On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:02:27PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi, Bruce!
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:03 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have committed the first draft of the PG 14 release notes. You can
> > see the most current build of them here:
> >
> > https://momjian.us/pgsq
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:46 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 6:54 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 9:37 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > For some of the logical replication messages the data type documented
> > was not correct, especially for lsn and xid. For ls
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:53:03PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> 2021年5月10日(月) 15:03 Bruce Momjian :
> >
> > I have committed the first draft of the PG 14 release notes. You can
> > see the most current build of them here:
> >
> > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-14.html
> >
>
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:40 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Same as the last couple years, I checked for missing items in the release
> notes, running something like this.
>
> git log --cherry-pick --oneline origin/REL_13_STABLE...origin/master
>
> Should any of these be included?
>
> 86dc90056d Rewor
On 10/5/21 08:03, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:32 PM Andrey Lepikhov
I think a simple fix for this would be just remove the check whether
the instr->running flag is set or not in InstrUpdateTupleCount().
Attached is an updated patch, in which I also updated a comment in
execnodes
Hi,
On 2021-05-10 19:27:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've a couple times gotten into a situation where I was shutting down
> the primary while the standby was behind, and the system appeared to
> just lock up, with neither primary nor standby reacting to normal
> shutdown attempts. This seems
We apparently forgot in 86dc90056df to remove a note in 5.11.4.
Partition Pruning saying this:
Execution-time partition pruning currently only occurs for the
Append and MergeAppend node types.
It is not yet implemented for the ModifyTable node
type, but that is likely
On Mon, May 10, 2021, at 10:45 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> I agree to specifying the actual dataypes like XLogRecPtr for lsn,
> TimestampTz for timestamp, TransactionId for xid and Oid for the
> object id. Attached v2 patch which is changed on similar lines.
> Thoughts?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clea
On 7/5/21 21:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I think it would be better to start a new thread for this, and add the
patch to the next CF so that it doesn’t get lost.
Current implementation of async append choose asynchronous subplans at
the phase of an append plan creation. This is safe approach, but
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 15:36, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> We apparently forgot in 86dc90056df to remove a note in 5.11.4.
> Partition Pruning saying this:
>
>
>
> Execution-time partition pruning currently only occurs for the
> Append and MergeAppend node types.
> It is not yet
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:45 PM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 7/5/21 21:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I think it would be better to start a new thread for this, and add the
> > patch to the next CF so that it doesn’t get lost.
>
> Current implementation of async append choose asynchronous subplans a
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:14:56PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:58 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > OK, you are confirming what Matthias suggested. I added these two
> > > items, which both seem to apply only to
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:30 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> Can these be merged:
> Allow logical replication to stream long transactions to standbys (Dilip
> Kumar, Tomas Vondra, Amit Kapila, Nikhil Sontakke)
> Improve the logical replication API to allow streaming large in-progress
> transaction
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 15:46, David Rowley wrote:
> I'll take care of this.
Pushed.
David
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:47 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-May-10, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > That sounds fine to me, Attached v6 patch which has the changes for the
> > same.
>
> What about defining a function (maybe a static inline function in
> defrem.h) that is marked noreturn and receives
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > Patch looks good to me, I can not verify though because I don't have
> > such an environment. Thanks for improving the patch.
>
> Thanks, I got that applied to finish the work of this thread for
> beta1. At least this will give people
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:57 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 15:46, David Rowley wrote:
> > I'll take care of this.
>
> Pushed.
Thank you.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:09:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bharath Rupireddy writes:
>> if (value < 0) "requires a zero or positive integer value"
>> if (value <= 0) "requires a positive integer value"
>
> I was thinking of avoiding the passive voice and writing
>
> "foo must be greater t
On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 13:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, I try to keep the first sentence short so people can scan it more
> easily, so I am hesitant to make this change. I went with this change:
>
>
>
>
>
> When editing the previous query or a file with psq
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:14:54PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> LGTM.
No objections from me to what you are doing here.
else if (TailMatches("DELETE", "FROM", MatchAny))
COMPLETE_WITH("USING", "WHERE");
- /* XXX: implement tab completion for DELETE ... USING */
Why are you remov
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, this error message seems outright buggy. However, it's a minor
> >> matter. Also, some people think "positive" is the same thing as
> >> "non-negative",
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:25 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Yes, we don't want any write slip in before UpdateFullPageWrites().
> Recently[1], we have decided to let the Checkpointed process call
> XLogAcceptWrites() unconditionally.
>
> Here problem is that when a backend executes the
> pg_prohibit_wal(
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about
>>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-
On 2021/05/11 15:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about
the s
> > Sometimes this is actually quite useful. You might know that, while
> > the function is in general volatile, it is immutable in the particular
> > way that you are using it. Or, perhaps, you are using the volatile
> > function incidentally and it doesn't affect the output of your
> > function a
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
