Hi,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 06:57:33PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Nov-18, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > The patch makes use of it because it exists. I agree that we could
> > also remove it (for the reasons you mentioned above), I'll do that.
>
> RegProcedure actually predates all of ou
On 14.11.25 12:00, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Nov-12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Well, that's the one, but the code actually looks like this now:
while ((i = bms_next_member(atts, i)) >= 0)
{
attcnt++;
if (attcnt > 1)
appendStringInfoString(&attsbuf, _(
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 21:10 Shinya Kato wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > Fixed, but I have a comment. I noticed
> minor wording inconsistencies,
> > > e.g., 'started' vs. 'initiated' and 'due to' vs. 'because of'. Should
> > > I unify these terms?
> >
> > +1
>
> It
Hi Chao
On 19/11/2025 04:13, Chao Li wrote:
> 1. Do we need to perform some privilege check? I just did a test:
> ```
> evantest=> \c
> You are now connected to database "evantest" as user "evan".
> evantest=> select pg_get_tablespace_ddl('pg_default');
>pg_get_tablespace_ddl
> -
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 4:52 PM Corey Huinker wrote:
> v15:
>
> - catches duplicate object keys cited above
> - enforces attnum ordering (ascending positive numbers followed by descending
> negative numbers, no zeros allowed), which means we get duplicate attnum
> detection for free
> - attnum v
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 at 00:17, Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> To make sure 1) distance isn't reset to a resume_distance from
> read_stream_begin_relation() and 2) unexpected buffers aren't returned
> from the read stream, we could error out in read_stream_resume() if
> pinned_buffers > 0. And in
On 22.10.2025 15:32, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-09-01 12:36:24 +0200, David Geier wrote:
>>> Open questions I have:
>>> - Could we rely on checking whether the TSC timesource is invariant (via
>>> CPUID), instead of relying on Linux choosing it as a clocksource?
>>
>> Why do you want t
> 4 - 0001 - parsenodes.h
> ```
> + /* Row Pattern AFTER MACH SKIP clause */
> ```
>
> Typo: MACH -> MATCH
Thanks for pointing it out. Will fix.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
On 20.10.2025 21:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> If I were
>> a consultant trying to understand a customer's system, I would have to
>> ask them to run it twice just in case 'fast' is supported, and I don't
>> think that's very helpful.
>
> Big
> 2 - 0001 - gram.y
> ```
> opt_row_pattern_initial_or_seek:
> INITIAL { $$ = true; }
> | SEEK
> {
> ereport(ERROR,
>
> (err
Hi Dilip,
FYI, patch v4-0003 (docs) needs rebasing due to ada78cd.
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 1:54 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Attaching patch v23 addressing these comments.
>
Thanks for the patch.
I observed that if the API is taking a nap in between slot sync cycles
and a promotion is triggered during that time, the promotion has to
wait for the entire nap peri
> On 18/11/2025 06:03, Chao Li wrote:
>> 1 - 0001 - kwlist.h
>> ```
>> +PG_KEYWORD("define", DEFINE, RESERVED_KEYWORD, BARE_LABEL)
>> ```
>>
>> Why do we add “define” as a reserved keyword? From the SQL example
>> you put in 0006:
>> ```
>>
>> SELECT company, tdate, price,
>> first_value(price)
Here are some comments for the patch v4-0002.
==
GENERAL
1.
The patch should include test cases:
- to confirm an error happens when attempting to publish clt
- to confirm \dt+ clt is not showing the ALL TABLES publication
- to confirm that SQL function pg_relation_is_publishable givesthe
exp
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 6:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 4:02 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:39 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The point is quite fund
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:59 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In logical replication, any GUC settings specified in the CONNECTION clause of
> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION are currently ignored. For example:
>
> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION mysub
> CONNECTION 'options=''-c wal_sender_timeout=1
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 1:54 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attaching patch v23 addressing these comments.
>
Few comments:
=
1.
In contrast, automatic synchronization
via sync_replication_slots provides continuous slot
updates, enabling seamless failover and supporting high
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:09:17PM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> The fix for CVE-2025-12818 introduced a few identical copies of size_t
> addition, and now that we've released, I'd like to pull those back
> into shape.
Yes, I've noticed these TODOs in the final patch. Thanks for the
follow-up cl
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > Fixed, but I have a comment. I noticed
minor wording inconsistencies,
> > e.g., 'started' vs. 'initiated' and 'due to' vs. 'because of'. Should
> > I unify these terms?
>
> +1
It seems the inconsistency between 'started' and 'initiated' has not
> On 18 Nov 2025, at 23:54, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> Are you arguing that the xl_btree_split record should include the cycleid?
Yes.
> I see that systems that are built on this architecture do something
> along these lines:
> https://github.com/neondatabase/postgres/commit/a9b92820c5d14dbf
> On Nov 18, 2025, at 19:19, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>
> Because of position. Without making DEFINE a reserved keyword, how do you
> know that it isn't another variable in the PATTERN clause?
>
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Now I got it.
I’m continue to review 0002.
5 - 0002 - parse_cla
Hi Michael,
On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 7:03 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 09:48:23PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > Now that the LSN-waiting infrastructure (3b4e53a) and WAL replay
> > wake-up calls (447aae1) are in place, this patch has been updated to
> > make use of them.
>
On 2025-11-19 05:19, Akshat Jaimini wrote:
Thanks for your review!
Hi,
I have a question:
In src/backend/executor/execMain.c:
```
+ SetCurrentQueryDesc(oldQueryDesc);
+
+ /*
+ * Ensure LogQueryPlanPending is initialized in case there was no
time for
+* logging the plan.
Hi,
According to the comment in check_role_grantor():
/*
* Otherwise, the grantor must either have ADMIN OPTION on the role
or
* inherit the privileges of a role which does. In the former case,
* record the grantor as the current user; in the
Thomas Munro writes:
> Perhaps meson/configure should do a po -> mo -> gettext() check with a
> canned test message? That'd also make sure your msgfmt and libintl
> are compatible, something I worried about when I wrote about musl
> recently.
No, I don't think that's a good approach. That is te
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, at 09:15, Chao Li wrote:
> Thanks for the continuous effort on this patch. Finally, I got some
> time, after revisiting v28 throughoutly, I think it’s much better now.
Thanks for reviewing.
> Just got 2 more comments:
>
...
> DSA is created and pinned by the first backend
Hi Manni,
I just reviewed v13 again, and still got a couple of comments:
> On Nov 18, 2025, at 22:15, Manni Wood wrote:
>
>
>
1. Do we need to perform some privilege check? I just did a test:
```
evantest=> \c
You are now connected to database "evantest" as user "evan".
evantest=> select pg_
On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 2:26 PM Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I tried your fix and this indeed fixes an issue. Two minor comments:
>
> First,
> in the `src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c` fil there are multiple
> examples of working with `coerce_to_target_type`, they all share
> different coding prac
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 3:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that starting to rely on PRI?64 in translatable strings
> is raising the bar a good deal, so maybe it's time to do something
> about that.
Perhaps meson/configure should do a po -> mo -> gettext() check with a
canned test message? That'd
Hi Vaibhav.
Thanks for the updates. I don't have any new review comments for v8 --
just a couple of the same ones as before.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:00 AM vDalvi wrote:
>
> Thanks Peter for the close look.
>
>> 1.
>>
>> + * The status or value of the options 'create_slot' and 'copy_data' not
On 11/6/2025 8:39 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 3:13 AM Bryan Green wrote:
>> The reason to still do this patch and clean up the handle inheritance
>> mess is that there are states (suspended state, infinite loop, spinlock
>> hold, whatever) that a process can be in that keeps i
Richard Guo 于2025年11月19日周三 10:18写道：
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 6:30 PM Tender Wang wrote:
> > In the first comment, "wont't" should be "won't".
> > In the second comment, "overlow" should be "overflow".
>
> The first one was fixed by Álvaro in another commit. I've just pushed
> a fix for the s
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:00:39AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-11-18 08:40:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> By the way, an extra argument in favor of an isolation test here: the
>> proposed TAP tests only wants to make sure that replay is able to
>> finish on a standby, we don't query
Thomas Munro writes:
> We don't even test -Dnls on the Windows CI task, so the fact that it
> passes there doesn't mean much (if our tests would even pick up
> expansion failure, not sure). We should probably do
> something about that and/or its absence from the build farm. We're
> effectively
I wrote:
> Thinking a bit harder, we are comparing these costs:
> [ theoretical arguments trimmed ]
I spent some effort on actually measuring timings of the v6 patch,
and concluded that this is all splitting hairs that we don't need
to split. The actual crossover between hash-loses and hash-wins
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 6:30 PM Tender Wang wrote:
> In the first comment, "wont't" should be "won't".
> In the second comment, "overlow" should be "overflow".
The first one was fixed by Álvaro in another commit. I've just pushed
a fix for the second one.
- Richard
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 2:04 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 31.03.25 08:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I hadn’t paid much attention to this before, but I happened to check
> > how this behaves on Windows, and it seems that with VS2022, PRId64
> > expands to "%lld". As a result, I suspect the get
> On Nov 19, 2025, at 10:00, Chao Li wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 19, 2025, at 02:49, Melanie Plageman
>> wrote:
>>
>> I no longer remember why I made that patch WIP, so I've removed that
>> designation.
>
> I just reviewed 0007. It removes the second parameter "bool
> skip_recently_used” fr
> On Nov 19, 2025, at 02:49, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> I no longer remember why I made that patch WIP, so I've removed that
> designation.
I just reviewed 0007. It removes the second parameter "bool skip_recently_used”
from SyncOneBuffer. The function is static and is only called in one p
Hi Melanie,
I remember I ever reviewed this patch. But when I revisit v7, I just got a
confusion to clarify.
> On Nov 19, 2025, at 03:13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:06 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>>
>> I found an incorrect assert in CleanVictimBuffer() that was tri
Hi Dilip.
I started to look at this thread. Here are some comments for patch v4-0001.
=
GENERAL
1.
There's some inconsistency in how this new table is called at different times :
a) "conflict table"
b) "conflict log table"
c) "conflict log history table"
d) "conflict history"
My preference
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 8:48 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:32 AM Andrew Kim wrote:
>
> > I've double-checked everything after applying the v9 checksum patches
> > and updating pg_filedump accordingly.
> > Following your suggestion, I removed the checksum_impl.h include and
Hi, Jacob,
I just reviewed the patch. Overall looks solid to me. Just a small comments:
> On Nov 19, 2025, at 04:09, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The fix for CVE-2025-12818 introduced a few identical copies of size_t
> addition, and now that we've released, I'd like to pull those b
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 2:28 AM Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I've attached a patch that adds the following comment:
>
> + * nextkey determines how the scankey's boundary is interpreted, and backward
> + * indicates a backward scan. See comments in _bt_first for a more detailed
> + * explanation of these
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 4:02 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The point is quite fundamental, do you think we can sync to a
> > > pre-existing slot with the same name and
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 8:50 PM Shinya Kato wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 11:11 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > +
> > +
> > + The trigger of the current vacuum operation. Possible values are:
> >
> > What caused the current VACUUM operation to be initiated. Possible value
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025, at 1:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I would use type:level rather than "backendtype".
> Also, the glossary says we have "auxiliary processes" and "backends", so
> from the user perspective, these types are not all backends, but instead
> process types.
>
Hasn't that ship alr
Laurenz Albe writes:
> You say that the stderr stream is redirected to the CSV file, but that is not
> true.
> Anything that a PostgreSQL process writes to stderr will still end up in the
> *.log file.
> For example, any error message from the archive_command will end up there,
> not in the
> C
(please avoid top-posting[1] on this mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:15 AM 河田達也 wrote:
>
> Hi Sawada-san,
>
> Thank you very much for your review and helpful comments on my previous patch.
> I have revised the patch following your suggestions:
>
> ・Report total memory usage rather than pe
On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 21:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> where get_config_val_*() would be a thin wrapper around hash_search()
> (a bit like the existing GetConfigOption() and find_option(), but
> without all the error checking).
>
> Would that be too expensive?
Why couldn't in-core GUCs be fields
On Tue, 2024-10-29 at 11:08 +0300, Арсений Косицын wrote:
> log_destination = 'csvlog'
> logging_collector = on
> log_rotation_age = 1min
> log_directory = '/home/user/builds/postgresql/log'
>
> 2) After starting the server, two files are being created in the directory
> with logs:
>
> -rw
Hello!
> Originally I investigated the customer's problem with PG16. And have
> reproduced it for pg16,. I checked that relevant amcheck code was not
> changed since pg16, so I thought that the problem takes place for all
> Postgres versions. But looks like it is not true.
I think it is still bro
On 18.11.25 15:15, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
PS. I found this blog post on how Thread Local Storage is implemented on
different systems very enlightening: https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-
all-about-thread-local-storage. I think whatever scheme we come up with
will be a home-grown implementat
On Mon Nov 17, 2025 at 11:03 PM -03, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> IIUC the performance regression occurs when users insert many rows
> into a foreign table with batch_size = 1 and use_copy_for_insert =
> true (tps: 133.451518 vs. 132.644801 vs. 88.998804). Since batch_size
> defaults to 1, users might
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 2:39 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Nov-12, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > It is tempting to implement a "--silent" mode, but if I did that, I
> > would then feel obliged to document and test it. I don't want to go
> > further down this rabbit hole for what was originally s
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 5:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
...
> > Okay, thanks for the context. I'll push your patch on Monday unless
> > there are any comments.
> >
>
> Pushed.
>
Thanks for pushing!
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 3:20 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:48:39PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > I think maintenance.sgml needs an update (specifically, the part about the
> > insert threshold [0]).
>
> Here is a first try.
Thanks for catching this!
@@ -934,12 +934,1
=?UTF-8?B?6auY5aKe55Cm?= writes:
> There's another one (the last one) in the previous email that needs fixing:
> HWCAP_SVE for pg_popcount_aarch64.c
Sorry, you didn't make clear enough that you were parenthetically
reporting a totally independent bug ...
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 5:47 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> I suppose an alternative design would be that _next_buffer() returns
> InvalidBuffer only once (= the block number callback returns
> InvalidBlock once) and then automatically resumes (= it restores the
> distance) and then you can call read_
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I want to discuss possible approaches to making the GUC system
> thread-safe. In particular, I want to talk about the global
> variables.
I have a thing that might work for you, and OpenSSL has a better variant
of that. Basicall
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> I think that a session-local LOAD is something we're going to lose with
> threading anyway. A shared library is only going to be loaded once for the
> cluster, not once per backend.
That's not necessarily true. Certainly it will either be physically
present in the add
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 11:16 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> (assuming there is a desire to
> continue with it)?
I'm hoping to start spending more time on it soon.
>
Somethings worth noting for future reference (so someone else wouldn't
waste time thinking about it), previously I tried extra several m
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 11:26 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The way I understand this, this would only work if
> DefineCustomXXXVariable could only be called from a global context
> (e.g., shared_preload_libraries). But AFAICT, you can define custom GUC
> parameters per session (e.g., LOAD 'auto_expla
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:48:39PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I think maintenance.sgml needs an update (specifically, the part about the
> insert threshold [0]).
Here is a first try.
--
nathan
>From d5dfbee7894f8ff67bea73be9caa818461fce6b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Hi,
I have a question:
In src/backend/executor/execMain.c:
```
+ SetCurrentQueryDesc(oldQueryDesc);
+
+ /*
+* Ensure LogQueryPlanPending is initialized in case there was no time
for
+* logging the plan. Othewise plan will be logged at the next query
+* executi
Hi all,
The fix for CVE-2025-12818 introduced a few identical copies of size_t
addition, and now that we've released, I'd like to pull those back
into shape.
0001 replaces the bespoke code with a new size_t implementation of the
operators in common/int.h. 0002 additionally makes use of these in
s
Hi Fujii,
I see what you mean. For reviewing I started with writing a test that
just reproduces the bug and documents the current behaviour.
I expected that by applying your patch the test would fail, but then we
would just update the test accordingly. Surprisingly the test continues
to pas
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm really still dubious that this entire project is worthwhile.
> I think it is basically building support for GUCs whose values
> are unreasonably complicated, and would be better off if they
> got redesigned. Also, right now might be a bad time
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 4:29 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I didn't immediately love this idea, but I'm not totally opposed to it
> either, and perhaps it makes things better rather than adding yet
> another very narrowly-focused tool. Also, pg_ctl already kinda has a
> somewhat similar facet with i
On 11/18/25 19:35, David Geier wrote:
>
> On 18.11.2025 18:31, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 11/18/25 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> David Geier writes:
On 18.11.2025 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> It'd need code in the parallel-aware scans, i.e. seqscan, bitmap, index.
> I don't think you'
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
I tested patch v2 on top of current master.
- The patch applies cleanly.
- F
David Geier writes:
> On 17.11.2025 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or maybe better, since we are considering an O(m*n) algorithm
>> versus an O(m+n) one, we could check whether
>> sslot1.nvalues * sslot2.nvalues - (sslot1.nvalues + sslot2.nvalues)
>> exceeds some threshold. But that doesn't offer any
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:06 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> I found an incorrect assert in CleanVictimBuffer() that was tripping
> in CI. Attached v6 is updated with it removed.
v7 rebased over recent changes in bufmgr.c
- Melanie
From 59432c8962cd1d7866493492149963485f6e63e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
On 11/10/25 02:26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> What could we do about the root cause? We discussed this with Daniel and
> we've been stuck for quite a while. But then it occurred to us maybe we
> can simply "pause" the checksum state change while there's backup in
> progress. We already enable/disable FP
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:32 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I'm thinking more about it. We always reset btpo_cycleid even in redo of a
> split.
> This "btpo_cycleid = 0;" reset can break two scenarios that are not currently
> supported by us, but might be supported in future.
I don't follow.
> Thi
> pg_utility vacuum -t tab1 -t tab2 # what vacuumdb does
> pg_utility analyze -t tab1 -t tab2 # what vacuumdb -Z does
> pg_utility vacuum analyze -t tab1 -t tab2 # what vacuumdb -z does
> pg_utility cluster -t tab1 -t tab2 # what clusterdb does
> pg_uti
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 3:30 AM Chao Li wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 2025, at 07:34, Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > uint32
> > StrategyMaxWriteBatchSize(BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
> > {
> >uint32max_write_batch_size = Min(io_combine_limit,
> > MAX_IO_COMBINE_LIMIT);
> >int
Thanks for your feedback!
> On 18 Nov 2025, at 21:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Isn't this patch basically proposing to revert 10b7218?
> How has the situation changed since then to make that
> a good idea?
No, it is not a revert, until we don’t have a separated ENUMFOO_NUM value with
numeric value
On 18.11.2025 18:31, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 11/18/25 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Geier writes:
>>> On 18.11.2025 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
It'd need code in the parallel-aware scans, i.e. seqscan, bitmap, index.
I don't think you'd need code in other plans, because all parallel
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 06:52:19PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> One of the things that came up during the pgconf.eu talk about REPACK,
> proposed by Christoph Berg, is that adding another utility pg_repackdb
> to run it from the command line adds more noise to an already noisy tool
> neighbourh
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 6:40 AM BharatDB wrote:
>
> Considering the CI failures in earlier patch versions around “max batch
> size”, upon my observation I found the failures arise either from boundary
> conditions when io_combine_limit (GUC) is set larger than the compile-time
> MAX_IO_COMBINE_
Bryan Green writes:
> On 11/18/2025 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> A whole different way of doing this would be to make the GUC machinery
>> responsible for spinning up and tearing down the contexts. Then, the
>> check hook could just be called with CurrentMemoryContext already set
>> to the new
On 2025-Nov-18, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > RegProcedureIsValid() doesn't add any value over OidIsValid, and we
> > don't have any RegXXXIsValid() for any of the other regxxx types.
> > So if we were to do anything about
Hi Tom!
On 17.11.2025 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Actually, after sleeping on it it seems like the obvious thing is
>> to test "sslot1.nvalues * sslot2.nvalues", since the work we are
>> thinking about saving scales as that product. But I'm not sure
>> what threshold value to use if we d
On 11/18/2025 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 4:17 PM Bryan Green wrote:
>> The solution uses a wrapper struct (GucContextExtra) containing both the
>> MemoryContext and data pointers. Check hooks:
>> 1. Create a context under CurrentMemoryContext (for error safety)
>> 2
On 11/18/25 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Geier writes:
>> On 18.11.2025 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> It'd need code in the parallel-aware scans, i.e. seqscan, bitmap, index.
>>> I don't think you'd need code in other plans, because all parallel plans
>>> have one "driving" table.
>
>> A sort
On 18.11.25 15:15, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Instead of a hash table to hold the values, you could have a dynamically
extendable "struct". DefineCustomXXXVariable can reserve an offset and
store it in a global variable. So the code to read the current GUC value
would look something like this:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 4:17 PM Bryan Green wrote:
> The solution uses a wrapper struct (GucContextExtra) containing both the
> MemoryContext and data pointers. Check hooks:
> 1. Create a context under CurrentMemoryContext (for error safety)
> 2. Allocate their data structures within it
> 3.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:29:14AM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:22 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > It's a CPAN-managed key. See if the key here gives what you need:
> > http://pgpkeys.eu/pks/lookup?search=071B468507812067912B951258FDA3CBB759E5C4&fingerprint=on&op=index
>
>
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> RegProcedureIsValid() doesn't add any value over OidIsValid, and we don't
> have any RegXXXIsValid() for any of the other regxxx types. So if we were
> to do anything about this, I would just remove it.
The patch makes use o
jian he writes:
> [ v1-0001-IS-JSON-predicate-work-with-domain-type.patch ]
This looks like a large patch with a small patch struggling to
get out of it. Why didn't you simply do
- *exprtype = exprType(expr);
+ *exprtype = getBaseType(exprType(expr));
in transformJsonParseArg?
David Geier writes:
> On 18.11.2025 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> It'd need code in the parallel-aware scans, i.e. seqscan, bitmap, index.
>> I don't think you'd need code in other plans, because all parallel plans
>> have one "driving" table.
> A sort node for example makes this no longer work.
Roman Khapov writes:
> Based on commit 10b7218, I extended this pattern by adding *_LAST elements
> and updating NUM-like macros in other
> modified enums within this patch (see attachment).
Isn't this patch basically proposing to revert 10b7218?
How has the situation changed since then to make
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:25:38AM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> I just reviewed the patch. Looks to me the correct three-commit split:
Committed, thanks for reviewing.
--
nathan
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:22 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> It's a CPAN-managed key. See if the key here gives what you need:
> http://pgpkeys.eu/pks/lookup?search=071B468507812067912B951258FDA3CBB759E5C4&fingerprint=on&op=index
It does, thanks, though I was surprised to see that I had to override
Modu
Hi ChangAo,
Thanks for your comments.
At 2025-11-18 10:47:20, "cca5507" wrote:
> Is there a test case can reproduce the assert fail in
> SnapBuildGetOrBuildSnapshot()?
>
After exploring the logicalmsg_decode()，I think the Assert in
SnapBuildGetOrBuildSnapshot() will not fail.
But the asse
On 18.11.2025 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>> But why? The leader and workers already share state - the parallel scan
>>> state (for the parallel-aware scan on the "driving" table). Why couldn't
>>> the leader set a flag in the scan, and force it to end in workers? Which
>>> AFAICS should lead t
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:41:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 8:56 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 06:52:15PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 9:32 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 06:02:53PM +0800, Ra
Hi,
In logical replication, any GUC settings specified in the CONNECTION clause of
CREATE SUBSCRIPTION are currently ignored. For example:
CREATE SUBSCRIPTION mysub
CONNECTION 'options=''-c wal_sender_timeout=1000'''
PUBLICATION ...
The wal_sender_timeout value he
On 18.11.25 10:06, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 03:03:03PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
I'm currently working on the RegProcedureIsValid() and OidIsValid() cases,
will share once done.
here they are, I'm not creating a new thread for those as this is the same
kind of
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
