On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:18 PM, amul sul wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul wrote:
>>> Attaching POC patch that throws an error in the case of a concurrent update
>>> to an already deleted tuple due to UPDATE of partition ke
Hi,
I ran into another issue - after inserting some data into a table with a
tsvector column (without any compression defined), I can no longer read
the data.
This is what I get in the console:
db=# select max(md5(body_tsvector::text)) from messages;
ERROR: cache lookup failed for compression o
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> We see this for the entry tree (no deletion is possible in the first
>> place), and we also see it for the posting tree (the dance with
>> inserters having a pin on the root, and so on). Not mentioning why
>> pending list recycling is safe in t
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > The only reference to super-exclusive lock in
> src/backend/access/gin/README,
> > that I can find, is about posting trees, not pending lists. Can you
> quote
> > or give line number
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:51 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> up to parallel executions, when we had node in explain analyze showing
> "loops=x" with x more than 1, it meant that the "actual time" had to be
> multiplied by loops to get real time spent in a node.
>
> For example, chec
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Agreed, that's better. Attached updated patch.
> > Also I've added this to the next CF so as not to forget.
>
> Committed and back-patched. While I'm fairly sure this is a correc
Hi,
On 11/24/2017 10:38 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> ...
> That means compressed datums now in the column with storage
> specified as external. I'm not sure that's a bug or a feature.
>
Interesting. Never realized it behaves like this. Not sure if it's
intentional or not (i.e. bug vs. feature)
On 24 November 2017 at 22:11, Oliver Ford wrote:
> Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an
> exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves
> TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses".
>
Yay!
I'll try to take a look at this.
--
2017-11-24 18:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
> 2017-11-24 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>> Hi
>>
>> 2017-11-22 22:49 GMT+01:00 Thomas Munro :
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule
>>> wrote:
>>> > Attached new version.
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> FYI my patch testing robot say
2017-11-24 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
> Hi
>
> 2017-11-22 22:49 GMT+01:00 Thomas Munro :
>
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>> > Attached new version.
>>
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> FYI my patch testing robot says[1]:
>>
>> xml ... FAILED
>>
>> reg
Hi
2017-11-22 22:49 GMT+01:00 Thomas Munro :
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > Attached new version.
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> FYI my patch testing robot says[1]:
>
> xml ... FAILED
>
> regression.diffs says:
>
> + SELECT x.* FROM t1, xmltable(XMLNAM
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Erikjan Rijkers wrote:
> (debian 8)
>
> make check fails:
>
> foreign_data ... ok
> window ... FAILED
> xmlmap ... ok
>
> The diff is:
>
> $ ( cd /var/data1/pg_stuff/pg_sandbox/pgsql.frame_range/src/te
A typo in all the messages the patch adds:
"to an another" -> "to another"
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Yes, my concern here is how many column we can allow in a stats
> view. I think I'm a bit too warried about that.
I think that's a good thing to worry about. In the past, Tom has
expressed reluctance to make stats tables that have a ro
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>> If all predicate_refuted_by() receives is the expression tree (AND/OR)
>>> with individual nodes being strict clauses involving partition keys (and
>>> nothing about the nullness of the keys), the downstream code is just
>>> playing by the r
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:48 AM, amul sul wrote:
> And remaining are EvalPlanQualFetch, ExecOnConflictUpdate,
> RelationFindReplTupleByIndex & RelationFindReplTupleSeq. Note that check in
> RelationFindReplTupleByIndex & RelationFindReplTupleSeq will have LOG not an
> ERROR.
The first one is goi
On 2017-11-24 15:11, Oliver Ford wrote:
Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an
exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves
TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses".
[0001-window-frame-v1.patch]
(debian 8)
make check fails
On 23 November 2017 at 11:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This is older than the bug report of this thread. All those
> indications point out that the patch has *not* been committed. So it
> seems to me that you perhaps committed it to your local repository,
> but forgot to push it to the remote. I
Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an
exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves
TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses".
== Specification ==
The window functions already allow a "ROWS BETWEEN start_value
PRECEDING/FOLLOWI
Antonin Houska wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> >
> > I like this idea in general.
> >
> > Then it's supposed to change some of its attributes
> >
> > > adjust_log_stream_attr(&stream->filename, "my_extension.log");
> >
Peter,
I built plpython with scan-build using Python 2.7.12 and Clang 3.8. On
master, I got 13 warnings, and with your patches only one warning
(report attached).
Make installcheck passes.
Let me know if I can test anything else.
-John Naylor
Title: plpy_spi.c
Bug Summa
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Because I don't want to break the current user semantics. that is,
> >> currently it's guaranteed that the subsequent reads can see the
>
(2017/10/27 20:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Amit rebased this patch and sent me the rebased version off list.
Thanks for that, Amit!
One thing I noticed I overlooked is about this change I added to
make_modifytable to make a valid-looking p
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Look like it is the same crash what v20 claim to be fixed, indeed I
> missed to add fix[1] in v20 patch, sorry about that. Attached updated
> patch includes aforementioned fix.
Hi,
I have applied latest v21 patch, it got crashed when enabled
par
Hi,
up to parallel executions, when we had node in explain analyze showing
"loops=x" with x more than 1, it meant that the "actual time" had to be
multiplied by loops to get real time spent in a node.
For example, check step 13 in https://explain.depesz.com/s/gNBd
It shows time of 3ms, but loops
Dear Amit,
Thank you for the attention to this patch.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Work on this patch took longer than I expected. It is still in not so
> good
> > shape, but I decided to publish it anyw
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 have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
> to con
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 21:54:32 +0100
Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hmm, this seems to have fixed it, but only in one direction. Consider
> this:
>
> create table t_pglz (v text);
> create table t_lz4 (v text compressed lz4);
>
> insert into t_pglz select repeat(md5(i::text),300)
> fro
28 matches
Mail list logo
