
> + * We also take a ShareLock on pg_partitioned_table to restrict addition
> + * of new partitioned table which may contain a foreign partition while
> + * publication is being created. XXX this is quite weird actually.
>
> This change was added to resolv
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This initdb output seems, well, kinda fake, which it is by its own
> admission.
Agreed.
> Could we do this less fake maybe like this:
> selecting default "max_connections", "autovacuum_worker_slots" ... 100,
> 16
> with the actual wait at the "..."?
Perhaps that
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 09:43, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
>
> 07.04.2025 03:27, Álvaro Herrera пишет:
>
> On 2025-Apr-01, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> I have modified the comment in create_publication.sgml and also added
> comment in the restrictions section of logical-replication.sgml.
> I have also added
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 18:09, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here's the additional changes I made here before giving up on this.
> I think it needs some additional rethinking, not going to happen for 18.
>
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
The changes shared by you in [1], look good to me an
On 07.01.25 18:23, Nathan Bossart wrote:
+ /*
+* We chose the default for autovacuum_worker_slots during the
+* max_connections tests above, but we print a progress message anyway.
+*/
+ printf(_("selecting default \"autovacuum_worker_slots\" ... %d\n"),
+
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 5:33 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Fix
> > > > -
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:45 AM jian he
wrote:
> hi.
> The following is a review of version 17.
>
> ATExecSetIndexVisibility
> if (indexForm->indisvisible != visible)
> {
> indexForm->indisvisible = visible;
> CatalogTupleUpdate(pg_index, &indexTuple->t_self, indexTuple);
On Tue Apr 22, 2025 at 17:47:20 GMT +03, Robin Haberkorn wrote:
> Perhaps you can tell me what else is preventing adoption into core. I believe
> that xslt_process() should also accept the `xml` type as an alternative to
> strings. Strings should be kept for backwards compatibility, though. Also,
>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 5:53 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the attached v8 patch with above comments addressed.
> > This version includes the documentation updates suggested by
> > Sawada-san at [1], and incorporates his feedbac
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:08 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:33 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> ...
> > In the column list I would stick to mentioning what cannot be specified,
> > since it would be assumed by default that any column on the table is fair
> > game. I believ
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Fix
> > > -
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the confirmed_flush even if the previous
On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 12:33 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I also adjusted the commit message to mention the commit f49a80c4
> as suggested by Amit.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 at 19:17, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I’ve been trying to review this patch, and it struck me that we’re currently
> grabbing the content lock exclusively just to flip a header bit:
Thank you for looking into this!
> if (!(buf_state & BM_DIRTY))
> {
> LWLockAcquire
On 2025/04/26 3:03, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
I agree with these changes.
I think that while the changes for (2) should be for v19, the changes
for (1) might be treated as a bug fix?
Agreed. I've split the patch into two parts:
0001 is for (1) and is a bug fix that should be back-patched to v1
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > -
> > Fix
> > -
> >
> > I think we should keep the confirmed_flush even if the previous synced
> > restart_lsn/catalog_xmin is newer. Attachments include a patch for the
>
On 2025-Apr-28, jian he wrote:
> for tests, just found out i can imitate
> src/test/modules/test_misc/t/001_constraint_validation.pl,
>
> So I created a file:
> src/test/modules/test_misc/t/008_indexscan_validate_notnull.pl
> for TAP tests.
Seems reasonable, didn't look at it in detail. I think
Thanks for the feedback, Thomas.
> No comment on the wider project except that it looks generally useful,
> and I can see that it's not possible to use the conventional POSIX
> filename "-" to represent stdout, because you need to write to
> multiple files so you need to come up with *something* a
> On 15 Apr 2025, at 11:47, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> Thank you for your questions!
As of today, 12 people expressed interest and 6 asked for printing assistance.
I think I can print and bring like ~20 posters. The printing capacity
utilization is 30% :)
So, even if you do not plan to atten
64 matches
Mail list logo
