Thanks for committing this!
At Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:24:23 +0100, Peter Eisentraut
wrote in
> On 2021-02-17 05:05, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The commit fe61df7f82 shot down this.
> > This patch allows a new GUC ssl_crl_dir and a new libpq connection
> > option sslcrldir to specify CRL director
Hi
út 16. 2. 2021 v 2:49 odesílatel Thomas Munro
napsal:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:36 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > ne 19. 4. 2020 v 19:27 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
> napsal:
> >> last week I finished pspg 3.0 https://github.com/okbob/pspg . pspg now
> supports pipes, named pipes very well. T
At Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:27:23 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:14:15PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The attached is just fixing that. I tried to make it generic but
> > didn't find a clean and translatable way.
> >
> > Also I found that only three cases in the
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:01 PM Markus Wanner
> > wrote:
> > >
> > Now, coming back to the restart case where the prepared transaction
> > can be sent again by the publisher. I unders
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find attached the new patch set v41*
>
I see one issue here. Currently, when we create a subscription, we
first launch apply-worker and create the main apply worker slot and
then launch table sync workers as required. Now, assume, the
> hi,
>
> Here we go, my first patch... solves
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7d6fdc20-857c-4cbe-ae2e-c0ff9520
> e...@www.fastmail.com
>
Hi,
partitioned_table_reloptions(Datum reloptions, bool validate)
{
+ static const relopt_parse_elt tab[] = {
+ {"parallel_worke
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:59 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Before fix
> ERROR: could not connect to the publisher: connection to server at
> "localhost" (::1), port 5432 failed: FATAL: pg_hba.conf rejects
> replication connection for host ":
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:06 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> > Here we go, my first patch... solves
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7d6fdc20-857c-4cbe-ae2e-c0ff9520
> > e...@www.fastmail.com
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> partitioned_table_reloptions(Datum reloptions, bool validate)
> {
> + static const
Based on the discussion at:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6929d485-2d2a-da46-3681-4a400a3d794f%40enterprisedb.com
I'm posting the patch for $subject here in this new thread and I'll
add it to the next CF per Tomas' advice.
With 927f453a94106 committed earlier today, we limit insert batch
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:52 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Based on the discussion at:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6929d485-2d2a-da46-3681-4a400a3d794f%40enterprisedb.com
>
> I'm posting the patch for $subject here in this new thread and I'll
> add it to the next CF per Tomas' advice.
Hi Amit,
>
> Here is an updated version of the patch with some cosmetic changes
> from the previous version. I moved the code being added to
> AfterTriggerSaveEvent() and ExecUpdate() into separate subroutines to
> improve readability, hopefully.
>
> I tested these patches. It works as expected
Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:42, Guillaume Lelarge a
écrit :
> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:41, Guillaume Lelarge
> a écrit :
>
>> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 05:10, Julien Rouhaud a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Guillaume Lelarge
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Anytime soon" was a long lo
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, at 22:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch series; it's rebased over 4e703d671
> which took care of some not-really-related fixes, and I made a
> pass of cleanup and comment improvements. I think this is pretty
> much ready to commit, unless you want to do more
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:41 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:35 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Isn't btvacuumcleanup() (or any other amvacuumcleanup() routine)
> > entitled to rely on the bulk delete stats being set in the way I've
> > described? I assumed that that was ok
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:35 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Looking at this again, I am a bit concerned about going over the whole
> partition tree *twice* when making a parallel plan for insert into
> partitioned tables. Maybe we should do what you did in your first
> attempt a slightly differently
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 11:30, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>SELECT * FROM vdeviations;
>-[ RECORD 1
>]+---
>pattern | \.(ac|com\.ac|edu\.ac|gov\.ac|net\.ac|mi ... 100497 chars
>... abs\.org|
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:26 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:15 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Yes. I think this would simplify the problem by resolving almost all
> > problems related to indefinite deferring page recycle.
> >
> > We will be able to recycle almost all just
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:33 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a rebased patch (v22a).
>
Thanks for the patch. Will you think posting a patch with the latest commit
at that
time is helpful? If so, when others want to review it, they know which
commit to
apply the patch without asking
Here is an updated patch that just introduces LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(). I
think the result is quite pleasant.
--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/
From 91d831518c8a71b010bdc835caacaedb20ffb896 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 20
A few years ago we discussed whether to disable SSL compression [0] which ended
up with it being off by default combined with a recommendation against it in
the docs.
OpenSSL themselves disabled SSL compression by default in 2016 in 1.1.0 with
distros often having had it disabled for a long while
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 15:18, Andy Fan wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:02 AM David Rowley
> wrote:
> >> The reason I don't really like this is that it really depends where
> >> you want to use RelOptInfo.notnullattrs. If someone w
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:19 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Here is an updated patch that just introduces LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(). I
> think the result is quite pleasant.
>
Thanks a lot Peter for producing this patch. I am fine with it. The way
this is defined someone
On 2021/02/17 13:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:47:52PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/16 15:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
+ /*
+* Read "writtenUpto" without holding a spinlock. So it may not be
+* consistent with other WAL receiver's shared variables prot
On 19.08.2020 22:20, Pavel Stehule wrote:
st 19. 8. 2020 v 20:59 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik
mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> napsal:
On 19.08.2020 21:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
st 19. 8. 2020 v 19:22 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik
mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru
Hi,
Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
below, I have applied the suggestions.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I d
I think our documentation is mistaken about what it means for a cursor
to be "sensitive" or "insensitive".
The definition in SQL:2016 is:
A change to SQL-data is said to be independent of a cursor CR if and
only if it is not made by an or a
that is positioned on CR.
A change
On 2/17/21 3:42 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 2/17/21 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Smith writes:
I saw that one of our commitfest entries (32/2914) is recently
reporting a fail on the cfbot site [1]. I thought this was all
Attached are a first patch and a functioning extension that implements a
telnet protocol server.
The extension needs to be loaded via shared_preload_libraries and
configured for a port number and listen_addresses as follows:
shared_preload_libraries = 'telnet_srv'
telnet_srv.listen_addresses = '
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:00 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> And that seems definitely wrong. Declaring c1 in the above example as
> FOR UPDATE or FOR SHARE does not change the result. I think this
> discussion is mixing up the concept of cursor sensitivity wi
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:15:36PM +0800, chenhj wrote:
> At 2021-02-16 21:51:14, "Daniel Gustafsson" wrote:
>
> >> On 16 Feb 2021, at 15:45, chenhj wrote:
> >
> >> I want to know whether this patch can be accepted by the community, that
> >> is, whether it is necessary for me to continue worki
čt 18. 2. 2021 v 16:01 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>
> On 19.08.2020 22:20, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> st 19. 8. 2020 v 20:59 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
> k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19.08.2020 21:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>
čt 18. 2. 2021 v 18:10 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
>
>
> čt 18. 2. 2021 v 16:01 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
> k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19.08.2020 22:20, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> st 19. 8. 2020 v 20:59 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
>> k.knizh...@postgre
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
>> I've produced a new dataset which now also includes the regex flags (if
>> any) used for each subject applied to a pattern.
Again, thanks for collecting this data! I'm a little confused about
how you produced the results in the "tests" table, though. It sort
of looks
On 18.02.21 17:11, David G. Johnston wrote:
The OP was doing a course based on Oracle and was confused regarding our
behavior. The documentation failed to help me provide a useful
response, so I'd agree there is something here that needs reworking if
not outright fixing.
According to the p
I thought it was worth looking a little more closely at the error
cases in this set of tests, as a form of competition analysis versus
Javascript's regex engine. I ran through the cases that gave errors,
and pinned down exactly what was causing the error for as many cases
as I could. (These resul
Hi,
I’d like to use PG as an analytics engine on multiple separately created
read-only datasets. The datasets, in my case, are independently created by
bringing up a local PG instance, populating a table, and shutting down the
PG instance. I do have control over both the creation and the query
pro
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 19:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joel Jacobson" writes:
> >> I've produced a new dataset which now also includes the regex flags (if
> >> any) used for each subject applied to a pattern.
>
> Again, thanks for collecting this data! I'm a little confused about
> how you produced
On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 22:35 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Attached is a rebase on top of this and the recent cryptohash changes to pass
> in buffer lengths to the _final function. On top of that, I fixed up and
> expanded the documentation, improved SCRAM handling (by using NSS digest
> operat
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 20:58, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>Like you said earlier, perhaps the regex engine has been optimized enough for
>this time.
>If not, you want to investigate an additional idea,
In the above sentence, I meant "you _may_ want to".
I'm not at all sure these idea are applicable in
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> Let's see if I can explain the idea:
> One of the problems with representing regexes with large bracket range
> expressions, like [a-z],
> is you get an explosion of edges, if the model can only represent state
> transitions for single characters.
> If we could instead
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, at 21:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>Hmm ... I might be misunderstanding, but I think our engine already
>does a version of this. See the discussion of "colors" in
>src/backend/regex/README.
Thanks, I will read it with great interest.
>Maybe. In practice the actual scanning tends to
On 2/18/21 4:46 PM, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
> which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
> below, I have applied the suggestions.
>
Thanks.
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vo
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:32 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:18 AM Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> >
> > I'm guessing that's because the unaligned access in check_ascii() is
> > expensive on this platform.
> Some possible remedies:
> 3) #ifdef out the ascii check for 32-bit plat
At Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:51:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote in
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:19 PM Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is an updated patch that just introduces LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(). I
> > think the result is quite pleasant.
> >
>
> Thanks a lot Pet
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:38:44 +0800
Andy Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:33 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached is a rebased patch (v22a).
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch. Will you think posting a patch with the latest commit
> at that
> time is helpful? If so, when others want
Thanks for your review, Heikki.
I have made the changes you have requested.
1. All modifications interconnected with column projection were reverted (they
should be added in https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2922 if the current
patch would be merged one day).
2. I have returned PROGRESS_ANAL
Hi,
+ *totalrows = floor((liverows / bs.m) * totalblocks + 0.5);
Is the above equivalent to:
+ *totalrows = ceil((liverows / bs.m) * totalblocks);
For compare_rows(), it seems the computation of oa and ob can be delayed to
when ba == bb (after the first two if statements).
Cheers
Refactored the code a bit along with fixes. Manually tested them on centos
& Ubuntu (the later has copy_file_range())
For the first patch, actually I have some concerns. My assumption is that
the target pg_data directory should be fsync-ed already. This should be
correct normally but there is one
On Jan 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski
mailto:m...@komzpa.net>> wrote:
Hi,
I confirm that my analytic workflows often do the CTAS and VACUUM of the
relation right after, before the index creation, to mark stuff as all-visible
for IOS to work. Freezing and marking as visibl
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 3:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> After further thinking on this problem and some off-list discussions
> with Ajin, there appears to be another way to solve the above problem
> by which we can avoid resending the prepare after restart if it has
> already been processed by the
Hi Rahila,
Thanks for the review.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
>> Here is an updated version of the patch with some cosmetic changes
>> from the previous version. I moved the code being added to
>> AfterTriggerSaveEvent() and ExecUpdate() into separate subroutines to
>> im
On 1/22/21 5:04 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> ...
>
> I have heard from several DBMS experts that appearance of huge and
> cheap non-volatile memory can make a revolution in database system
> architecture. If all database can fit in non-volatile memory, then we
> do not need buffers, WAL, ...>
>
From: Greg Nancarrow
--
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:23 AM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> (8)
> + /*
> +* If the trigger type is RI_TRIGGER_FK, this indicates a FK
> exists in
> +* the relation, a
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:04:05AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We have the code in place to properly initialize the crypto locking in
> libpq with ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY, but the root of the issue is that the
> SSL and crypto initializations are grouped together. What we need to
> do here is to
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 02:17:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have no issues with documenting more precisely on which commands
> partitions_total and partitions_done apply currently, by citing the
> commands where these are effective. We do that for index_relid for
> instance.
Please find
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:54:05AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:51:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote in
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:19 PM Peter Eisentraut <
>> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Here is an updated patch that just introduces LSN_FORMAT_ARGS()
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:06:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 02:17:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I have no issues with documenting more precisely on which commands
> > partitions_total and partitions_done apply currently, by citing the
> > commands where these
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:12 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:13 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Agreed. Thanks for your explanation.
>
> Attached is v5, which has some of the changes I talked about. Changes
> from v4 include:
>
> * Now only updates metapage during btvacuumcl
When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
and forgot to update the generated file.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
diff --git a/src/include/pg_config.h.in b/src/inclu
Antonin Houska writes:
> When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
> below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
> and forgot to update the generated file.
Yeah, looks like fe61df7f8 is at fault. Michael?
regards
On 18.02.2021 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
This has a negative impact on performance - and a lot of users use
procedures without transaction control. So it doesn't look like a good
solution.
I am more concentrated on the Pg 14 release, where the work with SPI
is redesigned, and I hope so thi
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 01:42:38AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Antonin Houska writes:
>> When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
>> below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
>> and forgot to update the generated file.
>
> Yeah, looks lik
pá 19. 2. 2021 v 7:51 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>
> On 18.02.2021 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> This has a negative impact on performance - and a lot of users use
> procedures without transaction control. So it doesn't look like a good
> solution.
>
>
I am sorry, maybe my reply was not (is not) correct - this issue was
reported four months ago, and now I think more about your words about
ATX, and I have no idea, how much it is related to community pg or to
pgpro.
I am sure so implementation of autonomous transactions is pretty hard,
but
Michael Paquier writes:
> Indeed, thanks. It looks like a "git add" that was fat-fingered. I
> would like to make things more consistent with the attached.
+1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:
+ AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 3:05 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:35 AM Seamus Abshere wrote:
> > Here we go, my first patch... solves
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7d6fdc20-857c-4cbe-ae2e-c0ff9520e...@www.fastmail.com
>
> Thanks for sending the patch here.
>
> It seems
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:21:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > Indeed, thanks. It looks like a "git add" that was fat-fingered. I
> > would like to make things more consistent with the attached.
>
> +1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:
>
> +
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 09:45, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 11:05, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Architecturally it feels like this is something that really belongs more
> > into plan time?
>
> Possibly. It would mean TidOpExpr would have to become a Node type.
> TID Range scan is rea
On 19.02.2021 10:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
pá 19. 2. 2021 v 7:51 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik
mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru>> napsal:
On 18.02.2021 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
This has a negative impact on performance - and a lot of users
use procedures without transacti
pá 19. 2. 2021 v 8:17 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
> I am sorry, maybe my reply was not (is not) correct - this issue was
> reported four months ago, and now I think more about your words about ATX,
> and I have no idea, how much it is related to community
pá 19. 2. 2021 v 8:39 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>
> On 19.02.2021 10:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> pá 19. 2. 2021 v 7:51 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
> k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18.02.2021 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> T
Hello, Zhihong.
Thanks for your comments.
1. I am afraid that an equivalence of "floor(val + 0.5)" to "cell(val)" is
incorrect: "floor(2.1 + 0.5)" returns 2 while "cell(2.1)" returns 3. We can’t
use such replacement, as you have suggested.
2. >> For compare_rows(), it seems the computation o
72 matches
Mail list logo
