On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In create_unique_path() there's comment
> /*
> * We must ensure path struct and subsidiary data are allocated in main
> * planning context; otherwise GEQO memory management causes
On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> In Windows, if one needs to take a dump in plain text format (this is
>> the default option, or can be specified using
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
> On lundi 20 mars 2017 15:52:03 CET Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Ronan Dunklau
> wrote:
>> > With range partitioning, we guarantee that each partition contains
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>> I think it would have been probably okay to use *int* for ntuples as
>> that matches with what you are actually assigning in the function.
>
> okay, corrected it. Attached is newer version of patch.
>
Thanks,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing my patch. I have removed the extra white space.
>> Attached are both the patches.
>
> Sorry, I have
On 24 March 2017 at 13:11, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> I have given patch on latest pg sources (on commit
> 457a4448732881b5008f7a3bcca76fc299075ac3). configure and make all
> install ran successfully, but initdb failed with below error.
>
Hi Ashutosh,
On 2017/03/23 21:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I have fixed all the issues reported till now.
In patch 0007, the following code in have_partkey_equi_join() looks
potentially unsafe:
/*
* If the clause refers to different partition keys from
* both
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:32:28AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber
> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during
> replication but not there).
>
> Attached patches should fix both issues.
I no longer get
Hello Peter,
I think the fix belongs into the web site CSS, so there is nothing to
commit into PostgreSQL here.
Indeed, the changes were only for the "remove nesting" solution.
I will close the commit fest entry, but I have added a section to the
open items list so we keep track of it.
On 24 March 2017 at 02:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Changes made per discussion.
>
> Committed 0001.
Much appreciated.
Here's the 2nd patch rebased on top of master, with the TAP test
included
On 3/23/17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/23/17 06:09, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
>> I think we'll end up with "DROP IDENTITY IF EXISTS" to avoid raising
>> an exception and "ADD OR SET" if your grammar remains.
>
> That sounds reasonable to me.
It would be great if
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> Hi Amit please find the new patch
The pageinspect.sgml has an example which shows the output of
"hash_metapage_info()". Since we increase the spares array and
eventually ovflpoint, I have updated the example with
On 2017/03/23 15:04, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:11 PM, vinayak
> wrote:
On 2017/03/21 21:25, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:41 PM, vinayak
On 23 March 2017 at 17:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
Minor update to catalog_xmin walsender patch to fix failure to
parenthesize definition of PROCARRAY_PROC_FLAGS_MASK .
This one's ready to go. Working on drop slots on DB drop now.
--
Craig Ringer
>>> > I think this will work, but not sure if there is a merit to deviate
>>> > from what btree does to handle this case. One thing I find slightly
>>> > awkward in hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid() is that you are
>>> > using a number of tuples registered as part of fixed data
>>> >
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> In Windows, if one needs to take a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> Hello,
> In Windows, if one needs to take a dump in plain text format (this is
> the default option, or can be specified using -Fp) with some level of
> compression (-Z[0-9]), an output file has to
> be specified.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> In create_unique_path() there's comment
>> /*
>> * We must ensure path struct and subsidiary
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 2/15/17 12:11, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> If RegisterBackgroundWorker() (the non-dynamic kind that is only
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Meanwhile, attached is a WIP patch v10. The only change in this patch
> w.r.t. the last patch (v9) is that this one has a new function defined
> append_nonpartial_cost(). Just sending this to show how the algorithm
On 24/03/17 12:32, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 24/03/17 00:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 24/03/17 02:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/21/17 21:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This patch is looking pretty good to me, modulo the failing pg_dump
tests.
Attached is a fixup patch. I have mainly updated
Hello Rushabh,
Thank you for reviewing.
Have addressed all your comments in the attached patch. The attached patch
currently throws an
error if a new partition is added after default partition.
>Rather then adding check for default here, I think this should be handle
inside
>get_qual_for_list().
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> I am not sure on what basis user can set such parameters, it will be
>> quite difficult to tune those parameters.
On 03/22/2017 07:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I did some archeology, and found CheckTokenMembership() in MinGW's w32api
packages version 3.14
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 24 March 2017 at 14:07, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>>>
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> There is a function for that.
[...]
> There is not a function for that, but there could be one.
I'm not sure you've really considered what you're suggesting here.
We need to to make sure we have every file between two LSNs.
Hi Anastasia,
Thanks a lot for a review!
As was mentioned above there is also a bottleneck in find_all_inheritors
procedure. Turned out the problem there is similar and it could be easily
fixed as well. Corresponding patch is attached to this message. To keep
things in order I'm attaching the
On 3/24/17 12:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/23/17 16:58, Stephen Frost wrote:
The backup tools need to also get the LSN from the pg_stop_backup and
verify that they have the WAL file associated with that LSN.
There is a function for that.
They also
need to make sure that they have all
On 24/03/17 11:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2017-03-24 10:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>
>> However one minor observation - as Michael Banck noted - the elapsed
>> time for slave to catch up after running:
>>
>> $ pgbench -c8 -T600 bench
>>
>> on the master was (subjectively) much longer than for
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 3/22/17 09:17, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> If we do it via GRANTs instead, then users can easily extend it.
> > The intent here is that users will *also* be able to do it via GRANTs if
> > they wish to.
>
> But why not do it
On 2017-03-24 10:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
However one minor observation - as Michael Banck noted - the elapsed
time for slave to catch up after running:
$ pgbench -c8 -T600 bench
on the master was (subjectively) much longer than for physical
streaming replication. Is this expected?
I think
Thank you all, pushed
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
I believe patch looks good and it's ready to commit.
Thanks for the review!
As I understand, it fixes bug introduced by
commit 7117685461af50f50c03f43e6a622284c8d54694
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila
> >
> > The general sense I've got
> > here is
Hi All,
While looking at the code around tab-complete.c, I
found the ordering in words_after_create array is not
correct for DEFAULT PRIVILEGES, which been added
under below commit:
commit d7d77f3825122bde55be9e06f6c4851028b99795
Author: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu Mar 16
On Friday, March 24, 2017, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/22/2017 07:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
I did some archeology, and found
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
This patch looks good to me. As I understand we have both a
On 03/24/2017 03:02 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
In order to close this thread, I propose to reuse the patches I sent
here to make scram_build_verifier() available to frontends:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqT4yc3u8wspYkWbG088Ndp6asMH3=zb___ck89ctvz...@mail.gmail.com
And on top of
On 3/23/17 4:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/22/17 17:33, David Steele wrote:
I think if we don't change the default size it's very unlikely I would
use alternate WAL segment sizes or recommend that anyone else does, at
least in v10.
I simply don't think it would get the level of testing
On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber
> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during
> replication but not there).
I think for this we can probably just change the missing_ok argument of
RangeVarGetRelid()
On 24/03/17 15:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber
>> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during
>> replication but not there).
>
> I think for this we can probably just
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> The changes to the plpgsql code don't look so good to me. The change
> to exec_stmt_return_query fixes the same bug that I mentioned in the
> email linked above, but only half of it -- it corrects the RETURN
> QUERY
Hi Ashutosh,
On 2017/03/23 21:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I have fixed all the issues reported till now.
I've tried to fix your 0012 patch (Multi-level partitioned table
expansion) considering your message earlier on this thread [1].
Especially the fact that no AppendRelInfo and RelOptInfo are
On 03/23/2017 06:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
And after a lookup the failure is here:
- result = get_role_password(port->user_name, _pass, logdetail);
+ shadow_pass = get_role_password(port->user_name, logdetail);
if (result == STATUS_OK)
result is never setup in this code path, so that
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Thank you all, pushed.
Thanks.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Also I would like to share some benchmark results.
Before applying any patches (copied from one of previous messages):
```
latency average = 1153.495 ms
latency stddev = 154.366 ms
tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing)
tps = 6.061211 (excluding connections establishing)
```
After
On 1 March 2017 at 01:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> I don't know which way you're thinking of fixing this, but a planner patch
> to implement faster partition-pruning will have taken care of this, I
> think. As you may know, even declarative partitioned tables
On 10 March 2017 at 13:08, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
Results look good for me. Idea of committing both of patches looks
> attractive.
>
I'll commit mine since I understand what it does. I'll look at the other
one also, but won't commit yet.
> We have pretty much
Jeff,
* Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 3/22/17 17:33, David Steele wrote:
> > > and I doubt that most tool writers would be quick to
> > > add support for a feature that very few
Hi Tom,
Since no one seems to be particularly excited about this patch I'm
marking it as "Returned with feedback" to save reviewers time.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:21:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:57:15AM -0400, Tom Lane
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/23/2017 06:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> And after a lookup the failure is here:
>> - result = get_role_password(port->user_name, _pass, logdetail);
>> + shadow_pass = get_role_password(port->user_name,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> Thanks Amit. v19 addresses some of the comments below.
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Amit Kapila
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 consumed in the planner context OR build the code with
> SHOW_MEMORY_STATS
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> If we make the users run all the statements individually then they'll
>> also have to get an updated script for the next version of PG too
>> because we will have added things that the tools will want access to.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Implement multivariate n-distinct coefficients
dromedary and arapaima have failures like this, which seems likely
related to this commit:
EXPLAIN
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ndistinct GROUP BY a, d;
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
> > PFA an updated patch which fixes a minor bug I found. It only increases
> the
> > string size in pretty_wal_size
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()
>
> For normal commits and aborts we already reset PgXact->xmin
> Avoiding touching highly contented shmem improves concurrent
> performance.
>
> Simon Riggs
I'm
No, it is really needed so that the lag measure is correct.
Thank you, pushed
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hello Corey,
v24 highlights:
- finally using git format-patch
- all conditional slash commands broken out into their own functions
(exec_command_$NAME) , each one tests if it's in an active branch, and if
it's not it consumes the same number of parameters, but discards them.
comments for each
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
>
> I was worried for the case if the index is created non-default
> collation, will the datumIsEqual() suffice the need. Now again
> thinking about it, I think it will because in the index tuple we are
> storing the
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
>> ASAICU, if we use binary mode, output is stored bit by bit. In ASCII
>> mode, cmd pokes its nose and does CR / LF conversions on its own. So,
>> whenever we want compression on a plain-text dump file, we can set
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a rebased series on top of today's a3eac988c267. I call this
> v28.
>
> I put David's pg_dump and COMMENT patches as second in line, just after
> the initial infrastructure patch. I suppose those three have to be
> committed together, while the others (which add
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
>> I suspect that code fails to achieve its goals anyway. At the top of
>> exec_eval_expr(), you call exec_prepare_plan() and unconditionally
>> pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK, so when that function returns,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 24 March 2017 at 02:29, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> Changes made per discussion.
>>
>> Committed 0001.
>
> Much
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()
>>>
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> Hi, I've tried to review this patch, but it seems that I miss something
> essential.
Hi Anastasia,
Thanks for looking at this.
> You claim that SLRUs now support five digit segment name, while in slru.h
>
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user
> > action to cause the creation of a slot, like --create-slot-if-needed
> > or
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> But why not do it with GRANTs in the first place then?
>
> This is akin to asking why do we need GRANT ALL and ALTER DEFAULT PRIVs.
Not really. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES affects what happens for future
objects, which
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I guess the downside of back-patching this is that it could cause a
>> plan change for somebody which ends up being worse. On the whole,
>> serial execution of queries intended to be run in
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:08:42 +0900
>>> Masahiko Sawada
Hi,
On 2017-03-24 11:26:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another modest proposal:
>
> I'm not really sold on the approach of using EEOP_FETCHSOME opcodes to
> trigger initial tupleslot de-forming. Certainly we want to have a single
> slot_getsomeattrs call per source slot, but as-is, we need a
Hi Teodor,
Thanks a lot for a review!
> > step1 In pgstat_report_stat() you remove one by one entries from hash and
> > remove them all. Isn't it better to hash_destroy/hash_create or even let
> > hash
> > lives in separate memory context and just resets it?
Agree, fixed.
> > step1 Again,
On 2017-03-24 13:50:54 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs
> >> wrote:
>
Pushed this after some more tweaking.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Avoid SnapshotResetXmin() during AtEOXact_Snapshot()
>>
>> For normal commits and aborts we already reset PgXact->xmin
>> Avoiding touching
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:00 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> On 3/22/17 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM, David Steele
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> If we make the users run all the statements individually then they'll
>>> also have to get an updated script for the next version of PG too
>>>
On 24 March 2017 at 16:14, Robert Haas wrote:
> I suspect that is the fault of this patch. Please fix or revert.
Will revert then fix.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why not use COSTS OFF? Or I'll put that even more strongly: all the
>> existing regression tests use COSTS OFF, exactly to avoid this sort of
>> machine-dependent output. There had better be a really damn good
>> reason not
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Implement multivariate n-distinct coefficients
>
> dromedary and arapaima have failures like this, which seems likely
> related to this commit:
>
> EXPLAIN
>SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> dromedary and arapaima have failures like this, which seems likely
>> related to this commit:
>>
>> EXPLAIN
>> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ndistinct GROUP BY a, d;
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Hackers,
>> >
>> > I just want to
Thanks Amit for your review comments. I am yet to handle all of your
comments, but meanwhile , attached is an updated patch, that handles
RETURNING.
Earlier it was not working because ExecInsert() did not return any
RETURNING clause. This is because the setup needed to create RETURNIG
projection
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > Here is a patch to add COMMENT support for publications and subscriptions.
> >
> > On a similar issue, do we need SECURITY LABEL support for those?
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's
>> then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default
>> size.
>
> I did say that, but I thought I had hit on a compromise.
>
>
>
>
> A few comments about the patch.
>
> Patch applies. "make check" ok.
>
> As already pointed out, there is one useless file in the patch.
>
> Although currently there is only one expected argument for boolean
> expressions, the n² concatenation algorithm in gather_boolean_expression is
> not
On 3/24/17 05:22, Michael Banck wrote:
> However, replication also seems to not work, I'm using the following
> script right now:
The problem is that your publication does not include any tables.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,
On 3/24/17 10:09, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 24/03/17 15:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 3/23/17 19:32, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> Yes, I also forgot to check if the table actually exists on subscriber
>>> when fetching them in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION (we have check during
>>> replication but not there).
Hello Corey,
I wished for the same thing, happy to use one if it is made known to me.
I pulled that pattern from somewhere else in the code, and given that the
max number of args for a command is around 4, I'm not too worried about
scaling.
If there are expressions one day like pgbench, the
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Here is a patch to add COMMENT support for publications and subscriptions.
>
> On a similar issue, do we need SECURITY LABEL support for those? Does
> that make sense?
IMHO, it's good to have COMMENT
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Mengxing Liu
wrote:
> I've finished a draft proposal for "Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from
> rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions".
I've attached some comments to the document; let me know if they
don't show up for you
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-24 11:26:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another modest proposal:
>>
>> I'm not really sold on the approach of using EEOP_FETCHSOME opcodes to
>> trigger initial tupleslot de-forming. Certainly we want to have a single
>> slot_getsomeattrs
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing my patch. I have
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:41 AM, vinayak
wrote:
> I have updated the patch.
You can't change the definition of AcquireSampleRowsFunc without
updating the documentation in fdwhandler.sgml, but I think I don't
immediately understand why that's a thing we want to do
Thanks for reviewing my patch. I have removed the extra white space.
Attached are both the patches.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I have mistakenly attached wrong patch. Here are the correct
>>> set of patches.
>>
>> The latest version of patches looks fine to me.
>
> I don't really like 0002. What
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2017, 14:57 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> On 3/24/17 05:22, Michael Banck wrote:
> > However, replication also seems to not work, I'm using the following
> > script right now:
>
> The problem is that your publication does not include any tables.
Oops, of course. That
Tom Lane wrote:
> Why not use COSTS OFF? Or I'll put that even more strongly: all the
> existing regression tests use COSTS OFF, exactly to avoid this sort of
> machine-dependent output. There had better be a really damn good
> reason not to use it here.
If we use COSTS OFF, the test is
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Corey,
>
> I wished for the same thing, happy to use one if it is made known to me.
>> I pulled that pattern from somewhere else in the code, and given that the
>> max number of args for a command is around 4,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> If that's fixed and the permissions question can be waved away by
>> saying it's the same as the per-row situation, my
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> I take your suggestion. Please find the attachments.
I think you should consider refactoring this so that it doesn't need
to use goto. Maybe move the while (offnum <= maxoff) logic into a
helper function and have
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Per
>>> https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=11ma_Z1HoPxPcSCANnh5ykHORa=hca1u1v1+5s_jw...@mail.gmail.com
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo