On 15 August 2017 at 02:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Is there any reasons why we don't
> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs?
None. Sounds like a good idea.
> If not, can we add
> schema names to be more clearly?
Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this only for VACUUM
though?
Hi,
I tried ver. 10 beta3.
I had below messages.
-
$ pg_ctl start
서버를 시작하기 위해 기다리는 중완료
서버 시작됨
2017-08-22 14:06:21.248 KST [32765] 로그: IPv6, 주소: "::1", 포트 5433
번으로 접속을 허용합니다
2017-08-22 14:06:21.248 KST [32765] 로그: IPv4, 주소: "127.0.0.1", 포트
5433 번으로 접속을 허용합니다
2017-08-22 14:06:21.364 KST
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 8/21/17 12:33, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> Here are my patches to address this.
>>
>> These look good.
>
> Committed. That closes this open item.
Thanks again.
--
Peter
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:23:35 -0400
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/27/17 20:52, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > 175 /* Check if we support requested protocol */
> > 176 if (data->protocol_version != LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM)
> > 177 ereport(ERROR,
> > 178
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:17:06 -0400
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/1/17 02:28, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > When reading the logical replication code, I found that the following
> > part could be improved a bit. In the foreach, LWLockAcquire and
> > logicalrep_worker_find are called for each loop, but t
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Masahiko-san,
>
>> Yeah, once custom initialization patch get committed we can extend it.
>>
>> Attached updated patch. I've incorporated the all comments from Fabien
>> to it, and changed it to single letter version.
>
>
> Patch appl
Hi Beena,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> PFA the patch rebased over v25 patches of default list partition [1]
>
Thanks for rebasing.
Range partition review:
1.
There are lot of changes in RelationBuildPartitionDesc(). It was hard to
understand why these changes are ne
On 2017/08/22 1:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
>> If there are no objections, I'll add this to the open item list for v10.
>
> This seems fairly ad-hoc to me. I mean, now you have
> CheckValidResultRel not being called in just this one case -- bu
On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
spgist
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
>>> spgist. They look good to me.
>>
>> Last versions are stil
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > The patch applies cleanly to current master and all tests run without
> > failures.
> >
> > I also test against all current supported versions (9.2 ... 9.6) and
> didn't
> > find any issue.
> >
> > Changed status to "ready for commiter".
>
On 8/21/17 12:33, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here are my patches to address this.
>
> These look good.
Committed. That closes this open item.
> One small piece of feedback: I suggest naming the custom collation
> "numeric" something e
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Works for me. While I'm sure this won't eclipse previous achievements
> in this area, it still seems worthwhile.
This one is intentional per what happens in the US today? ;)
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
On 7 August 2017 at 16:14, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>>
>> On 20 July 2017 at 05:14, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2017 at 05:08, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:59 PM,
Fabrízio de R
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> Thanks for the patch, I have tested the above fix now it works as
> described. From my test patch looks good, I did not find any other
> issues.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, it seemed appropriate
to me to commit this. So I did
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Douglas Doole wrote:
>> 4. I am pretty doubtful that "Memory: 25kB" is going to be stable
>> enough for us to want that output memorialized in the regression ...
>
> Fair enough. I wanted to be a bit more sophisticated in my check than
> looking for a single value
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here are my patches to address this.
>
> These look good.
Also, I don't know why en-u-kr-others-digit wasn't accepted by CREATE
COLLATION, as you said on the other thread just
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here are my patches to address this.
These look good.
One small piece of feedback: I suggest naming the custom collation
"numeric" something else instead: "natural". Apparently, the behavior
it implements is sometimes called natural sort
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> If there are no objections, I'll add this to the open item list for v10.
This seems fairly ad-hoc to me. I mean, now you have
CheckValidResultRel not being called in just this one case -- but that
bypasses all the checks that function might
On 8/15/17 15:04, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * "23.2.2.3. Copying Collations" suggests that the only use of CREATE
> COLLATION is copying collations, which is far from true with ICU. We
> should change that at the same time as this change is made. I think
> that just changing the title would improve
On 8/19/17 19:15, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
>> I think you're contending that, as formulated, this is not a valid v10 open
>> item. Are you?
>
> As the person that came up with this formulation, I'd like to give a
> quick summary of my current understanding of the item's status:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Makes sense, and I'm not especially concerned. If the expected solution to
> such usage is to use non-blocking calls, that's fine with me.
>
> I partly wanted to put this out there to help the next person looking into
> it. Or myself, when I'
|Hello everyone,
I made a new patch according to the previous comments. It is simpler
now, only adding a few checks to the bitmap heap scan node. When the
target list for the bitmap heap scan is empty, and there is no filter,
and the bitmap page generated by the index scan is exact, and the
c
On 21 August 2017 at 21:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> While this would work, I don't really see the need for it given the
> availability of nonblocking operations. See mq_putmessage() for an
> example.
>
Makes sense, and I'm not especially concerned. If the expected solution to
such usage is to use
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I've noticed a possible bug / design limitation where shm_mq_wait_internal
> sleep in a latch wait forever, and the postmaster gets stuck waiting for the
> bgworker the wait is running in to exit.
>
> This happens when the shm_mq does not hav
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 03:30:38PM +0300, Aleksandr Parfenov wrote:
> Hello hackers!
>
> I'm working on a new approach in text search configuration and want to
> share my thought with community in order to get some feedback and maybe
> some new ideas.
>
There are several cases, where the
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> With the tests directly in the patch, things are easy to run. WIth
> PG10 stabilization work, of course I don't expect much feedback :)
> But this set of patches looks like the direction we want to go so as
> JDBC and libpq users can take a
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Thanks for adding the details directly, downgrading the hard way is
> what I am doing now using the past packages of libxml2 in Arch's
> archives [1]. ArchLinux is a bit wrong in the fact of shipping a
> package with a behavior change. Let'
On 2017/08/07 15:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/07 15:33, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/07 15:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/07 13:11, Amit Langote wrote:> The patch looks good too.
Although, looking at the following hunk:
+ Assert(partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_RELATI
On 2017/04/08 4:24, Robert Haas wrote:
Looking at the code itself, I find the changes to joinpath.c rather alarming.
I missed this mail. Sorry about that, Robert.
+/* Save hashclauses for possible use by the FDW */
+if (extra->consider_foreignjoin && hashclauses)
+extra->hash
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 21 August 2017 at 10:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> This seems like a very basic problem for parallel queries.
>
> The problem seems to be that we are calculating the cost of the plan
> rather than the speed of the plan.
>
> Clea
On 21 August 2017 at 10:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thoughts?
This seems like a very basic problem for parallel queries.
The problem seems to be that we are calculating the cost of the plan
rather than the speed of the plan.
Clearly, a parallel task has a higher overall cost but a lower time to
c
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, it is quite possible that some of the storage Am's don't even
>> want to return bool as a parameter from HeapTupleSatisfies* API's. I
>> guess what we need here is to
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for adding more details. It is easy to understand.
>
> I marked the patch as ready for committer in the commitfest.
>
Thank you.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hacke
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
I think skipping a generation of gather paths for scan node or top
>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the updated patch. Patch looks fine. I just have some
> > minor comments.
> >
> > + * ExecEvalParamE
> And there are many "(0)" "S_ANYTHING" in src/interfaces/ecpg/test/ and
> src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/.
I might have missed something here, but where/why is S_ANYTHING a problem?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Pos
Hi,
When installing pgstattuple on 10, the documentation about its
privileges was unclear to me. (Does the pg_stat_scan_tables role get
EXECUTE privileges by default or not?).
By making the privilege paragraph less verbose and a duplicate of the
paragraph used for pgfreespacemap and pgbuffercache
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 4:10 AM, MauMau wrote:
> From: Chris Travers
> > Why cannot you do all this in a language handler and treat as a user
> defined function?
> > ...
> > If you have a language handler for cypher, why do you need in_region
> or cast_region? Why not just have a graph_search()
On 2017/08/21 13:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> 0004 patch in partition-wise join patchset has code to expand
>>> partition hierarchy. That patch is expanding inheritance hierarchy in
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Why do we need to store handler function in TupleDesc? As of now, the
> >> above patch series has it available in RelationData and
> >> TupleTableSlot, I am not sure if inst
The patch-set in [1] supports partition-wise join when the partition bounds and
partition keys of the joining tables exactly match. The last two patches in the
last few patch-sets in that thread implement more
advanced partition matching code. In order to avoid mixing reviews for advanced
partition
42 matches
Mail list logo
