Previously, pglife (http://pglife.momjian.us/) showed all commits for
the "devel" branch back back to the start of the git tree. It now shows
only commits since the last major branch. For example, "12 devel" now
shows only commits since we branched the git tree for PG 11.
This should make it
Hi,
On 2018-07-08 14:23:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Pursuant to closing comment in
> https://postgr.es/m/20180306214239.ospkf6ie7aa5gm4j@alvherre.pgsql
> here's a quick patch to change the order of arguments in
> XLogSegNoOffsetToRecPtr. Commit fc49e24fa69a ("Make WAL segment size
>
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 04:32:56PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 July 2018 at 03:30, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>> However, 49bff5300d527 also introduced a similar bug where
> >>> subtransaction
> >>> commit would fail to release an
On 06/29/2018 04:36 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>
>
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>> Current estimation of sort cost has following issues:
>>> - it doesn't differ one and many columns sort
>>> - it doesn't pay attention to comparison
Hi,
I'll do more experiments/tests next week, but let me share at least some
initial thoughts ...
On 06/28/2018 06:47 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Current estimation of sort cost has following issues:
> - it doesn't differ one and many columns sort
> - it doesn't pay attention to
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'm starting this new thread to discuss the benefits of B-Tree suffix
> truncation, and to demonstrate how effective it can be at increasing
> fan-out and space utilization with a real-world example. I haven't
> explained why suffix
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 20:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that
> comment
> in combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help
> FDW
> authors understand why that is needed. Please find attached an
> updated
> version
> Without prefetching, it's ~70GB of WAL. With prefetching, it's only about
> 30GB. Considering the 1-hour test generates about 90GB of WAL, this means the
> replay speed grew from 20GB/h to almost 60GB/h. That's rather measurable
> improvement ;-)
Thank you everyone for this reasonably in-depth
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got an assertion failure when I use GROUPS mode and specifies offset
> without ORDER BY clause. The reproduction steps and the backtrace I
> got are following.
>
> =# create table test as select 1 as c;
> =# select sum(c) over
On 22 March 2018 at 22:38, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Attached please find rebased version of the patch.
Hi,
I started looking over this patch and have a few comments:
I don't think this range type idea is a great one. I don't think it's
going to ever perform very well. I also see you're
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 09:09:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sure. I think I can finish the set on Monday JST then.
So, I have been able to back-patch things down to 9.5, but further down
I am not really convinced that it is worth meddling with that,
particularly in light of 7cbee7c which
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:06:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think that this patch might be splitted but I will be able to send
> an updated patch in the next week. As you suggestion this patch needs
> more careful thoughts. I'll move this patch to the next commit fest if
> I will not be
Hi mentors and hackers,
The second review is coming. Here is my working status so far. 1.
Complete the thrift compact protocol implementation using bytea interface.
2. Thrift type (binary protocol) is almost done, the only remaining part is
struct encoding and decoding. With the thrift type,
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:08:02PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 26.06.18 09:10, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> --- a/src/include/storage/dsm_impl.h
>> +++ b/src/include/storage/dsm_impl.h
>> @@ -14,11 +14,10 @@
>> #define DSM_IMPL_H
>>
>> /* Dynamic shared memory implementations. */
>>
On 2018/07/07 0:13, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 05/08/2018 02:18 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/03/01 17:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Added this to CF (actually moved to the September one after first having
>>> added it to the CF that is just getting started).
>>>
>>> It seems to me that
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:14:24PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> However, I think you have to submit the whole po file to Patch Tracker[1]
> instead of a patch according to the wiki [2].
>
> [1] https://redmine.postgresql.org/projects/pgtranslation
> [2] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NLS
My
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:10:18PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ugh, it's true :-(
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=25fff40798fc4ac11a241bfd9ab0c45c085e2212#patch8
>
> Dave, Simon, any comments?
The offending line:
Thanks for taking a look.
On 2018/07/07 9:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-May-08, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> I would like to revisit this as a bug fix for get_partition_operator() to
>> be applied to both PG 10 and HEAD. In the former case, it fixes the bug
>> that constraint exclusion code
On Mon, June 11, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:06 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 5 June 2018 at 14:45, Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > Currently _bt_search() always locks leaf buffer in shared mode (aka
> > > BT_READ), while caller can relock it later.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about the "enforce constraint only" argument --- that
> sounds like a made-up use-case to me. It's pretty hard to imagine
> a case where a unique index applies to a query and yet you don't want
> to use it.
>
I've not seen it
Pursuant to closing comment in
https://postgr.es/m/20180306214239.ospkf6ie7aa5gm4j@alvherre.pgsql
here's a quick patch to change the order of arguments in
XLogSegNoOffsetToRecPtr. Commit fc49e24fa69a ("Make WAL segment size
configurable at initdb time.") put the walsegsz as last argument,
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 10:52:14PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch looks sensible to me. We also use access() elsewhere in the
> backend to test for file existence.
Yes, the patch made sense when I looked at it, and it still does, so
committed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description:
Hello Stephen,
[...] So, I tend to agree w/ Andrew that while this is a good topic to
have on -hackers, it shouldn't be a CF entry. I wouldn't draw any
conclusions from Andrew closing it out as "not appropriate for CF".
Sure. As I had no committer feedback on the discussion for 3 months,
Hello Alvaro,
For context: in the backend, elog() is only used for internal messages
(i.e. "can't-happen" conditions), and ereport() is used for user-facing
messages. There are many things ereport() has that elog() doesn't, such
as additional message fields (HINT, DETAIL, etc) that I think
Hello. Sawada-san.
Thank you for the comments.
At Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:43:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > At Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:26:59 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote in
> >
On 2018-07-09 14:18:14 +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> > I expect a torrent of feedback.;-)
>
> Could you add this fix to the release note because this change affects
> an extension developer using the hook function.
> It would be better to know the change by reading the release
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:39 PM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:24 PM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:10:18PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Ugh, it's true :-(
>> >
>>
Hi all,
This is a follow-up of the following thread where I have touched the
topic of corrupted 2PC files being completely ignored by recovery:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180709012955.GD1467%40paquier.xyz
I have posted a patch on this thread, but after more reviews I have
noticed
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:37:57PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I'm not so in favor of the word "reserve" in first place since it
> doesn't seem intuitive for me, but "active" is already used for
> the state where the connection with the peer is made. (The word
> "reserve" may be misused
Hi Bruce,
> I expect a torrent of feedback.;-)
Could you add this fix to the release note because this change affects
an extension developer using the hook function.
It would be better to know the change by reading the release note, not
compilation error.
Add QueryEnvironment
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:24 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:10:18PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Ugh, it's true :-(
> >
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=25fff40798fc4ac11a241bfd9ab0c45c085e2212#patch8
> >
> > Dave, Simon, any
On 2018-Jul-07, David Fetter wrote:
> If they have no plans to exercise any proprietary rights, our usual
> process where people submit things and agree to have us label them
> with the PGDG copyright and publish them under TPL would be the
> simplest way to accomplish it.
Eh, but if the
Hi,
On 2018-07-08 11:46:51 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-07, David Fetter wrote:
>
> > If they have no plans to exercise any proprietary rights, our usual
> > process where people submit things and agree to have us label them
> > with the PGDG copyright and publish them under TPL
33 matches
Mail list logo
