On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 08:40:59PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I just returned from vacation and I was about ready to commit this
> myself, but I noticed that it doesn't seem to be calling
> InvokeObjectPostAlterHook().
Arg, sorry about that! I was unclear what the situation of the patch
was.
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 09:09:10PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 18:06, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that increases severity of that and the
>> corresponding `grep` policy to 5 to enable it in our perlcritic policy,
>> and fixes the one use that
st 12. 5. 2021 v 8:22 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
> Hi
>
> ne 11. 4. 2021 v 9:48 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
> napsal:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> út 16. 2. 2021 v 20:32 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
>> napsal:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> rebase
>>>
>>
>>
> rebase
>
>
>
>> fresh rebase
>>
>
fresh rebase
>>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:05:51PM -0400, John Naylor wrote:
> Concretely, I propose to push the attached on master and v14. Since we're
> in beta 2 and this thread might not get much attention, I've CC'd the RMT.
(It looks like gmail has messed up a bit the format of your last
message.)
Hmm.
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 04:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jul-27, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
>
> > > + if (grep { $_ eq $ref} @{ $self->{references} } == 0)
> >
> > I disagree. Using grep in boolean context is perfectly idiomatic perl.
> > What
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 03:52, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>
> > On 2021-Jul-28, David Rowley wrote:
> >
> >> 0003: Is a tidy up patch to make the 'includes' field an array rather
> >> than a string
> >
> > In this one, you can avoid turning one line into four with
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 01:44, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
> I don't know anything about the MSVC build process, but I figured I
> could do a general Perl code review.
Thanks for looking at this. Perl review is very useful as it's
certainly not my native tongue, as you might have noticed.
>
On 2021/07/28 6:25, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27/07/2021 19:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
Anyway I attached the patch that changes only xact_redo_abort()
so that it calls XLogFlush() to update min recovery point.
Looks good to me, thanks! FWIW, I used the attached script to reproduce this.
On 2021/07/28 1:55, 蔡梦娟(玊于) wrote:
Hi, Fujii
Thanks for your reply.
And I want to share a patch about the bug with you, I add XLogFlush() in
xact_redo_abort() to update the minimum recovery point.
Thanks for the patch! It looks almost the same as the patch I posted upthread.
One diff
On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 12:23 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:38:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay, hearing nothing, I have looked again at 0001 and did some
> > light
> > adjustments, mainly in the tests. I did not spot any issues in the
> > patch, so that
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:31:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, there are half a dozen places that currently print something
> more specific than "out of memory". I judged that the value of this
> was not worth the complexity it'd add to support it in this scheme.
> Different opinions welcome
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:38:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, hearing nothing, I have looked again at 0001 and did some light
> adjustments, mainly in the tests. I did not spot any issues in the
> patch, so that looks good to go for me.
And done as of b048326.
--
Michael
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 12:52 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> > Consider below ways to allow the user to specify the parallel-safety option:
> >
> > (a)
> > CREATE TABLE table_name (...) PARALLEL DML { UNSAFE | RESTRICTED | SAFE }
> > ...
> > ALTER TABLE table_name PARALLEL DML { UNSAFE |
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 08:53:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 03:35:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> (In reality we cannot literally just exit(1) in pg_log_fatal(), because
>> there are quite a few places that do some other thing after the log
>> call and before
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 21:36, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley wrote:\>
> > I've adjusted the patch and attached what I came up with. Let me know
> > what you think.
>
> I like this improved wording. Thanks!
I've pushed this with some very minor
On July 27, 2021 1:14 PM Amit Kapila
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:33 PM Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 5:52 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > I think for the consistency argument how about allowing users to
> > > specify a parallel-safety option for both partitioned and
> > >
Hello.
At Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:04:09 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:03 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> PSA v3 patch.
I have some comments.
- No harm, but it's pointless to feed MyLatch to WaitLatch when
WL_LATCH_SET is not set (or rather misleading).
- It seems
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 14:25, David Fetter wrote:
> Intuitively, I'd expect us to get things in the neighborhood of 1 a
> lot more often than things in the neighborhood of 1 << (30 or 60). Do
> we have some idea of the distribution, or at least of the distribution
> family, that we should expect
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> - appendPQExpBuffer(>errorMessage,
> - libpq_gettext("out of
> memory allocating GSSAPI buffer (%d)\n"),
> - payloadlen);
> +
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:17:43PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 01:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So how much faster is it than the original?
>
> I only did some very quick tests. They're a bit noisey. The results
> indicate an average speedup of 1.7%, but the noise level
Hi,
On 2021-07-22 13:54:58 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-04-08 01:20:14 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Apr-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I bit the bullet and re-did the logic in the way I had proposed
> > > earlier in the thread: do the propagation on the collector's
On 7/27/21, 6:05 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote:
> On 2021-Feb-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
>> 0002 adds logic for persisting the last notified segment through
>> crashes. This is needed because a poorly-timed crash could otherwise
>> cause us to skip marking segments as ready-for-archival
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 09:39:02AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> IMO the PG code comments are not an appropriate place for leetspeak
> creativity.
>
> PSA a patch to replace a few examples that I recently noticed.
>
> "up2date" --> "up-to-date"
Agreed that this is a bit cleaner to read, so done.
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 01:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So how much faster is it than the original?
I only did some very quick tests. They're a bit noisey. The results
indicate an average speedup of 1.7%, but the noise level is above
that, so unsure.
create table a (a int);
insert into a select
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:07 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 7/27/21 4:28 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I think it can be incorrect to use the same TupleDesc for both the
> > slots in ri_Slots (for ready-to-be-inserted tuples) and ri_PlanSlots
> > (for subplan output tuples). Especially if you
On 2021-Feb-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> 0002 adds logic for persisting the last notified segment through
> crashes. This is needed because a poorly-timed crash could otherwise
> cause us to skip marking segments as ready-for-archival altogether.
> This file is only used for primary servers, as
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 02:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > 0001: Removes an include directory for dblink. This appears like it's
> > not needed. It was added in ee3b4188a (Jan 2010), but an earlier
> > commit, 320c7eb8c (June 2008) seems to have made it pointless. It's
> > still
IMO the PG code comments are not an appropriate place for leetspeak creativity.
PSA a patch to replace a few examples that I recently noticed.
"up2date" --> "up-to-date"
--
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
v1-0001-Replace-leetspeak-comments-with-English.patch
Description:
On 7/27/21, 3:41 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> The first half of that just saves a few hundred bytes of repetitive
> coding. However, I think that the addition of recovery logic is
> important for robustness, because as things stand libpq may be
> worse off than before for OOM handling. Before
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>
> with
> c1 as (
> select
> '1 month 1 day 1 second'::interval as i1,
> '1.234 month 1.234 day 1.234 second'::interval as i3),
>
> c2 as (
> select i1*1.234 as i2, i3 from c1)
>
> select i2::text as i2_txt, i3::text
While cleaning out dead branches in my git repo, I came across an
early draft of what eventually became commit ffa2e4670 ("In libpq,
always append new error messages to conn->errorMessage"). I realized
that it contained a good idea that had gotten lost on the way to that
commit. Namely, let's
The original import of the SSL tests saved the clientside log in /client-log,
which was later removed in 1caef31d9. The test/ssl .gitignore didn't get the
memo though.
The attached trivial patch removes it from .gitignore, barring objections I'll
push that.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
> On 27-Jul-2021, at 14:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:01:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> I went ahead and modified the interval multiplication/division functions
>>> to use the same logic as fractional interval units:
>>
>> Wait. A. Minute.
>>
> On 4 Mar 2021, at 01:03, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Andrew pointed out elsewhere [1] that it's pretty difficult to add new
> certificates to the test/ssl suite without blowing away the current
> state and starting over. I needed new cases for the NSS backend work,
> and ran into the same pain, so
On 7/27/21 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> On 7/27/21 12:21 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
So it seems useful to include this into in the explain plan - show which
statistics were applied, in which order. Attached is an early PoC patch
doing that in VERBOSE mode.
On 27/07/2021 19:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
Anyway I attached the patch that changes only xact_redo_abort()
so that it calls XLogFlush() to update min recovery point.
Looks good to me, thanks! FWIW, I used the attached script to reproduce
this.
- Heikki
# Repro for
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:01:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I went ahead and modified the interval multiplication/division functions
> > to use the same logic as fractional interval units:
>
> Wait. A. Minute.
>
> What I think we have consensus on is that interval_in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> My 0003 is where I see some lingering problems. It creates
> XLogAcceptWrites(), moves the appropriate stuff there, and doesn't
> need the xlogreader. But it doesn't really solve the problem of how
> checkpointer.c would be able to call this
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On 7/27/21 12:21 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>>> So it seems useful to include this into in the explain plan - show which
>>> statistics were applied, in which order. Attached is an early PoC patch
>>> doing that in VERBOSE mode. I'll add it to the next CF.
> Yes. I think
Hi,
On 7/27/21 12:21 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:50:54AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With extended statistics it may not be immediately obvious if they were
>> applied and to which clauses. If you have multiple extended statistics,
>> we may also apply them
On 2021-Jul-27, Tom Lane wrote:
> So maybe like
>
> if (gconf->context < PGC_SIGHUP)
> {
> + /* The removal can't be effective without a restart */
> + gconf->status |= GUC_PENDING_RESTART;
> ereport(elevel,
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I went ahead and modified the interval multiplication/division functions
> to use the same logic as fractional interval units:
Wait. A. Minute.
What I think we have consensus on is that interval_in is doing the
wrong thing in a particular corner case. I have heard
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 09:02:29PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> > are the user’s parameterization. All are real numbers. Because non-integral
> > values for years, months, days, hours, and minutes are allowed when you
> > specify
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 18:06, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Attached is a patch that increases severity of that and the
> corresponding `grep` policy to 5 to enable it in our perlcritic policy,
> and fixes the one use that had already snuck in.
+1, the use of foreach also improves readability
út 27. 7. 2021 v 20:34 odesílatel Fujii Masao
napsal:
>
>
> On 2021/07/09 14:05, torikoshia wrote:
> > On 2021-07-02 23:21, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:00 AM torikoshia
> wrote:
> >>> Updated the patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patch. Here are some comments on the v4
On 2021/07/09 14:05, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-07-02 23:21, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:00 AM torikoshia wrote:
Updated the patch.
Thanks for the patch. Here are some comments on the v4 patch:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions!
I agree with you and updated
The documentation for ALTER PUBLICATION ... OWNER TO ... claims the new owner
must have CREATE privilege on the database, though superuser can change the
ownership in spite of this restriction. No explanation is given for this
requirement. It seems to just mirror the requirement that many
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:43 AM Dipesh Pandit wrote:
> and updated a new patch. Please find the attached patch v4.
Some review:
/*
+* If archiver is active, send notification that timeline has switched.
+*/
+ if (XLogArchivingActive() && ArchiveRecoveryRequested &&
On 7/26/21, 10:34 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> PSA v3 patch.
LGTM. The pre/post_auth_delay parameters seem to work as intended,
and they are responsive to postmaster crashes. I didn't find any
examples of calling WaitLatch() without WL_LATCH_SET, but the function
appears to have support
Hi,
On 2021-07-27 09:23:48 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Thanks for the warning, rebase done and new v21 version attached.
Did you have a go at fixing the walsender race conditions I
(re-)discovered? Without fixing those I don't see this patch going in...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi, Fujii
Thanks for your reply.
And I want to share a patch about the bug with you, I add XLogFlush() in
xact_redo_abort() to update the minimum recovery point.
Best Regards,
Suyu
--
发件人：Fujii Masao
发送时间：2021年7月27日(星期二) 16:26
Hi,
On 2021-07-26 11:38:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:28:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> We really ought to just remove every single use of long.
> >
> > I have no objection to that as a long-term goal. But I'm not volunteering
> > to
On 2021/07/27 19:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:05PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM that you're right. xact_redo_abort() should call XLogFlush() to
update the minimum recovery point on truncation. This seems
the oversight in commit 7bffc9b7bf.
Indeed. It would be
On 2021/07/27 15:06, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Thanks for the v8 patch, it LGTM.
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
John Naylor writes:
> Concretely, I propose to push the attached on master and v14. Since we're
> in beta 2 and this thread might not get much attention, I've CC'd the RMT.
+1, we can figure out whether that has a use some other time.
regards, tom lane
I wrote:
> I'm inclined to change this in HEAD but leave it alone in the back
> branches. While it seems pretty bogus, it's not clear if anyone
> out there could be relying on the current behavior.
I've pushed both the 0001 v2 patch and the event trigger change,
and am going to mark the CF entry
On 7/27/21 4:28 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed $subject while rebasing my patch at [1] to enable batching
> for the inserts used in cross-partition UPDATEs.
>
> b676ac443b6 did this:
>
> - resultRelInfo->ri_PlanSlots[resultRelInfo->ri_NumSlots] =
> -
Hi hackers,
In the patches for improving the MSVC build process, I noticed a use of
`map` in void context. This is considered bad form, and has a
perlcritic policy forbidding it:
https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitVoidMap.
Attached is a patch that increases
I wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:49 PM Bauyrzhan Sakhariyev <
baurzhansahar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No, the boundary is intentionally the earlier one:
> >
> > I found that commit in GitHub, thanks for pointing it out.
> > When I test locally origin_in_the_future case I get different
On 2021-Jul-27, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > + if (grep { $_ eq $ref} @{ $self->{references} } == 0)
>
> I disagree. Using grep in boolean context is perfectly idiomatic perl.
> What would be more idiomatic is List::Util::any, but that's not availble
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Jul-28, David Rowley wrote:
>
>> 0003: Is a tidy up patch to make the 'includes' field an array rather
>> than a string
>
> In this one, you can avoid turning one line into four with map,
>
> - $p->AddIncludeDir($pl_proj->{includes});
> + foreach my $inc
Robert Haas writes:
> Dang it, yes. The tenant needs to be members of all the other users,
> not the other way around. I spent a long time trying to not get that
> backwards and still did.
The "membership" terminology is inherently confusing I fear.
Maybe better to say that all the
On 7/27/21 11:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-28, David Rowley wrote:
>
>> 0003: Is a tidy up patch to make the 'includes' field an array rather
>> than a string
> In this one, you can avoid turning one line into four with map,
>
> - $p->AddIncludeDir($pl_proj->{includes});
> +
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:24 AM Isaac Morland wrote:
> Isn’t this backwards? If all those roles are members of "tenant" then they
> can do anything "tenant" can do. The reverse might work - make "tenant" a
> member of all the related roles - although I haven’t thought through in
> detail.
On 2021/07/27 11:02, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
Hello Fujii-san,
Thank you for looking at it.
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:04:35 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
case CSTATE_FINISHED:
+ /* per-thread last disconnection time is not
measured */
Could you
The documentation for ALTER EVENT TRIGGER claims "You must be superuser to
alter an event trigger" which is manifestly false, as shown below:
+CREATE ROLE evt_first_owner SUPERUSER;
+CREATE ROLE evt_second_owner SUPERUSER;
+SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION evt_first_owner;
+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:18 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> FWIW, by the way, I complained that the variable name "promoted" is a
> bit confusing. It's old name was fast_promoted, which means that fast
> promotion is being *requsted* and ongoing. On the other hand the
> current name "promoted"
On 2021-Jul-28, David Rowley wrote:
> 0003: Is a tidy up patch to make the 'includes' field an array rather
> than a string
In this one, you can avoid turning one line into four with map,
- $p->AddIncludeDir($pl_proj->{includes});
+ foreach my $inc (@{ $pl_proj->{includes} })
+
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Jul-27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ugh. I think this patch is likely to create more problems than it fixes.
> I doubt that; as I said, the code already behaves in exactly that way
> for closely related operations, so this patch isn't doing anything new.
> Note that that
David Rowley writes:
> 0001: Removes an include directory for dblink. This appears like it's
> not needed. It was added in ee3b4188a (Jan 2010), but an earlier
> commit, 320c7eb8c (June 2008) seems to have made it pointless. It's
> still a mystery to me why ee3b4188a would have been required in
On 2021-Jul-27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > You could argue that this is *weird* (why does reading pg_file_settings
> > set a flag in global state?) ... but that weirdness is not something
> > this patch is introducing.
>
> Ugh. I think this patch is likely to create more
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 10:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this has potential. In a managed services environment, you can
> imagine the provider as the super-duper user, having the ability to do
> anything - because they control the box, so there's really no stopping
> it - but presumably very
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> After further thought, I can't poke a hole in that concept.
> We'd keep the rule that the trigger executes as the calling user.
> Therefore, the trigger cannot perform any action that the calling
> user couldn't do if she chose. Conversely, since
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> You could argue that this is *weird* (why does reading pg_file_settings
> set a flag in global state?) ... but that weirdness is not something
> this patch is introducing.
Ugh. I think this patch is likely to create more problems than it fixes.
We should be looking to
David Rowley writes:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 04:01, vignesh C wrote:
>> The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could you rebase and post a
>> patch. I'm changing the status to "Waiting for Author".
>
> I've rebased this patch and broken it down into 6 individual patches.
I don't know
On 2021-Jul-26, David Fetter wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Please find attached a patch to do $subject. It's down to a one table
> lookup and 3 instructions.
So how much faster is it than the original?
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La rebeldía es la
At Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:15:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote in
> Greetings,
>
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:32 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Yeah, tend to agree with this too ... but something I find a bit curious
> > > is the comment:
> > >
> > > *
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/27/21 4:39 AM, Bruce Momjian 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
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 04:01, vignesh C wrote:
> The patch does not apply on Head anymore, could you rebase and post a
> patch. I'm changing the status to "Waiting for Author".
I've rebased this patch and broken it down into 6 individual patches.
0001: Removes an include directory for dblink.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> All I was really trying to point out above was that the comment might be
> improved upon, just so someone understands that we aren't doing a
> checkpoint at this particular place, but one will be done later due to
> the promotion. Maybe I'm
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:00 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:58 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, for a non-partitioned table, we should be default allow the
> > parallel safely checking so that users don't have to set it for
> > individual tables, OTOH, I don't think
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 01:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> ..and I also recall that this point has been discussed, where the conclusion
> was that the logging should never exit() directly.
That's a characteristic of the API which still holds IMO. If we want
something, it's better to have an
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Sure. Then what should be the expected usage of fatal? Doc says:
>
> * Severe errors that cause program termination. (One-shot programs may
> * chose to label even fatal errors as merely "errors". The distinction
> * is up
>On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:04:36AM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
>> there is a typo in variable.c.
>> Attached a small fix for this.
>"iff" stands for "if and only if".
Ah, good to know. Thx
Regards
Daniel
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:05PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that you're right. xact_redo_abort() should call XLogFlush() to
> update the minimum recovery point on truncation. This seems
> the oversight in commit 7bffc9b7bf.
Indeed. It would be nice to see some refactoring of this code as
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:04:36AM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> there is a typo in variable.c.
> Attached a small fix for this.
"iff" stands for "if and only if".
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:58 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> IMHO, for a non-partitioned table, we should be default allow the
> parallel safely checking so that users don't have to set it for
> individual tables, OTOH, I don't think that there is any point in
> blocking the syntax for the
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:50:54AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With extended statistics it may not be immediately obvious if they were
> applied and to which clauses. If you have multiple extended statistics,
> we may also apply them in different order, etc. And with expressions,
>
Hi,
there is a typo in variable.c.
Attached a small fix for this.
Regards
Danieldiff --git a/src/bin/psql/variables.c b/src/bin/psql/variables.c
index 92a34f870f..538b83ddd9 100644
--- a/src/bin/psql/variables.c
+++ b/src/bin/psql/variables.c
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ SetVariableHooks(VariableSpace
Hello,
I do not understand your disagreement. Do you disagree about the
expected>> semantics of fatal? Then why provide fatal if it should not
be used? What is the expected usage of fatal?
I disagree about the fact that pgbench uses pg_log_fatal() in ways
that other binaries don't do.
> On 27 Jul 2021, at 01:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I tried the attached patch, which sets GUC_PENDING_RESTART if we're
> doing pg_file_settings(). Then any subsequent read of pg_settings will
> have the pending_restart flag set. This seems to work correctly, and
> consistently with the case
Le 26/07/2021 à 21:56, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Gilles Darold writes:
>> [ v4-0001-regexp-foo-functions.patch ]
> I started to work through this and was distressed to realize that
> it's trying to redefine regexp_replace() in an incompatible way.
> We already have
>
> regression=# \df regexp_replace
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley wrote:\>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > The algoritm as described in your patch implies that this recursive
> > locking is conditional on _only_ the check-constraints of the topmost
> > partition ("performed whilst
Greetings,
I simply tested it and it works well. But I got a compilation warning,
should we move the definition of function FullTransactionIdToStr to the
"transam.h"?
--
There is no royal road to learning.
HighGo Software Co.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:28 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > Consider below ways to allow the user to specify the parallel-safety option:
> >
> > (a)
> > CREATE TABLE table_name (...)
On 2021/07/27 2:38, 蔡梦娟(玊于) wrote:
Hi, all
Recently, I got a PANIC while restarts standby, which can be reproduced by the
following steps, based on pg 11:
1. begin a transaction in primary node;
2. create a table in the transaction;
3. insert lots of data into the table;
4. do a checkpoint,
FYI - v19 --> v20
(Only very minimal changes. Nothing functional)
Changes:
* The v19 patch was broken due to changes of commit [1] so I have
rebased so the cfbot is happy.
* I also renamed the TAP test 021_row_filter.pl ==> 023_row_filter.pl
because commit [2] already added another TAP test
> Some minor suggestions:
Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated the changes
and updated a new patch. Please find the attached patch v4.
Thanks,
Dipesh
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:44 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 7/26/21, 6:31 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote:
> > In terms of immediate next
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 04:41:54AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It looks like one hunk was missing/uncommitted from the 0002 patch..
Okay, hearing nothing, I have looked again at 0001 and did some light
adjustments, mainly in the tests. I did not spot any issues in the
patch, so that looks good
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 4:55 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> Attached file is the POC patch for this.
> Current design is to save failed stats data in the ReplicationSlot struct.
> This is because after the error, I'm not able to access the ReorderBuffer
> object.
> Thus, I chose the
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
