On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> > > the point of giving it a NodeTag?
> >
> > Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep
(2019/03/13 14:02), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:37:04AM +, Zhang, Jie wrote:
Here is a tiny patch removing repetitive characters [if] in fdwhandler.sgml.
- This function should store the tuple into the provided, or clear it if if
+ This function should
On 2019/03/11 16:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 03:44:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> We could make the error message more meaningful depending on the context,
>> but maybe it'd better be pursue it as a separate project.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that stuff when working on it
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:16:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. I warned Laetitia about not testing corner cases, but
> it hadn't occurred to me that zero might be a corner case :-(
I was honestly expecting more failures than that when I saw the patch
landing. This stuff is tricky :)
> I'm
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:37:04AM +, Zhang, Jie wrote:
> Here is a tiny patch removing repetitive characters [if] in fdwhandler.sgml.
- This function should store the tuple into the provided, or clear it if if
+ This function should store the tuple into the provided, or clear
Hi Kurokawa-san
I reviewd it. It's ok.
I also confirm there is no same bug.
Regards
Ryo Matsumura
I don't want block review of
> other parts of the patch unnecessarily.
I briefly looked it and have some comments.
0001-multivariate-MCV-lists-20190312.patch
+/*
+ * bms_member_index
+ * determine 0-based index of the varattno in the bitmap
+ *
+ * Returns (-1) when the value
On 2019/03/13 1:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:45 AM Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> I noticed another issue with the code -- it's using strcmp() to compare
>>> specified string against "minvalue" and "maxvalue", which causes the
>>> following silly error:
>>>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 07:55:14PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Add support for hyperbolic functions, as well as log10().
> jacana is not a fan of this commit, and failed on float8:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana=2019-03-13%2000%3A00%3A27
Dear Matsumura-san,
> I think that the 2nd argument of following ecpg_init() must be
> real_connection_name.
> Is it right?
Yes, I think it should be real_connection_name for raising correct error
message.
This is also an leak of my code and I attached a patch.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 7:47 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Have you done any performance testing of this patch? I mean to say
> > now that we added a new stat call for each table, we should see if
> > that has any impact. Ideally, that should
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:58 AM David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:06:27PM +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> > Hello, Postgres hackers,
> >
> > The copy code has used batch insert with function heap_multi_insert() to
> > speed up. It seems that Create Table As or Materialized View could
>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 07:55:14PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> Add support for hyperbolic functions, as well as log10().
>
> The SQL:2016 standard adds support for the hyperbolic functions
> sinh(), cosh(), and tanh(). POSIX has long required libm to
> provide those functions as well as their
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 07:01:17PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think this is even close to popular enough to incur the
> maybe of a separate function / more complicated interface. By this
> logic we can change basically no APIs anymore.
Well, if folks here think that it is not worth
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:44:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, it does not matter much in practice, but other tools just don't
> do that. Note that changing it can be actually annoying for a
> backpatch if we don't have the --enable/--disable part, because git is
> actually smart enough
On March 12, 2019 6:58:12 PM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Paul Ramsey
>wrote:
>>> I was going to say that the function is only used twice in the code
>>> base, but I see it’s now used four times. So
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:55, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Did you miss ri_RangeTableIndex? It's the range table index of the result
> relation for which a given ResultRelInfo is created.
I did indeed. I'll hold off modifying the patch in favour of seeing
what other people think about what should be
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> I was going to say that the function is only used twice in the code
>> base, but I see it’s now used four times. So maybe leave the old
>> signature in place and add the new one for
Hi Kuroda-san
I think that the 2nd argument of following ecpg_init() must be
real_connection_name.
Is it right?
ECPGdeallocate(int lineno, int c, const char *connection_name, const char *name)
:
con = ecpg_get_connection(real_connection_name);
if (!ecpg_init(con, connection_name,
(this is not a reply to your full proposal, just something I thought to
point out)
On 2019/03/13 10:38, David Rowley wrote:
> i.e don't open the indexes for DELETEs. I had ideas that maybe this
> could be changed to check the idxlockmode and open the indexes if it's
> above AccessSharedLock.
Hi Jesper,
> Thanks Kirk !
>
> > On 3/12/19 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The words 'by default' should be removed here, because there is also
> > no non-default way to get that behavior, either.
> >
>
> Here is v9 based on Kirk's and your input.
Thanks! Although there were trailing
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:08:19PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> This refactoring patch is ok for me: applies, compiles, check is ok.
> However, Am I right in thinking that the change should propagate to other
> tools which manipulate the control file, eg pg_resetwal, postmaster… So that
> there
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:13, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 09:58, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:32 AM David Rowley
> > wrote:
> > > 1. Adding a new field to RangeTblEntry to indicate the operation type
> > > that's being performed on the relation; or
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:15 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I made a copy of the _bt_binsrch, _bt_binsrch_insert. It does the binary
> search like _bt_binsrch does, but the bounds caching is only done in
> _bt_binsrch_insert. Seems more clear to have separate functions for them
> now, even though
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> So ... wondering if there are any other left over items for this patch
> or is it good to go? I imagine there's at least a couple of us who would
> love to see this get in for PG12.
I rebased my WIP undo stuff[1] (targeting 13) on top of
, Training & Services
0001-multivariate-MCV-lists-20190312.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
0002-multivariate-histograms-20190312.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
> On 2018-08-08 16:55:22 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:10 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:55:26PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:14 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>> >> > Please find attached the next version, which passes
On 2019/03/13 8:28, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think it should be added to one of the existing sub-headings. I
>> suggest adding it to the end of 5.10.1 and rephrasing it so that it
>> makes clearer the distinction between what will happen with
>>
On 2018-12-19 14:21:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > The current pluggable table storage patchset [1] introduces the ability
> > to specify the access method of a table (CREATE TABLE ... USING
> > "ident"). The patchset currently names the
On 2019/03/13 1:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Mar-09, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> Attached find 3 patches -- for PG 10, 11, and HEAD. I also realizes
>> that a description of PARTITION OF clause was also missing in the
>> Parameters section of CREATE FOREIGN TABLE, which is fixed too.
>
>
Hi Shawn,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:25 PM Shawn Debnath wrote:
> Postgres today doesn't support waiting for a condition variable with a
> timeout, although the framework it relies upon, does. This change wraps
> the existing ConditionVariableSleep functionality and introduces a new
> API,
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it should be added to one of the existing sub-headings. I
> suggest adding it to the end of 5.10.1 and rephrasing it so that it
> makes clearer the distinction between what will happen with
> inheritance and what will happen with table
Hi,
On 2019-03-13 11:56:19 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> A user complained about CREATE DATABASE taking > 200ms even with fsync
> set to off. Andres pointed out that that'd be the clunky poll/sleep
> loops in checkpointer.c.
>
> Here's a draft patch to use condition variables instead.
>
>
Hello hackers,
A user complained about CREATE DATABASE taking > 200ms even with fsync
set to off. Andres pointed out that that'd be the clunky poll/sleep
loops in checkpointer.c.
Here's a draft patch to use condition variables instead.
Unpatched:
postgres=# checkpoint;
CHECKPOINT
Time:
On 3/10/19 9:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Feb-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> Attached is a WIP patch removing the optimization from DropRelationFiles
>> and adding it to smgrDoPendingDeletes. This resolves the issue, at least
>> in the cases I've been able to reproduce. But maybe we
As the original reporter, thanks a ton for all the hard work you're putting
into the documentation!
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:04 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Mar-09, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Attached find 3 patches -- for PG 10, 11, and HEAD. I also realizes
> > that a description of
Hello Nagaura-san.
Thank you for your response.
The main idea of my comment was to avoid handling logical errors (
"client-side timeout") in advance to the detection of network problems
Therefore, I suggested setting "client-side timeout" greater of equal to
the TCP_USER_TIMEOUT or note
Sir/Madam
I am Pavan_Gudivada.I have good knowledge in HTML, CSS,JAVASCRIPT,PYTHON
and SQL.After i know about PostgreSQL and its contributions through open
source .i am also intersted to take part in Read/write transaction-level
routing in Odyssey (2019).
Looking forward for quick response from
Hi,
you are right in saying that my comment didn't offer much of a constructive
explanation.
Apologies for that.
To the issue at hand. Tests were run in the same manner as in all other cases
and the test
in question was the only one to fail in the whole tree.
By looking a bit closer to the
Hi all,
Here is a tiny patch removing repetitive characters [if] in fdwhandler.sgml.
Page:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
---
This function should store the tuple
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:22 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm basically just curious which buffers have most of the additional
> contention. Is it the lower number of leaf pages, the inner pages, or
> (somewhat unexplicably) the meta page, or ...? I was thinking that the
> callstack that e.g. my
On 2019-03-12 14:15:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Have you looked at an offwake or lwlock wait graph (bcc tools) or
> > something in that vein? Would be interesting to see what is waiting for
> > what most often...
>
> Not recently,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Have you looked at an offwake or lwlock wait graph (bcc tools) or
> something in that vein? Would be interesting to see what is waiting for
> what most often...
Not recently, though I did use your BCC script for this very purpose
quite a
Bonjour Michaël,
Here is a partial review:
- 0001 if a patch to refactor the routine for the control file
update. I have made it backend-aware, and we ought to be careful with
error handling, use of fds and such, something that v4 was not very
careful about.
This refactoring patch is ok
Hello
> Dispatches from the department of grammatical nitpicking...
Thank you!
> + entire table, however if a valid CHECK constraint is
>
> I think this should be:
>
> entire table; however, if...
>
> + * are set NOT NULL, however, if we can find a constraint which proves
>
> similarly here
Hi,
Thanks Kirk !
On 3/12/19 2:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
The words 'by default' should be removed here, because there is also
no non-default way to get that behavior, either.
Here is v9 based on Kirk's and your input.
Best regards,
Jesper
>From 5b879f79300412638705e32aa3ed51aff3cbe75c
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:34 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> Andy Fan wrote:
> > I just don't know why shm_mq is designed to single-reader & single-writer.
>
> shm_mq was implemented as a part of infrastructure for parallel query
> processing. The leader backend launches multiple parallel workers and
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:03 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:22:53PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > I checked the code why the current_logfiles is not implemented as
> > shared memory and found that the current syslogger doesn't attach to
> > the shared memory of the
=?UTF-8?Q?L=C3=A6titia_Avrot?= writes:
> So, as you're asking that too, maybe my reasons weren't good enough. You'll
> find enclosed a new version of the patch
> with asinh, acosh and atanh (v5).
Pushed with some minor adjustments (mainly cleanup of the error handling).
> Then I tried for
Hi,
On 2019-03-11 19:47:29 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I now believe that the problem is with LWLock/buffer lock contention
> on index pages, and that that's an inherent cost with a minority of
> write-heavy high contention workloads. A cost that we should just
> accept.
Have you looked at
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:40 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Hey, I understood something today!
And I said something that could be understood!
> I think it's pretty clear that we have to view that as acceptable. I
> mean, we could reduce contention even further by finding a way to make
> indexes 40%
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:22 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> 21 февр. 2019 г., в 23:50, Paul Ramsey
>> написал(а):
>>
>> Merci! Attached are updated patches.
>>
>
> As noted before, patches are extremely useful.
> So, I've looked into the code too.
>
> I've got some questions
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:34 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:32 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > If I wanted to try to say this in fewer words, would it be fair to say
> > that reducing the size of an index by 40% without changing anything
> > else can increase contention on the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:32 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> If I wanted to try to say this in fewer words, would it be fair to say
> that reducing the size of an index by 40% without changing anything
> else can increase contention on the remaining pages?
Yes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:47 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:17 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > The regression that I mentioned earlier isn't in pgbench type
> > workloads (even when the distribution is something more interesting
> > that the uniform distribution default).
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:05 PM Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> I was thinking of something like the attached,
+ machine. Note that this option isn't passed to the
+ vacuumdb application by default.
The words 'by default' should be removed here, because there is also
no non-default way to get
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-03-12 14:42:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:38:56PM +, Regina Obe wrote:
I tested on windows mingw64 (as of a week ago) and
I wrote:
> Neel Patel writes:
>> Is this error message expected or what should be the behaviour ?
> It's certainly a bug.
Oh, no, I take that back: it's not a bug, you're just abusing
pg_get_expr() to try to do something it can't do, which is make
sense of an expression involving more than one
Neel Patel writes:
> Getting "*ERROR: bogus varno: 2*" and below is the sample SQL.
Hmm, reproduced here on HEAD.
> Is this error message expected or what should be the behaviour ?
It's certainly a bug. Don't know the cause yet, but it looks like
pg_get_expr() is getting confused:
#0
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I'm not sure what I think about which behavior is really more
>> desirable. We can debate that if there's actually a plausible
>> choice to be made, which seems to depend on Windows.)
> Yeah, that's a fair question. My
Hi,
Getting "*ERROR: bogus varno: 2*" and below is the sample SQL.
- Create table "test_bogus" as below.
CREATE TABLE test_bogus(
id serial PRIMARY KEY,
display_name text NOT NULL,
Hi,
On March 12, 2019 10:17:19 AM PDT, Robert Haas wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I'm not sure what I think about which behavior is really more
>> desirable. We can debate that if there's actually a plausible
>> choice to be made, which seems to depend on Windows.)
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> (I'm not sure what I think about which behavior is really more
> desirable. We can debate that if there's actually a plausible
> choice to be made, which seems to depend on Windows.)
Yeah, that's a fair question. My motivation for asking was
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:07 PM Nagaura, Ryohei
wrote:
> I rewrote two TCP_USER_TIMEOUT patches.
> I changed the third argument of setsockopt() from 18 to TCP_USER_TIMEOUT.
>
> This revision has the following two merits.
> * Improve readability of source
> * Even if the definition of
Hi Nikita,
Thanks for looking at the patch.
On 3/12/19 11:33 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have looked at this patch set too, but so far only at first two
> infrastructure patches.
>
> First of all, I agree that opclass parameters patch is needed here.
>
OK.
>
> 0001. Pass all
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:03 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> While the WaitLatch alternative avoids the problem, I doubt
>> we're ever going to remove pg_usleep entirely, so it'd be
>> good if it had fewer sharp edges. nanosleep() has the
>> same behavior as Windows, ie, the sleep
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:25 PM Nagaura, Ryohei
wrote:
> The main purpose of this parameter is to avoid client's waiting for DB server
> infinitely, not reducing the server's burden.
> This results in not waiting end-user, which is most important.
+1. If the server fails to detect that the
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:03 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> While the WaitLatch alternative avoids the problem, I doubt
> we're ever going to remove pg_usleep entirely, so it'd be
> good if it had fewer sharp edges. nanosleep() has the
> same behavior as Windows, ie, the sleep is guaranteed to be
>
John Naylor writes:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:36 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems committable from my end --- any further comments?
> I gave it a read and it looks good to me, but I haven't tried to run it.
Thanks for checking. I've pushed both patches now.
I noticed while looking at the
Em seg, 4 de mar de 2019 às 03:55, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 03:33:12PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > I've made some more iterations looking for ideas how to improve the
> > patch and found non.
> > Code style, docs, tests, make-check worlds, bit status, everything
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2019-03-12 14:42:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:38:56PM +, Regina Obe wrote:
>>> I tested on windows mingw64 (as of a week ago) and confirmed the
>>> patch applies cleanly and significantly faster
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:45 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I noticed another issue with the code -- it's using strcmp() to compare
>> specified string against "minvalue" and "maxvalue", which causes the
>> following silly error:
>>
>> create table q2 partition of q for
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:27 AM Bruno Hass wrote:
> I've been reading about TOASTing and would like to modify how the slicing
> works by taking into consideration the type of the varlena field. These
> changes would support future implementations of type specific optimized
> TOAST'ing
On 2019-03-12 14:42:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:38:56PM +, Regina Obe wrote:
> > I tested on windows mingw64 (as of a week ago) and confirmed the
> > patch applies cleanly and significantly faster for left, substr
> > tests than head.
>
> int32
>
> 12 марта 2019 г., в 19:40, Paul Ramsey написал(а):
>
>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> int32
>> pglz_decompress(const char *source, int32 slen, char *dest,
>> - int32 rawsize)
>> + int32 rawsize, bool
On 2019-Mar-09, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached find 3 patches -- for PG 10, 11, and HEAD. I also realizes
> that a description of PARTITION OF clause was also missing in the
> Parameters section of CREATE FOREIGN TABLE, which is fixed too.
Thanks! Applied all three -- I appreciate your help in
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:45 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> I noticed another issue with the code -- it's using strcmp() to compare
> specified string against "minvalue" and "maxvalue", which causes the
> following silly error:
>
> create table q2 partition of q for values from ("MINVALUE") to
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:30 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Now the question is where to put this text? Currently, we have:
>
> 5.10. Table Partitioning
> 5.10.1. Overview
> 5.10.2. Declarative Partitioning
> 5.10.3. Implementation Using Inheritance
> 5.10.4. Partition Pruning
> 5.10.5.
Hi!
I think it's good idea to able create subscription for database owner, but
owner do not have permission on all tables in database.
At the begging Stephen Frost said about table filter at subscription side.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181106215244.GH18594%40tamriel.snowman.net
I
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 11:30 PM David Rowley
wrote:
> Looks good to me. Good idea to keep the controversial setting of
> client_min_messages to debug1 in the tests in a separate patch.
>
> Apart from a few lines that need to be wrapped at 80 chars and some
> comment lines that seem to have been
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:38:56PM +, Regina Obe wrote:
>> I tested on windows mingw64 (as of a week ago) and confirmed the
>> patch applies cleanly and significantly faster for left, substr
>> tests than head.
>
> int32
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:23 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 03:30:22PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Sorry that I didn't get to this before you did -- I was on PTO on
> > Friday and did not work on the weekend.
>
> My apologies, Robert. It seems that I have been too much
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2019, 16:37 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO
>
> About :
>
> total_percent = total_size ? (int64) ((current_size / MEGABYTES) * 100 /
> (total_size / MEGABYTES)) : 0;
>
> MEGABYTES can be simplified and will enhance precision. ISTM that the
> percent could be a
Hi!
> * What are the most important use cases here? Are we just trying to
> avoid the unnecessary use of superuser, or is there a real use case for
> subscribing to a subset of a publication?
For instance in target database we do not have permission on some table used in
publication,
but we
Hi!
Thank you for comments, I’ll fix all inconsistencies in documentation.
> I don't understand this requirement. There are a bunch of
> password-less, still secured authentication that Postgres can use
> depending on the situations. To name one: peer. So this concept
> design looks rather broken
Hi Amit,
On 3/12/19 4:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
I wrestled with this idea a bit and concluded that we don't have to
postpone *all* of preprocess_targetlist() processing to query_planner,
only the part that adds row mark "junk" Vars, because only those matter
for the problem being solved. To
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hello
Patch is applied cleanly, compiles and pass check-world. Has
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:13:46AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I have a feeling it is project policy to return 0 from main(), and
> exit(1) if a program aborts with an error.
Yes, it does not matter much in practice, but other tools just don't
do that. Note that changing it can be actually
On 3/11/19 2:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:32 PM Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the compile
>> time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a new tuple
>> should be compressed or
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 22:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 09:54:45PM +0530, Ramanarayana wrote:
> > I went through the python script and found that the stdout encoding is
> set
> > to utf-8 only if python version is <=2. The same needs to be done for
> > python 3
>
> If you
Hello
Thank you for explain. I thought so.
PS: I am not sure for now about patch status in CF app. Did not changed status
regards, Sergei
()
minmax_multi_get_procinfo()
Attached patches with all my changes.
--
Nikita Glukhov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
0001-Pass-all-keys-to-BRIN-consistent-function-at-once-20190312.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
0002-Move-IS-NOT-NULL-checks
On 12.03.2019 08:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 02:35:49PM +, Georgios Kokolatos wrote:
To be honest, I have not checked closely on the failure, still it is
the only test failing which by itself should be worthwhile
mentioning.
This works for me, as well as a plain
Hi,
Am Montag, den 11.03.2019, 14:11 + schrieb Sergei Kornilov:
> > if (badblocks > 0)
> > return 1;
>
> Small question: why return 1 instead of exit(1)?
I have a feeling it is project policy to return 0 from main(), and
exit(1) if a program aborts with an error.
In the above case,
Hi
> Not doing the check is a bad idea as ControlFileData should be compatible
> between the binary and the data read. I am attaching a fresh 0001
> which should be back-patched down to v11 as a bug fix.
Looks fine. We need add few words to documentation?
>>> if (badblocks > 0)
>>>
I think pg_rewind's feature to rewind the promoted standby as a new
standby is broken in 11
STEPS:
1. create master standby setup.
Use below script for same.
2. Promote the standby
[mithuncy@localhost pgrewmasterbin]$ ./bin/pg_ctl -D standby promote
waiting for server to promote done
server
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:23:51PM +0530, Mithun Cy wrote:
> I think pg_rewind's feature to rewind the promoted standby as a new
> standby is broken in 11
Confirmed, it is.
> Also I have tested same in version 10 it works fine there.
>
> Did below commit has broken this feature? (Thanks to
Andy Fan wrote:
> I just don't know why shm_mq is designed to single-reader & single-writer.
shm_mq was implemented as a part of infrastructure for parallel query
processing. The leader backend launches multiple parallel workers and sets up
a few queues to communicate with each. One queue is
Hello.
I had a look on the patch set. I cannot see the thread structure
due to the depth and cannot get the picture on the all patches,
but I have some comments. I apologize in advance for possible
duplicate with upthread.
0001-Reduce-the...
This doesn't apply master.
> TupleTableSlot *
>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:36 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:59 PM Andrey Lepikhov
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/2019 18:36, Andy Fan wrote:
>> > Hi:
>> >I need some function which requires some message exchange among
>> > different back-ends （connections).
>> > specially I need a
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
