On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:31 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jun-04, jian he wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:14 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> > v7 is way more intuitive compared with v5, v6.
>
> Agreed, this version is better than the previous
rEnforceability().
Kindly take a look at the attached version and share your thoughts.
Regards,
Amul
From 10dd1def49327b65b5c5b30d405ebdf02811ecf7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 08:44:26 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v7] Skip adding action-based foreign key constraints to the
ph
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 6:05 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:32 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
[...]
>
> + * Note that validation should be performed against the referencing
> + * root table only, not its child partitions. See
> + * QueueFKConstraintValid
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 4:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 4:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Quick question -- due to my limited understanding of this area: why
> > can't we perform an action similar to pg_logical_slot_get_changes()
> > implic
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 3:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:07 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In the case presented here, the logical slot is expected to keep
> > > forwarding, and in the consecut
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 1:37 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:58 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > >
> > > I just realized we have the same problem with ALTER FOREIGN KEY ENFORCED.
> > > for example:
> >
> > Yeah, I think adding a "currcon-
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 5:57 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:12 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > > >> > [...]
> > > The attached *draft* patch is based on your idea.
> > >
> > > The idea is that we only need to conditional
ion in the code comments. If we choose to move forward
with this patch, I am happy to refine it and add proper tests.
Regards,
Amul
From b2aaecf0df3c2ea15a84150ef0a91329587e4f20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 17:22:44 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] POC - FK validati
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 4:23 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Back in [1], Andres complained that repeated attempts to create
> an invalid plpgsql function (one that fails initial compilation)
> leak memory, for example
>
> DO $do$
> BEGIN
> FOR i IN 1 .. 10 LOOP
> BEGIN
> CREATE OR REPLACE
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:16 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr 2025, at 06:22, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch that corrects the code comment for
> > process_directory_recursively() in pg_combinebackup, where the comment
> > incorrectly refers to
Hi,
Cc: Robert
Attached is a patch that corrects the code comment for
process_directory_recursively() in pg_combinebackup, where the comment
incorrectly refers to "output_directory" instead of the intended
"input_directory".
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.e
congratulations, Jacob.
Regards,
Amul
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I tested the "not enforced" constraint feature extensively today
> especially the cases of partitioned table. Everything seems to be
> working fine.
>
> While doing that, I found that foreign_key.sql does not have a test to
> make sure
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:02 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 28.03.25 14:27, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:34 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:25 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:28 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 25.03.25 17:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I have committed patches 0001 through 0003. I made some small changes:
>
> > I will work through the remaining patches. It looks good to me so far.
>
> For the time being, here are the rema
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:29 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-26, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > The reason for the change is to revert to the behavior before commit
> > #80d7f990496b1c, where recursion occurred regardless of the
> > changed flags. This is also describe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 10:18 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 21.03.25 06:58, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > []
> > Attached is the updated version, where the commit messages for patch
> > 0005 and 0006 have been slightly corrected. Additionally, a few code
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit.
>
The approach looks good to me, but instead of adding a CAS_flags struct, could
we use macros like SEEN_DEFERRABILITY(bits), SEEN_ENFORCEABILITY(bits),
e
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-11, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit.
> >
> &g
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 4:48 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Feb-27, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Attached is the rebased patch set against the latest master head,
> > which also includes a *new* refactoring patch (0001). In this patch,
> > I’ve re-added ATExecAlterChild
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:47 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2025-Feb-17, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I have renamed AlterConstraintStmt to ATAlterConstraint as per your
> > suggestion in the attached version. Apart from this, there are no
> > other change
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:27 PM Álvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2025-Feb-13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >
> > > > So considering that, I think a three-state system makes more sense.
> > > > Something like:
> > > >
> > > > 1) NOT ENFORCED
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 10:49 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 9:57 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:10 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2025-Jan-31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:10 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> > But if the constraint is NOT VALID and later marked as NOT ENFORCED,
> > what is expected behaviour while changing it to ENFORCED?
>
> I think what you want is a different mode that would be ENFOR
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 8:31 PM jian he wrote:
>
> [...]
> So the code should only call AlterConstrTriggerDeferrability,
> not call ATExecAlterConstrEnforceability?
Right. Thank you for the report. We need to know whether the
enforceability and/or deferability has actually been set or not before
c
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:01 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 20.01.25 17:53, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> Attached is a new set of patches. Please ignore patch 0001 here, which
> >> was posted separately [1] -- proposes allowing invalid foreign key
> >> constraints
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:08 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 6:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > > Hello Álvaro,
> > >
> > > Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
> >
> > Ah yes, this is my bug:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> > OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivial
> > amendments.
>
> Looks like some of the queries need ORDER BY for stability.
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:36 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
>
> parent
> |
> child
>/\
> / \
> /grandchild2
> /
> grandchild1
>
> and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
> constraint on c
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:25 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> > Patch looks good to me,
>
> Thanks, pushed.
>
A big thanks to Álvaro and Sami for getting it fixed!
Regards,
Amul
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 2:14 AM Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> This is a bug indeed. I tried your patch, but it ends up in a seg fault.
>
> [...]
> If the relation on the parent and child constraint match, that
> tells us we don't have inheritance.
> So, I am thinking we should add another condition for c
child_fk_con FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES bar;
ALTER TABLE foo DETACH PARTITION foo_p0;
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
index c42a740ccef..cacdb9b475d 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 6:07 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 11.01.25 18:26, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 January 2025, Peter Eisentraut > <mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I have applied v8-0001, with some editing of the documenta
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:53 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
I made the minor changes to the attached version and rebased it
against the latest master(9a45a89c38f).
Regards,
Amul
v2-0001-Refactor-Split-ATExecValidateConstraint.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Allow-NOT-VALID-foreign-
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:06 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2024-Dec-05, jian he wrote:
>
> > I found for foreign keys, check constraints,
> > you specify it as NOT VALID, it will not be marked as NOT VALID in the
> > CREATE TABLE statement.
>
> Uhmm, okay.
>
> > reading transformCheckC
On Saturday, 11 January 2025, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have applied v8-0001, with some editing of the documentation and in the
> tests. I'll continue reviewing the subsequent patches.
>
Thank you for the improvement and commit.
Regards,
Amul
--
Regards,
Amul
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:11 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> When adding a new FK constraint or attaching a partitioned table, where
> matching FK constraints are merged, we allow the parent constraint to be NOT
&g
pvqz_+c7ckkuya77g_5rgtjvnuyepuh...@mail.gmail.com
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 7b03ff68ae24ded5547a9e268be8692b196cf509 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:15:30 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] Refactor: Split ATExecValidateConstraint()
Spli
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 6:12 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:48 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > static bool
> > > MergeWithExistingConstraint(Relation rel, const char *ccname, Node *expr,
> > > bool allow_merge, bool
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> only applied v7-0001.
>
> alter_table.sgml says we can specify enforceability
> for ALTER TABLE ADD column_constraint
> and ALTER TABLE ADD column_constraint table_constraint.
> but we didn't have a test for column_constraint in alter_table.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 11:02 AM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> accidentally hit segfault.
> create table c11 (a int not enforced);
> create table c11 (a int enforced);
> we can solve it via the following or changing SUPPORTS_ATTRS accordingly.
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c
> b/src/
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 1:40 PM jian he wrote:
>
> i just only apply v5-0001 for now.
>
> create table t(a int);
> alter table t ADD CONSTRAINT cc CHECK (a > 0);
> alter table t alter CONSTRAINT cc NOT ENFORCED;
> alter table t alter CONSTRAINT cc ENFORCED;
>
> the last two queries will fail, which
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:31 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about 0001 but I think 0002 deserves a back patch as I think
> > > it fits
> > > int
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 6:45 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-10-09 We 5:14 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024, at 11:06, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> The attached patch proposes adding the ability to define CHECK and
> FOREIGN KEY constraints as NOT ENFORCED.
&
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:44 PM Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024, at 11:06, Amul Sul wrote:
> > The attached patch proposes adding the ability to define CHECK and
> > FOREIGN KEY constraints as NOT ENFORCED.
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
> > Adding
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 7:25 PM Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The PostgreSQL Contributor Page
> (https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/) includes people who have
> made substantial, long-term contributions of time and effort to the PostgreSQL
> project. The PostgreSQL Contributors
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 7:05 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The updated version attached. Thank you for the review !
>
> I have spent a bunch of time on this and have made numerous revisions.
> I hope to commit the result, aft
ndle unpacking and
repacking tar files and the required path formats for these tests but
the "Cirrus CI / Windows - Server 2019, VS 2019" workflow doesn’t have
any issues with them. I’ve removed the flag.
> + my @files = glob("*");
> + system_or_bail($tar,
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 2:02 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:08 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> []
> Then the result verifies. But I feel like we should have some test
> cases that do this kind of stuff so that there is automated
> verification. In fact, the curr
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 1:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
[...]
> > There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for
> > tod
etical: you added .tgz elsewhere
> but not here.
>
Did this way.
> There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for today.
>
Thank you for the review and committing 0004 and 0006 patches.
Regards,
Amul
From dfaeebdc09fd689b7e45a705e32111cb226a0
acb44cfb526bdabcd3a3d9c06443f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:44:56 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary #include statements.
---
src/bin/pg_verifybackup/pg_verifybackup.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_verify
Hi,
The Assert(buffer != NULL) is placed after the buffer is accessed,
which could lead to a segmentation fault before the check is executed.
Attached a small patch to correct that.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c b/src/backend
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:49 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I tried this in the attached version and made a few additional changes
> > based on Sravan's off-list comments regarding function names and
> > descriptio
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 1:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The main issue I have is computing the total_size of valid files that
> > will be checksummed and that exist in both the manifests and the
> > backup, in the ca
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> [ I committed 0001, then noticed I had a type in the subject line of
> the commit message. Argh. ]
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:41 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > With the patch, I am concerned that we won't be able to giv
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:39 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > I think I would have made this pass context->show_progress to
> > > progress_report() instead of the whole verifier_context, but that's an
> > > ar
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> [...]
> Here is a rebased version of the patch. No other changes since v1.
>
Here are two minor comments on this:
$ pg_combinebackup /tmp/backup_full/ /tmp/backup_incr2/
/tmp/backup_
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:05 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi Amul,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 8:38 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > >
> >[...]
> > static Relat
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:43 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Please consider the attached version for the review.
>
> Thanks. I committed 0001-0003. The only thing that I changed was that
> in 0001, you forgot to pgindent, wh
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> In [1], it is suggested that it might be a good idea to support
> specifying the tablespace for each merged/split partition.
>
> We can do the following after this feature is supported:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE tblspc LOCATION '/tmp/tblspc';
>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 5:00 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 12:24, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> [...
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> [...]
> A new catalog table, pg_subscription_seq, has been introduced for
> mapping subscriptions to sequences. Additionally, the sequence LSN
> (Log Sequence Number) is stored, facilitating deter
ease join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 17:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to
> the
> > README.
>
> Thanks for noticing and working on the patch.
>
> There were a
Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to the
README.
Regards,
Amul
0001-Add-BumpContext-description-to-mmgr-README.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:48 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:14 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thank you for the improvement.
> >
> > The caller of verify_control_file() has the full path of the control
> file that
> > can pass it and avoid recomputing
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:02 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Mar-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Maybe we can add a flag RelationData->rd_ispkdeferred, so that
> > RelationGetPrimaryKeyIndex returned InvalidOid for deferrable PKs; then
> > logical replication would continue to not know about t
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 1:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:16 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > It could. I just thought this was clearer. I agree that it's a bit
> > long, but I don't think this is worth bikeshedding very much. If at a
> > later time somebody feels strongly that it ne
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:05:36AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So with that in mind, here's my proposal. This is an adjustment of
> > Amit's previous refactoring patch. He renamed the existing
> > get_controlfile() to get_dir_controlfile()
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:06:19PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Agreed, now they will have an error as _could not read file "":
> Is
> > a directory_. But, IIUC, that what usually happens with the dev version,
&
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:06:19PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:22 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >> And the new option should be documented at the top of the init()
> >> routine for
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 9:28 PM Joe Conway wrote:
> All,
>
> The PostgreSQL Contributor Page
> (https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/) includes people who
> have made substantial, long-term contributions of time and effort to the
> PostgreSQL project. The PostgreSQL Contributors Team
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:22 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:41:46PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > Kindly have a look at the attached version.
> >
> > IMHO, 0001 looks fine, except probabl
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:18 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:29:07PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Ok, I did that way in the attached version, I have passed the control
> file's
> > full path as a second argument to verify_system_identif
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:18 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I intended to minimize the out param of parse_manifest_file(), which
> currently
> > returns manifest_files_hash and manifest_wal_range, and I need two more
> --
> >
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 2:52 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thank you for the review-comments, updated version attached.
>
> I generally agree with 0001. I spent a long time thinking about your
> decision to make verifier_context co
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:22 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thinking a bit more on this, I realized parse_manifest_file() has many
> out
> > parameters. Instead parse_manifest_file() should simply return manifest
> data
> >
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 18:45, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 8:29 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-Sep-20, Amul Sul wrote:
> >>
> >> >
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:08 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:36 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> Updated version is attached.
>>
>
> Another
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:36 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Updated version is attached.
>
Another updated version attached -- fix missing manifest version check in
pg_verifybackup before system identifier validat
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:39 AM Sravan Kumar
wrote:
> I have also done a review of the patch and some testing. The patch looks
> good, and I agree with Robert's comments.
>
Thank you for your review, testing and the offline discussion.
Regards,
Amul
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 6:31 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > With the attached patch, the backup manifest will have a new key item as
> > "System-Identifier" 64-bit integer whose value is derived from
> pg_control whil
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:15 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Jan-17, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > This helps to identify the correct database server and/or backup for the
> > subsequent backup operations. pg_verifybackup validates the manifest
> system
> > identifier agai
binebackup is already a bit smarter -- checks the system identifier
from
the pg_control of all the backups, with this patch the manifest system
identifier also validated.
For backward compatibility, the manifest system identifier validation will
be
skipped for version 1.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:48 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:13:42AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > +void *
> > +dsm_registry_init_or_attach(const char *key, size_t size,
> >
> > I think the name could be simple as dsm_registry_init() li
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:05 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
> >
> > I kept this the same, as I didn't see any need to tie the key size to
> > NAMEDATALEN.
>
> Thanks. A fresh look at the v5 patches le
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 25.12.23 13:10, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> I have committed this patch set.
>
> I couple of notes:
>
> You had included the moving of the AT_PASS_ADD_COL enum in the first
> patch. This is not a good style. Ref
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:01 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11.12.23 13:22, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > create table t1 (a int, b int generated always as (a + 1) stored);
> > alter table t1 add column c int, alter column b set expression as (a
> > + c);
>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:42 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:30 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:58 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
>
> Here is the updated patch based on some comments by tender wang (those
> comments were sent only to me)
>
few nitpicks:
+
+
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:40 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 23.11.23 15:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> > The exact sequencing of this seems to be tricky. It's clear that we
> > need to do it earlier than at the end. I also think it should be
> > strictly after
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:12 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 17.11.23 13:25, Amul Sul wrote:
> > To fix this we should be doing something like ALTER COLUMN TYPE and the
> pass
> > should be AT_PASS_ALTER_TYPE (rename it or invent a new one near to
> that) so
> > that
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 7:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:50 AM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
>> On 15.11.23 13:26, Amul Sul wrote:
>> > Question: Why are you using AT_PASS_ADD_OTHERCONSTR? I don't know
>> if
>> > it's
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:50 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 15.11.23 13:26, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Question: Why are you using AT_PASS_ADD_OTHERCONSTR? I don't know if
> > it's right or wrong, but if you have a specific reason, it would be
> > good
>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 9:26 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:27:18AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Nevermind, I usually use git apply or git am, here are those errors:
> >
> > PG/ - (master) $ git apply
> ~/Downloads/retire_compatibility_macro_v1.patch
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 5:09 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 14.11.23 11:40, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Please have a look at the attached version, updating the syntax to have
> "AS"
> > after EXPRESSION and other changes suggested previously.
>
> The code structure
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:21 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 04:25:24PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Changes looks pretty much straight forward, but patch failed to apply on
> the
> > latest master head(b41b1a7f490) at me.
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 12:30 AM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> I just found myself researching the difference between MemoryContextReset()
> and MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren(), and it turns out that as of
> commit eaa5808 (2015), there is none.
> MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren() is just a b
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 13.11.23 14:07, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Also, it seems to me that the SET EXPRESSION variant should just do
> an
> > update of the catalog table instead of a drop and re-insert.
> >
> > I am not sure
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 1:40 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 09.11.23 13:00, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:21 PM Peter Eisentraut > <mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 25.10.23 08:12, Amul Sul wrote:
> > > Here i
1 - 100 of 413 matches
Mail list logo
