On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:15 AM Dinesh Chemuduru
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Attaching the latest patch here(It's the recent patch), and looking for
> more suggestions/inputs from the team.
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 01:58:58PM +0530, Dinesh
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:51 AM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com <
kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Dear Zhihong,
>
> Thank you for giving comments! I'll post new patches later.
>
> > +#define HOLD_CHECKING_REMOTE_SERVERS_INTERRUPTS()
> (CheckingRemoteServersHoldoffCount++)
> >
> > The macro contains
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:57 PM kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com <
kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Dear Kato-san,
>
> Thank you for reviewing!
>
> > Thank you for sending the patches!
> > I confirmed that they can be compiled and tested successfully on CentOS
> > 8.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > + {
> > +
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
> > bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
> > trailing id
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:04 PM Paul Martinez wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> >
> > I have reviewed your patch
> > referential-actions-on-delete-only-set-cols-v3.patch. Attached are two
> > patches that go on top of yours that contain my recommended changes.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 9:07 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > But what really surprised me is that the the average time to optimize
> > per function is now 2.06ms ... less than half of the previous
> > measurement. It emits 10% less functions than before, bu
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 7:41 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-12, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
> > +lmerge_matched:
> > ...
> > + foreach(l, resultRelInfo->ri_matchedMergeAction)
> >
> > I suggest expanding the foreach macro into the form of for loop where t
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:58 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Here's a new version. Many of the old complaints have been fixed;
> particularly, the handling of partitioned tables is now much cleaner and
> straightforward. Amit Langote helped considerably in getting this part
> to shape -- thanks for
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 3:13 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-12, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > + skipped_path = total - insert_path - update_path -
> delete_path;
> >
> > Should there be an assertion that skipped_path is not negative
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:58 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Here's a new version. Many of the old complaints have been fixed;
> particularly, the handling of partitioned tables is now much cleaner and
> straightforward. Amit Langote helped considerably in getting this part
> to shape -- thanks for
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:23 AM Dinesh Chemuduru
wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 at 12:53, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> pá 5. 11. 2021 v 19:27 odesílatel Dinesh Chemuduru <
>> dinesh.ku...@migops.com> napsal:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your follow up, and attaching
Hi,
I was going over:
commit 71f4c8c6f74ba021e55d35b1128d22fb8c6e1629
Author: Alvaro Herrera
Date: Thu Mar 25 18:00:28 2021 -0300
ALTER TABLE ... DETACH PARTITION ... CONCURRENTLY
It seems there were some missing words in one of the comments.
See patch attached.
Cheers
detach-partitio
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 3:59 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 1:28 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While reviewing the code for opclass parameters with indexes, I have
>> noticed that opclass parameters are lost aft
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 1:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While reviewing the code for opclass parameters with indexes, I have
> noticed that opclass parameters are lost after a concurrent reindex.
> As we use a IndexInfo to hold the information of the new index when
> creating a copy
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:19 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 04:43, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > I noticed that the dummy relation is skipped in the loop over
> rel->live_parts.
> > I wonder if the following change is sensible.
>
> I made the definition of
Hi,
I was looking at:
commit 475dbd0b718de8ac44da144f934651b959e3b705
Author: David Rowley
Date: Tue Aug 3 11:47:24 2021 +1200
Track a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions in RelOptInfo
I noticed that the dummy relation is skipped in the loop
over rel->live_parts.
I wonder if the following
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 3:50 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 2:48 AM Nitin Jadhav <
> nitinjadhavpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > While testing further I got a crash with partition wise join enabled
>> for multi-col list partitions. pleas
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 2:48 AM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
> > While testing further I got a crash with partition wise join enabled for
> multi-col list partitions. please find test case & stack-trace below.
>
> Thanks for sharing. I have fixed the issue in the attached patch.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ni
Hi,
w.r.t. 0001-Partial-aggregates-push-down-v03.patch
For partial_agg_ok(),
+ if (agg->aggdistinct || agg->aggvariadic || agg->aggkind !=
AGGKIND_NORMAL || agg->aggorder != NIL)
+ ok = false;
Since SearchSysCache1() is not called yet, you can return false directly.
+ if (aggform-
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> [ please do not quote the entire thread when replying ]
>
> Zhihong Yu writes:
> > Here is the patch.
>
> This patch seems quite misguided to me. The proximate cause of
> the crash is that we're arriving at ExecEv
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:12 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:39 AM Onder Kalaci
> wrote:
>
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn’t find a similar report to this one, so starting a new thread. I
>> can reproduce this o
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:39 AM Onder Kalaci wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
>
>
> I couldn’t find a similar report to this one, so starting a new thread. I
> can reproduce this on v14.0 as well as PostgreSQL 12.5 (not tried below
> versions).
>
>
>
> Steps to reproduce:
>
>
>
> CREATE TYPE two_ints as (
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:10 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:13 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >
> > While double-checking this stuff, I have noticed something that's
> > wrong in the patch when a command that follows a
> > CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT query resets SnapBuildClearExpo
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:43 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > +#ifdef POLLRDHUP
> > + if ((cur_event->events & WL_SOCKET_CLOSED) &&
> > + (cur_pollfd->revents & (POLLRDHUP | errf
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:33 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> attached is an improved version of this patch, addressing some of the
> points mentioned in my last message:
>
> 1) Adds a couple regression tests, testing various join cases with
> expressions, additional conditions, etc.
>
> 2) Adds
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 5:57 AM Platon Pronko
wrote:
> On 2021-09-24 14:42, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > On 9/24/21 12:49 AM, Platon Pronko wrote:
> >> On 2021-09-23 22:28, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2. It would possibly be better to pass the relevant parts of the
> options
> >>> to print_
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:26 PM Yura Sokolov
wrote:
> Good day.
>
> I found some opportunity in Buffer Manager code in BufferAlloc
> function:
> - When valid buffer is evicted, BufferAlloc acquires two partition
> lwlocks: for partition for evicted block is in and partition for new
> block placeme
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:56 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:17 PM Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
> wrote:
> > On PG head + Nitin's v3 patch + Amit's Delta patch. Make check is
> failing with below errors.
>
> Thanks Rajkumar for testing.
>
> > --inherit.sql is failing with erro
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 6:49 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:02:12PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> >
> > > I've prepared a new rebased version to deal with the new way of
> > > computing query id, but as always there is one tricky part. From what I
> >
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:45 AM Jelte Fennema
wrote:
> The new connection made by PQcancel does not use the tcp_user_timeout,
> connect_timeout or any of the keepalive settings that are provided in the
> connection string. This means that a call to PQcancel can block for a much
> longer time than
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:06 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> We had left it as an open issue whether or not to risk back-patching
> 5c056b0c2 into stable branches [1]. While updating the v14 release notes,
> I realized that we can't put off that decision any longer, because we
> have to decide now whether
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:31 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In postgres_fdw, pgfdw_xact_callback() and pgfdw_subxact_callback() do
> almost the same thing to rollback remote toplevel- and sub-transaction.
> But their such rollback logics are implemented separately and
> in different way. Which w
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
> > I am getting "ERROR: subplan "SubPlan 1" was not initialized" error with
> > below test case.
>
> > CREATE TABLE tbl ( c1 int, c2 int, c3 int ) PARTITION BY LIST (c1);
> > create table tbl_null PARTITION OF tbl
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:54 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Adding -hackers, sorry for the duplicate.
>
> This seems to be deficient, citing
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0d1b394b-bec9-8a71-a336-44df7078b295%40gmail.com
>
> I'm proposing something like the attached. Ideally, there wo
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:35 PM Jaime Casanova <
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 06:04:14PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 14/07/2021 15:12, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > > > Here's an updated versio
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:20 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > For the first list, do you want to include the path to the file for
> > IDENTIFICATION ?
> > If so, I can prepare a patch covering the files in that list.
>
> Since there's so few exceptions to the "rule", I think they should be
> fixed fo
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:07 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Justin Pryzby
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:11:34AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I was looking at backend_progress.c and noticed that the file
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:11:34AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was looking at backend_progress.c and noticed that the filename and
> path
> > were wrong in the header.
> >
> > Here is patch whi
Hi,
I was looking at backend_progress.c and noticed that the filename and path
were wrong in the header.
Here is patch which corrects the mistake.
Please take a look.
Thanks
backend_prog-hdr.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:06 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:23 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 6:19 AM Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
> > > On 7/13/21 8:09 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll have time in this CF
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 6:17 AM James Coleman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 7:06 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 May 2021, at 18:30, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > ..here we are now, and I finally have this patch cleaned up
> > > enough to share.
> >
> > This patch no longer applies
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:13 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 16.08.21 17:32, John Naylor wrote:
> > The one thing that jumped out at me on a cursory reading is
> > the {integer} rule, which seems to be used nowhere except to
> > call process_integer_literal, whi
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 12:53 PM Paul A Jungwirth <
p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:56 PM Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
> >
> > patch 01: does apply but doesn't compile, attached the compile errors.
> > patch 04: does not apply clean.
>
> Thanks for taking a look! I've
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 2:41 AM Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> Le lundi 6 septembre 2021, 11:25:39 CEST Zhihong Yu a écrit :
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:17 AM Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 3 septembre 2021, 22:54:25 CEST David Zhang a écrit :
> > > > The fo
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:17 AM Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> Le vendredi 3 septembre 2021, 22:54:25 CEST David Zhang a écrit :
> > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> > make installcheck-world: tested, failed
> > Implements feature: tested, passed
> > Spec c
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:11 PM Paul Martinez wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:11 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > This patch no longer applies, can you please submit a rebased version?
> It
> > currently fails on catversion.h, to keep that from happening repeatedly
> you can
> > IMO skip that
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 1:56 PM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 12:59 -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > + if (strcmp(val, "1") == 0)
> > + hbaline->ldap_map_dn = true;
> > + else
> > + hbaline->ldap_map_dn = f
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 11:43 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 15:42 +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > The cfbot found a failure in postgres_fdw, which I completely neglected
> > in my design. I think the desired functionality should be to allow the
> > ldapuser connection option du
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:43 AM Pengchengliu
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
> I wrote a patch to resolve the subtransactions concurrency performance
> problems when suboverflowed.
>
> When we use more than PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS(64) subtransactions per
> transaction concurrency, it will lead to subtrans
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:00 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 8/28/21 6:30 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 28, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Tomas Vondra
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Part 0003 fixes handling of those clauses so that we don't treat
> >> them as simple, but it does that by tweaking
> >> statex
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:23 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> rebased patch set
>
> On 22.07.21 08:06, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Here is an updated patch with some merge conflicts resolved, to keep i
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 9:30 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > Part 0003 fixes handling of those clauses so that we don't treat them as
> simple, but it does that by tweaking statext_is_compatible_clause(), as
> suggested by Dean.
>
> Functi
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 6:53 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch series is modified to improve estimates for these
> special clauses (Var op Var with the same var on both sides) without
> extended statistics. This is done in 0001, and it seems fairly simple
> and cheap.
>
> The 00
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 4:29 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:11 AM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:48 PM Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:31 AM Dilip Kumar
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:11 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:48 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:31 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> > Results: (query EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM t;)
>> > 1) Non-parallel (default)
>> > Execution Time: 31627.492 ms
>> >
>> > 2) P
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:13 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 15:25 -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > For v2-0001-common-jsonapi-support-FRONTEND-clients.patch :
> >
> > + /* Clean up. */
> > + termJsonLexContext(&lex);
> &
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 3:25 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:42 AM Jacob Champion
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 23:22 +, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 11:31 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> > >
>
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:42 AM Jacob Champion
wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 23:22 +, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 11:31 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > >
> > > A few small things caught my eye in the backend oauth_exchange
> function:
> > >
> > > > + /* Handle
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 5:41 AM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
> > The new list bound binary search and related comparison support
> > function look a bit too verbose to me. I was expecting
> > partition_list_bsearch() to look very much like
> > partition_range_datum_bsearch(), but that is not the case. T
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Ranier Vilela писал 2021-08-19 14:01:
> > Em qui., 19 de ago. de 2021 às 07:50, Zhihong Yu
> >> Hi,
> >> For 0001 patch:
> >>
> >> + if ((s->op != SVFOP
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:17 PM David Christensen <
david.christen...@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> -hackers,
>
> Enclosed, find a POC patch that implements "special values" for int GUCs.
> We have quite a few GUCs
> with values that have special meaning atop other settings. I have
> attempted to ide
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:52 AM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The attached patches allow pushing down
> current_timestamp/localtimestamp/current_time/localtime and now() to
> remote PostgreSQL server as locally computed parameters.
> The idea is based on oracle_fdw behavior.
>
> Examples.
>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:52 AM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The attached patches allow pushing down
> current_timestamp/localtimestamp/current_time/localtime and now() to
> remote PostgreSQL server as locally computed parameters.
> The idea is based on oracle_fdw behavior.
>
> Examples.
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:01 AM Jelte Fennema
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran into some segfaults when using Postgres that was compiled with LLVM
> 7. According to the backtraces these crashes happened during the call to
> llvm_shutdown, during cleanup after another out of memory condition. It
> seems tha
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 1:47 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 02:42, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Since create_partial_distinct_paths() calls
> create_final_distinct_paths(), I wonder if numDistinctRows can be passed to
> create_final_distinct_paths() so that the latter
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:58 AM Denis Hirn
wrote:
> > The tests fail when you build with assertions enabled (configure
> --enable-cassert).
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. The new version of this patch fixes that.
> The tests are working properly now. All style related issues are fixed as
>
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:59 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:07, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Can you attach updated patch so that we know more detail about the two
> new functions; create_final_distinct_paths and
> > create_partial_distinct_paths ?
>
> Must&
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:07 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 16:51, David Rowley wrote:
> > The patch is just some plumbing work to connect all the correct paths
> > up to make it work. It's all fairly trivial.
>
> I looked at this patch again and realise that it could be done a
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 21:11, David Rowley wrote:
> > 1) Unsure of the API to the prosupport function. I wonder if the
> > prosupport function should just be able to say if the function is
> > either monotonically increasing or decreasing or
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 7:33 AM Andy Fan wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I have finished the parts for baserel, joinrel, subquery, distinctrel. I
> think
> the hardest ones have been verified. Here is the design overview.
>
> 1. Use EC instead of expr to cover more UniqueKey cases.
> 2. Redesign the UniqueKey
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 3:57 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 6/9/21, 8:09 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote:
> > On 6/9/21, 3:51 PM, "Mark Dilger" wrote:
> >>> On Jun 9, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Bossart, Nathan
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd be happy to clean it up and submit it for
> >>> discussion in pgsql-hacke
On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 12:00 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 11:30 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:24:30 +0900
>> Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:22:37 +0530
>>
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 11:30 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:24:30 +0900
> Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:22:37 +0530
> > vignesh C wrote:
>
> > > The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could you rebase and post a
> > > patch. I'm changing the
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 11:30 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:24:30 +0900
> Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:22:37 +0530
> > vignesh C wrote:
>
> > > The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could you rebase and post a
> > > patch. I'm changing the
On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 5:31 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 19:10, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > 0001 looks mostly fine, except I thought the following could be worded
> > to say that the bitmap members are offsets into the part_rels array.
> > To avoid someone confusing them wit
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:30 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 6:57 PM liuhuail...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > When I used SPI_execute_plan function on PG12 which commit 41c6a5be is
> used,
> > Segment fault occurred.
>
> I'm not seeing any such commit.
> Can you provide a link
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:59 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 6:43 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 06:39:26PM -0700, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>> > Your statement
>> >
>> >
>> > “months-to-days conv
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 6:43 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 06:39:26PM -0700, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> > Your statement
> >
> >
> > “months-to-days conversion is almost always an approximation, while
> the
> > days to seconds conversion is almost always accurate.”
> >
>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:53 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:33:07PM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:14 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Obviously this should return '1 mon 26 days', but with my most
> recent
> &g
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:14 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:03:21AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:35 AM Bruce Momjian
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Ju
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 8:25 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:49 AM Andrey Lepikhov
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/21 13:49, Hywel Carver wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:20 PM Andrey Lepikhov
>> > mailto:a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru>> w
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:49 AM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 6/7/21 13:49, Hywel Carver wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:20 PM Andrey Lepikhov
> > mailto:a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
> > Looking through the email chain, a previous version of this patch added
> > ~0.6% to planning time in
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:02 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2020-Oct-27, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > I think either way could be ok - if you assume that the trigger was
> disabled
> > with ONLY, then it'd make sense to restore it with ONLY, but I think
> it's at
> > least as common to ALTER TABLE
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Zhihong Yu writes:
> > I was looking at fmgr_internal_validator().
> > It seems prosrc is only used internally.
> > The patch frees the C string prosrc points to, prior to returning.
>
> There's really very
Hi,
I was looking at fmgr_internal_validator().
It seems prosrc is only used internally.
The patch frees the C string prosrc points to, prior to returning.
Please take a look.
Thanks
free-c-str.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:35 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:49:45PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> > > On 29 Jun 2021, at 18:50, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>> >
>> > &
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:26 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Thanks for having a look!
>
> On 14/07/2021 18:18, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > For the loop over the hash:
> >
> > + for (int idx = 0; idx < capacity; idx++)
> > {
> > -
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 7:40 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 14/07/2021 17:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Jul-14, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:10 PM Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >
> >>> Here you go.
> >>
> >> The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could you reb
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 3:13 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> I was looking at index_drop() in PG 11 branch.
> In if (concurrent)block, the heap and index relations are overwritten
> since they were opened a few lines above the concurrent check.
>
> Shouldn't the two re
Hi,
I was looking at index_drop() in PG 11 branch.
In if (concurrent)block, the heap and index relations are overwritten since
they were opened a few lines above the concurrent check.
Shouldn't the two relations be closed first ?
thanks
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/index.c b/src/backend/cata
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:28 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 03:15, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > I was looking at find_hash_columns() in nodeAgg.c
> >
> > It seems the first loop tries to determine the max column number needed,
> along with whether all columns
Hi,
I was looking at find_hash_columns() in nodeAgg.c
It seems the first loop tries to determine the max column number needed,
along with whether all columns are needed.
The loop can be re-written as shown in the patch.
In normal cases, we don't need to perform scanDesc->natts iterations.
In bes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:35 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:49:45PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 29 Jun 2021, at 18:50, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
> > > Now that PG 15 is open for commit, do you think the patch can land ?
> >
>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:37 AM Dean Rasheed
wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 14:17, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 12:08, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Numeric x^y is supported for x < 0 if y is an integer, but this
> > > currently fails if y is outside the range of an
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:57 AM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 18/6/21 15:02, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> > Andrey Lepikhov писал 2021-05-27 07:27:
> >> Next version of the patch.
> >> For searching any problems I forced this patch during 'make check'
> >> tests. Some bugs were found and fixed.
> >
>
Hi,
I was looking at :
Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE (redux).
In check_safe_enum_use():
+ if (!TransactionIdIsInProgress(xmin) &&
+ TransactionIdDidCommit(xmin))
+ return;
Since the condition would be true only when TransactionIdDidCommit()
returns tr
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:24 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 3:18 PM Ronan Dunklau
> wrote:
>
>> Le jeudi 1 juillet 2021, 09:09:38 CEST Ronan Dunklau a écrit :
>> > > Yes, thanks! I was making a big mistake here thinking the executor can
>> > > stop after the first match. That's
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:32 PM Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Jun-30, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > nit:
> > - if (hasindex)
> > + if (nindexes > 0)
> >
> > It seems hasindex is no longer needed since nindexes is checked.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:54 AM Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Jun-30, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
>
> > I've seen the following effect on PostgreSQL 14 stable branch.
> > Index, created on partitioned table, disappears from pg_dump or psql \d
> > output.
> > This seems to begin after analyze. Par
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:42 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 07:39:31PM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:23 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 07:23:42PM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> >
201 - 300 of 509 matches
Mail list logo
