On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 3:34 AM Euler Taveira
wrote:
>
> No. The strings are specified in the appendStringInfo, hence you should add
> _()
> around the string to be translated. There is nothing to be translated if you
> specify only the format identifier. You can always test if gettext extracts
>
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:01:15PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> I thought about not providing a GUC at all or provide it in the developer
> section. I've never heard someone saying that they use those temporary
> files to investigate an issue. Regarding a crash, all information is already
> availa
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 10:11:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:30:13PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > (I'm quoting from the commit message of the patch I wrote, which is same as
> > your patch).
>
> (I may have missed something, but you did not send a patch, right?)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:30:13PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> (I'm quoting from the commit message of the patch I wrote, which is same as
> your patch).
(I may have missed something, but you did not send a patch, right?)
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 07:56:33PM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Even if we won't use it now, IMHO it is more legible to separate this
> responsibility into its own CopyStatistics function as attached.
By doing so, there is no need to include pg_statistic.h in index.c.
Except that, the l
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 15:42, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> I did a quick review and the patch seems fine to me. Let's wait for a
> bit and see if there are any objections - if not, I'll get it committed
> in the next CF.
>
>
Tomas, thanks for your review.
> One thing I'm not sure about is whether we
I wrote:
> However: suppose that we continue to translate these things into FuncExpr
> nodes, the same as always, but we add a new CoercionForm variant, say
> COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX. 99% of the system ignores FuncExpr.funcformat,
> and would continue to do so, but ruleutils.c would take it to mean
> th
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:22 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> And in spirit, it is possible to address this issue with the patch
> attached which copies the set of stats from the old to the new index.
Did some tests and everything went ok... some comments below!
> For a non-concurrent REINDEX, this
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 00:34, Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:35 PM Euler Taveira
> wrote:
> >
> > + appendStringInfo(&logmsg, "replication ");
> > +
> > + appendStringInfo(&logmsg, "connection authorized: user=%s",
> > + port->user_n
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2020-10-30 11:57, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> > On 26.10.20 15:53, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > > Removing -docs as moderation won’t let me cross-post.
> > >
>
> Hi,
>
> I applied 0009-architecture-vs-master.patch to head
> and went th
> On 31 Oct 2020, at 02:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that you are just missing to declare a new error number
> in px.h, so I would suggest to just use -19.
Ah yes, I accidentally fat-fingered the git add -p when splitting up the NSS
patch into bite size pieces. Sorry about that. T
Hi
On 31.10.2020 00:03, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2020-10-29 16:45:58 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
- What does " and it is up to the client whether to continue work
without compression or report error" actually mean for a libpq parameter?
It can not happen.
The client request from
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:43:01PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> On 2020-09-09 18:36, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Rebased on a6642b3ae: Add support for partitioned tables and indexes in
> > REINDEX
> >
> > So now this includes the new functionality and test for reindexing a
> > partitioned table o
Hi everyone! Thanks for pushing this important topic!
Just my 2 cents.
> 31 окт. 2020 г., в 02:03, Andres Freund написал(а):
>
>
>>> I think that would also make cross-version handling easier, because a
>>> newer client driver can send the compression request and handle the
>>> error, without
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Yeah. The behavior is technically correct, but it's not very useful for
> practical purposes. And most people don't even realize it behaves like
> this :-( It's possible to compensate for this effect and estimate the
> actually "interesting" hi
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:48:17PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:26 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > Between (b)(2)(X) and (b)(3)(X), what are folks' preferences? Does anyone
> > > strongly favor some other option (including the
Hi,
Per Coverity.
make_ruledef function can dereference a NULL pointer (actions),
if "ev_qual" is provided and "actions" does not exist.
The comment there is contradictory: " /* these could be nulls */ "
Because if "ev_qual" is not null, "actions" cannot be either.
Solution proposed merely as a
Hi,
Per Coverity.
If test set->latch against NULL, is why it can be NULL.
ResetEvent can dereference NULL.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
fix_dereference_before_null_check_latch.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 12:09:32AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30/10/2020 22:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I agree this design looks simpler. I'm a bit worried about serializing
the parsing like this, though. It's true the current approach (where the
first phase of parsing happens in the leade
Thanks for the comments Bharath.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:18 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> I took a look at v3 patch. Here are some comments.
>
> 1. Why are the input strings(not the newly added GSS log message
> string) to test_access() function are in some places double-quoted and
> in some
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 6:41 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> I prefer that false is returned when the timeout happens,
> like pg_promote() does.
>
Done.
>
> When the specified timeout is negative, the following error is thrown *after*
> SIGTERM is signaled to the target backend. This seems strange to
Thank you for this partial review, I included your changes:
On 9/23/20 9:23 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 17:43, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
Doing thing the way I describe will allow you to get rid of all the
UniqueRelInfo stuff.
Thanks for the review and sorry for the late reply.
I
22 matches
Mail list logo
