hi.
this time, I only checked
v52-0001-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-MERGE-PARTITIONS-.-comma.patch
typedef struct PartitionCmd
{
NodeTagtype;
RangeVar *name;/* name of partition to attach/detach/merge */
PartitionBoundSpec *bound;/* FOR VALUES, if attaching */
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments, the updated version has the changes for the same.
>
I wanted to first discuss a few design points. The patch implements
"ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION SEQUENCES" such that it
copies the existing sequences v
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:29:03AM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:38 AM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> There is still an open item for this one, but it's not clear whether we are
>> planning to do anything about this for v18, especially since nobody has
>> shown measurable perf
Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Aug-20, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > There's an issue with the symlink, maybe some meson expert can help. In
> > particular, the CI on Windows ends up with the following error:
> >
> > ERROR: Tried to install symlink to missing file
> > C:/cirrus/build/tmp_instal
Hi,
On 2025-08-20 16:22:41 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2025-Aug-20, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >
> > > There's an issue with the symlink, maybe some meson expert can help. In
> > > particular, the CI on Windows ends up with the following error:
> > >
> > > ERROR: Tr
> On Aug 20, 2025, at 15:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:46:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for getting rid of those while we're doing janitorial work here.
>> They're not *quite* duplicates though, for instance next_pow2_int has
>> different response to out-of-range
Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Still on pg_repackdb, the implementation here is to install a symlink
> called pg_repackdb which points to vacuumdb, and make the program behave
> differently when called in this way. The amount of additional code for
> this is relatively small, so I think this is a worth
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 23:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I imagined something like case 2. For logical replication of tables,
> if we support DDL replication (i.e., CREATE/ALTER/DROP TABLE), all
> changes the apply worker executes are serialized in commit LSN order.
> Therefore, users would not ha
Hi Kirill,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 11:46, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 05:53, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > 1.
> > bool isnull = true;
> > - Datum whereClauseDatum;
> > - Datum columnListDatum;
> > + Datum datum;
> >
> > I know you did not w
thanks for you clarification about additional memory calculations: for
10k connections , 5625kB maybe fine. I justed looked through the
discussions about memory allocation "
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cba2406a-66bb-41ac-b1cf-bb898596e0e1%40vondra.me";,
I feel confused about the stat
> On Aug 20, 2025, at 16:41, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on the thread [1]. We encountered that in the
> 'AlterPublicationTables' function, the assignment 'isnull = true' is
> redundant. This assignment is not required, and the variable will be
> reassigned before use.
> I have
Hi,
In commit 71c0921 we re-introduced use of xmlParseBalancedChunkMemory in
order to allow parsing of large XML documents with certain libxml2
versions [1]. While that solved a regression issue, it still leaves the
handling of very large or deeply nested XML documents tied to libxml2’s
internal l
Jim Jones writes:
> To address this, Erik and I would like to propose a new GUC,
> xml_parse_huge, which controls libxml2’s XML_PARSE_HUGE option.
Given the spotty security history of libxml2, I can't really see
how this wouldn't be enormously unsafe. Even as a superuser-only
option, it seems li
On 15.04.25 11:02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025, at 10:52, jian he wrote:
in refuseDupeIndexAttach, we can change from
errdetail("Another index is already attached for partition \"%s\"."...)
to
errdetail("Another index \"%s\" is already attached for partition \"%s\".")
So we ca
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 9:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 11:33 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 1:44 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Case 2: Sequence value Conflict While Applying DDL Changes(Future patch)
> > >
> > > Example:
> > > -- Publ
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:24 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> > You haven't actually defined what "this" is. For starters, do you
> > really want this output to be included in \d? Seems like one part
> > or the other of such output would be clutter
> On 20 Aug 2025, at 00:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrey Borodin writes:
>> I believe there is a bug with PageIsAllVisible(page) &&
>> visibilitymap_clear(). But I cannot prove it with an injection point test.
>> Because injections points rely on CondVar, that per se creates corruption in
>>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 4:19 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 01:53:38PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > The patch conflicted with the latest commit, so I rebased it.
>
> Nice find. I would suggest adding the virtual generated column to
> regression_vacuumdb_test when it is firs
> On Aug 21, 2025, at 09:10, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> I feel that having redundant assignments can be misleading because
> someone reading the code might think the initial value matters or has
> some significance, when it does not.
>
> ~~~
>
> Here's another example, in the same function:
> ---
Nathan Bossart writes:
> This function returns the values in the sequence tuple, primarily for
> pg_dump (see commit bd15b7d). IIUC your patch would break pg_dump on v18
> and newer versions.
The proposed patch includes a change to pg_dump that I suppose is
meant to compensate. But I'm not 100%
Hi,
I think there's a minor issue in how pg_checksums validates state before
checking the data.
The current patch simply does:
if (ControlFile->data_checksum_version == 0 &&
mode == PG_MODE_CHECK)
pg_fatal("data checksums are not enabled in cluster");
and that worked when the vers
Jeff Davis writes:
> On Wed, 2025-08-20 at 09:22 +0200, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>> Building a hash table repeatedly may be pretty costly, no?
> We can check the eflags for EXEC_FLAG_REWIND. That might not be the
> only condition we need to check, but we should know at plan time
> whether a subtree
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> You'll presumably have to use GetMemoryChunkContext() for RelOptInfo,
> so I don't see much downside from using it in one or even both of the
> other cases too.
Pointer dereference must be faster than a function call.
> Hm. We don't have read su
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:16:55PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> pg_sequences and pg_sequence_last_value return NULL for last_value,
> which aligns with the expectation that the sequence hasn't been used
> yet. However, pg_get_sequence_data returns the start value (1) even
> though is_called is false.
On Wed, 2025-08-20 at 09:22 +0200, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your reasoning clearly. How do you know
> that
> the current subtree will not be rescanned with the same parameter
> set?
> Building a hash table repeatedly may be pretty costly, no?
We can check the eflags for
Hello Andres,
22.07.2025 02:19, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2025-06-19 10:16:12 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:05:25PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
I also dug out an archeologically old MacBook Pro running macOS High Sierra
10.13.6 with an i5 using Apple LLVM versio
On 8/20/2025 9:52 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:58 AM Przemysław Sztoch
wrote:
Yasir wrote on 19.05.2024 00:03:
I would also like to thank Robert for presenting the matter
in detail.
My function date_trunc ( interval, timestamp, ...) is simila
When analyzing a partitioned table, I think you should use ANALYZE ONLY,
or otherwise avoid processing the children twice.
Thanks for handling this. I was recently suprised to learn that
vacuumdb doesn't process parents.
--
Justin
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> If we look into the subsequent functions, yes, “isnull” will always
> be assigned. But how about if someone incidentally changed a
> subsequent function and moved an assignment?
> I think giving an initial value is a good habit without much
> On Aug 21, 2025, at 08:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Compilers are smart enough to optimize such things away
My first impression was compilers would optimize the local variable “isnull",
such as replacing it with a constant value. However, “isnull” will be passed
into other functions wit
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:55 PM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-04-22 at 10:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I vaguely recall some discussion about whether building with readline
> > has become possible under MSVC. I think it'd make a lot of people
> > happy if that could happen (but I hasten t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 01:53:38PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> The patch conflicted with the latest commit, so I rebased it.
Nice find. I would suggest adding the virtual generated column to
regression_vacuumdb_test when it is first created so that we can just rely
on the existing test cases. In
On Tue Aug 19, 2025 at 2:40 PM -03, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> However, I have a more fundamental concern regarding the LISTEN/NOTIFY
> implementation. Since vacuum doesn't consider the XIDs of notification
> entries, there might be a critical issue with the truncation of clog
> entries that LISTEN/N
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:46:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Independently of that, we have learned the hard way that GUCs
> that change application-visible query semantics are a bad idea.
> You cannot really argue that this wouldn't be one.
For reference: a famous example of that is autocommit as
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:20:11AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> $sub proposed in a nearby thread. Looks like we have a consensus that
> $subj is beneficial.
> I implemented necessary legwork, namely a clock-based check in the
> wait() routine, PFA. I'm not sure the default pg_sleep argument of 50
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 5:13 PM Przemysław Sztoch
wrote:
> On 8/20/2025 9:52 PM, Kirk Wolak wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:58 AM Przemysław Sztoch
> wrote:
>
>> Yasir wrote on 19.05.2024 00:03:
>>
>> I would also like to thank Robert for presenting the matter in detail.
>>>
>>> My functio
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:14:15PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> I wonder if we can keep the same naming style to make the new
> function name like next_pow2_64()?
I don't think that this would be a good idea to have new routines
published in pg_bitutils.h with names inconsistent with the existing
one.
Hello everyone!
Alvaro Herrera :
> Please note that Antonin already implemented this. See his patches
> here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/77690.1725610115%40antos
> I proposed to leave this part out initially, which is why it hasn't been
> reposted. We can review and discuss after th
Hi Michael,
> On Aug 21, 2025, at 07:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
> After sleeping on it, I am not sure what to do with these routines. I
> don't deny that more refactoring can be done. However, all that can
> also happen outside the long -> int64 switch I am suggesting.
>
> Any comments f
Hi Shlok,
I reviewed your latest v20-0003 patch and have no more comments at
this time; I only found one trivial typo.
==
src/bin/psql/describe.c
1.
+ /*
+ * Footers entries for a publication description or a table
+ * description
+ */
Typo. /Footers entries/Footer entries/
==
Kind Reg
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 01:01:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The proposed patch includes a change to pg_dump that I suppose is
> meant to compensate. But I'm not 100% sure that it does so correctly.
> Anyway, given that it's supposed to provide low-level inspection of
> the sequence tuple, I think
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:11 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:29:03AM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:38 AM Nathan Bossart
> > wrote:
> >> There is still an open item for this one, but it's not clear whether we are
> >> planning to do anything about
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 6:41 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on the thread [1]. We encountered that in the
> 'AlterPublicationTables' function, the assignment 'isnull = true' is
> redundant. This assignment is not required, and the variable will be
> reassigned before use.
> I have
On 2025-08-20 21:42 +0200, Jim Jones wrote:
> On 20.08.25 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Independently of that, we have learned the hard way that GUCs that
> > change application-visible query semantics are a bad idea. You
> > cannot really argue that this wouldn't be one.
I totally forgot about that
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:09:14 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:58:05 +0900
> Yugo Nagata wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:48:26 +0700
> > Daniil Davydov <3daniss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:18 PM Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:42:11AM +, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Let me clarify your point. For now, there are no decisions to prohibit origin
> manipulations. 0002 only restricts to handle slots in the single-user mode.
> Did
> you say that we do not have to do tests to ensure these SQL
Hi,
While working on the thread [1]. We encountered that in the
'AlterPublicationTables' function, the assignment 'isnull = true' is
redundant. This assignment is not required, and the variable will be
reassigned before use.
I have attached a patch to address this.
[1]:
https://www.postgresql.or
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 3:18 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ok, I did the big conversion, and tidied everything up so that it now
> generates the big tables in guc_tables.c from the .dat file. This
> basically works now.
> - One thing I didn't reproduce in the generated code is the line breaks
> i
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 11:29, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jul 2025, at 23:15, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> >
> > I do not understand it yet.
>
> OK, I figured it out. SimpleLruDoesPhysicalPageExist() was reading a physical
> file and could race with real extension by ExtendMultiXactOffset()
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Aug-16, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:59 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > > Now that we want to cover the CLUSTER/VACUUM FULL completely, I've
> > > checked the
> > > options of VACUUM FULL. I found two items not supported by REPACK (but
> >
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:46:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for getting rid of those while we're doing janitorial work here.
> They're not *quite* duplicates though, for instance next_pow2_int has
> different response to out-of-range values than pg_nextpower2_32.
This would mean introducing mor
Dear Michael,
I found you've pushed 0001. Thanks!
I've considered to create patches for other branches after you said OK, but
you seemed to push all of them directly.
> This has reminded me of 1a9d80282811, where I have used a trick with
> pg_ctl to allow single-user mode executions to bypass the
On 19/8/2025 18:47, Robert Haas wrote:
polishing. If people do not like this design, then I would like to
know what alternative they would prefer.Thanks for these efforts!
Generally, such an interface seems good for the extension's purposes. It
is OK in this specific context because all these
On Wed, 2025-08-20 at 13:31 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> OK, so for now I've pushed the patch to master. Thanks!
Thank you for working on that!
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On 20/8/2025 07:38, Chao Li wrote:
I know some memory must be retained until the entire query finishes. But
those per-node memories, such as hash table, might be destroyed
immediately after a node finishes.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning clearly. How do you know that
the current subtr
On 20/8/2025 01:34, Jeff Davis wrote:
It doesn't do much yet, but it creates infrastructure that will be
useful for subsequent patches to make the memory accounting and
enforcement more consistent throughout the executor.Does this mean that you are considering flexible memory allocation
during e
Please find a few comments:
1)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots:
+ bool dropped = false;
We can name 'dropped ' as 'dropped_logical' similar to ReplicationSlotCleanup.
2)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots()
+
+ if (dropped && nlogicalslots == 0)
+ DisableLogicalDecodingIfNecessary();
I could not understan
Dear PostgreSQL Hackers,
I am writing to propose a new feature to allow temporarily disabling and
enabling indexes without dropping them. This would provide a safer, more
efficient alternative to the current drop/recreate workflow for testing and
maintenance purposes. I am aware of prior discussion
Hi,
While following the discussion on vacuumdb --missing-stats-only [1],
I noticed that this option queries pg_statistic and pg_statistic_ext_data.
As a result, non-superusers like pg_maintain cannot use it because
by default they lack permission to access those catalogs.
I'm not sure whether --m
Hi,
While discussing [1], I was reading execUtils.c, then I noticed this
redundant local variable assignment in CreateWorkExprContext(). The
attached patch fixed that.
[1]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1+seus_6vqay9tf_r4ow+e-q7lynlfsd78haoslsgp...@mail.gmail.com
Best regards
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 5:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > One idea to keep things simple for the first version is that we allow
> > > users to specify the table_name
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Having said that, we should in any case have a better story on
> what WaitEventSetWait should do after detecting postmaster death.
> So I'm all for trying to avoid the proc_exit path if we can
> design a better answer.
Yeah. I've posted a concept
Hi,
Here's an experimental patch to fix our shutdown strategy on
postmaster death, as discussed in a nearby report[1].
Maybe it's possible to switch to _exit() without also switching to
preemptive handling, but it seems fragile and painful for no gain.
Following that line of thinking, we might a
Dear Sawada-san,
> It decrements the counter whenever we successfully find the entry from
> the cache but I'm not sure this is the right approach. What if no
> cache invalidation happens at all but we retrieve entries from the
> cache many times?
Oh, right. I tried to handle the case that invalid
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 5:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. Up to now, we have not had an assumption that postmaster
> children are aware of every other postmaster child. In particular,
> not all postmaster children have PGPROC entries. How much does
> this matter? What happens if the shared PGPROC
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:25 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 23:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I imagined something like case 2. For logical replication of tables,
> > if we support DDL replication (i.e., CREATE/ALTER/DROP TABLE), all
> > changes the apply worker executes are s
Dear Michael and hackers,
This is a wrap-up of this thread. I'm planning to close the thread once.
> I am saying that there is little point in having tests for the origin
> functions in single-user mode as these don't do anything really
> fancy with global states (there's a acquired_by of course,
Thomas Munro writes:
> Following that line of thinking, we might as well just ask the kernel
> to hit our existing SIGQUIT handler at parent exit, on Linux/FreeBSD.
> Job done.
One other thought here: do we *really* want such a critical-and-hard-
to-test aspect of our behavior to be handled compl
On 20/8/2025 19:00, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2025-08-20 at 09:22 +0200, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning clearly. How do you know
that
the current subtree will not be rescanned with the same parameter
set?
Building a hash table repeatedly may be pretty costly, no?
On Friday, July 11, 2025 3:09 PM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 at 09:51, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> >
> > Answering my own question, INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE does
> have
> > the same problem as MERGE. To reproduce the error, all you need to do
> > is create the unique index it
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I agree. Here is V63 version which implements this approach.
>
Thank You for the patches.
> The retention status is recorded in the pg_subscription catalog
> (subretentionactive) to prevent unnecessary retention initiation upon s
Hi Tom
Thanks for replying so quickly!
On 20.08.25 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given the spotty security history of libxml2, I can't really see
> how this wouldn't be enormously unsafe. Even as a superuser-only
> option, it seems like a bad idea.
I was under the impression that the status quo alre
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:58 AM Przemysław Sztoch
wrote:
> Yasir wrote on 19.05.2024 00:03:
>
> I would also like to thank Robert for presenting the matter in detail.
>>
>> My function date_trunc ( interval, timestamp, ...) is similar to original
>> function date_trunc ( text, timestamp ...) .
>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:47:38AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> This function returns the values in the sequence tuple, primarily for
> pg_dump (see commit bd15b7d). IIUC your patch would break pg_dump on v18
> and newer versions.
Concretely, after the following commands, the patch causes pg_du
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:11:15AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 21:37, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Thanks. Given the current state of freeze for tomorrow's release wrap, the
> > decision is less obvious than usual. I'm seeing these options:
> >
> > 1. Remove the new assertion i
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 09:14:04AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-08-19 23:47:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. It still makes me mighty uncomfortable, because the point of a
>> critical section is "crash the database if anything goes wrong during
>> this bit". Waiting for another process -
On Tue Aug 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM -03, Daniil Davydov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 6:31 PM Matheus Alcantara
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue Aug 19, 2025 at 12:57 AM -03, Daniil Davydov wrote:
>> > You have started a very long transaction, which holds its xid and prevents
>> > vacuum from freezing
Vladlen Popolitov writes:
> What do you mean, when speak about function cache?
What I'm thinking about is the function parse-tree, which not
incidentally contains a bunch of links to cached plans (via SPI).
Looking at plpgsql_free_function_memory might clarify things
for you.
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 10:37, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 at 23:03, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > v2-0002-ci-windows-Use-DEBUG-FULL-instead-of-DEBUG-FASTLI.patch
>
> > Separately I think we should report this as a bug to meson. Could you
> > perhaps
> > create a minimal
Hi,
On 2025-08-19 23:47:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 7:50 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to think that we do want to prohibit WaitEventSetWait
> >> inside a critical section --- it just seems like a bad idea all
> >> around, even without cons
章晨曦 писал(а) 2025-08-19 12:31:
I think you misunderstand Man's meaning. In Man's example, the func
cache
neither dropped (will cause memory leak) nor reused. So the question
here:
1. Drop the cache when func dropped
2. Keep the cache and reused when func recreate
I prefer the 2ed solution.
Re
Hi,
I noticed an inconsistency in the behavior of sequence-related
functions for a freshly created sequence.
CREATE SEQUENCE s1;
postgres=# select last_value from pg_sequences;
last_value
(1 row)
postgres=# select pg_sequence_last_value('s1');
pg_sequence_last_value
-
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > One idea to keep things simple for the first version is that we allow
> > users to specify the table_name for storing conflicts but the table
> > should be created internally and
On 2025-Aug-20, Antonin Houska wrote:
> There's an issue with the symlink, maybe some meson expert can help. In
> particular, the CI on Windows ends up with the following error:
>
> ERROR: Tried to install symlink to missing file
> C:/cirrus/build/tmp_install/usr/local/pgsql/bin/vacuumdb
Hmm, t
On 8/16/25 21:34, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Attached is a rebase on top of the func.sgml changes which caused this to no
> longer apply.
>
> This version is also substantially updated with a new injection point based
> test suite, fixed a few bugs (found by said test suite), added checkpoint to
>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 9:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > If so, I don't think we can do much with the design
> > choice we made. During DDL replication of sequences, we need to
> > consider it as a conflict.
> >
> > BTW, note that the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 5:22 PM jian he wrote:
>
> this time, I only checked
> v52-0001-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-MERGE-PARTITIONS-.-comma.patch
>
> typedef struct PartitionCmd
> {
> NodeTagtype;
> RangeVar *name;/* name of partition to attach/detach/merge
> */
> P
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 09:01:12AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> +1 for e.g.
e.g. feels more elegant, so I have reused your suggestion, and applied
the result down to v13.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 04:14:15PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
>> I wonder if we can keep the same naming style to make the new
>> function name like next_pow2_64()?
> I don't think that this would be a good idea to have new routines
> published in pg_bitutils.h with names inc
Thomas Munro writes:
> Here's an experimental patch to fix our shutdown strategy on
> postmaster death, as discussed in a nearby report[1].
Thanks for tackling this topic.
> For systems lacking that facility, the idea I'm trying out here is
> that backends that detect the condition in WaitEventS
Dear Xuneng,
> This may not be ideal. It decrements on every lookup of an existing
> entry, not just when consuming an invalidation, which could make the
> counter go
> negative. Do we need decrementing logic? Not perfect 1:1 tracking
> seems ok in here; though it might make the clean-up a bit mo
> Firstly I also considered but did not choose because of the code complexity.
> After considering more, it is not so difficult, PSA new file.
v3 contained 100_cachectm_oom.pl, which won't succeed. Here is a patch
which removed the test file.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
v4-0001
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:53 AM jian he wrote:
>
> > this time, I only checked
> > v52-0001-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-MERGE-PARTITIONS-.-comma.patch
> >
hi.
we may need to change checkPartition.
+-- ERROR: "sales_apr2022" is not a table
+ALTER TABLE sales_range MERGE PARTITIONS (sales_feb2022,
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Japin Li wrote:
> Yeah. It's for both consistency and for proper file sorting.
>
> Zero-padding ensures that when a file system or tool sorts the snapshot files
> alphabetically, the order is also chronological. For example, without
> zero-padding, 2-1.snap would
> On 21 Aug 2025, at 04:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> I would not object to that if that's the actual consensus as we don't
> have a strong requirement for condition variables when it comes to
> testing. That's just a more efficient implementation, and it makes
> the tests faster. If we do
95 matches
Mail list logo
