On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> Find my review below.
>
> On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have
>> added as well a STOP TIMELINE field
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Eric Radman <ericsh...@eradman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:34:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Eric Radman <ericsh...@eradman.com> wrote:
>> > This administrative compromise is nec
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to
> check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState in do_pg_abort_backup(). We
> can quickly return if sessionBackupState !=
>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele wrote:
> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order
> dependency is attractive but there may be other programs that are depending
> on the order. I know you are not proposing to change the order
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Jan Michálek wrote:
> Thanks
Please avoid top-posting. This breaks the thread logic.
> My english is little bit poor and my understanding of formal part of commit
> process is only partial.
Don't worry, we'll all here to learn. If you
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> I also wonder whether there should be a mechanism to turn off channel
>> binding from the client. Right now, there is no
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Brian Cloutier wrote:
> Sorry, I'm new to pg-hackers, so I'm not sure what the next step is.
>
> Do I submit this to commitfest?
>
> When submitting, do I submit multiple changes, one per branch this should be
> packported to?
If you want a
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch.
>
> I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also that
> he didn't
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Jing Wang wrote:
> A few general comments.
>
> + FreeSpaceMapVacuum(onerel, 64);
>
> Just want to know why '64' is used here? It's better to give a description.
>
> +else
> + {
> + newslot = fsm_get_avail(page, 0);
> + }
>
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So attached are rebased patches:
> - 0001 to introduce the connection parameter saslchannelbinding, which
> allows libpq to enforce the type of channel binding used during an
> exchange.
&
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Mark Dilger writes:
>>> It looks to me like Alvaro introduced this in the original version of the
>>> file which
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think that's a good thing to worry about.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are
>> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.)
>
> I think we should
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> ... Would you think
>> that it is acceptable to add the number of index scans that happened
>> with the verbose output then?
>
> I d
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Mumble. It's a property I'm pretty hesitant to give up, especially
>>> since the stats views have
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> The script for the windows version takes the
> --with-openssl= switch so that cannot just be translated to a single
> --with-ssl switch. Should to have both --with-openssl and --with-gnutls or
>
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Ashwin Agrawal <aagra...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15 November 2017 at 10:07, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
&g
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:57 PM, REIX, Tony wrote:
> We are porting PostgreSQL v10.1 on AIX (7.2 for now).
> And we have several tests failures, in 32bit and 64bit.
> We are using xlc 13.01.0003.0003 with -O2.
> Tests were 100% OK with version 9.6.2 .
>
> About 32 bit failures
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> This patch has been marked Ready for Committer in the current commitfest
> without being committed or rejected. Moving to the next commitfest, but since
> it has bitrotted I’m moving it to Waiting for author.
No updates
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just looking at the tsearch code which uses pg_strcmpcase, and
> those are defined with makeDefElem() so you should switch to strcmp in
> this case as well, no? If I patch the code mys
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> By the way, I will take a look at your patch when I come back from the
>> vacation. Meanwhile, I noticed that it needs another rebase after
>> 0a480502b092 [1].
Moved to CF 2018-01.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> So, in the upcoming patch version, I am intending to include the above
> two, and if possible, Robert's idea of re-using is_partition_attr()
> for pull_child_partition_columns().
Discussions are still going on, so
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility
>> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't
>>
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I should point out that I shipped virtually the same code yesterday,
> as v1.1 of the Github version of amcheck (also known as amcheck_next).
> Early adopters will be able to use this new "heapallindexed"
> functionality in
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> I would also like to address a couple of important points here:
>
> 1. I think default restrictions plus additional paths is the best, safest
> way forward. Excluding shell-globs doesn't solve the "I need this
>
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> The largest obstacle to do that is that walreceiver is not
>> utterly concerned to re
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> My understanding of your earlier remarks, rightly or wrongly, was that
> you wanted me to adopt the Bloom filter to actually be usable from SQL
> in some kind of general way. As opposed to what I just said -- adding
> a stub
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put
> in foreign tables, because early drafts of postgres_fdw did what you
> propose here, and we ran into very nasty problems. We eventually decided
> that
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The patch still applies (with some hunks). I have added it in CF [1]
> to avoid losing track.
>
> [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1341/
This did not get reviews and the patch still applies. I am moving it
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>> I like the idea and I think it's a great patch. However in current shape it
>> requires some amount of reworking to meet PostgreSQL standards of code
>> quality.
>
> Also I would like to add that I agree
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I'm a reviewer of this patch but I think I'm not allowed to mark
> this "Ready for Commiter" since the last change is made by me.
Yes, it is a better idea to wait for reviews here.
--
Michael
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> This proposal is first time, when we cannot to detect full semantic from
> \xxx command. When user extend query correctly, then it is better than
> before, when not it is worse than before.
As the discussion is
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> For local constraints on foreign tables, it's the user's responsibility to
> ensure that those constraints matches the remote side, so we don't need to
> ensure those constraints locally. But I'm not sure if the
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems fine to me,
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Ok. Removed the documentation changes that it cannot be used for normal
> scenarios, and also added a Note section explaining the problem of using
> the dump with pg_restore command with --clean and --create
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Sure, patch got some review. I've no objection against moving this to the
> next commitfest though.
Please note that as this is qualified as a bug fix, I was not going to
mark it as returned with feedback or
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> It looks amazingly simple from here. Which probably means there's more to it
> that I haven't seen yet. I could use advice from someone who knows the
> locking subsystem better.
The status of this patch is I think not
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Ford writes:
>> Attached is v2 of src, tests and docs. Doc patch is unchanged from v1.
>
> I took a quick look at this patch.
This got a review, and no replies after 10 days to I am marking it as
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Nikita Glukhov
wrote:
> Attached the new version of the patches where displaying of SQL/JSON
> constructor nodes was fixed. I decided not to invent new nodes but to
> extend
> existing FuncExpr, Aggref, WindowFunc nodes with new
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> This patch has been marked Ready for Committer in the current commitfest
> without being committed or rejected. Moving to the next commitfest, but since
> it has bitrotted I’m moving it to Waiting for author.
One month
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Rebased version of the patches attached
The status of the patch is misleading:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/844/. This was marked as waiting
on author but a new version has been published. Let's be careful.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Thank you for your suggestion. I am looking into this and will post a
> patch soon.
It has been two weeks since this update and no new patch has showed
up. I am marking the patch as returned with feedback. If you
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Any comments or alternative suggestions welcome. This will probably
> take a few days at least, so I put the patch in "waiting on author"
> state.
This did not receive an update for two months. I am marking it as
returned
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after
>> the change? These should be just specializations of the template
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Shubham Barai
wrote:
> I have attached the rebased version of patch here.
The patch does not apply and there has been no reviews as well. In
consequence, I am moving it to next CF with "waiting on author" as
status. Please provide a
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> Well frankly I very much doubt that this:
> [snip]
> I'm afraid that tests fail on Python 3:
So this still needs more work.. I am marking it as returned with
feedback as there has been no updates for more
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Also, you've long comment lines in predicate-gist.spec. Please, break long
> comments into multiple lines.
Two days is to short to reply. I am moving this patch to next CF.
--
Michael
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I think that isolation tests should be improved. It doesn't seems that any
> posting tree would be generated by the tests that you've provided, because
> all the TIDs could fit the single posting list. Note,
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I managed to reproduce something like this on one of my home lab
> machines running a different OS. Not sure why yet and it doesn't
> happen on my primary development box which is how I hadn't noticed it.
> I
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Cool, feel free to ask if you need some assistance. I want this patch.
The last patch submitted did not get a review, and it does not apply
as well. So I am moving it to next CF with waiting on author as
status.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:36 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: Thomas Munro
> With your v2 patch "make docs" fails. Here is a small patch to apply
> on top of yours to fix that and some small copy/paste errors, if I
> understood correctly.
>
> Ouch, thanks. I'd like to merge your
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> However, as Michael also points out, it's arguably wrong to allow a
> nominally read-only transaction to write data regardless of whether it
> works. In the case of a standby it could be argued that your
> transaction
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>> That's true, but numCols, sortColdIdx etc are also used to
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Postgres crashes:
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((const void*)() != ((void*)0)) &&
> (scankey->sk_attno) > 0)", File: "nbtsearch.c", Line: 466)
>
> May be I'm doing something wrong or amcheck support will go with
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> One more patch passing all regression tests with autoprepare_threshold=1.
> I still do not think that it should be switch on by default...
This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that a set of quals q1
> qn are ordered the same irrespective of the set of clauses they
> are subset of. E.g. if {q1 .. qn} is subset of Q (ordered as Qo)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> One more idea:
>
> I think the metadata (ALIGN_GAP) should be stored separate from the actual
> data so that you can use memcpy() instead of this loop:
>
> while (i < j)
> {
> charc =
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>>> Do you have test case, which can reproduce the issue you
>>> explained above?
>
>> No. It would require some surgery in standard_planner() to measure the
>> memory
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put
>> in foreign tables, because early drafts o
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:39 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>
>> In this case, the join *can* cause row duplicates, but the distinct or
>> group by would filter these out again
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 02:29 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:20:12 +0100
>> Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>>> I guess the trick might be -DRANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY (I
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>
>> > But I'm generally against
>> > interfaces which put arbitrary
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Here is a rebased version of the patch.
The patch does not apply, and needs a rebase. I am moving it to next
CF with waiting on author as status.
--
Michael
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Rebased for the recent re-indent and shm_toc API change; no functional
> changes in this version.
>
> (I have a new patch set in the pipeline adding the skew optimisation
> and some other things, more on that
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> I've verified that the patch still applies and make check-world is clean.
>
> Not any more :-(. Here's a v3 rebased over HEAD. No substantive
> change from v2.
Patch applies and
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Are you referring to rounding errors? We should probably add some fuzz
> factor to cover the rounding errors and cause a diff when difference
> in expected and reported plan rows is beyond that fuzz factor.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> +1,
> FDW looks OK for prototyping pluggable storage, but it doesn't seem suitable
> for permanent implementation.
> BTW, Hadi, could you visit "Pluggable storage" thread and check how suitable
> upcoming
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [snip]
Moving to next CF per the hotness of the topic.
--
Michael
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Apparently there was some minor breakage due to duplicate OIDs, so here
> is the patch series updated to current master.
Moved to CF 2018-01.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Jing Wang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a patch for current_database working on ALTER ROLE/GRANT/REVOKE
> statements which should be applied after the previous patch
> "comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.4.patch".
>
> By using the
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Verite wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> There is also one need error that needs further investigation.
>
> I've looked at this bit in the regression tests about \gexec:
>
> --- a/src/test/regress/expected/psql.out
> +++
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:25 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I just had a quick glance over this and wondered about 2 things.
>
> 1. Why a GUC and not a new per user option so it can be configured
> differently for different users? Something like ALTER USER ... WORKER
>
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah and I think something like that can happen after your patch
> because now the memory for tuples returned via TupleQueueReaderNext
> will be allocated in ExecutorState and that can last for long. I
> think it is
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> That forces materialization, and I'm guessing part of Tomas's goal
>> here is to prevent the need to materialize into a temp table /
>>
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> This patch no longer applies cleanly on HEAD, so here's a rebased version
>> (no substantive changes). As before, I think the most useful review task
>> would be to quantify whether it makes planning noticeably
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> Robert made a good point that people will still rely on the token
> being an LSN, but perhaps they will be slightly less angry when we
> explicitly tell them that this might change in the future.
This thread has stalled, I
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Peter Moser wrote:
> 2017-11-14 18:42 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
>> You might consider putting the rewriting into, um, the rewriter.
>> It could be a separate pass after view expansion, if direct integration
>> with the existing
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2017-09-13 1:42 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gustafsson :
>>
>> > On 08 Apr 2017, at 15:46, David Steele wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1/13/17 6:55 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Jan
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Aleksandr Parfenov
wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:05:23 +1300
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aleksandr Parfenov
>> wrote:
>> > In attachment updated
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:15:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... it's now looking to me like we should do the above with X = 5.13.4.
>>> That won't be a perfect solution, but it's
Hi all,
Since commit 4e5fe9ad (committer Robert Haas and author Amit Langote),
coverity has been complaining that the new code of ExecFindPartition()
may use a set of values and isnull values which never get initialized.
This is a state which can be easily reached with the following SQLs of
a
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> [snip]
This is still a hot topic so I am moving it to next CF.
--
Michael
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Should I start a separate thread for this issue and add patches to
> commitfest?
Yes, please. It would be nice if you could spawn a separate thread for
what looks like a bug, and separate topics should have their
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/8/17 05:58, Masahiko
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> After investigation, I found out that my previous patch was wrong
> direction. I should have changed XLogSendLogical() so that we can
> check the read LSN and set WalSndCaughtUp = true even after read a
> record
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Alex K wrote:
>> On 16 Jun 2017, at 21:30, Alexey Kondratov
>> wrote:
>
>> > On 13 Jun 2017, at 01:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>
>> > Speculative insertion has the following special entry
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Sokolov Yura
wrote:
> Simplified a bit and more commented patch version is in attach.
>
> Algorithm were switched to linear probing, it makes code simpler and
> clearer.
> Flag usages were toggled: now it indicates that hash table were
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > pg_prune_xid makes sense only
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> Now I tried that, successfully marking it as "waiting on author", but the
> patch doesn't move to the next CF when I then change the status as "Move to
> next CF." How can I move the patch to next CF?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the changes in DefineView and ATExecSetRelOptions is wrong,
> because transformRelOptions() is still using pg_strcasecmp. With the
> patch:
>
> rhaas=# create view v(x) with ("Check_option"="local") as select 1;
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 05:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> One thing that could be
> improved in my
>>
>> opinion is that patch authors should try more to move a patch to a
>> following co
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/17 17:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 1) Have a special value in the parameter saslchannelbinding proposed
>> in patch 0001. For example by specifying "none" the
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Oops, I messed up taking the diff and mistakenly added noise to the patch.
Which is that bit:
- * BuildSlotPartitionKeyDescription
+ * ExecBuildSlotPartitionKeyDescription
> Fixed in the attached.
For
>>
>> Changed status to "ready for commiter".
>
> On a very fast read this patch looks OK to me, but I'm a bit concerned
> about whether we have consensus for it. By my count the vote is 6-3
> in favor of proceeding.
>
> +1: Robins Tharakan, Stephen Frost, Da
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 11:11, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is older than the bug report of this thread. All those
>> indications point out that the p
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Let's now hope that a committer gets around to consider these patch some
> day.
Which is not the case yet, so moved to CF 2018-01. Please note that
the patch proposed does not apply anymore, so its status is changed to
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> Here is a v13, which is just a rebase after the documentation
>>> xml-ization.
>
> Here is a v14, after yet another rebase, and some comments added to answer
> your new comments.
The last patch sent still applies, but
1 - 100 of 9673 matches
Mail list logo