On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:09 AM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:31 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> Thanks for taking a look at this.
>
> > I'm confused why we acquire the MONTH_DIM / etc definitions. Can't we
> > just use lengthof() of the corresponding
"Daniel Westermann (DWE)" writes:
> in the README, top level, there is this:
> PostgreSQL has many language interfaces, many of which are listed here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/download
> I don't think the download page lists any language interfaces or do I miss
> something?
Not directly
I find the documentation in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/functions-json.html very confusing.
In table 9.44 take the first entry,
Example JSON
{"x": [2.85, -14.7, -9.4]}
Example Query
+ $.x.floor()
Result
2, -15, -10
There are no end to end examples here. How do I apply the example
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:41 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Sep-05, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
> > Here is the version in which stepping between the pages works better. It
> > seems
> > sufficient to fix the case you've mentioned before, but for that we need to
> >
Dent John writes:
> On 21 Jul 2019, at 22:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Chapman Flack writes:
>>> But looking in the code, I'm getting the impression that those
>>> benefits are only theoretical future ones, as ExecMakeTableFunctionResult
>>> implements SFRM_ValuePerCall mode by ... repeatedly calling
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> >
> >Is there an innocent explanation for this? I thought logical replication
> >slots provided an iron-clad guarantee that WAL would be retained until it
> >was no longer needed. I am just using pub/sub, none of the lower level
> >stuff.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On September 20, 2019 5:45:34 AM PDT, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >While testing something else (whether "terminating walsender process
> >due to
> >replication timeout" was happening spuriously), I had logical
> >replication
> >set up
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But do we care? With asyncQueueAdvanceTail gone from the listeners,
>> there's no longer an exclusive lock for them to contend on. And,
>> again, I failed to see any significant contention even in HEAD as it
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:14 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 5:20 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
> wrote:
> > Indeed, it seems I failed to minimize my example.
> >
> > Here is the actual one, on 90GB table with 16M rows:
> >
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jeff Janes wrote:
> Currently description of jsonpath is divided between datatypes section
> and functions and operators section. And yes, this looks cumbersome.
Agreed, but ...
> I think we should move the whole description to the
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:03 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Currently description of jsonpath is divided between datatypes section
> > and functions and operators section. And yes, this looks cumbersome.
>
> Agreed, but
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-09-22 18:43:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that it'd be safe to re-use an ExprState after a
>> previous execution failed (though perhaps Andres has a different
>> opinion?)
> I don't immediately see why it'd be problematic to reuse at a later
>
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 07:29:25AM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "David" == David Fetter writes:
>
> David> +static inline uint32
> David> +decimalLength64(const uint64_t v)
>
> Should be uint64, not uint64_t.
Fixed.
> Also return an int, not a uint32.
Fixed.
> For int vs. int32, my
Hi,
On 2019-09-22 11:45:05 -0400, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > >Is there an innocent explanation for this? I thought logical
> > >replication
> > >slots provided an iron-clad guarantee that WAL would be retained until
> > >it
> > >was no
On 2019-Sep-22, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > I think multiplying two ScanDirections to watch for a negative result is
> > pretty ugly:
>
> Probably, but the only alternative I see to check if directions are opposite
> is
> to check that directions come in pairs (back, forth), (forth, back). Is
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:55 PM jungle boogie wrote:
> $ sysctl | ag kern.seminfo.semmni
> kern.seminfo.semmni=100
It still seems to be happening. Perhaps you need to increase semmns too?
> > Scorpionfly also seems to be having problems with its git repo breaking on
> > a regular basis. I
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jeff Janes wrote:
> I find the documentation in
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/functions-json.html very confusing.
>
> In table 9.44 take the first entry,
>
> Example JSON
> {"x": [2.85, -14.7, -9.4]}
>
> Example Query
> + $.x.floor()
>
> Result
> 2, -15,
Pavel Stehule writes:
> When I tested some hypothesis I wrote buggy code. It was surprise how fast
> I lost all free memory
> do $$
> begin
> for i in 1..300
> loop
> begin
> -- do some error
> if i then end if;
> exception when others then
> -- do nothing
>
Hi,
On 2019-09-22 18:43:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not convinced that it'd be safe to re-use an ExprState after a
> previous execution failed (though perhaps Andres has a different
> opinion?)
I don't immediately see why it'd be problematic to reuse at a later
time, as long as it's
Hi,
On 2019-09-22 20:16:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2019-09-22 18:43:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced that it'd be safe to re-use an ExprState after a
> >> previous execution failed (though perhaps Andres has a different
> >> opinion?)
>
> > I don't
Hello
I find several problems as below when I test the patches:
1. There be some regression problem after apply 0001.patch~0005.patch
The regression problem is solved in 0006.patch
2. There be a data wrong after create subscription if the relation contains
inherits table, for example:
"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" writes:
> In the following code in execTuples.c, shouldn' srcdesc point to the source
> slot's tuple descriptor? The attached fix passes make check. What kind of
> failure could this cause?
Yeah, sure looks like a typo to me too.
I temporarily changed the Assert to be
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 12:22 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>sh> pgbench -T 10
> >>...
> >>partitions: 0
> >
> > I am not sure how many users would be able to make out that it is a
> > run where actual partitions are not present unless they beforehand
> > know and detect such a condition
23 matches
Mail list logo
