r/statement: REINDEX \(VERBOSE\) TABLE CONCURRENTLY public\.test1;/,
+ 'reindex concurrently with verbose output');
but I don't see what tests of the --concurrently option have to do with this
patch. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this change, but it seems
out of place. Am I m
1,
+ [ ],
+ [ qr/cannot move system relation/ ],
'reindex toast index concurrently with tablespace');
# connection strings
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
do here, beware that you are using similar language in
the --help, so consider changing that, too.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Feb 17, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 1:46 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> It will reconnect and retry a command one time on error. That should cover
>> the case that the connection to the database was merely lost. If the secon
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 8:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 4/7/21 1:03 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> The v1 patch supported postgres versions back to 8.4, but v2 pushes that
>> back to 8.1.
>>
>> The version of PostgresNode currently committed relies on
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 1:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 8:02 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> v18-0001 - Finishes work started in commit 3b6c1259f9 that was overlooked
>> owing to how I had separated the changes in v17-0002 vs. v17-0003
>
> Commi
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 12:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Apr-07, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> It's not sufficient to think about postgres versions as "10", "11",
>> etc. You have to be able to spin up nodes of any build, like "9
per micro release. So you'd have a
PostgresNode of type "10" or such, but how does that help? If you have ten
different versions of "10" in your test, they all look the same?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
g on the enabled features, the conditions,
> what GUC was enabled by default or not, etc. So I end up with this design.
>
> I really don't want to waste community brain cycles in discussions and useless
> reviews. But as far as someone agree to review it, I already have the material
t; My limited set of tests are working with versions back to 9.0 so far.
>
> My 2¢
Hmm, I took a look. I'm not sure that we're working on the same problem, but I
might have missed something.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 9:26 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:08:31 -0700
> Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>>> On Apr 7, 2021, at 7:37 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
>
>>> And here is a demo test file:
>>> https://gi
> On Apr 8, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:02 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> Imagine a toasted attribute with 18 chunks numbered [0..17]. Then we update
>> the toast to have only 6 chunks numbered [0..5] except we corruptly keep
&g
> On Apr 8, 2021, at 3:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> All this leads me to believe that we should report the following:
>>
>> 1) If the total number of chunks retrieved differs from the expected number,
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Apr-07, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> I was commenting on the design to have the PostgresNode derived
>> subclass hard-coded to return "10" as the version:
>>
>>sub version { retur
> On Apr 7, 2021, at 2:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Apr-07, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> It seems we're debating between two designs. In the first, each
>> PostgresNode function knows about version limitations and has code
>> like:
>>
>>
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:06 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> It now reports:
>>
>> # heap table "postgres"."public"."test", block 0, offset 18, attribute 2:
>> # toast v
> On Apr 18, 2021, at 6:19 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> how about specifying pg_catalog as the schema instead of public?
Done.
v2-0001-Adding-install-missing-option-to-pg_amcheck.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The E
> any attempt at version compatibility.
>
> We can revisit compatibility further in the next release.
Sounds good.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 9:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/21 7:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2021-Apr-18, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/17/21 3:43 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>>> I'd also like your impressions on whether we're
d be prepared to make the necessary moves then.
This was the request that motivated the move to src/bin.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:08 -0400
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/19/21 10:43 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:11 AM, Andrew Dunsta
sts and review...
I did that, too, in the 0002 version of my patch. Perhaps we need to merge
your work and mine.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> I have added the verb "has" rather than "contains" because "has" is more
>> consistent with the phrasing of other similar c
k and amcheck have to both be
installed to work, but I don't think that point of view makes much sense in
reality. The computer running the client and the computer running the server
are frequently not the same computer.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 8:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:15:23PM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> There is another issue to consider. Installing pg_amcheck in no way
>> opens up an avenue of attack that I can see. It is just a client
>>
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 9:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:39:06PM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> This is a classic privilege escalation attack. Bob has one
>> privilege, and uses it to get another.
>
> Bob is a superuser, so it has all
up in pg_extension join
pg_namespace, and substituted back in.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:31 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> I think you are conflating the concept of an operating system adminstrator
>> with the concept of the database superuser/owner.
>
> You should
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>>> On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:31 AM Mark Dilger
>>> wrote:
>>>> I think you are conflating the concept of an oper
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:31 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> I think you are conflating the concept of an operating system adminstrator
>> with the concept of the database superuser/owner.
>
> You should
.
I'd also like your impressions on whether we're likely to move contrib/amcheck
into core anytime soon. If so, is it worth adding an option that we'll soon
need to deprecate?
v1-0001-Adding-install-missing-option-to-pg_amcheck.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Apr 8, 2021, at 3:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:21 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> All this leads me to believe that we should report the following:
>>
>> 1) If the total number of chunks retrieved differs from the expected number,
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
> On 4/14/21 7:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mark Dilger writes:
>>>> On Apr 13, 2021, at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> However I think we may still need an assumption that earthdistance
>>>&g
> On Apr 9, 2021, at 1:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:50 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>> I think #4, above, requires some clarification. If there are missing
>> chunks, the very definition of how large we expect subsequent chunks to be
&g
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:07 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mark Dilger
>> wrote:
>>> I have added the verb "has" rather than "contains"
are allowed within pcre assertions, but I know that perl itself
does allow them. So maybe the error text used by other implementations is
irrelevant?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
bug fix then
> shouldn't it be separated and back-patched..?
It is already a patch waiting for commit.
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1F238937-7CC2-4703-A1B1-6DC225B8978A%40enterprisedb.com
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
patch
I've beaten on this with random patterns and it seems to hold up just fine. I
have also reviewed the diffs and, for the patterns where the output changes,
everything looks correct. I can't find anything wrong with this patch.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Ent
l reindexes
and vacuums running in backends. It should be just as safe to ctrl-c out of
pg_amcheck as out of those two. They all three use fe_utils/cancel.h's
setup_cancel_handler(), so I would expect modifying verify_heapam would be
enough.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpr
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> Not any good one that I can see.
>
> Seems that way. Want to post a patch?
Sure. I just posted another unrelated patch for amcheck this morning, so it
seems a good day for it :)
—
Mark Dilger
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 4:41 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> Seems that way. Want to post a patch?
>
> Sure.
v1-0001-Add-CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS-to-verify_heapam.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
t assumption.
v1-0001-WIP-patch-to-support-amcheck-of-sequences.patch.WIP
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
re than helpful.
Thoughts?
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17554.1120258001%40sss.pgh.pa.us
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
her than recomputing them?
It's a little messy, since these are the only two functions out of about ten
which follow this pattern, so you'd have to pass NULLs into
get_restriction_variable() from the other eight callers, but it still looks
like that would be a win.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
case of only one table end up with a table
column compared against itself.
You could argue that those people need to fix their queries/generators to not
do this sort of thing, but the end user affected by such queries may have
little ability to fix it.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http:
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>
> I've pushed a fix for this. And then a fix for the fix :-( because I forgot
> about the rule that role names in regression tests should start with regress_
> prefix, so animals enforcing this failed.
Than
gt;<0002-pg_amcheck-test-typofix.patch>
These look correct.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In other cases, I don't much see the point.
It seems that sampling the fraction of rows where (A op B) is true for any
given op would be more helpful.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
to
get back to this.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
id oid,
OUT t_data bytea
Should it also return the full page? That would be quite verbose (an extra 8k
per row), but it could be fed into any of pageinspect's functions for further
analysis.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
of
the corruption check would be shared between the two interfaces. I haven't
tried writing a patch yet, but it seems the patch shouldn't be terribly
complicated.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
at's fine. I'd have to rework the patch a bit, but conceptually that seems
doable. We could also say that non-superusers who are members of privileged
roles (pg_execute_server_programs, pg_signal_backend, etc) are likewise on the
other side of that wall.
Does that work?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseD
s patch set doesn't come within a country mile of CREATEROLE.
Why should this patch set have to coordinate with that one? I'm not arguing
with you -- merely asking what I'm misunderstanding?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
ng data in the table where the conflict arises. These other options are
DDL and do not easily come to mind when I read that phrase.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
?
0001-Adding-tests-of-subscription-errors.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 5:15 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Attached is the rebased version for the latest master head.
Hi Amul!
Could you please rebase again?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
out. If
not, a mia culpa saying, "hey, were not terribly safe about this" should be
explicit in the comment.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
d a timeout as I
suggested above, as such a timeout parameter when allowing wal is less clearly
useful.
That's enough code review for now. Next I will review your regression tests
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
have to wonder, what
exactly is the boolean argument toggling here?
I don't feel strongly about this, though, and you don't need to change it.
> Apart from this, recently while testing this patch with
> pgbench where I have exhausted the connection limit and want to change
> the system's prohibited state in between but I was unable to do that,
> I wish I could do that using the pg_clt option. How about having a
> pg_clt option to alter wal prohibited state?
I'd have to review the implementation, but sure, that sounds like a useful
ability.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 8:42 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> Take for example a code stanza from heapam.c:
>
>if (needwal)
>CheckWALPermitted();
>
>/* NO EREPORT(ERROR) from here till changes are logged */
>START_CRIT_SECTION();
>
>
"immediately" and "will kill the running transaction" which reenforced the
impression that this mechanism is heavier handed than it is.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
sessions.patch
Description: Binary data
v34-0010-Test-ALTER-SYSTEM-READ-ONLY-against-cursors.patch
Description: Binary data
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAP4vRV5gEHFLB7NwOE6_dyHAeVfkvqF8Z_g5GaCQZNgBAE0Frw%40mail.gmail.com#e10861372aec22119b66756ecbac581c
—
Mark Dilger
Enterpr
> On Sep 7, 2021, at 9:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> I wondered about using PGXS:: as the namespace for all these modules
That immediately suggests perl modules wrapping C code, which is misleading for
these. See `man perlxstut`
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpr
than defining
VARLENA_SIZE_LIMIT, but review comments suggested that was less clear.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Jul 14, 2021, at 7:57 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> so no valid toast pointer should contain a va_rawsize field greater than
> MaxAllocSize
... nor should any valid toast pointer contain a va_extinfo field encoding a
va_extsize greater than va_rawsize - VARHDRSZ.
Violatio
further unless
you have something in particular you'd like me to focus on.
Thanks again for working on this.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
d then we can revisit this issue and loosen the
requirement in a subsequent commit.
What do you think?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
);
print("
select actual, estimated, abs(actual - estimated) AS misestimate
from check_estimated_rows('select * from $tblname where $whereclause1');");
}
foreach my $where2 (keys %wherepattern2)
{
my $whereclause1 = sprintf($where2, $a, $b, $a, $c);
print("
select actual, estimated, abs(actual - estimated) AS misestimate
from check_estimated_rows('select * from $tblname where $whereclause1');");
}
foreach my $where3 (keys %wherepattern3)
{
my $whereclause1 = sprintf($where3, $a, $b, $a, $c, $c, $a);
print("
select actual, estimated, abs(actual - estimated) AS misestimate
from check_estimated_rows('select * from $tblname where $whereclause1');");
}
}
}
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
o
does that, and with a backref, because it dies with "got here".
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 9, 2021, at 5:14 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>our $match;
>if ('foo' =~ m/((.)(??{ die; })){0}(..)/)
I left in a stray variable. A prior version of this script was assigning to
$match where it now has die. Sorry for any confusion.
—
Mark Dilger
Enterp
sted parens.
Ugg. That means our code throws an error where perl does not, pretty well
negating my point above. If we're already throwing an error for this type of
thing, I agree we should be consistent about it. My personal preference would
have been to do the same thing as perl, but it seems
expectedly
+ This probably means the server terminated abnormally
+ before or while processing the request.
+connection to server was lost
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
ere are pre-existing
problems in the regex code, but this doesn't seem to add any new breakage.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 9, 2021, at 6:17 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> Well, this doesn't die either:
Meaning it doesn't die in the part of the pattern qualified by {0} either. It
does die in the other part. Sorry again for the confusion.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpr
ran a lot of tests with the patch, and the asserts have all cleared up, but I
don't know how to think about the user facing differences. If we had a good
reason for raising an error for these back-references, maybe that'd be fine,
but it seems to just be an implementation detail.
—
Mark Dilger
. This
is a test suite of nearly 1.5 million separate regular expressions.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
[opt]
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2219936.1628115334%40sss.pgh.pa.us
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
, dat_len=31, nmatch=0, pmatch=0x)
at regexp.c:322:10 [opt]
frame #16: 0x000104242c50 postgres`textregexne [inlined]
RE_compile_and_execute(text_re=, dat=, dat_len=31,
cflags=19, collation=, nmatch=0, pmatch=) at
regexp.c:357 [opt]
—
Mark Dilger
Enterpris
esult = '(' . rand_rgx($depth+1) . ')';
$max_capture++;
return $result;
}
return '(?:' . rand_rgx($depth+1) . ')' if ($dice < 70);
return '(?=' . rand_rgx($depth+1) . ')' if ($dice == 71);
return '(?!' . rand_rgx($depth+1) . ')' if ($dice == 72);
return '(?<=' . rand_rgx($depth+1) . ')' if ($dice == 73);
return '(?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
gt; DROP COLUMN [ IF EXISTS ]
> This form drops a column from a table. Indexes and table constraints
> involving the column will be automatically dropped as well.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 5, 2021, at 1:38 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> +select 'vyrlvyrlwvqko' ~ '(?:(?:((.((\2)\1.){0,0}?';
I've boiled it down a bit more:
+select '' ~ '()\1{0}';
+ ?column?
+--
+ t
+(1 row)
+
+select '' ~ '()(\1){0}';
+ ?column?
+--
+ t
+(1 row)
+
+select ''
;","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""}
+ regexp_split_to_array
+--
+ {jdpveoarcnsarcnsarcnszieqbqbqbqbiufdlywphbnrxtdoboouuzcqiqmenj}
I'm not sure what *should* be returned here, only that it is a behavioral
change.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
-(0 rows)
+ {g,g,g,g}
+(1 row)
select regexp_matches('fhgxnvbvjaej', '(((.)).)((\3)((.)))', 'csx');
- regexp_matches
-
-(0 rows)
+ regexp_matches
+---
+ {vb,v,v,vj,v,j,j}
+(1 row)
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>> Applying your to master changes
>> the outcome of some regular expression queries, but I *think* it changes
>> them for the better.
>
> [ squint... ] You sure you applied the pa
snzqabixqbixqiumpgxdemmxvnsemjxgqoqknrqessmcqmfslfspskqpqxe}
(1 row)
The pattern matches any double character. I would expect it to match the "ee",
the "mm" and the "ss" in the text. With the patched code, it matches nothing.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> But these next two look to me correct before the patch and wrong after:
>
> select regexp_matches('ircecpbgyiggvtruqgxzigxzigxzisdbkuhbkuhrvl',
> '(((.)))(?:(\3))[^\f]');
> regexp_matches
>
> On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:32 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "as-committed". Did you commit one of these
> recently?
Nevermind, I see the commit now.
I'll rerun my tests with the new master. I was still using the code that I
pulled yes
> On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> I'll rerun my tests with the new master. I was still using the code that I
> pulled yesterday.
I am now testing REL_13_STABLE (ba9f665a4413f855bbf4b544481db326f7b9bd73) vs
master (c1132aae336c41cf9d316222e525d8d593c2b5d2).
ed something that was unlikely to collide.
Publishing on CPAN would be the way to claim the namespace.
What's the purpose of this idea then? If there isn't one, I'd rather just keep
the current names.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
then if we ever wanted to have official packages for non-test purposes, we
could start another namespace under PostgreSQL.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
modify pub1, not even with respect to user2's own table.
user1 can modify its own publication except for adding someone else's table.
This seems correct to me.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> B or B = B
But there are plenty that got worse without that, such as the following
examples:
better:25, worse:39: A < B and A < B or B > A
better:10, worse:48: A < B and A < C
better:10, worse:54: A < B and A < C or C > A
I'll go test random data designed to have mcv lists of significance
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Aug 11, 2021, at 7:51 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> I'll go test random data designed to have mcv lists of significance
Done. The data for column_i is set to floor(random()^i*20). column_1
therefore is evenly distributed between 0..19, with successive columns weighted
mor
> On Aug 11, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> I'm working on a correlated stats test as I write this. I'll get back to you
> when I have results.
Ok, the tests showed no statistically significant regressions. All tests
included the same sorts of whereclause express
ROLE temp_role;
I believe this case simply has not had any test coverage, as I don't see any
way the current code would ever work. It treats the Oid of the statistics
object as a type, which it is not.
v1-0001-Fix-cache-lookup-error-in-ownership-check.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Mark
> On Aug 9, 2021, at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So I took another look at the code, and it doesn't seem that hard
> to make it act this way. The attached passes regression, but
> I've not beat on it with random strings.
I expect to get back around to testing this in a day
rking on a correlated stats test as I write this. I'll get back to
you when I have results.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
the patch. I'm going to dig deeper into those to see
if that conclusion survives bumping up the size of the dataset. It will take
quite some time to run the tests with a huge dataset, but I don't see how else
to investigate this.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
ed commit. That test
happens to be stable on my laptop until I change GUC settings to both reduce
max_wal_size=32MB and to set wal_consistency_checking=all.
Thoughts?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
501 - 600 of 950 matches
Mail list logo
