Steve Singer writes:
> I encountered the following segfault when running against a PG 12 beta1
> during a analyze against a table.
Nobody else has reported this, so you're going to have to work on
producing a self-contained test case, or else debugging it yourself.
regar
I encountered the following segfault when running against a PG 12 beta1
during a analyze against a table.
#0 0x56008ad0c826 in update_attstats (vacattrstats=0x0,
natts=2139062143, inh=false,
relid=0x40>) at analyze.c:572
#1 do_analyze_rel (onerel=onerel@entry=0x7f0bc59a7a38,
params
On 06/15/19 21:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yup. (Of course, you don't have to use the SRF_FIRSTCALL_INIT
> infrastructure.)
That had crossed my mind ... but it seems there's around 80 or 100
lines of good stuff there that'd be a shame to duplicate. If only
init_MultiFuncCall() took an extra void ** arg
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:27:17PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/13/19 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:26:47PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> Yeah, in principle since data key of 2 tier key architecture should
> >> not go outside database I think we should not te
Chapman Flack writes:
> So please let me know if I seem to correctly understand the limits
> on its use.
> I gather that various extensions use it to stash various things. But
> (I assume) ... they will only touch fn_extra in FmgrInfo structs that
> pertain to *their own functions*. (Please say t
Hi hackers,
I see evidence on this list that it's sort of a rite of passage
to ask the flinfo->fn_extra question, and my time has come.
So please let me know if I seem to correctly understand the limits
on its use.
I gather that various extensions use it to stash various things. But
(I assume) .
On Sat., Jun. 15, 2019, 8:30 p.m. Greg Stark, wrote:
>
>
> So what would this do for someone who explicitly writes:
>
> WHERE col = ANY ?
>
> and pass an array?
>
Actually thinking about this for two more seconds the question is what it
would do with a query like
WHERE col = ANY '1,2,3'::intege
On Sat., Jun. 15, 2019, 12:29 p.m. Pavel Trukhanov, <
pavel.trukha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So I don't think there's actually enough benefit to split those two apart.
>
> Now I want to do this: just add a meta info (basically a bool field)
> to the ArrayExpr struct, so on later stages we could tel
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:37:45PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
...
OK, attached are patches fixing the issues reported by you and John
Naylor, and squashing the parts into just two patches (catalog split and
pg_stats_ext). Barring objections, I'll push those tomorrow.
I've renamed columns in the
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:23:29PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-createstatistics.html contains
this example command:
CREATE STATISTICS s2 (mcv) ON (a, b) FROM t2;
But that produces:
psql: ERROR: only simple column references are allowed in CREATE STATISTICS
On 2019-Jun-16, Oleksii Kliukin wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2019-Jun-14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> >> I think there are worse problems here. I tried the attached isolation
> >> spec. Note that the only difference in the two permutations is that s0
> >> finishes earlier in one th
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 06:05:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed
> >> wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUD
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thanks for the input, guys. What do you think of
>
> Avoid writing an invalid empty btree index page in the unlikely case
> that a failure occurs while processing INCLUDEd columns during a page
> split (Peter Geoghegan)
>
> The
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> I think there are worse problems here. I tried the attached isolation
>> spec. Note that the only difference in the two permutations is that s0
>> finishes earlier in one than the other; yet the first one works fine and
>> the
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed
>> wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUDE
>> indexes also seems like a good idea. They are the only type o
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading
> > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM
> > doesn't start fai
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading
> > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM
> > doesn't start failing pers
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading
> the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM
> doesn't start failing persistently on any index. I suggest replacing this
> release note
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:58:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0995cefa74510ee0e38d1bf095b2eef2c1ea37c4
> +
> +
> + Avoid corruption of a btree index in the unlikely case that a failure
> + occurs during key truncation
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:55:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I seem to recall that we expect tests to either work with
> default_transaction_isolation=serializable, or to set it to a different
> level where needed.
>
> Currently that's not the case. When running check-world with PGOPTIONS
> se
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:23:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:10 AM Jason Harvey wrote:
> > This week I upgraded one of my large(2.8TB), high-volume databases from 9
> > to 11. The upgrade itself went fine. About two days later, we unexpectedly
> > hit transaction
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:03:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pursuant to today's discussion at PGCon about code coverage, I went
> nosing into some of the particularly under-covered subdirectories
> in our tree, and immediately tripped over an interesting factoid:
> the ASCII<->MIC and ASCII<->UTF8
On 2019-Jun-14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think there are worse problems here. I tried the attached isolation
> spec. Note that the only difference in the two permutations is that s0
> finishes earlier in one than the other; yet the first one works fine and
> the second one hangs until killed by
Melanie Plageman writes:
> While hacking on zedstore, we needed to get a list of the columns to
> be projected--basically all of the columns needed to satisfy the
> query. The two use cases we have for this is
> 1) to pass this column list down to the AM layer for the AM to leverage it
> 2) for us
Thanks for the feedback.
I thought once again about separating IN from ARRAY, with refactoring
etc as Tom suggested, and now I don't think it's worth it to do so.
I've tried to implement that, and besides that it will require to
change things in every part of query processing pipeline, it seems
th
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Jun-14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, after looking around a bit I wonder if this complaint isn't
>> exposing an actual logic bug. Shouldn't skip_tuple_lock have
>> a lifetime similar to first_time?
> I think there are worse problems here. I tried the attached isolati
Once in a blue moon I get this assertion failure on server start:
2019-06-15 12:00:29.650 -04 [30080] LOG: iniciando PostgreSQL 12beta1 on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Ubuntu 7.4.0-1ubuntu1~18.04) 7.4.0, 64-bit
2019-06-15 12:00:29.650 -04 [30080] LOG: escuchando en la dirección IPv4
«
Hello hackers,
Please consider fixing the following typos and inconsistencies living in
the source code starting from v11:
3.1 add_placeholders_to_child_joinrel -> remove (orphaned after 7cfdc770)
3.2 AttachIndexInfo -> IndexAttachInfo (an internal inconsistency)
3.3 BlockRecordInfo -> BlockInfoRe
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:37:37PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/14/19 6:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:27:17PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> On 6/13/19 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > In addition, while the 8k blocks would use a block cipher, the WAL would
> >>
29 matches
Mail list logo
