Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

On 29/11/17 20:11, Stas Kelvich wrote: > >> On 29 Nov 2017, at 18:46, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> >> What I don't understand is how it leads to crash (and I could not >> reproduce it using the pgbench file attached in this thread either) and >> moreover how it leads to 0

Re: Would a BGW need shmem_access or database_connection to enumerate databases?

On 2017-11-29 18:23:40 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 11/29/2017 05:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > Yes. That's actually what the autovacuum launcher does. It connects > > using InitPostgres(NULL, InvalidOid, NULL, NULL), and then scans > > pg_database to fetch a list (see

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Thank you for the report. > Please, find rebased patch in the attachment. This patch cannot be applied. Please provide a rebased version. I am moving it to next CF with waiting on author as status. --

Re: Use of uninitialized variables in ExecFindPartition() for parent partition without leaves (HEAD only)

Hi Michael. On 2017/11/30 9:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > Since commit 4e5fe9ad (committer Robert Haas and author Amit Langote), > coverity has been complaining that the new code of ExecFindPartition() > may use a set of values and isnull values which never get initialized. > This is

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Yeah, I was thinking the commit is relevant with this issue but as > Amit mentioned this error is emitted by DROP SCHEMA CASCASE. > I don't find out the cause of this issue yet. With the previous > version patch,

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that > wasn't based on a valid assumption. I was wrongly assuming that all hash > partitions for a given modulus (largest modulus) must exist

Unclear regression test for postgres_fdw

The following test -- Input relation to aggregate push down hook is not safe to pushdown and thus -- the aggregate cannot be pushed down to foreign server. explain (verbose, costs off) select count(t1.c3) from ft1 t1, ft1 t2 where t1.c1 = postgres_fdw_abs(t1.c2); produces the following plan

Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++

On 2017-11-29 09:41:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > I'd still like a review of this patch. > > I don't think there's much to review apart from this one issue. > Neither Tom nor I seem to be convinced

<    1   2