Hi,
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 1:06 PM, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I propose to add wal write/fsync statistics to pg_stat_wal view.
> It's useful not only for developing/improving source code related to WAL
> but also for users to detect workload changes, HW failure, and so on.
>
> I
Hello,
A description of what you are trying to achieve and what results you expect.:
I am a student and I am new in PSQL. I am working on a research
project and an initial step is
to trace the page request of the buffer manager. I need to know which
page was evicted from the buffer and
which
Hi,
On 2020-12-08 04:24:44 +, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> I'm looking forward to this from the async+direct I/O, since the
> throughput of some write-heavy workload decreased by half or more
> during checkpointing (due to fsync?)
Depends on why that is. The most common, I think,
From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク
> Because one of the rel's cached value was false, it forced the
> full-scan path for TRUNCATE.
> Is there a possible workaround for this?
Hmm, the other two relfilenodes are for the TOAST table and index of the target
table. I think the INSERT didn't access those
Hi,
On 2020-12-07 19:38:19 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-12-01 12:08:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2020-12-01 21:04:44 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > Andres investigated a few days ago, managed to reproduce the issue
> > > locally,
> > > and has one line patch. I'm unsure if
Hi,
On 2020-12-08 13:01:38 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Have you done much bpf / systemtap / perf based work on measurement and
> tracing of latencies etc? If not that's something I'd be keen to help with.
> I've mostly been using systemtap so far but I'm trying to pivot over to
> bpf.
Not much
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> As the slot of apply worker is created before all the tablesync
> workers it should never miss any LSN which tablesync workers would
> have processed. Also, the table sync workers should not process any
> xact if the apply worker has not
On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:35 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:41 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 08:08:25 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > > We drop
> > > > buffers for the
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:41 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 08:08:25 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > > We drop
> > > buffers for the old relfilenode on truncation anyway.
> > >
> > > What I did is:
> > >
> >
Hi
čt 26. 11. 2020 v 12:46 odesílatel 曾文旌 napsal:
> This is the latest patch for feature GTT(v38).
> Everybody, if you have any questions, please let me know.
>
please, co you send a rebased patch. It is broken again
Regards
Pavel
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 6:20 AM Craig Ringer
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure why but it seems acceptable to original authors that the
> > >> data of transactions are
At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 08:08:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > We drop
> > buffers for the old relfilenode on truncation anyway.
> >
> > What I did is:
> >
> > a: Create a physical replication pair.
> > b: On the master, create a table.
Hi,
I propose to add wal write/fsync statistics to pg_stat_wal view.
It's useful not only for developing/improving source code related to WAL
but also for users to detect workload changes, HW failure, and so on.
I introduce "track_wal_io_timing" parameter and provide the following
information
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-12-08 10:55:37 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > A new kernel API called io_uring has recently come to my attention. I
> > assume some of you (Andres?) have been following it for a while.
>
> Yea, I've spent a *lot* of time working
At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:13:25 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in
> There's a race condition between the checkpoint at promotion and
> pg_rewind. When a server is promoted, the startup process writes an
> end-of-recovery checkpoint that includes the new TLI, and the server
> is immediate opened
út 8. 12. 2020 v 1:17 odesílatel Greg Nancarrow
napsal:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:05 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I understand Pavel concern was about the case when superuser
> > defines wrong login trigger which prevents login to the system
> > all user including himself.
From: Andres Freund
> Especially with direct IO
> checkpointing can be a lot faster *and* less impactful on the "regular"
> load.
I'm looking forward to this from the async+direct I/O, since the throughput of
some write-heavy workload decreased by half or more during checkpointing (due
to
Hi,
On 2020-12-08 10:55:37 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> A new kernel API called io_uring has recently come to my attention. I
> assume some of you (Andres?) have been following it for a while.
Yea, I've spent a *lot* of time working on AIO support, utilizing
io_uring. Recently Thomas also joined
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:04 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 01:16:00 +0900, Amit Langote
> wrote in
> > Hi Alvaro,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 23:48 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro
On 12/8/20 3:55 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
A new kernel API called io_uring has recently come to my attention. I
assume some of you (Andres?) have been following it for a while.
Andres did a talk on this at FOSDEM PGDay earlier this year. You can see
his slides below, but since they are from
Hi,
On 2020-11-09 20:13:43 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I pushed the change to master. If that doesn't show any problems, I'll
> backpatch in a week or so. Seawasp runs only on master, so it should
> satisfy the buildfarm at least.
It was a bit longer than a week, but I finally have done so...
Hi,
On 2020-12-01 12:08:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-12-01 21:04:44 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Andres investigated a few days ago, managed to reproduce the issue locally,
> > and has one line patch. I'm unsure if it should be prevently back-patched,
> > though.
>
> I see no
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 04:37:14PM -0800, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> I am thinking if there is some way to assert this aspect, but seems no way.
> So, yes, having at least a comment is good for now.
Yeah, I have been thinking about this one without coming to a clear
idea, but that would be nice.
>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:56 PM Craig Ringer
wrote:
> I thought I'd start the discussion on this and see where we can go with it.
> What incremental steps can be done to move us toward parallelisable I/O
> without having to redesign everything?
>
> I'm thinking that redo is probably a good first
From: Alvaro Herrera
> Does "ALTER TABLE ONLY parent" work correctly? Namely, do not affect
> existing partitions, but cause future partitions to acquire the new
> setting.
Yes, it works correctly in the sense that ALTER TABLE ONLY on a partitioned
table does nothing because it has no storage
Hi
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 4:29 PM
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:18:39 +, "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com"
> wrote in
> > The attached patch is intended to prevent a scenario that archive
> > recovery hits WALs which come from wal_level=minimal and the server
> >
At Tue, 8 Dec 2020 01:16:00 +0900, Amit Langote wrote
in
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 23:48 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Also, the comment that was in
References to get things started:
* https://lwn.net/Articles/810414/
* https://unixism.net/loti/what_is_io_uring.html
*
https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/an-introduction-to-the-io_uring-asynchronous-io-framework
*
https://thenewstack.io/how-io_uring-and-ebpf-will-revolutionize-programming-in-linux/
Hi all
A new kernel API called io_uring has recently come to my attention. I
assume some of you (Andres?) have been following it for a while.
io_uring appears to offer a way to make system calls including reads,
writes, fsync()s, and more in a non-blocking, batched and pipelined manner,
with or
>> just removing the logic that has the
soft upper limit and just have it do cache evictions after each
allocation after the cache first fills
Yeah - having one fewer limit would simplify the code.
Cheers
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:27 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:25,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> I'm out of it more than usual..
>
> At Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:45:53 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:18:31 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
>
I'm out of it more than usual..
At Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:45:53 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:18:31 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, December 4, 2020 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:23 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:45:53 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:18:31 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > Hmm, how is it possible if Insert is done before Truncate? The insert
> > > should happen in
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:25, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>
> > + /* Make a guess at a good size when we're not given a valid size. */
> > + if (size == 0)
> > + size = 1024;
> >
> > Should the default size be logged ?
>
> > I'm not too sure if I know what you mean here. Should it be a power of
>
From: Bharath Rupireddy
> Do you mean to say that if we detach all the partitions(assuming they
> are all unlogged) then the parent table(assuming logged) gets changed
> to unlogged? Does it happen on master? Am I missing something here?
No, the parent remains logged in that case both on master
At Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:45:53 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:18:31 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > Hmm, how is it possible if Insert is done before Truncate? The insert
> > should happen in old RelFileNode only. I have verified by adding a
> > break-in
At Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:18:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, December 4, 2020 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have reported before that it is not always the case that the "cached"
> > flag of
> >
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:05 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
>
> As far as I understand Pavel concern was about the case when superuser
> defines wrong login trigger which prevents login to the system
> all user including himself. Right now solution of this problem is to
> include "options='-c
On 2020-Dec-08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I also found a problem in multirange types naming logic. Consider the
> following example.
>
> create type a_multirange AS (x float, y float);
> create type a as range(subtype=text, collation="C");
> create table tbl (x __a_multirange);
> drop type
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:39 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:35 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 11:53 PM Paul A Jungwirth
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 11:43 AM Alexander Korotkov
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thank you. Could you
Brian's email didn't keep the relevant headers, and so didn't show up
as a reply, so I've pasted it here and am replying in this original
thread. You can find the original at [1].
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 7:34 PM Brian Davis wrote:
>
> > Note that near the end of grouping planner we have a similar
Hi, here’s a rebased version of the patch.
Best regards,
Rémi
v7-0001-Add-header-support-to-COPY-TO-text-format.patch
Description: Binary data
v7-0002-Add-header-matching-mode-to-COPY-FROM.patch
Description: Binary data
> On 21 Oct 2020, at 19:49, Daniel Verite wrote:
>
> Rémi
On 2020-Dec-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> > Firstly, we use it to track patches that we want to see in the nearest
> > releases and concentrate our efforts on. And current CFM guideline [1]
> > reflects this idea. It suggests, that after the commitfest closure date
>
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 13:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> How do we mandate that? Just mention it in the docs and C comments?
Can't we just throw an error in pg_create_restore_point() if any high
bits are set? And perhaps error or Assert at a later point in case we
change the code in such a way
Hi,
On 2020-12-07 17:25:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fair enough. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether it'd be kosher to
> write
> EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_OLD)
> EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_ASSIGN)
> EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_FETCH)
> {
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-12-07 16:32:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What did you think of the idea of merging EEOP_SBSREF_OLD / ASSIGN / FETCH
>> into a single step type distinguished only by the callback function?
> I don't have a strong opinion on this. I guess find it a bit easier to
>
Hi,
On 2020-12-07 16:32:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I think it'd be a better to rely on the backend's definition of
> > ExecEvalBoolSubroutine etc. For the functions implementing expression
> > steps I've found that far easier to work with over time (because you can
> >
Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> I want to share some stats and thoughts about CF.
First, thanks again for managing this CF!
> The first is a graph with the numbers of committed, moved, returned, and
> rejected CF patches over time - [cf_items_status.png]. Credits to Dmitry
> Dolgov for
Again, thanks a lot for the feedback.
On 2020-12-02 12:03 p.m., Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello David,
Some feedback about v4.
It looks that the option is *silently* ignored when creating a
partitionned table, which currently results in an error, and not
passed to partitions, which would accept
Andres Freund writes:
> The TypeParamBool stuff here is ok. Basically LLVM uses a '1bit' integer
> to represent booleans in the IR. But when it comes to storing such a
> value in memory, it uses 1 byte, for obvious reasons. Hence the two
> types.
Cool, thanks for taking a look.
> I think it'd
Hi,
On 2020-12-07 14:08:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. I'm still wondering if TypeParamBool is the right thing to pass to
> LLVMFunctionType() to describe a function-returning-bool. It does
> seem to work on x64_64 and aarch64, for what that's worth.
> -
We've had get_canonical_class() for a while as a backend-only function.
There is some ad-hoc code elsewhere that implements the same logic in a
couple places, so it makes sense for all sites to use this function
instead, as in the attached.
--
John Naylor
EnterpriseDB:
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 2020-12-07 18:53, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> >>On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>>* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
>
I decided that the way to get this moved forward is to ignore the jsonb
parts for the moment and focus on getting the core feature into
committable shape. It's possible that the lack of a concrete use-case
other than arrays will cause us to miss a detail or two, but if so we
can fix it later, I
On 2020-12-07 18:53, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
that is the case,
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:05 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Here's version with tests and docs. I still have no idea how to print some
> useful information about tuples keys.
I suggest calling BuildIndexValueDescription() from your own custom
debug instrumentation code.
--
Peter Geoghegan
There's a race condition between the checkpoint at promotion and
pg_rewind. When a server is promoted, the startup process writes an
end-of-recovery checkpoint that includes the new TLI, and the server is
immediate opened for business. The startup process requests the
checkpointer process to
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> >> You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
> >> that is the case, please explain why
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:10 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 22:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> PostgreSQL is a complex multi-process system, and we are periodically faced
>> with complicated concurrency issues. While the postgres community does a
>> great job on
Hi Alvaro,
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 23:48 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > > > Also, the comment that was in RI_ConstraintInfo now appears in
> > > > RI_ConstraintParam, and the new struct
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 15:51, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> The sort of queries I had in mind were things like this:
>
> WHERE (a = 1 AND b = 1) OR (a = 2 AND b = 2)
>
> However, the new code doesn't apply the extended stats directly using
> clauselist_selectivity_or() for this kind of query because
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:15, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 12/7/20 10:56 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > it might actually be
> > neater to have separate documented syntaxes for single- and
> > multi-column statistics:
> >
> > CREATE STATISTICS [ IF NOT EXISTS ] statistics_name
> > ON (expression)
Does "ALTER TABLE ONLY parent" work correctly? Namely, do not affect
existing partitions, but cause future partitions to acquire the new
setting.
This sounds very much related to previous discussion on REPLICA IDENTITY
not propagating to partitions; see
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:04 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What is the need of checking
On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > > Also, the comment that was in RI_ConstraintInfo now appears in
> > > RI_ConstraintParam, and the new struct (RI_ConstraintInfo) is now
> > > undocumented. What is the relationship between
On 12/7/20 10:56 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:23, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Attached is a patch series rebased on top of 25a9e54d2d.
>
> After reading this thread and [1], I think I prefer the name
> "standard" rather than "expressions", because it is meant to
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> > Also, the comment that was in RI_ConstraintInfo now appears in
> > RI_ConstraintParam, and the new struct (RI_ConstraintInfo) is now
> > undocumented. What is the relationship between those two structs? I
> > see that they have
Hello all!I suggest a refactoring of analyze AM API as it is too much heap specific at the moment. The problem was inspired by Greenplum’s analyze improvement for append-optimized row and column AM with variable size compressed blocks.Currently we do analyze in two steps.1. Sample fix size blocks
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the need of checking query_level when 'isForCTAS' is set only
> > > when Gather is a top-node?
> > >
> >
> On 4 Dec 2020, at 08:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:28:09PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The CF bot has been complaining on Windows and this issue is fixed in
>> the attached. A refresh of src/tools/msvc for pgcrypto was just
>> missing.
>
> Now that HEAD has
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:09 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>>
>> I have not been following this thread closely enough to understand
>> why we need a new "UniqueKeys" data structure at all.
>
>
> Currently the UniqueKey is defined as a List of Expr, rather than
> EquivalenceClasses.
> A complete discussion
Hi:
I see initscan calls RelationGetwNumberOfBlocks every time and rescan calls
initscan as well. In my system, RelationGetNumberOfBlocks is expensive
(the reason
doesn't deserve a talk.. ), so in a nest loop + Bitmap heap scan case,
the
impact will be huge. The comments of initscan are below.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:16 PM Jesper Pedersen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/5/20 10:38 PM, Andy Fan wrote:
> > Currently the UniqueKey is defined as a List of Expr, rather than
> > EquivalenceClasses.
> > A complete discussion until now can be found at [1] (The messages I
> replied
> > to also
> >
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > What is the need of checking query_level when 'isForCTAS' is set only
> > when Gather is a top-node?
> >
>
> isForCTAS is getting set before pg_plan_query() which is being used
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 4, 2020 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:19:57 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
> > > wrote in
> > > > > From:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:36 AM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> From: Bharath Rupireddy
> > IMHO, we should also change the parent table. Say, I have 2 local
> > partitions for a logged table, then I alter that table to
> > unlogged(with your patch, parent table doesn't become unlogged
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:32 AM Hou, Zhijie
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > + if (!(root->parse->isForCTAS &&
> > > + root->query_level == 1))
> > > +
On 2020-10-03 08:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Since we have ADD PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX, we can declare a primary key
for an existing index. So this doesn't have to affect the low-level
early bootstrapping. The attached patch adds those commands manually.
Another option might be to have the
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:32 AM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > + /*
> > +* Flag to let the planner know that the SELECT query is for CTAS.
> > This is
> > +* used to calculate the tuple transfer cost from workers
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:25 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
>
> Hi folks
>
> Now that we're well on track for streaming logical decoding, it's becoming
> more practical to look at parallel logical apply.
>
> The support for this in pglogical3 benefits from a deadlock detector hook. It
> was added in the
get_constraint_index() does its work by going through pg_depend. It was
added before pg_constraint.conindid was added, and some callers are
still not changed. Are there reasons for that? Probably not. The
attached patch changes get_constraint_index() to an lsyscache-style
lookup instead.
> 28 сент. 2020 г., в 13:12, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> I wrote a couple of 'pageinspect' function to inspect GiST pages for this.
> See attached.
> <0001-Add-functions-to-pageinspect-to-inspect-GiST-indexes.patch>
Here's version with tests and docs. I still have no idea how to print
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:23, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch series rebased on top of 25a9e54d2d.
After reading this thread and [1], I think I prefer the name
"standard" rather than "expressions", because it is meant to describe
the kind of statistics being built rather than what
> > 4.
> > A suggestion for CacheLineInfo.
> >
> > It use appendBinaryStringXXX to store the line in memory.
> > appendBinaryStringXXX will double the str memory when there is no enough
> spaces.
> >
> > How about call enlargeStringInfo in advance, if we already know the whole
> line size?
> > It
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:32 AM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> + /*
> +* Flag to let the planner know that the SELECT query is for CTAS.
> This is
> +* used to calculate the tuple transfer cost from workers to gather
> node(in
> +* case parallelism kicks in for the
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:35 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
>
> Reply follows inline. I addressed your last point first, so it's out of order.
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:33, Andrey Borodin wrote
>
> We'd also need to separate the existing apply worker into a "receiver" and
> "apply/writer" part, so
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 6:20 AM Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> I am not sure why but it seems acceptable to original authors that the
> >> data of transactions are visibly partially during the initial
> >> synchronization phase for a
Hi,
Added missing copy related data structures to typedefs.list, these
data structures were added while copy files were split during the
recent commit. I found this while running pgindent for parallel copy
patches.
The Attached patch has the changes for the same.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
Hi,
On 12/5/20 10:38 PM, Andy Fan wrote:
Currently the UniqueKey is defined as a List of Expr, rather than
EquivalenceClasses.
A complete discussion until now can be found at [1] (The messages I replied
to also
care a lot and the information is completed). This patch has stopped at
this place
89 matches
Mail list logo
