"Access privileges" is missing after pg_dumpall

2018-06-26 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, I have taken pg_dumpall in pg-master and after restoring the dump I am not able to see the "Access privileges" as below: Same is reproducible in back branches as well, is this fine ? CREATE ROLE user1 PASSWORD 'user1' SUPERUSER LOGIN; CREATE DATABASE db1 OWNER=user1; GRANT ALL ON DATABASE

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2018-01-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, I have been continue doing testing of parallel create index patch. So far I haven't came across any sort of issue or regression with the patches. Here are few performance number for the latest round of testing - which is perform on top of 6th Jan patch submitted by Peter. Testing is done

Memory leak with CALL to Procedure with COMMIT.

2018-07-23 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Hackers, While testing with PG procedure, I found a memory leak on HEAD, with below steps: postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE proc1(v1 INOUT INT) AS $$ BEGIN commit; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE PROCEDURE postgres=# call proc1(10); WARNING: Snapshot reference leak: Snapshot

segmentation fault in pg head with SQL function.

2018-03-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, I found a segmentation fault on pg master Head with below steps and stacktrace. postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func1() RETURNS VOID LANGUAGE SQL AS $$ select 10; $$; CREATE FUNCTION postgres=# select func1(); server closed the connection unexpectedly This probably means the server

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2018-03-08 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Prabhat Sahu < > prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> 2018-03-07 19:24:44.263 IST [54400] LOG: background worker "parallel >> worker"

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2018-03-07 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, While testing this feature I found a crash on PG head with parallel create index using pgbanch tables. -- GUCs under postgres.conf max_parallel_maintenance_workers = 16 max_parallel_workers = 16 max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 8 maintenance_work_mem = 8GB max_wal_size = 4GB ./pgbench

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2018-03-07 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Prabhat Sahu < > prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> While testing this feature I found a crash on PG head with parall

Difference in TO_TIMESTAMP results.

2018-09-17 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, I have found below difference in TO_TIMESTAMP results. postgres[114552]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-1984 23:30:32','dd-mm- hh24:mi:ss'); to_timestamp --- 1984-07-15 23:30:32+05:30 (1 row) postgres[114552]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-84

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().

2018-09-18 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Few more findings on to_timestamp() test with HEAD. postgres[3493]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-1984 23:30:32',' dd- mm- hh24: mi: ss'); to_timestamp --- 1984-07-15 23:30:32+05:30 (1 row) postgres[3493]=# select to_timestamp('15-07-*1984*

Inconsistencies in the behavior of CHR() function in PG.

2019-03-29 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, While trying to explore on CHR() function in PG, I found that few of the ASCII values are returning hex number values(like '\x08', '\x0B') and few are executing within SQL (i.e. chr(9) => Horizontal tab, chr(10) => Line feed) as below example. postgres=# select 1|| chr(8)|| 2 ||

pg_dump/pg_restore fail for TAR_DUMP and CUSTOM_DUMP from v94/v95/v96 to v11/master.

2019-02-27 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, I got a failure in pg_dump/pg_restore as below: pg_dump/pg_restore fails with 'ERROR: schema "public" already exists' for TAR_DUMP and CUSTOM_DUMP from v94/v95/v96 to v11/master. -- Take pg_dump in v94/v95/v96: [prabhat@localhost bin]$ ./pg_dump -f /tmp/*tar_dump_PG94.tar* -Ft postgres -p

Re: tableam vs. TOAST

2019-06-25 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:47 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:10 PM Robert Haas wrote: > > Updated and rebased patches attached. > > And again. > Hi Robert, I have tested the TOAST patches(v3) with different storage options like(MAIN, EXTERNAL, EXTENDED, etc.), and

Re: Attached partition not considering altered column properties of root partition.

2019-07-03 Thread Prabhat Sahu
column "b" than parent DETAIL: EXTENDED versus MAIN Thanks, Prabhat Sahu On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:23 AM Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Prabhat, > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:12 PM Prabhat Sahu > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > In below testcase when I changed

Re: tableam vs. TOAST

2019-07-08 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:06 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:19 AM Prabhat Sahu > wrote: > > I have tested the TOAST patches(v3) with different storage options > like(MAIN, EXTERNAL, EXTENDED, etc.), and > > combinations of compression and out-of-line s

Attached partition not considering altered column properties of root partition.

2019-07-02 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, In below testcase when I changed the staorage option for root partition, newly attached partition not including the changed staorage option. Is this an expected behavior? postgres=# CREATE TABLE tab1 (c1 INT, c2 text) PARTITION BY RANGE(c1); CREATE TABLE postgres=# create table tt_p1 as

Re: tableam vs. TOAST

2019-10-30 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, While testing the Toast patch(PG+v7 patch) I found below server crash. System configuration: VCPUs: 4, RAM: 8GB, Storage: 320GB This issue is not frequently reproducible, we need to repeat the same testcase multiple times. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION toast_chunks_cnt_func(p1 IN text)

Re: tableam vs. TOAST

2019-10-30 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:46 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:49 AM Prabhat Sahu < > prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> While testing the Toast patch(PG+v7 patch) I found below server crash. >> System configuration: >> VCPUs: 4, RAM: 8GB

Re: tableam vs. TOAST

2019-11-06 Thread Prabhat Sahu
if the fsync was performed just > once or twice i.e. whether point #1 is the reason for the panic or point > #2. > I have ran the same testcases with and without patch multiple times with debug option (log_min_messages = DEBUG1), but this time I am not able to reproduce the crash. >

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

2019-12-18 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:01 PM Prabhat Sahu < > prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> While testing on v36 patch with gist index, I came across below >> segmentation fault. >&g

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

2019-12-18 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, While testing on v36 patch with gist index, I came across below segmentation fault. -- PG Head+ v36_patch create table tab1(c1 int, c2 text PRIMARY KEY, c3 bool, c4 timestamp without time zone, c5 timestamp with time zone, p point); create index gist_idx1 on tab1 using gist(p); create

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

2019-12-20 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, While testing this feature with parallel vacuum on "TEMPORARY TABLE", I got a server crash on PG Head+V36_patch. Changed configuration parameters and Stack trace are as below: autovacuum = on max_worker_processes = 4 shared_buffers = 10MB max_parallel_workers = 8

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-03 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM 曾文旌(义从) wrote: > > > > I fixed in global_temporary_table_v16-pg13.patch. > Thank you Wenjing for the patch. Now we are getting corruption with GTT with below scenario. postgres=# CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt1(c1 bigint, c2 bigserial) on commit delete rows;

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-02-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
REATE TABLE postgres=# create temporary table child2() inherits (parent2); CREATE TABLE postgres=# insert into parent2 values(1); INSERT 0 1 postgres=# insert into child2 values(2); INSERT 0 1 postgres=# select * from parent2; a --- 2 (1 row) postgres=# select * from child2; a --- 2 (1 row) Thanks, Prabhat Sahu

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-02-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
bal temp table postgres=# create table tab2 (c1 int references gtt1(c1) ); ERROR: referenced relation "gtt1" is not a global temp table Thanks, Prabhat Sahu

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-02-25 Thread Prabhat Sahu
reference only temporary tables Thanks, Prabhat Sahu On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:25 PM 曾文旌(义从) wrote: > > > 2020年2月24日 下午5:44,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:10 PM 曾文旌(义从) > wrote: > >> Hi, >> I have started testing the "Global temporary table&qu

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-02-20 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, I have started testing the "Global temporary table" feature, from "gtt_v11-pg13.patch". Below is my findings: -- session 1: postgres=# create global temporary table gtt1(a int); CREATE TABLE -- seeeion 2: postgres=# truncate gtt1 ; ERROR: could not open file "base/13585/t3_16384": No such

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

2020-01-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, I would like to share my observation on this PG feature "Block-level parallel vacuum". I have tested the earlier patch (i.e v48) with below high-level test scenarios, and those are working as expected. - I have played around with these GUC parameters while testing

Server crash with Master-Slave configuration.

2019-12-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, While performing below operations with Master-Slave configuration, Slave is crashed. Below are the steps to reproduce: -- create a Slave using pg_basebackup and start: ./pg_basebackup -v -R -D d2 -p 55510 mkdir /home/centos/ts1 -- Session 1(Master): ./psql postgres -p 55510 CREATE

Re: Server crash with Master-Slave configuration.

2019-12-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 05:29:25PM +0530, Prabhat Sahu wrote: > > While performing below operations with Master-Slave configuration, Slave > is > > crashed. > > Below are the steps to reproduce: > &g

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-11 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:02 PM 曾文旌(义从) wrote: > > > Fixed in global_temporary_table_v18-pg13.patch. > Hi Wenjing, Thanks for the patch. I have verified the previous issues with "gtt_v18_pg13.patch" and those are resolved. Please find below case: postgres=# create sequence seq; CREATE SEQUENCE

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-12 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check the below findings: After running "TRUNCATE" command, the "relfilenode" field is not changing for GTT whereas, for Simple table/Temp table "relfilenode" field is changing after TRUNCATE. *Case 1: Getting same "relfilenode" for GTT after and before "TRUNCATE"* postgres=#

SERIAL datatype column skipping values.

2020-03-11 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, Please check the below behavior for the "SERIAL" datatype. postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1(c1 int, c2 serial); CREATE TABLE postgres=# insert into t1 values (generate_series(1,3)); INSERT 0 3 postgres=# insert into t1 values (generate_series(4,6)); INSERT 0 3 postgres=# select * from t1; c1 |

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-09 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Kindly check the below scenario. *Case 1: * postgres=# CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt1(c1 int) on commit delete rows; CREATE TABLE postgres=# CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt2(c1 int) on commit preserve rows; CREATE TABLE postgres=# vacuum gtt1; VACUUM postgres=# vacuum gtt2; VACUUM

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 1:30 PM Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > It seems to be expected behavior: GTT data is private to the session and > postgres_fdw establish its own session where content of the table is empty. > But if you insert some data in f_gtt1, then you will

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-07 Thread Prabhat Sahu
> > Thanks for review. > This parameter should support all types of writing of the bool type like > parameter autovacuum_enabled. > So I fixed in global_temporary_table_v24-pg13.patch. > Thank you Wenjing for the new patch with the fix and the "VACUUM FULL GTT" support. I have verified the above

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-20 Thread Prabhat Sahu
> I think this is expected, and user test_gtt does not have permission to > vacuum the system table. > This has nothing to do with GTT. > > Hi Wenjing, Thanks for the explanation. Thanks for the new patch. I have verified the crash, Now its resolved. -- With Regards, Prabhat Kumar Sahu

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-17 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:44 PM 曾文旌 wrote: > > I improved the logic of the warning message so that when the gap between > relfrozenxid of GTT is small, > it will no longer be alarmed message. > Hi Wenjing, Thanks for the patch(v26), I have verified the previous related issues, and are working

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-17 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check below scenario, we are getting a server crash with "ALTER TABLE" add column with default value as sequence: -- Create gtt, exit and re-connect the psql prompt, create sequence, alter table add a column with sequence. postgres=# create global temporary table gtt1 (c1

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-08 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:48 PM 曾文旌 wrote: > > > 2020年4月7日 下午6:22,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > Thanks for review. >> This parameter should support all types of writing of the bool type like >> parameter autovacuum_enabled. >> So I fixed in global_temporary_table_v24-pg1

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-13 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check the below combination of GTT with Primary and Foreign key relations, with the ERROR message. *Case1:*postgres=# CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt1(c1 serial PRIMARY KEY, c2 VARCHAR (50) UNIQUE NOT NULL) ON COMMIT *DELETE* ROWS; CREATE TABLE postgres=# CREATE GLOBAL

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check the below scenario, where the Foreign table on GTT not showing records. postgres=# create extension postgres_fdw; CREATE EXTENSION postgres=# do $d$ begin execute $$create server fdw foreign data wrapper postgres_fdw options (host 'localhost',dbname

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-31 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:52 AM 曾文旌 wrote: > > > 2020年3月31日 下午9:59,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > Hi Wenjing, > Thanks for the new patch. > I saw with the patch(gtt_v23.patch), we are supporting the new concept > "global temporary sequence"(i.e. session-specifi

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-25 Thread Prabhat Sahu
> Sorry, I introduced this bug in my refactoring. > It's been fixed. > > Wenjing > > Hi Wenjing, This patch(gtt_v21_pg13.patch) is not applicable on PG HEAD, I hope you have prepared the patch on top of some previous commit. Could you please rebase the patch which we can apply on HEAD ? -- With

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-01 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, I hope we need to change the below error message. postgres=# create global temporary table gtt(c1 int) on commit preserve rows; CREATE TABLE postgres=# create materialized view mvw as select * from gtt; ERROR: materialized views must not use global temporary tables* or views*

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-03 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check the allowed values for boolean parameter "on_commit_delete_rows". postgres=# create global temp table gtt1(c1 int) with(on_commit_delete_rows='true'); CREATE TABLE Similarly we can successfully create GTT by using the values as: 'true','false', true, false, 'ON', 'OFF',

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-25 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Please check the behavior of GTT having column with "SERIAL" datatype and column with default value as "SEQUENCE" as below: *Session1:*postgres=# create sequence gtt_c3_seq; CREATE SEQUENCE postgres=# create global temporary table gtt(c1 int, c2 serial, c3 int default

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-31 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Thanks for the new patch. I saw with the patch(gtt_v23.patch), we are supporting the new concept "global temporary sequence"(i.e. session-specific sequence), is this intentional? postgres=# create *global temporary sequence* gt_seq; CREATE SEQUENCE postgres=# create sequence seq;

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-02 Thread Prabhat Sahu
exit from all other sessions. postgres=# drop table gtt2 ; DROP TABLE Kindly let me know if I am missing something. On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:26 PM Prabhat Sahu wrote: > Hi Wenjing, > I hope we need to change the below error message. > > postgres=# create global temporary table

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-27 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check the below scenario shows different error message with "DROP TABLE gtt;" for gtt with and without index. *-- Session1:*postgres=# create global temporary table gtt1 (c1 int); CREATE TABLE postgres=# create global temporary table gtt2 (c1 int); CREATE TABLE postgres=#

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-27 Thread Prabhat Sahu
obal temp table gtt2 when other backend attached it."? I mean, without giving extra information for the index attached to that GTT. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:34 PM 曾文旌 wrote: > > > 2020年4月27日 下午5:26,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > Hi Wenjing, > > Please check the below scenario

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
ostgres=# DROP TABLE gtt DROP; DROP TABLE Does this syntax intensional? If not, we should get a syntax error. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:25 AM Prabhat Sahu wrote: > Hi Wenjing, > > Please check, the server getting crash with the below scenario(CLUSTER gtt > using INDEX). > > *--

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-23 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi Wenjing, Please check, the server getting crash with the below scenario(CLUSTER gtt using INDEX). *-- Session1:* postgres=# create global temporary table gtt (c1 integer) on commit preserve rows; CREATE TABLE postgres=# create index idx1 on gtt (c1); CREATE INDEX *-- Session2:* postgres=#

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-04-22 Thread Prabhat Sahu
s=# CLUSTER gtt2 USING idx2; CLUSTER In Case2, Case3 we can observe, with the absence of data in GTT, we are able to "CLUSTER gtt2 USING idx2;" (having partial index) But why does the same query fail for Case1 (absence of data)? Thanks, Prabhat Sahu > > > Wenjing > > >

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-19 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:51 PM wenjing.zwj wrote: > postgres=# CREATE LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt1(c1 serial PRIMARY KEY, c2 > VARCHAR (50) UNIQUE NOT NULL) ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS; > CREATE TABLE > postgres=# CREATE LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE gtt2(c1 integer NOT NULL, c2 > integer NOT NULL, >

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-03-24 Thread Prabhat Sahu
: > > > 2020年3月11日 下午3:52,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:02 PM 曾文旌(义从) > wrote: > >> >> >> Fixed in global_temporary_table_v18-pg13.patch. >> > Hi Wenjing, > Thanks for the patch. I have verified the previous issues wi

PG function with pseudotype "anyelement" for IN, OUT parameter shows wrong behaviour.

2020-05-29 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Please check the below scenario, with pseudotype "anyelement" for IN, OUT parameter and the RETURN record in a function. postgres=# create table tab1(c1 int, c2 int, c3 timestamp) ; CREATE TABLE postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func_any(IN anyelement, IN anyelement, OUT v1

Re: PG function with pseudotype "anyelement" for IN, OUT parameter shows wrong behaviour.

2020-05-29 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:30 PM Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > pá 29. 5. 2020 v 16:45 odesílatel Prabhat Sahu < > prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> napsal: > >> Hi All, >> >> Please check the below scenario, with pseudotype "anyelement" for IN, OUT

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

2020-06-09 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:52 AM 曾文旌 wrote: > 2020年4月27日 下午9:48,Prabhat Sahu 写道: > > Thanks Wenjing, for the fix patch for previous issues. > I have verified the issues, now those fix look good to me. > But the below error message is confusing(for gtt2). > > postgres=# dro

Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY

2020-07-16 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, I was testing the feature on top of v3 patch and found the "pg_upgrade" failure after keeping "alter system read only;" as below: -- Steps: ./initdb -D data ./pg_ctl -D data -l logs start -c ./psql postgres alter system read only; \q ./pg_ctl -D data -l logs stop -c ./initdb -D data2

Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY

2021-03-19 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi all, While testing this feature with v20-patch, the server is crashing with below steps. Steps to reproduce: 1. Configure master-slave replication setup. 2. Connect to Slave. 3. Execute below statements, it will crash the server: SELECT pg_prohibit_wal(true); SELECT pg_prohibit_wal(false); --

Re: Doubt with [ RANGE partition with TEXT datatype ]

2021-04-19 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:16 PM Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Prabhat, > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 5:13 PM Prabhat Sahu > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Please help me out with my doubt in RANGE partition with TEXT datatype: > > > > postgres=# create

Doubt with [ RANGE partition with TEXT datatype ]

2021-04-19 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Please help me out with my doubt in RANGE partition with TEXT datatype: postgres=# create table tab1 (col1 text) PARTITION BY RANGE (col1); CREATE TABLE postgres=# create table p1 (col1 text); CREATE TABLE -- Partition with range from '5' to '10' shows error: postgres=# alter table

Re: replay of CREATE TABLESPACE eats data at wal_level=minimal

2021-08-23 Thread Prabhat Sahu
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:29 AM Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:32:10PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:47:24AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:35 AM Robert Haas > wrote: > > > > Oh, yeah, I think that works, actually. I was

Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY

2021-07-30 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi, On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:46 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:33 AM Amul Sul wrote: > > I was too worried about how I could miss that & after thinking more > > about that, I realized that the operation for ArchiveRecoveryRequested > > is never going to be skipped in the

Corruption with IMMUTABLE functions in index expression.

2021-10-11 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below corruption on HEAD. postgres=# CREATE TABLE tab1 (c1 numeric, c2 numeric); CREATE TABLE postgres=# INSERT INTO tab1 values (10, 100); INSERT 0 1 postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func1(var1 numeric) RETURNS

Can we consider "24 Hours" for "next day" in INTERVAL datatype ?

2022-03-15 Thread Prabhat Sahu
Hi All, Kindly check the below scenario with INTERVAL datatype. postgres=# select interval '01 20:59:59' + interval '00 05:00:01' as interval; interval 1 day 26:00:00 (1 row) Any operation with INTERVAL data, We are changing the interval values as "60 sec" as "next minute"