Thanka Alvaro. It works fine when quotes are used around the column name.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:04 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Mar-11, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
>
> > *CASE 2:*
> > --
> > SELECT * FROM JSON_TABLE(jsonb '{
> > "
Hi,
I was experimenting with the v42 patches, and I tried testing without
providing the path explicitly. There is one difference between the two test
cases that I have highlighted in blue.
The full_name column is empty in the second test case result. Let me know
if this is an issue or expected
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:26:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:35:17AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> Or do we actually need to update all the tuple header information as
> >> well in
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 5:46 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:56 PM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:38:05AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM
Hi,
While I was running some isolation tests for MERGE, I noticed one issue
when MERGE tries to UPDATE rows that are concurrently updated by another
session.
Below is the test case for the same.
TEST CASE START =
DROP TABLE target;
DROP
I was able to reproduce the issue. Also, the issue does not occur with code
before to preserve relfilenode commit.
I tested your patch and it fixes the problem.
I am currently analyzing a few things related to the issue. I will come
back once my analysis is completed.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 9:19
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 1:14 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:20 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Agree. In the latest patch, the template0 and postgres OIDs are fixed
> > to unused manually assigned OIDs 4 and 5 respectively. These OIDs are
> > no mo
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:40 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > From what I see in the code, template0 and postgres are the last
> > things that get created in initdb phase. The system OIDs that get
> > assigned to the
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > It seems to me that what this comment is saying is that OIDs in the
> > second and third categories are doled out by counters. Therefore, we
> > can't know which of those OIDs will get used, or how many of them will
> >
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:08 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:03 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > It is not required for PostgresObjectId. The unused_oids script
> > provides a list of unused oids in the manually-assignable OIDs range
> > (1-).
>
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:57 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:09 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > Here's an updated version in which I've reverted the changes to gram.y
> > > and tried to improve the comments and documentation. Could you have a
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:57 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > I have rebased and generated the patches on top of PostgreSQL commit
> > ID cf925936ecc031355cd56fbd392ec3180517a110.
> > Kindly apply v8-0001-pg_upgra
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:35 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:21 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Thanks, Robert for the updated version. I reviewed the changes and it
> > looks fine.
> > I also tested the patch. The patch works as expected.
>
>
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:17 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 01:03:06PM +0530, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> >
> > I have updated the DBOID preserve patch to handle this case and
> > generated the latest patch on top of your v7-001-
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 8:43 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 11:44 PM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
> > > 3.
> > > @@ -504,11 +525,15 @@ createdb(ParseState *pst
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 2:35 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:40 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > I am reviewing another patch
> > > "v5-0001-Preserve-relfilenode-and-tablespace-OID-in-pg_upg" as well
> > > and will provide the commen
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 11:44 PM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
> > 3.
> > @@ -504,11 +525,15 @@ createdb(ParseState *pstate, const CreatedbStmt *stmt)
> > */
> > pg_database_rel = table_open(DatabaseRelationId, RowExclusiveLock);
> >
> > - do
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:14 AM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have revised the patch w.r.t the way 'create_storage' is interpreted
> > in heap_create() along with some minor changes to preserve t
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:24 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Every other
> > caller/flow passes false for 'create_storage' and we still need to
> > create storage in heap_create() if relkind has storage.
>
> That see
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 2:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:44 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Thanks for the inputs, Robert. In the v4 patch, an unused OID (i.e, 4)
> > is fixed for the template0 and the same is removed from unused oid
> > list.
> >
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:44 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > - The comment in binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids() is still not
> > > accurate. You removed the sentence which says "Indexes cannot have
> >
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> It's pretty clear from the discussion, I think, that the database OID
> one is going to need rework to be considered.
>
> Regarding the other one:
>
> - The comment in binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids() is still not
> accurate. You removed the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:59 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 04:57:31PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 1:36 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > Thanks Robert for your comments.
> > > I have split the patch into two por
> The rest of this email will be detailed review comments on the patch
> as presented, and thus probably only interesting to someone actually
> working on the patch. Feel free to skip if that's not you.
>
> - I suggest splitting the patch into one portion that deals with
> database OID and another
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Actually though ... I've not read the patch, but what does it do about
> > the fact that the postgres and template0 DBs do not have stable OIDs?
> > I cannot imagine any way to force
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:39 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:09:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The above article, at least, suggested encrypting the sector number
> > > using the second key and then
26 matches
Mail list logo
