The code in GetSnapshotData() that read the `xid` field of PGXACT struct
has a dependency on code in GetNewTransactionId() that write
`MyPgXact-xid`. It means that the store of xid should happen before the
load of it. In C11, we can use [Release-Acquire
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:18 PM Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> Its possible to change order of index processing by parallel leader? In
> v35 patchset I see following order:
> - start parallel processes
> - leader and parallel workers processed index lixt and possible skip some
> entries
> -
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 04:02:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > So, we are close to the end of this commit fest, and I have done a
> > first pass on something like one third of the entries, mainly updating
> > incorrect patch status,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 04:02:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So, we are close to the end of this commit fest, and I have done a
> first pass on something like one third of the entries, mainly updating
> incorrect patch status, bumping them into next CF or closing stale
> items waiting on
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:58:31AM +0200, Peter Moser wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your effort. We are now trying to put again more work
> and time in this patch.
> We are grateful for any feedback.
The latest patch applies, but does not build because of an OID
conflict. For development purposes,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:26:16PM +, Li, Zheng wrote:
> Let me know if you have any comments.
I have one: the latest patch visibly applies, but fails to build
because of the recent API changes around lists in the backend code.
So a rebase is in order. The discussion has not moved a iota in
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:48:10PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I'd like to throw in food for discussion on how much SearchSysCacheN
> suffers degradation from some choices on how we can insert a code into
> the SearchSysCacheN code path.
Please note that the patch has a warning, causing
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 09:49:53PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The end of CF1 is here. I've moved this patch to CF2 (September) in
> the Commitfest app. Of course, everyone is free to continue
> discussing the patch before then. When you have a new version, please
> set the status to "Needs
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 03:26:17PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Attached is a fixed and rebasified patch for cfbot.
> Included inline for conceptual review.
Your patch still causes two regression tests to fail per Mr Robot's
report: join and select. Could you look at those problems? I have
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +1300, Gareth Palmer wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch with for_locking_clause added, test-cases
> re-use existing tables and the comments and documentation have been
> expanded.
Per the automatic patch tester, documentation included in the patch
does not
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:23:38AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Sorry,
> New version of the patch with corrected expected output for rules test is
> attached.
It looks like the documentation is failing to build. Could you fix
that? There may be other issues as well. I have moved the
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 05:33:01PM +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> On the other hands, it eventually consumes almost equivalent amount
> of memory to load the inner relations, if no leafs are pruned, and if we
> could extend the Hash-node to share the hash-table with sibling
> join-nodess.
The patch
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:30:08AM +0800, Haozhou Wang wrote:
> I rebased this patch with the newest master branch. Attached the new
> patch disk_quota_hooks_v5.patch in the attachment.
This again needs a rebase, so I have switched it as waiting on
author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:38:37AM +0900, Moon, Insung wrote:
> Of course, I may not have written the excellent quality code
> correctly, so I will make an interim report if possible.
The last patch has rotten, and does not apply anymore. A rebase would
be nice, so I am switching the patch as
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:11:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> I'm sorry to repeat what I mentioned in my previous mail, but my v2
> patch's approach is based on the database textbook and seems
> intuitive. So I attached the rebased version.
If you wish to do so, that's fine by me but I
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:08:22PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> As Alvaro correctly pointed in the nearby thread [1], we've got an
> interference regarding -R command line argument. I agree that it's a good
> idea to reserve -R for recovery configuration write to be consistent with
>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:19:54PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> Sorry, an unfinished line was left... Please ignore this.
A rebase looks to be necessary, Mr Robot complains that the patch does
not apply cleanly. As the thread is active recently, I have moved the
patch to next CF, waiting on
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:18:18AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> 29 нояб. 2019 г., в 3:43, Tomas Vondra
>> написал(а):
>>
>> OK, pushed, with some minor cosmetic tweaks on the comments (essentially
>> using the formatting trick pointed out by Alvaro), and removing one
>> unnecessary change in
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 09:43:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fair enough, but I did actually spend some time on the issue today.
> Just to cross-link this thread to the latest, see
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12424.1575168015%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Thanks, just saw the update.
--
Michael
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:24:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's on my to-do list, but I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it.
> Seems like it is better to mark this CF entry as returned with
> feedback then.
Fair enough, but I did actually spend some time on the issue
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:06:56PM +1200, Edmund Horner wrote:
> So, I think we need to either get some help from someone familiar with
> heapam.c, or maybe shelve the patch. It has been work in progress for
> over a year now.
Okay, still nothing has happened after two months. Once this is
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:59:27PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Much appreciated!
The latest patch does not apply, could you send a rebase? Moved it to
next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not
> the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required
> or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting
> at
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:18:11PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have rebased the patch on the latest head and also fix the issue of
> "concurrent abort handling of the (sub)transaction." and attached as
> (v1-0013-Extend-handling-of-concurrent-aborts-for-streamin) along with
> the complete patch
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 12:44:20PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I forgot to include some new header files. Attached the updated patches.
No reviews since and the patch does not apply anymore. I am moving it
to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:35:31AM +0530, Andres Freund wrote:
> It was JUST added ... :) thought I saw you reply on the other thread
> about it, but I was wrong...
Six months later without any activity, I am marking this entry as
returned with feedback. The latest patch set does not apply
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Color me unconvinced.
The latest comments of the thread have not been addressed yet. so I am
marking the patch as returned with feedback. If you think that's not
correct, please feel free to update the status of the patch. If you
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:46:47AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Affected by the code movement in 9a86f03b4e. Just
> rebased. Thanks.
This does not apply anymore. Could you provide a rebase? I have
moved the patch to next CF, waiting on author.
Thanks,
--
Michael
signature.asc
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 02:55:30AM +, ideriha.take...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Thank you for the reply.
Latest patch does not apply. Please send a rebase. Patch moved to
next CF, waiting on author.
Bip.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:26:59AM +, Leif Gunnar Erlandsen wrote:
> No it does not. It works well to demonstrate its purpose though.
> And it might be to stop with FATAL would be more correct.
This is still under active discussion. Please note that the latest
patch does not apply, so a
On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 01:54:35PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Here's V3 of the patch set.
> Changes:
> 1. Added some documentation of new sort support routines
> 2. Fixed bug with dirty pages
>
> I did not add sort support procs to built-in boxes, circles and
> polys, since it may be not
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 05:23:59PM +0800, Hubert Zhang wrote:
> Note that the vectorized executor engine is based on PG9.6 now, but it
> could be ported to master / zedstore with some effort. We would appreciate
> some feedback before moving further in that direction.
There has been no feedback
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:07:22PM +0800, Pengzhou Tang wrote:
> Richard pointed out that he get incorrect results with the patch I
> attached, there are bugs somewhere,
> I fixed them now and attached the newest version, please refer to [1] for
> the fix.
Mr Robot is reporting that the latest
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:53:16PM +, ideriha.take...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> I added ShmZoneContext to my patch.
> I haven't added detailed comments and test set, so let me explain how to
> use it here. I followed Thomas' suggestion.
The latest patch sent fails to apply. Could you please send
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:24:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's on my to-do list, but I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it.
Seems like it is better to mark this CF entry as returned with
feedback then.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 07:32:14PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Now pg_gtt_statistic view is provided for global temp tables.
Latest patch fails to apply, per Mr Robot's report. Could you please
rebase and send an updated version? For now I have moved the patch to
next CF, waiting on
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:01:48PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, the opclass params patches got broken by 773df883e adding enum
> reloptions. The breakage is somewhat extensive so I'll leave it up to
> Nikita to fix it in [1]. Until that happens, apply the patches on
> top of caba97a9d9 for
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:54:41PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This patch achieves $SUBJECT and also provides some testing of the
> sslpassword setting.
The patch does not apply anymore, so a rebase is needed. As it has
not been reviewed, I am moving it to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 03:24:59PM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Attached,
The latest patch set does not apply correctly. Could you send a
rebase please? I am moving the patch to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 12:22 PM Mark Dilger wrote:
> These two patches (v3) no longer apply cleanly. Could you please
> rebase?
Hi Mark,
Thanks. Here's v4.
0001-Add-SQL-type-xid8-to-expose-FullTransactionId-to--v4.patch
Description: Binary data
This came up recently on IRC, not sure if the report there was passed on
at all.
ProcessStartupPacket assumes that there will be only one negotiation
request for an encrypted connection, but libpq is capable of issuing
two: it will ask for GSS encryption first, if it looks like it will be
able to
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:03:58AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> In contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c, you need to
> declare or define entry_reset_computed() before you use it. I suppose
> your compiler must be warning about that. I personally put
> "COPT=-Wall -Werror" into
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:55:28AM +, imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> And here is the patch which counts the wait event and measuring the wait
> event time. It is currently like POC and has several things to be improved.
Please note the patch tester complains about the latest patch:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 03:01:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 01:00:49AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
OK. I'll try extending the set of synthetic queries in [1] to also do
soemthing like this and generate similar plans.
Any progress on that?
Please note that the
On 11/3/19 2:43 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 5:23 PM btfujiitkp wrote:
Thomas Munro writes:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 5:04 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
Adding to CF.
Rebased. An OID clashed so re-roll the dice. Also spotted a typo.
I have some questions in this code.
On 11/14/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:23:44AM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
On 11/14/19 7:55 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:04:36AM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
On 11/13/19 7:28 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
here's an updated patch, with some
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> On 11/29/19 2:21 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 07:01:39PM +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Per a suggestion Christophe made, please find attached a patch to
> > > $Subject:
> > >
> > > Apart
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 19:18, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> Its possible to change order of index processing by parallel leader? In
> v35 patchset I see following order:
> - start parallel processes
> - leader and parallel workers processed index lixt and possible skip some
> entries
> -
I wrote the v1 patch on CentOS Linux, and now on MacOS. It would be
great if someone can volunteer to test on Windows terminal.
I do not have that.
Attached v3.
Patch applies, compiles, works for me. No further comments.
I switched the patch as ready.
--
Fabien.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 09:54:55PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:20 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 06:18:31PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > A few years back[1] I experimented with a simple readiness API that
> > > would allow Append to start
On 11/29/19 2:21 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 07:01:39PM +0100, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
Per a suggestion Christophe made, please find attached a patch to
$Subject:
Apart from carefully fudging with pg_resetwal, and short of running in
production for a few weeks, what
Hello
Its possible to change order of index processing by parallel leader? In v35
patchset I see following order:
- start parallel processes
- leader and parallel workers processed index lixt and possible skip some
entries
- after that parallel leader recheck index list and process the skipped
Hi,
I'm sorry for replying so late.
I don't think those really are contradictions. You can continue to have
an errdetail_params(), and but call it from the error context callback
set up in the portal code
...
Even leaving that aside, I'm *STRONGLY* against entangling elog.c with
query
Hi Fabien,
Thanks for taking a look again.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:28 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > I have updated the patch based on these observations. Attached v2.
>
> Patch v2 applies & compiles cleanly, works for me.
>
> I'm not partial to Hungarian notation conventions, which is not
54 matches
Mail list logo
