On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 13:00, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The attached patch set follows on from the discussion in [1] "Add LWLock
> blocker(s) information" by adding the actual LWLock* and the numeric
> tranche ID to each LWLock related TRACE_POSTGRESQL_foo tracepoint.
>
>
I've attached a
pá 1. 1. 2021 v 9:15 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
> Hi
>
> only rebase
>
rebase
regards
Pavel
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/prepare.c b/src/backend/commands/prepare.c
index 653ef8e41a..6f8643cc4a 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/prepare.c
+++
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:59 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Please also note the v7 patch cannot be applied to the current HEAD. I'm
> > switching the patch as Waiting on Author.
>
> Surafel, please say whether you are working on this or not.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:46:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This has been tested on Windows and Linux across all the versions of
> OpenSSL we support on HEAD. I am also attaching a small module called
> hmacfuncs that I used as a way to validate this patch across all the
> versions of
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:09 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
> >
> > Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> >
> > > Posting an updated set of patches to address recent feedback:
> >
> > Following is my review.
> >
> > v11-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT.patch
> >
Kuroda-san,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:02 PM Keisuke Kuroda
wrote:
> Hi Amit-san,
>
> I noticed that this patch
> (v3-0001-ri_triggers.c-Use-root-constraint-OID-as-key-to-r.patch)
> is not registered in the commitfest. I think it needs to be registered for
> commit, is that correct?
>
> I have
On 2021/01/08 14:02, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 1/7/21 4:51 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for the review! I pushed the latest patch.
Thanks all of you for your precious help on this patch!
The original idea behind this thread has been split into 3 pieces.
Pieces 1
Hi
just rebase
Regards
Pavel
schema-variables-20200108.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
At Fri, 8 Jan 2021 05:12:02 +, "tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> From: Robert Haas
> > Were the issues that I mentioned regarding GIST (and maybe other AMs)
> > in the last paragraph of
> > http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZEZ5RONS49C7mEpjhjndqMQtVrz_LCQUkpRW
> > dmrev...@mail.gmail.com
>
At Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:12:52 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Hello.
>
> At Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:02:20 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote in
> > The patch is attached to the next message.
>
> The reason for separating this message is that I modified this so that
> it could
From: Stephen Frost
> I hadn't intended to make an argument that enabling checksums was
> equivilant to enabling or disabling fsync- I said it was 'akin', by which I
> meant it
> was similar in character, as in, as I said previously, a way for PG to hedge
> against certain external-to-PG risks
From: Robert Haas
> Were the issues that I mentioned regarding GIST (and maybe other AMs)
> in the last paragraph of
> http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZEZ5RONS49C7mEpjhjndqMQtVrz_LCQUkpRW
> dmrev...@mail.gmail.com
> addressed in some way? That seems like a pretty hard engineering
> problem to me, and I
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:45 AM Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
> pá 8. 1. 2021 v 5:03 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:42 AM Josef Šimánek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > pá 8. 1. 2021 v 3:55 odesílatel Amit Kapila
> > > napsal:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't we display the
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:29 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/01/07 17:21, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:49 AM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> On 2021/01/05 16:56, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >>> Attaching v8 patch set. Hopefully, cf bot will be happy with v8.
> >>>
> >>>
On 2021/01/08 11:17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:32:11 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
Attached is the updated version of the patch. This can be applied to
current master.
With the patch, for example, if the startup process waited longer than
deadlock_timeout for the
pá 8. 1. 2021 v 5:03 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:42 AM Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >
> > pá 8. 1. 2021 v 3:55 odesílatel Amit Kapila
> > napsal:
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't we display the entire COPY command? I checked that
> > > pg_stat_statements display the query so
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:42 AM Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
> pá 8. 1. 2021 v 3:55 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
> >
> >
> > Can't we display the entire COPY command? I checked that
> > pg_stat_statements display the query so there shouldn't be a problem
> > to display the entire command.
>
> In
Hi Amit-san,
I noticed that this patch
(v3-0001-ri_triggers.c-Use-root-constraint-OID-as-key-to-r.patch)
is not registered in the commitfest. I think it needs to be registered for
commit, is that correct?
I have confirmed that this patch can be applied to HEAD (master),
and that check-world
pá 8. 1. 2021 v 3:55 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 7:02 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >
> > čt 7. 1. 2021 v 14:08 odesílatel Amit Kapila
> > napsal:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:15 AM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek
On 2021-01-08 00:47, Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 20:28 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
As a user, I want this feature to know whether
clients' session activities are as expected.
I have some comments about the patch.
Thanks you for the thorough review!
Thanks for updating the
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 7:02 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
> čt 7. 1. 2021 v 14:08 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:15 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > > > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:14 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:13 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it makes sense. If there can be a race between
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 01:57:29AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Attached is a patch fixing most of the issues. There are a couple
> exceptions:
In the docs:
+at the cost that its schema must be extended whenever the structure
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hmm. Perhaps it would be best to change all the errors in mock
> authentication to COMMERROR. It'd be nice to have an accurate error message
> in the log, but no need to send it to the client.
Yeah, we could do that. Still,
At Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:32:11 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
> Attached is the updated version of the patch. This can be applied to
> current master.
>
> With the patch, for example, if the startup process waited longer than
> deadlock_timeout for the recovery conflict on the lock, the latter
> PSA the v12 patch for the Tablesync Solution1.
>
> Differences from v11:
> + Added PG docs to mention the tablesync slot
> + Refactored tablesync slot drop (done by
> DropSubscription/process_syncing_tables_for_sync)
> + Fixed PG docs mentioning wrong state code
> + Fixed wrong code
On 2021/01/07 17:21, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:49 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/01/05 16:56, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Attaching v8 patch set. Hopefully, cf bot will be happy with v8.
Please consider the v8 patch set for further review.
-DATA =
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:13 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it makes sense. If there can be a race between the tablesync
> > > re-launching (after error), and the
At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:25:22 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> On Thu, January 7, 2021 5:36 PM (JST), Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:43 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [Results for VACUUM on single relation]
> > > Average of 5 runs.
> > >
> > > 1. %
Hi hackers,
My learn-me-some-operating-system-hacking project for the holidays was
to add O_DSYNC to FreeBSD 13 (due out end of Q1ish). I was motivated
by my project to port some of Andres's Linux-only PostgreSQL AIO stuff
to POSIX interfaces, where you need O_DSYNC to initiate the
asynchronous
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:02:14AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> My next step is to add the high-level tests.
Here is the high-level script, and the log output. I used the
pg_upgrade test.sh as a model.
It uses "CFE DEBUG" lines that are already in the code to compare the
initdb encryption with
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 04:08:49PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jan-07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > All the tests pass now. The current src/test directory is 19MB, and
> > adding these tests takes it to 23MB, or a 20% increase. That seems like
> > a lot. It is testing 128-bit and
On 1/8/21 12:52 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/01/08 0:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
because I created the
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:14 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Much of this line of discussion seems to be, incorrectly, focused on my
> > mere mention of viewing the use of fsync and checksums as mechanism for
> > addressing certain risks, but that
On 1/1/21 10:21 PM, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Krasiyan:
> Happy New Year.
>
> For WinGetFuncArgInPartition():
>
> + if (target > 0)
> + step = 1;
> + else if (target < 0)
> + step = -1;
> + else
> + step = 0;
>
> When would the
Hi,
On 2021/01/08 0:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
because I created the patch as a new feature on PG14.
I'm not sure
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 8:28 AM Victor Yegorov wrote:
> I've looked through the v12 patch.
>
> I like the new outline:
>
> - _bt_delete_or_dedup_one_page() is the main entry for the new code
> - first we try _bt_simpledel_pass() does improved cleanup of LP_DEAD entries
> - then (if necessary)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:14 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> I expected there'd be some disagreement on this, but I do continue to
> feel that it's sensible to enable checksums by default. I also don't
> think there's anything particularly wrong with such a difference of
> opinion, though it likely
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 22:37 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
>
>
>
> On 1/7/21 7:56 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > čt 7. 1. 2021 v 19:51 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
> > napsal:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 22:45, Tomas Vondra
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
Hubert Zhang writes:
> [ 0001-Enhance-libpq-to-support-multiple-host-for-non-hot-s.patch ]
I took a quick look at this. TBH, I'd just drop the first three hunks,
as they've got nothing to do with any failure mode that there's evidence
for in this thread or the prior one, and I'm afraid they're
On 1/7/21 7:56 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 19:51 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 22:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental on CI.
Greetings,
* Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 06.01.2021, 13:08 -0800 schrieb Peter Geoghegan:
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:04 PM Michael Banck
> > wrote:
> > > At least data_checksums=on for Azure Managed Postgres, Amazon RDS and
> > > Google Cloud SQL
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:30 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > As already mentioned, it's also, at least today, far
> > simpler to disable checksums than to enable them, which is something
> > else to consider when thinking about what the default
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:22 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Of course, it's possible that the question of whether or not it's
> worth it has been misjudged for any given case. And maybe these
> particular WAL records are one such case where somebody got it wrong,
> affecting a real workload (I am
On 1/5/21 5:48 PM, I wrote:
> However, sadly the vctools package above isn't installed with all its
> optional packages, so some crucial things are missing. I cured that by
> forcing a reinstall with the optional components enabled. Sadly, that
> takes a huge amount of time, over 20 minutes. We
On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 6:44 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 21:23 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > But you cannot seriously argue that a one line patch that changes
> > user
> > visible behavior can be acceptable in Postgres core without tests or
> > docs or code comments.
>
> Hi
On 2021-Jan-07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> All the tests pass now. The current src/test directory is 19MB, and
> adding these tests takes it to 23MB, or a 20% increase. That seems like
> a lot. It is testing 128-bit and 256-bit keys --- should we do fewer
> tests, or just test 256, or use gzip to
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 19:51 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 22:45, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > > last incremental on CI.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, the
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 22:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > last incremental on CI.
> >
>
> Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the commitfest tester to
> work correctly - it
> On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm also not sure if these descriptions are clear enough, but it may
>> also be hard to do a good job in a brief space. Still, comparing this
>> to the documentation of
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Please also note the v7 patch cannot be applied to the current HEAD. I'm
> switching the patch as Waiting on Author.
Surafel, please say whether you are working on this or not. If you
need help, let us know.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 10:33,
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:12 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 12:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > Wait ... what? I've been thinking that this GUC is just to enable or
> > > disable the computation of query ID, not to change the algorithm to do
> >
Hi, Thomas
Is some scenes the same as dropdb for smgr cache.
1. drop tablespace for master. Should smgrdroptbs function be added in
DropTableSpace function ?
2. drop database for slave. smgrdropdb in dbase_redo.
3. drop tablespace for slave. smgrdroptbs in tblspc_redo.
Buzhen
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 17:29 odesílatel Merlin Moncure napsal:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:07 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
> > čt 7. 1. 2021 v 4:20 odesílatel Merlin Moncure
> napsal:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >
> >> > easter...@verfriemelt.org writes:
> >> > > i
On 1/7/21 2:17 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:44:49PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental on CI.
Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the
Hi,
This feature adds schema option while creating publication. Users will
be able to specify one or more schemas while creating publication,
when the user specifies schema option, then the data changes for the
tables present in the schema specified by the user will be replicated
to the
On 2020/12/15 2:00, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/12/15 0:49, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 12/14/20 4:20 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:07 PM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> čt 7. 1. 2021 v 4:20 odesílatel Merlin Moncure napsal:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> >
>> > easter...@verfriemelt.org writes:
>> > > i found, that the behaviour of variable assignment in combination with
>> > >
On 1/6/21 12:36 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 1/5/21 11:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Thanks! I hacked on this a bit more and got as far as:
>>
>> C:\Users\ContainerAdministrator\AppData\Local\Temp\cirrus-ci-build>call
>> perl buildsetup.pl
>> Unable to determine Visual Studio version: The
On Dec 31, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Simon Riggs
mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 00:31, Jacob Champion
mailto:pchamp...@vmware.com>> wrote:
So that's in need of resolution. I'd expect gin and gist to be pretty
flaky until we fix that.
Jacob and Soumyadeep,
Thanks for
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 16:54 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
>
>
>
> On 1/7/21 12:06 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > st 6. 1. 2021 v 22:44 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
> > napsal:
> >>
> >> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >>> I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> >>>
On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
because I created the patch as a new feature on PG14.
I'm not sure whether we should do back patch or not.
On 1/7/21 12:06 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
st 6. 1. 2021 v 22:44 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental on CI.
Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the
On 2021/01/07 22:39, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 1/6/21 6:31 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content is safe.
On 2020/12/15 0:20, Fujii
On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 20:28 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> As a user, I want this feature to know whether
> clients' session activities are as expected.
>
> I have some comments about the patch.
Thanks you for the thorough review!
> 1. pg_proc.dat
>
> The unit of "session time" and so on says
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:53 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> The code looks good, and the performance seems to be nice, so I marked this
> ready for committer.
Were the issues that I mentioned regarding GIST (and maybe other AMs)
in the last paragraph of
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:05 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jan 2021, at 18:19, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> >> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
> >> index 385ac25150..e3b0048806 100644
> >> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
> >> +++
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 4:44 AM 曾文旌 wrote:
> I've been following this topic for a long time. It's been a year since the
> last response.
> It was clear that our customers wanted this feature as well, and a large
> number of them mentioned it.
>
> So, I wish the whole feature to mature as soon as
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 01:07:50AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 11:50:47PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have completed the key management patch with tests created by Stephen
> > Frost. Original patch by Masahiko Sawada. It requires the hex
> > reorganization patch
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> > I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
> > because I created the patch as a new feature on PG14.
> > I'm not sure whether we should do back patch or not. However, I'll
> > add the check on the
I could if someone wants to commit to reviewing it.
I've updated it a number of times but it seems nobody wants to review it.
Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 09:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:49 PM Georgios Kokolatos
> wrote:
> >
> >
Hi Dave,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:49 PM Georgios Kokolatos
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch fails on the cfbot yet it has received an update during the
> current CF.
>
> I will move it to the next CF and mark it there as Waiting on Author.
>
This patch has not been updated for almost 2 months.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 05:44:01PM +0800, 曾文旌 wrote:
> I've been following this topic for a long time. It's been a year since the
> last response.
> It was clear that our customers wanted this feature as well, and a large
> number of them mentioned it.
>
> So, I wish the whole feature to mature
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:05:44PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 5 Jan 2021, at 18:19, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> +
> >> + Data pages are not checksum protected by default, but this can
> >> optionally be
> >> + enabled for a cluster.
This would also have to be rewritten to
Hi Andrey,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:51 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
>
> On 11/29/20 10:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 28/11/2020 19:21, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> >> On 27.11.2020 21:49, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> CREATE TABLE a(x int, y int);
> >> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON a(x);
> >>
> On 5 Jan 2021, at 18:19, Michael Banck wrote:
>> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
>> index 385ac25150..e3b0048806 100644
>> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
>> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml
>> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
>>
Starting to look at the planner code, I found an oversight in the way
expression stats are read at the start of planning -- it is necessary
to call ChangeVarNodes() on any expressions if the relid isn't 1,
otherwise the stats expressions may contain Var nodes referring to the
wrong relation.
Hi Marina,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 11:59 PM Marina Polyakova
wrote:
>
> On 2020-11-07 01:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Hello Marina,
>
> Hello, Fabien!
>
> Thank you for your comments!
>
> >> While trying to test a patch that adds a synchronization barrier in
> >> pgbench [1] on Windows,
> >
> >
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 14:08 odesílatel Amit Kapila napsal:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:15 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > > last incremental on CI.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, the whole
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:15 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > last incremental on CI.
> >
>
> Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the commitfest tester to
> work correctly - it
On 2021/01/07 17:28, shinya11.k...@nttdata.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:30 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
On 2021/01/07 12:42, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
On 2021/01/07 10:01, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:37 PM wrote:
You're welcome Michael!
Michael Paquier , 7 Oca 2021 Per, 14:54 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Amine Tengilimoglu wrote:
> > Thank you Michael. I agree with you. Relevant part can be removed from
> the
> > document and eliminate the confusion at least.
>
>
I've been following this topic for a long time. It's been a year since the last response.It was clear that our customers wanted this feature as well, and a large number of them mentioned it.So, I wish the whole feature to mature as soon as possible.I summarized the scheme mentioned in the email
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Amine Tengilimoglu wrote:
> Thank you Michael. I agree with you. Relevant part can be removed from the
> document and eliminate the confusion at least.
Okay, I got around this stuff, and committed a fix for 9.6~12. Thanks
for the report, Amine!
--
st 6. 1. 2021 v 22:44 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
>
> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > last incremental on CI.
> >
>
> Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the commitfest tester to
> work correctly -
After pondering this again, I think we can go with initdb
--no-instructions, as in your patch.
As a minor nitpick, I would leave out the
else
printf(_("\nSuccess.\n"));
in the --no-instructions case.
(I don't know where the pg_upgrade part of this discussion is right now.)
--
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:09 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> > Posting an updated set of patches to address recent feedback:
>
> Following is my review.
>
> v11-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT.patch
>
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:56 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 7:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > Currently, $subject is not allowed. We do plan the mat view query
> > before every refresh. I propose to show the explain/explain analyze of
> > the select part of the mat
On Thu, January 7, 2021 5:36 PM (JST), Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:43 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > [Results for VACUUM on single relation]
> > Average of 5 runs.
> >
> > 1. % REGRESSION
> > % Regression: (patched - master)/master
> >
> > | rel_size | 128MB | 1GB
to be clear, that was existing code within our codebase, it was used as a very
bad alternative to an if/else clause. think of it as an tenery operator. thats
just straight up bad code as tom said. but even if it is, its a change and i
wanted to check, if its intended. so thank you for you time
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> I am not sure I understood your point completely. Do you mean there could be
> multiple bootstrap or standalone backends that could exist at a time and can
> perform checkpoint?
Actually, my understanding of the standalone backend was wrong
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:43 PM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> [Results for VACUUM on single relation]
> Average of 5 runs.
>
> 1. % REGRESSION
> % Regression: (patched - master)/master
>
> | rel_size | 128MB | 1GB| 20GB | 100GB|
> |--||||--|
>
>On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:30 PM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/01/07 12:42, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 AM Fujii Masao
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2021/01/07 10:01, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:37 PM
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 9:15 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>
napsal:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 09:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > this case should to raise exception - the value should be changed or
> error
> > should be raised
> >
> > postgres=# insert into foo
Hi Stephen
Thank you so much for replying !
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:40 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com (osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com) wrote:
> > You said
> > > The use case I imagined is that the user temporarily changes
> > > wal_level to 'none' from 'replica' or
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:49 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/01/05 16:56, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Attaching v8 patch set. Hopefully, cf bot will be happy with v8.
> >
> > Please consider the v8 patch set for further review.
> -DATA = postgres_fdw--1.0.sql
> +DATA = postgres_fdw--1.1.sql
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 09:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> this case should to raise exception - the value should be changed or error
> should be raised
>
> postgres=# insert into foo values('{}');
> postgres=# update foo set a['a'] = '100';
> postgres=# update foo set a['a'][1] = '-1';
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Okay, if we want to go that way then we should add some documentation
> about it. Currently, the slot name used by apply worker is known to
> the user because either it is specified by the user or the default is
> subscription name, so the
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > > 3.
> > > +#define SUBREL_STATE_COPYDONE 'C' /* tablesync copy phase is completed */
> > >
> > > You can mention in the comments that sublsn will be NULL for this
> > > state as it is mentioned for other similar states. Can we think of
> >
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 8:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:51 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > + * Rarely, the DropSubscription may be issued when a tablesync still
> > > + * is in SYNCDONE but not yet in
100 matches
Mail list logo
