that
crashes. This would be helpful in knowing if the fsync was performed just
once or twice i.e. whether point #1 is the reason for the panic or point
#2.
Thanks,
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:11 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2019 13:49, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got chance to spend some time looking into the recent changes done
> > in the zedstore code, basically the functions for packing datums
worked on those and attached is the patch with the
changes. See if the changes looks meaningful to you.
Thanks,
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:08 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:09 PM Alexandra Wang
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:39 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > I think we could have first deleted all the dependency of child object
> > on parent and then deleted the child itself using performDeletion(
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:05 AM David Rowley
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:27, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > AFAIU from the information given in the wiki page -[1], the port
> > numbers in the range of 1-1023 are for the standard protocols and
> > services. And th
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:40 AM David Rowley
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Joe Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > > One suggestion: The start value for port number is set to 1, however
> > > it seems like the port number that falls in t
itself otherwise the toast table deletion would
fail. But, the problem I see here is that currently we do not have any
entry in pg_attribute table that would tell us about the dependency of
child column on parent.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon
, is it possible to have the start value as 1024 instead of 1
?
Further, I encountered one syntax error (INT_MAX undeclared) as the
header file "limits.h" has not been included in postgres_fe.h or
option.h
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, O
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:58 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-10-04 14:27:44 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Is there any specific reason for hard coding the *base* of a number
> > representing the string in strtouint64(). I understand that currently
> &g
that
already being done in pg_strtoint32_check function itself. For e.g. in
refint.c the function call to pg_strtoint32_check is followed by a if
condition that checks for an error which I assume shouldn't be there
as it is already being done by pg_strtoint32_check.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
possibly replace atoi with strtol function
call for better error handling. It handles the erroneous inputs better
than atoi.
> There is/was a current patch/discussion to improve integer parsing, which
> could address this.
>
It seems like you are trying to point out the following discus
guys feel that it isn't and can be ignored? Please
let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:30 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> >> Thanks, attached is a patch with minor mo
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:09 PM Alexandra Wang wrote:
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> Sorry I indeed missed your question, thanks for the reminder!
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:10 AM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>> > Further, the UPDATE operation on zedstore table is very
nal file.
> Patch is attached.
>
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi Alexandra,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:45 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:39 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > On 29/08/2019 14:30, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:30 AM Alexandra Wang > > <
This certainly looks like a good addition to me that can be
implemented on both client and server side. It is always good to have
a common location where the list of all the certificates from various
CA's can be placed for validation.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http
imply reuse it for next set of data to be updated.
> [1] https://github.com/l-wang/postgres-1/tree/zedstore-fix-memory-issues
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:10 AM Alexandra Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:15 AM Ashutosh Sharma
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> create table t1(a int, b int) using zedstore;
> >> i
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:06 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't find this patch in any commit fest. Seems like a good addition.
>
Thanks for the consideration. Will add an entry for it in the commit fest.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:39 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 29/08/2019 14:30, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:30 AM Alexandra Wang > <mailto:lew...@pivotal.io>> wrote:
> >
> > You are correct that we currently go
> means
> putting the old tuple in the UNDO log, which we have not implemented yet.
>
>
OKay, so that means performing update on a non-key attribute would also
require changes in the index table. In short, HOT update is currently not
possible with zedstore table. Am I right?
--
Wi
he new version of tuple. Can't we use the tid
associated with the old tuple for the cases where there is no concurrent
transactions to whom the old tuple is still visible.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
* from zed_tab where a = 3;
gets internally converted to
select * from zed_tab where tid = 3; -- assuming that index is created
on column 'a' and the logical tid associated with a = 3 is 3.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:08 PM
is quite less in case for
zedstore.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:07 AM DEV_OPS wrote:
>>
>>
>> it's really cool and very good progress,
>>
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 7:27 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 03:12:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm able to insert data into a table column marked as GENERATED ALWAYS
> > using COPY command however, it fails with INSERT
20
1530
1640
postgres=# copy tab_always from '/tmp/always.csv';
COPY 4
postgres=# select * from tab_always;
i | j
+
13 | 10
14 | 20
15 | 30
16 | 40
(4 rows)
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
cpg application would be like this:
EXEC SQL CALL(:hv1, :hv2) INTO :ret1, ret2;
EXEC SQL CALL(:hv1, :hv2) INTO :ret1 :ind1, :ret2, :ind2;
In case if INTO clause is not used with the CALL statement then the
ecpg compiler would fail with a parse error: "INTO clause is required
with CALL statement"
stored procedures with different type of
parameters.
Please have a look and let me know your thoughts.
Thank you.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.addons b/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.addons
index 4e30375
ey: a" exists) and
hence the expected slot is always the minimal slot so there is no assertion
failure in case 2.
Thanks,
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:*http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>*
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:50 PM Ashutosh Sharma
irstTuple = ExecCopySlotHeapTuple(outerslot);
│
│1881break;
│
│1882}
│
│1883 }
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:*http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>*
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:44 AM David Rowley
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 12:49, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-05-18 06:14:15 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > > I actually feel that the function name itself is not correct here, it
> > > appears
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:34 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-17 11:09:41 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:10 AM Alvaro Herrera >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 2019-May-14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue
code in printTableAddHeader() or printTableAddCell().
#ifndef ENABLE_NLS
(void) translate; /* unused parameter */
#endif
The function argument *translate* has been marked as unsed but only for
non-nls build which means it will be used if it is nls enabled build. But,
I do not see any suc
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:16 PM David Rowley
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 23:20, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
> > In the latest PostgreSQL code, I could see that we are passing
> CopyMultiInsertInfo structure to CopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() although
> it is not b
be the purpose of
passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure as well. Please let me know if i am
missing something here. Thank you.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:*http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>*
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:12 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:06 AM Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
> > Attached is the patch with above changes. Please let me know if my
> understanding is wrong. Thanks.
>
> You have it right. This bug slipped in towards t
;
+
+ insertstate->bounds_valid =
false;
+
return xwait;
Attached is the patch with above changes. Please let me know if my
understanding is wrong. Thanks.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu,
Lepikhov.
Including Peter and Hekki in the CC as they are the main author of above
git-commit as per the commit message.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:*http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>*
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Laurenz Albe writes:
> > Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> >> I noticed that irrespective of whoever grants privileges on an object,
> >> it's always the object owner who is seen as a grantor in the output of
> >&g
/docs/current/infoschema-table-privileges.html
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Sharma writes:
> > [ allow-create-view-on-table-without-columns-v3.patch ]
>
> Pushed. I revised the test cases a bit --- notably, I wanted to be
> sure we exercised pg_dump's createDummyViewAsClause for thi
Thanks Andres for the quick review.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-11 15:39:03 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Andres, Tom, Please have a look into the attached patch and let me
> > know if I'm still missing something. Th
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 12:20 AM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Ashutosh Sharma writes:
> > > Attached is the patch that allows us to create view on a table without
> > > columns. I've also added some
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Sharma writes:
> > Attached is the patch that allows us to create view on a table without
> > columns. I've also added some test-cases for it in create_view.sql.
> > Please have a look and let me know your o
k and let me know your opinion.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/view.c b/src/backend/commands/view.c
index 65f4b40..c49ae97 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/view.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/view.c
@@ -111,10 +111,6 @@
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
>
> On February 8, 2019 10:05:03 AM GMT+01:00, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:48 PM Andres Freund
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2019-02-08 12:18:3
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:48 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-08 12:18:32 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > When "ON SELECT" rule is created on a table without columns, it
> > successfully converts a table into the view. However, when the same is
t from t2;
ERROR: view must have at least one column
OR,
postgres=# create view v1 as select * from t2;
ERROR: view must have at least one column
Isn't that a bug in create rule command or am i missing something here ?
If it is a bug, then, attached is the patch that fixes it.
tually came across this problem because we have used outdated
value for before insert row trigger to evaluate
leafpart_use_multi_insert flag.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f9f8yuj04X_rffNu2JPbvhy+YP_aVH6iwCTJ1OL=yw...@mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2018 06:33, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > I think, the root cause of this problem is that CopyFrom() is using
> > the stale value of *has_before_insert_row_trig* to determine if the
> > current partition
Thank you.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copy.c b/src/backend/commands/copy.c
index 86b0fb3..ac21ff2 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/copy.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/copy.c
@@ -2784,17 +2784,6 @@ CopyFrom(CopySta
ong ?
Thanks,
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Sharma writes:
>> Currently, table_privileges view in information_schema.sql doesn't
>> show privileges on materialized views for currently enabled roles. As
>> per the documentation-[1], it should be showi
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Sharma writes:
>> Currently, table_privileges view in information_schema.sql doesn't
>> show privileges on materialized views for currently enabled roles. As
>> per the documentation-[1], it should be showi
/infoschema-table-privileges.html
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 1c456ad6ee6377743b764bd16c87c435d6f2d63f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ashu
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:45:51 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Allow table_privileges view in information_schema.sql
,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/information_schema.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/information_schema.sgml
index 09ef282..6d1a38e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/information_schema.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/information_schema.sgml
@@ -2621,8 +2621,9 @@ ORDER
aste error which got transferred from bt_page_items (the function
that doesn't deal with raw page).
Attached is the patch with the correct error message.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/contrib/pageinspect/btreefuncs.c b/contrib/pageinspect/btreef
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Sharma writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> I won't say we don't need more tests, but I don't see a particular
>>> testing gap in this area.
>
>> I
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 02.07.18 11:46, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> Currently, I could see only one test-case for deferred constraints in
>> plpgsql_transaction.sql file which tests if the constraint checking is
>> happeni
statements with deferrable constraints inside DO blocks.
Please let me know your opinion on this. Thanks.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
it in the pageinspect functions for btree and heap as well
for safety purpose. Thoughts?
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:45:33PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> Okay, thanks for the confirmation. Few of them are also there in
>> origin.c and snapbuild.c files.
>
> Thanks Ashutosh. I have been reviewing the w
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:45 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>>
>> 2018-06-22 12:06 GMT-03:00 Robert Haas :
>> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Euler Taveira
>> > wrote:
>> >> 2018-06-20 4:30 GMT-03:00 Haribabu Kommi :
>> >>> Attached is a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:00:45PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> It seems like in case of few system calls for e.g. write system call,
>> errno is not set even if the number of bytes written is smaller than
>>
Hi,
It seems like in case of few system calls for e.g. write system call,
errno is not set even if the number of bytes written is smaller than
the bytes requested and for such cases we explicitly set an errno to
ENOSPC. Something like this,
/*
* if write didn't
ting to me. But, as Euler Taveira mentioned,
can't we extend an existing function pg_stat_statements_reset()
instead of adding a new one and update the documentation for it. Also,
in the test-case it would be good to display the output of
pg_stat_statements before and after deleting the query. Thanks.
Congrats everyone and special congratulations to Amit for becoming the
first Indian PostgreSQL committer !!
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Nikolay Samokhvalov
wrote:
> сб, 2 июня 2018 г. в 1:10, Teodor Sigaev :
>
>>
>> > Etsuro Fujita
>> > Peter Geoghegan
>> > Amit Kapila
>> > Alexander
to allow the
ParamListInfo to be specified directly, since it can't be retrieved
from the parent plan node's EState.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Amit Langote
<langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2018/01/23 14:35, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> I have created a regular table with CHECK constraint on the partition
>> key column and it conflicts with the partition constraint but, sti
iption of part1 (child table) above, Partition
constraint i.e. (a >= 0) AND (a < 5) and the CHECK constraint a >= 5
conflicts with each other but still alter table ... attach partition
succeeded. Isn't that a bug?
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> writes:
>> While working on exclusion constraints for one of our internal
>> project, I noticed that there is no test-case for exclusion
>> constraints
?
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Jan 10, 2018 05:03, "Bruce Momjian" <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:31:17AM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The following URLs present in src/include/port/win32.h to share the
> information on dllimport or dllexport (used in window
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Andrew Gierth
<and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ashutosh" == Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Ashutosh> Hi All,
>
> Ashutosh> Today while trying to understand the code for A
k
rule is not defined in the Makefile.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE9k0P%3DtX_egPEX9NzPrroumXt5%3DbOQBiP98CaLzHOyXk7%2Bq7Q%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/30479.1510800078%40sss
; (PID 65387) exited with exit code 1
2017-11-16 19:06:22.337 IST [65378] LOG: autovacuum launcher process
(PID 65385) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
2017-11-16 19:06:22.337 IST [65378] LOG: terminating any other active
server processes
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
e : Please ignore this mail if it has already been reported by someone.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
201 - 277 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
