On 3/5/20 10:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Here's an updated patch set responding to many of the comments
received thus far.
Thanks Robert. There is a scenario - if user provide port of v11 server
at the time of creating 'base backup' against pg_basebackup(v13+ your
patch applied)
with option
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:55 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This may be a good time to think through about how to implement a
> version history for an extension that enables users to go from pg12's
> current 1.7 pageinspect to a new fixed version in pg12, say 1.7.1, and
> in HEAD provide an upgrade
Hi,
On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
> In patch 0003,
>
> > /*
> > -* Was it the archiver? If so, just try to start a new one; no
> > need
> > -* to force reset of the rest of the system. (If fail, we'll
> > try
>
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Which, TBH, makes me wonder about the validity of the original complaint
>> in this thread. I don't mind delaying ET restore as long as we feasibly
>> can; but if you have an ET that is going
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm worried that we're causing all processes to terminate when an
>> archiver dies in some ugly way; but in the current coding, it's pretty
>> harmless and we'd just start a new one. I think this needs to be
>>
Hi,
On 2020-03-09 15:04:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I'm worried that we're causing all processes to terminate when an
> >> archiver dies in some ugly way; but in the current coding, it's pretty
> >> harmless and
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:54 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> I may be missing something, andt any opinions, thoughts or suggestions
> are welcome.
Since it's a set-returning function, I would have expected that
instead of trying to assign the result to a variable, you'd loop over
it using FOR var
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 4:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> It's possible that this is a bad idea. It bears a lot of similarity,
> I guess, to the way that Postgres doesn't consider arrays of different
> dimensionality to be distinct types. That has some advantages but it
> surely also has downsides. I
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:35:48AM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 00:02, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Speaking of which, would you take a look at [1]? I think supporting SAOP
is fine, but I wonder if you agree with my conclusion we can't really
support inclusion @> as explained in
Hi,
On 2020-03-06 13:53:02 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 19:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > One thing that is not clear to me is how will we advance restart_lsn
> > if we don't send any empty xact in a system where there are many such
> > xacts?
>
> Same way we already do it
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:52 AM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Attached patch also has revised commit message. I'll wait for your
> response before commit.
Oh, I found that I haven't attached the patch.
--
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian
Tom Lane escribió:
In patch 0003,
> /*
> - * Was it the archiver? If so, just try to start a new one; no
> need
> - * to force reset of the rest of the system. (If fail, we'll
> try
> - * again in future cycles of the main loop.). Unless
Hi,
On 2020-03-06 15:33:10 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:58:59AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > + ExplainIndentText(es);
> > > + appendStringInfo(es->str,
> > > + "Buckets: %ld (originally %ld)",
On 2020-03-07 11:15:27 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> IMHO, if we conclude that because there is no performance gain so we
> don't want to add one extra path in the code then we might want to
> remove that TODO from the code so that we don't spend time for
> optimizing this in the future.
+1
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
