Hello Andres,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:26 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > +/* Each worker queue is a binary heap. */
> > +typedef struct
> > +{
> > + binaryheap *bh;
> > + union
> > + {
> > + UndoXidQueue *xid_elems;
> > + UndoSizeQueue *size_elems;
> > +
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:07 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> On 07.08.2019 10:42, Amit Langote wrote:
> > You may also want to read this discussion:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/553FC9BC.5060402%402ndquadrant.com
> >
> Thank you very much for response and pointing me to this
Hello,
The word "rewinded" appears in our manual and in a comment. That
sounds strange to my ears. Isn't it a mistake? Oxford lists the form
as "poetic" and "rare", and then says it was used by one specific
Victorian poet. Perhaps I'll send them a pull request: it's now G. M.
Hopkins and
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:53:45AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> To me this sounds like a classic non-English-native-speaker-mistake. But
> it seems at least the one in the docs come from Bruce, who definitely is...
> So perhaps it's intentional to refer to "what pg_rewind does", and not
>
Amit-san,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:28 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:00 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > IIUC, I think we reached a consensus at least on the 0001 patch.
> > Andres, would you mind if I commit that patch?
>
> I just noticed obsolete references to
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I think this is going in the wrong direction. Nodes should *always*
> > > assume that a rescan is possible until ExecEndNode
Hello,
> > Well, if this is really all that duplicative, one thing we could do is
> > run this check in get_partprune_steps_internal only if
> > constraint_exclusion is a value other than on; we should achieve the
> > same effect with no repetition. Patch for that is attached. However,
> > if I
Hi, Li
Thank you very much for reporting the problem.
On 07.08.2019 7:21, Li Japin wrote:
I inspect the code, and find the following code in DefineRelation function:
if (stmt->relation->relpersistence != RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP
&& stmt->oncommit != ONCOMMIT_DROP)
On 07.08.2019 10:42, Amit Langote wrote:
Hi Konstantin,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:24 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
Hi hackers,
I wonder if there is some particular reason for not handling
T_RestrictInfo node tag in expression_tree_walker?
There are many data structure in Postgres which
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:55 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:31:58AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Well, so you mean that for example we encrypt only 100 bytes WAL
> > record when append 100 bytes WAL records?
> >
> > For WAL encryption, if we encrypt the entire 8k WAL
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
HI!
patch is look good for me.
The new status of this patch
Hi,
I'll be responding to a bunch of long review emails in this thread
point by point separately, but just picking out a couple of points
here that jumped out at me:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > + {
> > + /*
> > +
čt 1. 8. 2019 v 11:01 odesílatel Thomas Munro
napsal:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 5:45 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > pá 26. 7. 2019 v 22:53 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> >> I wrote:
> >> > TBH, I don't like this proposal one bit. As far as I can see, the
> idea
> >> > is to let a function's
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:05 PM Danylo Hlynskyi wrote:
>
> The pool_passwd option [1] is specified relative to config file. But for
> greater flexibility absolute path should be accepted as well.
>
> If pool_passwd option starts with /, let's treat it as absolute path.
> Otherwise, it is
Yes, I've resent it to pgpool-hack...@pgpool.net
Sorry for the noise
ср, 7 серп. 2019 о 09:18 Amit Langote пише:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:05 PM Danylo Hlynskyi
> wrote:
> >
> > The pool_passwd option [1] is specified relative to config file. But for
> greater flexibility absolute
Hi
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> I have some comments.
>
> This patch uses distinct parameters for exact number and
> percentage. On the othe hand planner has a notion of
> tuple_fraction covering the both. The same handling is also used
> for tuple number
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:26 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-05 11:29:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Need to do something else for a bit. More later.
>
> Here we go.
>
Thanks for the review. I will work on them. Currently, I need
suggestions on some of the review comments.
>
>
Hi,
At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:50:14 +0300, Dmitry Igrishin wrote in
> The attached self-documented patch fixes build on Windows in case when
> path to Python has embedded spaces.
- $solution->{options}->{python} . "\\python -c \"$pythonprog\"";
+
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:00 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> IIUC, I think we reached a consensus at least on the 0001 patch.
> Andres, would you mind if I commit that patch?
I just noticed obsolete references to es_result_relation_info that
0002 failed to remove. One of them is in fdwhandler.sgml:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:26 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-05 11:29:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Need to do something else for a bit. More later.
>
> > + * false, otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static bool
> > +UndoAlreadyApplied(FullTransactionId full_xid, UndoRecPtr
ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 11:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi :
>
> Hi,
>
> At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 22:50:14 +0300, Dmitry Igrishin wrote
> in
> > The attached self-documented patch fixes build on Windows in case when
> > path to Python has embedded spaces.
>
> - $solution->{options}->{python} . "\\python
Hi hackers,
I wonder if there is some particular reason for not handling
T_RestrictInfo node tag in expression_tree_walker?
There are many data structure in Postgres which contains lists of
RestrictInfo or expression with RestrictInfo as parameter (for example
orclause in RestrictInfo).
To
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hmm. So given the point about it being hard to predict which hash
> > partitions would receive what values ... under what circumstances
> > would it be sensible to not create a full set of
The pool_passwd option [1] is specified relative to config file. But for
greater flexibility absolute path should be accepted as well.
If pool_passwd option starts with /, let's treat it as absolute path.
Otherwise, it is treated as relative path.
Patch attached. Original author - Derek Kulinski
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:26 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-08-05 11:29:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>
I am responding to some of the points where I need some more inputs or
some discussion is required. Some of the things need more thoughts
which I will respond later and some are quite
Hi Konstantin,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:24 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I wonder if there is some particular reason for not handling
> T_RestrictInfo node tag in expression_tree_walker?
> There are many data structure in Postgres which contains lists of
> RestrictInfo or
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:49 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The word "rewinded" appears in our manual and in a comment. That
> sounds strange to my ears. Isn't it a mistake? Oxford lists the form
> as "poetic" and "rare", and then says it was used by one specific
> Victorian poet.
Hi
pá 26. 7. 2019 v 22:53 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> I wrote:
> > TBH, I don't like this proposal one bit. As far as I can see, the idea
> > is to let a function's support function redefine the function's declared
> > argument and result types on-the-fly according to no predetermined rules,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:30 PM yuzuko wrote:
> > In short, I propose to get this done as the patch I posted in
> > https://postgr.es/m/20190806133053.GA23706@alvherre.pgsql
> >
> I agree with your proposal. Also, I confirmed a default partition was pruned
> as expected with your patch.
+1.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:21 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >
> > One data structure that could perhaps hold this would be
> > UndoLogTableEntry (the per-backend cache, indexed by undo log number,
> > with pretty fast lookups; used for things
Hi!
I was playing around with JSON path quite a bit and might have found one case
where the current implementation doesn’t follow the standard.
The functionality in question are the comparison operators except ==. They use
the database default collation rather then the standard-mandated
> First of all default value of this parameter is 1000, not 10.
Oops, my bad! Sorry about that, I'm not sure how I got that in my head
last night but I see how that would make it act strange now. I'll adjust
my notes before re-testing. :)
Thanks,
*Ryan Lambert*
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:57
On 8/7/19 12:00 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:53:45AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
To me this sounds like a classic non-English-native-speaker-mistake. But
it seems at least the one in the docs come from Bruce, who definitely is...
So perhaps it's intentional to refer
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:13 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:13 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > + rc = system(copycmd);
>
> I don't think this patch should be calling system() in the first place.
>
So, do you mean we should just do fread() and fwrite() for the whole file?
I thought it
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 05:13:31PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I understood. IIUC in your approach postgres processes encrypt WAL
> records when inserting to the WAL buffer. So WAL data is encrypted
> even on the WAL buffer.
>
> It works but I think the implementation might be complex; For
On 07/08/2019 02:57, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
So I think I've got to take back the assertion that we've got
some lurking generic problem. This pattern looks way more
like a platform-specific issue. Overaggressive OOM killer
would fit the facts on
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 07/08/2019 02:57, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So I think I've got to take back the assertion that we've got
>>> some lurking generic problem. This pattern looks way more
>>> like a platform-specific issue.
Small patch to simplify some no longer necessary complicated code, using
varargs macros.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From 5004af6cc9174e9cdc20a6bf4f959d22e209a8e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
Michael Paquier writes:
> While browsing the buildfarm failures, I have found this problem on
> anole for the test temp:
> ...
> This could be solved just with an ORDER BY as per the attached. Any
> objections?
There's no reason to expect stability of row order in pg_class, so
in principle this
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:25 PM Markus Winand wrote:
> I was playing around with JSON path quite a bit and might have found one case
> where the current implementation doesn’t follow the standard.
>
> The functionality in question are the comparison operators except ==. They
> use the
It works!
(apparently as of Windows 10 version 1803)
Here are some patches to get a discussion rolling.
Basically, it just works, but you need to define your own struct
sockaddr_un. (This is what configure currently uses as a proxy for
HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS, so (a) that needs a bit of tweaking,
On 07/08/2019 16:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
It works!
Cool!
Am I reading the patches correctly, that getpeereid() still doesn't work
on Windows? That means that peer authentication doesn't work, right?
That's a bit sad. One of the big advantages of unix domain sockets over
TCP is peer
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:26 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > but
> > > here's a small thing: I managed to reach an LWLock self-deadlock in
> > > the undo worker launcher:
> > >
> >
> > I
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Small patch to simplify some no longer necessary complicated code, using
> varargs macros.
+1
regards, tom lane
Greetings,
* Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:26:19 -0400, Robert Haas
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I think, as Amit says, that having an automatic
On 06/08/2019 13:35, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:26 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a patch that contains your fix.txt with the changes for
clarity mentioned above, and an isolationtester test case.
LGTM.
Pushed, thanks!
- Heikki
On 07/08/2019 13:52, Dilip Kumar wrote:
I have one more problem related to compression of the command id
field. Basically, the problem is that we don't set the command id in
the WAL and we will always store FirstCommandId in the undo[1]. So
suppose there were 2 operations under a different
On 08/07/19 04:48, Thomas Munro wrote:
> as "poetic" and "rare", and then says it was used by one specific
> Victorian poet. Perhaps I'll send them a pull request: it's now G. M.
> Hopkins and PostgreSQL?
It does seem counter, original, spare, strange.
Regards,
-Chap
On 07/08/2019 14:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:13 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:13 AM vignesh C wrote:
>> > + rc = system(copycmd);
>>
>> I don't think this patch should be calling system() in the first place.
>>
>
> So, do you mean we
The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
there now. More tests is good, but the schedule file has grown into a
big inscrutable
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> > Even if we do not include a separate per-relation salt or things like
> > relfilenode when generating a derived key, we can still include other
> types of
> > immutable
Hi all,
While browsing the buildfarm failures, I have found this problem on
anole for the test temp:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=anole=2019-08-07%2006%3A39%3A35
select relname from pg_class where relname like 'temp_parted_oncommit_test%';
relname
On 07/08/2019 16:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 07/08/2019 02:57, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
So I think I've got to take back the assertion that we've got
some lurking generic problem. This pattern looks way more
like a
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:31 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-05 14:44:37 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Yeah. I think we're agreed for now that we don't want to change
> > procarray (though we still need to figure out how to compute the 64
> > bit horizons correctly and efficiently)
On 05/08/2019 16:24, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:16 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I feel that the level of abstraction is not quite right. There are a
bunch of fields, like uur_block, uur_offset, uur_tuple, that are
probably useful for some UNDO resource managers (zheap I
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
> over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
> Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
> there now. More tests is
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:11 AM Dmitry Igrishin wrote:
>
> ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 11:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi :
> >
> > Solution.pm has the following line:
> >
> > > my $opensslcmd =
> > > $self->{options}->{openssl} . "\\bin\\openssl.exe version 2>&1";
> >
> > AFAICS that's all.
> Thank
ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 15:33, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:11 AM Dmitry Igrishin wrote:
> >
> > ср, 7 авг. 2019 г. в 11:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi :
> > >
> > > Solution.pm has the following line:
> > >
> > > > my $opensslcmd =
> > > >
Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> Frankly speaking I do not see some good reasons for not handling
> RestrictInfo in expression_tree_worker. It can really simplify writing
> of mutators/walkers.
I don't buy this; what seems more likely is that you're trying to apply
an expression tree mutator to
Over in [1] we realized that it would be a good idea to remove the <@
operator from contrib/intarray's GiST opclasses. Unfortunately, doing
that isn't a simple matter of generating an extension update script
containing ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY DROP OPERATOR, because that operator
is marked as
On 2019-Aug-07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The elephant in the room is the 'timeouts' test, which takes about 40
> seconds, out of a total runtime of 90 seconds. So we'd really want to run
> that in parallel with everything else. Or split 'timeouts' into multiple
> tests that could run in
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:41:51AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:19 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 05:13:31PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I understood. IIUC in your approach postgres processes encrypt WAL
> > records when
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > To me this sounds like a classic non-English-native-speaker-mistake. But
> > it seems at least the one in the docs come from Bruce, who definitely is...
>
> He might've just been committing somebody else's words without having
>
On 08/07/19 11:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data
>> about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data
>> should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true?
>
> I
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> He didn't
> add a mailing list reference, but this is easy to find at
> https://postgr.es/m/20160720180706.gf24...@momjian.us
> I lean towards the view that he was using the literal program name as a
> verb, rather than trying to decline a verb
st 7. 8. 2019 v 17:39 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data
> > about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data
> > should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary.
On 2019-Aug-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> That hash-partitioned tables can't have default partition is mentioned
> in the CREATE TABLE page:
>
> "If DEFAULT is specified, the table will be created as a default
> partition of the parent table. The parent can either be a list or
> range partitioned
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 07/08/2019 16:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, if you're using systemd or something else that thinks it
>> ought to interfere with where cores get dropped, that could be
>> a problem.
> I think they should just go to a file called "core", I don't think I've
> changed
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:19 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 05:13:31PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I understood. IIUC in your approach postgres processes encrypt WAL
> > records when inserting to the WAL buffer. So WAL data is encrypted
> > even on the WAL buffer.
>
I
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Something related I've been wondering about is whether we could
> parallelize the isolation tests. A difficulty here is that the
> slowest ones tend to also be timing-sensitive, such that running
> them in parallel would increase the risk of failure. But we
>
Pavel Stehule writes:
> I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data
> about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data
> should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true?
I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know
On 05.08.2019 14:24, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
On 02/08/2019 04:54, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:42 PM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
Version v.17 of the patch that fix the bug see in attachment.
While moving this to the September CF, I noticed that it needs to be
updated for the
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Actually, it also says this (in the blurb for the PARTITION OF clause):
>
> > Creates the table as a partition of the
> > specified
> > parent table. The table can be created either as a partition for
> > specific
> >
A daily report crashed repeatedly this morning running pg11.4.
I compiled 11.5 and reproduced it there, too, so I'm including backtrace with
-O0.
I'm trying to dig further into it, but it seems to be crashing under load, but
not when I try to narrow down to a single report, which seem to run to
On 2019-08-07 16:06, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Am I reading the patches correctly, that getpeereid() still doesn't work
> on Windows? That means that peer authentication doesn't work, right?
> That's a bit sad. One of the big advantages of unix domain sockets over
> TCP is peer
On 2019-Aug-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> That hash-partitioned tables can't have default partition is mentioned
> in the CREATE TABLE page:
>
> "If DEFAULT is specified, the table will be created as a default
> partition of the parent table. The parent can either be a list or
> range partitioned
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
> over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
> Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
> there now. More tests is good, but the schedule file
On 2019-Aug-06, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yeah, that's a fair argument, but giving the user a way to say that
> would address it. As in, "create me a list-partitioned table for these
> values, plus a default." Anyhow, I'm sure that I'm taking this beyond
> what we need to do right now, just
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem in "timeouts" is that it has to use drearily long timeouts
> to be sure that the behavior will be stable even on really slow machines
> (think CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS or valgrind --- it can take seconds for them
> to reach a waiting state that other
st 7. 8. 2019 v 18:39 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > st 7. 8. 2019 v 17:39 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> >> I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know what the lifespan of
> >> a fn_extra cache is.
>
> > fn_extra cache cannot be longer than query.
>
> There are
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:59 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-08-07 16:06, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Am I reading the patches correctly, that getpeereid() still doesn't work
> > on Windows? That means that peer authentication doesn't work, right?
> >
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:49 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> The word "rewinded" appears in our manual and in a comment. That
>> sounds strange to my ears. Isn't it a mistake?
Certainly.
> To me this sounds like a classic non-English-native-speaker-mistake. But
> it
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 07/08/2019 16:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, if you're using systemd or something else that thinks it
ought to interfere with where cores get dropped, that could be
a problem.
I think they should just go to a file called "core",
On 07/08/2019 18:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
Something related I've been wondering about is whether we could
parallelize the isolation tests. A difficulty here is that the
slowest ones tend to also be timing-sensitive, such that running
them in parallel would
Just found this, although I'm not sure what to do about it. If it's corrupt
table data, I can restore from backup.
ts=# VACUUM FREEZE VERBOSE child.huawei_umts_ucell_201908;
INFO: 0: aggressively vacuuming "child.huawei_umts_ucell_201908"
LOCATION: lazy_scan_heap, vacuumlazy.c:502
ERROR:
Pavel Stehule writes:
> st 7. 8. 2019 v 17:39 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
>> I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know what the lifespan of
>> a fn_extra cache is.
> fn_extra cache cannot be longer than query.
There are fn_extra caches that are not tied to queries. Admittedly
they're for
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Actually, it also says this (in the blurb for the PARTITION OF clause):
> Creates the table as a partition of the specified
> parent table. The table can be created either as a partition for
> specific
> values using FOR VALUES or as a default
Nikita Glukhov writes:
> Attached 6th version of the patches.
I spent a bit of time looking at these. Attached is a proposed revision
of the 0001 patch, with some minor changes:
* I didn't adopt your move of the "Non-default modes require the index
to have placeholders" test to after the
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 23:18, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Aug-06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Well, if this is really all that duplicative, one thing we could do is
> > run this check in get_partprune_steps_internal only if
> > constraint_exclusion is a value other than on; we should achieve
I checked this still happens with max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0.
Now, I just reproduced using SELECT * FROM that table:
(gdb) p thisatt->attrelid
$4 = 2015128626
ts=# SELECT 2015128626::regclass;
regclass | child.huawei_umts_ucell_201908
(gdb) p thisatt->attnum
$1 = 2
(gdb) p attnum # For
Hi,
On 2019-08-07 16:19:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jul-26, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > 2) We could simply assign the subtransaction to the parent using
> >ReorderBufferAssignChild() in SnapBuildProcessNewCid() or it's
> >caller. That ought to also fix the bug
> >
> >I
On 2019-Aug-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Then there's the removal, which is in tuplesort.c because of
> > INT_MAX as added by commit d26559dbf356 and still present ...
>
> One has to be especially wary of removing system-header inclusions;
> the fact that they don't seem to
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:56 PM Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Looking at the code as of master, we currently have:
>>
>
> Super awesome feedback and insights, thank you!
>
> - PredicateLockTuple() calls SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() to
Hi,
Patch does not apply, rebased patch on (
68343b4ad75305391b38f4b42734dc07f2fe7ee2) attached
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Small patch to simplify some no longer necessary complicated code, using
> > varargs macros.
>
> +1
>
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
> b/src/test/isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec
> > index 3a70484fc2..7f29fb9d02 100644
> > ---
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, that's rather confusingly worded IMO. Is the antecedent of "this
>> option" just DEFAULT, or does it mean that you can't use FOR VALUES,
>> or perchance it means that you can't use a PARTITION OF clause
>> at all?
> Uh, you're
On 2019-Aug-07, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I saw your recent commit and it scares me in various places, noted below.
>
> "Commit: Apply constraint exclusion more generally in partitioning"
>
> "This applies particularly to the default partition..."
>
> My understanding of the thread was the
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem in "timeouts" is that it has to use drearily long timeouts
>> to be sure that the behavior will be stable even on really slow machines
>> (think CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS or valgrind --- it can take seconds for them
>> to reach a
I'm looking at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-analyze.html,
where it says “Without a table_and_columns list, ANALYZE processes every
table and materialized view in the current database that the current user
has permission to analyze.”.
I don’t believe there is a separate “analyze”
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
