On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:27 AM Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> While testing zheap over undo apis, we've found the following
> issues/scenarios that might need some fixes/discussions:
Thanks!
> 1. In UndoLogAllocateInRecovery, when we find the current log number
> from the list of registered blocks, we
Extremely, sorry forgot to add attachment.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:11 AM nilsocket wrote:
> We want to export data from PG to Kafka,
> We can't rely on extension which we have written as there could be any
> problems which we are not aware of and PG might break.
> We don't want our master to
We want to export data from PG to Kafka,
We can't rely on extension which we have written as there could be any
problems which we are not aware of and PG might break.
We don't want our master to go down because of the extension we have
written.
So, we are okay with having a new PG instance whose
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> However, if there is some character C that makes ICU misbehave like
>>> that, we are going to have problems with indexing strings containing C,
>>> whether we think
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, if there is some character C that makes ICU misbehave like
> > that, we are going to have problems with indexing strings containing C,
> > whether we think varstr_cmp is leaky
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> In general, the hash_range is covered by some of the existing test,
> but I don't which test. See the code coverage report here:
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c.gcov.html
Thanks! I did some experimenting,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> I had a look over this issue and observed that when the new database is
> created, the catalog files are copied as-is into the new directory
> corresponding to a newly created database. And as they are just copied,
> the LSN on those pages
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 17:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> None of this seems to respond to my point: it looks to me like it would
>> work fine if you simply dropped the patch's additions in PreCommit_Notify
>> and ProcessCompletedNotifies, because there is already enough
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:08:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Arseny Sher writes:
A problem of similar nature can be reproduced with the following
stripped-down scenario:
CREATE TABLE pears(f1 int primary key, f2 int);
INSERT INTO pears SELECT i, i+1 FROM generate_series(1, 100) i;
CREATE OR
As I understand it, the current patch performs immediate IVM using AFTER
STATEMENT trigger transition tables.
However, multiple tables can be modified *before* AFTER STATEMENT triggers
are fired.
CREATE TABLE example1 (a int);
CREATE TABLE example2 (a int);
CREATE INCREMENTAL MATERIALIZED VIEW
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes writes:
> > When closing the local session which had used postgres_fdw over an ssl
> > connection, I get log spam on the foreign server saying:
> > LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer
> > It is easy to
Hello Thomas,
While testing zheap over undo apis, we've found the following
issues/scenarios that might need some fixes/discussions:
1. In UndoLogAllocateInRecovery, when we find the current log number
from the list of registered blocks, we don't check whether the
block->in_use flag is true or
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:44:14AM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:36 Virendra Negi wrote:
Oh I miss the documentation link there you go
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/protocol-replication.html
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Virendra Negi
wrote:
Agreed but
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:44 AM Michael Loftis wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:36 Virendra Negi wrote:
>
>> Oh I miss the documentation link there you go
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/protocol-replication.html
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Virendra Negi
>> wrote:
>>
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 02:06:29PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 15 сент. 2019 г., в 12:18, David Fetter написал(а):
> >
> > Please find attached a couple of patches intended to $subject.
> >
> > This patch set cut the time to copy ten million rows of randomly sized
> > int8s (10 of them) by
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:36 Virendra Negi wrote:
> Oh I miss the documentation link there you go
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/protocol-replication.html
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Virendra Negi
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed but why is there a message specification for it describe in
Jeff Janes writes:
> When closing the local session which had used postgres_fdw over an ssl
> connection, I get log spam on the foreign server saying:
> LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer
> It is easy to reproduce, but you must be using ssl to do so.
> On
Oh I miss the documentation link there you go
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/protocol-replication.html
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:05 PM Virendra Negi wrote:
> Agreed but why is there a message specification for it describe in the
> documentation and it ask to client reply back if a
I'm sending this to hackers, because it is not exactly a bug, and it can't
be addressed from userland. I think it is a coding issue, although I
haven't identified the exact code.
When closing the local session which had used postgres_fdw over an ssl
connection, I get log spam on the foreign
> So yes, I've had a need for those operators in the past. What I don't
know is whether adding these functions will be worth the catalog clutter.
The operators are tested and running within MobilityDB. It concerns lines
231-657 for the C code in file
Agreed but why is there a message specification for it describe in the
documentation and it ask to client reply back if a particular *bit* is
set.(1 means that the client should reply to this message as soon as
possible, to avoid a timeout disconnect. 0 otherwise)
Primary keepalive message (B)
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 07:00:54PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> Updated (plus some additional wordsmithing).
+The rewind operation is not expected to result in a consistent data
+directory state either internally to the node or with respect to the rest
+of the cluster. Instead the
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 07:12 Virendra Negi wrote:
> Implemented the Logical Streaming Replication thing are working fine I see
> the XLogData message appearing and I'm able to parse them.
>
> But I haven't see any "Primary Keepalive message" yet. I had tried
> setting the
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 12:20, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 11:11, Tomas Vondra
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:16:30AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Ah sorry, I missed this thread before.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 11:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:16:30AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
>Ah sorry, I missed this thread before. As author of that commit, it's
>really on me to fix it, and the cause seems
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> Hi, Peter! Thanks for looking into this.
>
> > 4 сент. 2019 г., в 14:09, Peter Eisentraut
> > написал(а):
> >
> > On 2019-06-24 10:44, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> >>> 18 мая 2019 г., в 11:44, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
> >>>
> >> Hi!
> >>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:33 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
>
> Hi, Tomas!
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/31/2015 09:41 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm going to begin work on effective storage of duplicate keys in B-tree
>>> index.
>>> The main
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 11:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:16:30AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> >Ah sorry, I missed this thread before. As author of that commit, it's
> >really on me to fix it, and the cause seems pretty clear-cut, so I'll
> >aim to get that done today.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 17:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But, really ... do we need the backendTryAdvanceTail flag at all?
> None of this seems to respond to my point: it looks to me like it would
> work fine if you
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:16:30AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 05:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 05:24:26PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh, hmm --- yeah, that should mean it's
> 15 сент. 2019 г., в 12:18, David Fetter написал(а):
>
> Please find attached a couple of patches intended to $subject.
>
> This patch set cut the time to copy ten million rows of randomly sized
> int8s (10 of them) by about a third, so at least for that case, it's
> pretty decent.
Hi!
Folks,
Please find attached a couple of patches intended to $subject.
This patch set cut the time to copy ten million rows of randomly sized
int8s (10 of them) by about a third, so at least for that case, it's
pretty decent.
Thanks to Andrew Gierth for lots of patient help.
Best,
David.
--
32 matches
Mail list logo
