On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:10:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Apparently b2a5545bd63f changed; before that commit, that code
> (including the quoted comment) was all in RemoveOldXlogFiles, and
> endlogSegNo was calculated only once. But ISTM that even with that
> formulation it had the problem
Dear Heikki,
Thank you for rebasing it, I confirmed it can be applied.
I will check the source.
Now I put the very elementary comment.
ResourceOwnerEnlarge(), ResourceOwnerRemember(), and ResourceOwnerForget()
are exported routines.
They should put below L418.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks for doing these tests. I think you can put an elog in the below
> code change as well to show that the recovery code path is also hit:
>
> +xact_redo_abort(xl_xact_parsed_abort *parsed, TransactionId xid,
> + XLogRecPtr lsn, RepOriginId
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:30:13PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I haven't heard any user complaints, and I'd personally be happy with
> a fix on master only.
I have been looking again at that, and the rebased version that Andres
has provided would take care of that. Any thoughts?
--
Michael
From
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:18:57AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> --- a/src/common/cryptohash_openssl.c
> +++ b/src/common/cryptohash_openssl.c
> +static ResourceOwnerFuncs cryptohash_funcs =
> +{
> + /* relcache references */
> + .name = "LLVM JIT context",
> + .phase = RESOURCE_RE
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:44 PM Mark Zhao <875941...@qq.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. The patch is exactly what I want.
> > My English name is Mark Zhao, which should be the current email name.
> >
>
> Pushed the fix.
Thanks Amit
On 13/01/2021 03:55, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Dear Heikki,
I'm also interested in this patch, but it cannot be applied to the current
HEAD...
$ git apply ~/v2-0001-Make-resowners-more-easily-extensible.patch
error: patch failed: src/common/cryptohash_openssl.c:57
error: src/common/cryp
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:59 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > > Here's my analysis:
>> > > 1) in the publisher, alter publication drop table successfully
>> > > removes(PublicationDrop
Hello.
Commit c6b92041d3 changed the definition of RelationNeedsWAL().
-#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation) \
- ((relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT)
+#define RelationNeedsWAL(relation)
\
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:07 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> > Also PSA some detailed logging evidence of some test scenarios involving
> > Drop/AlterSubscription:
> > + Test-20210112-AlterSubscriptionRefresh-ok.txt =
> > AlterSubscription_refresh which successfully drops
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:11 AM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> In function fetch_table_list, it get the table names from publicer and return
> a list of tablenames.
> When append the name to the list, it use the following code:
>
> **
> nspname = TextDatumGetCString(slot_getattr(slot, 1, &
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
> XLogBeginInsert();
> XLogSetRecrodFlags(XLOG_MARK_ESSENTIAL); # new flag value
> XLOGInsert();
Oh, sounds like a nice idea. That's more flexible by allowing WAL-emitting
modules to specify which WAL records are mandatory even when wal_level is none.
For example,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:51:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I looked into this again, and I didn't like what I had added to
> maintenance.sgml at all. It seems out of place where I put it; and I
> couldn't find any great spots. Going back to your original proposal,
> what about something li
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:23 PM japin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Li Japin wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 10:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> 7.
> @@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ replorigin_advance(RepOriginId node,
> LWLockAcquire(&replication_state->lock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
>
> /* Make sure it's not used by somebody else */
> - if (replication_state->acquired_by != 0)
> + if (replication_state-
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:23 PM japin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Li Japin wrote:
> > >> IIUC the logical replication only replicate the tables in
publication,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jammie wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
> Thanks for the response .
> Can you please let me know what pg_current_wal_lsn returns ?
>
> is this position the LSN of the next log record to be created, or is it the
> LSN of the last log record already created and inserted in the lo
On Wed, January 13, 2021 2:15 PM (JST), Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:39 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:49:53 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:03 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:2
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:59 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Here's my analysis:
> > > 1) in the publisher, alter publication drop table successfully
> > > removes(PublicationDropTables) the table from the catalogue
> > > pg_publication_re
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:39 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:49:53 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:03 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:25:22 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
> > > wrote in:
> > > > > Thanks for t
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:23 PM japin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Li Japin wrote:
> >> IIUC the logical replication only replicate the tables in publication, I
> >> think
> >> when the tables that aren't in publication sho
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:09 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:00 PM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-01-05 10:56, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > BTW according to the documentation, the options
Dear Tom,
> So I propose to change the new ERRCODE_IDLE_SESSION_TIMEOUT to be in
> class 57 and call it good.
I agreed your suggestion and I confirmed your commit.
Thanks!
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
I read the patch and have two points:
1. I do basebackup for database then switch wal level from logical to none to
logical and
of cause I archive the wal segments. Next I do PITR base on the basebackup, as
a result
it success startup with a waring said maybe data missed.
Because the 'none' lev
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 06:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-12-23 14:56:07 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > I want to share an idea I've looked at a few times where I've run into
> > situations where logical slots were inadvertently dropped, or where it
> > became necessary to decode chang
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:47:21 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:08 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Masao-san: Are you intending to act as committer for these? Since the
> > > bug is mine I can look
Hi
In function fetch_table_list, it get the table names from publicer and return a
list of tablenames.
When append the name to the list, it use the following code:
**
nspname = TextDatumGetCString(slot_getattr(slot, 1, &isnull));
Assert(!isnull);
relname = TextDatumGetCSt
On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 at 14:30, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 11:34:16AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay, still nothing has happened after two months. Once this is
> > solved a new patch submission could be done. For now I have marked
> > the entry as returned with feedback.
Thank you for your reply，
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:08 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> No, we can't 'modify the page format as we wish'- if we change away from
> using a C structure then we're going to be modifying quite a bit of
> code which otherwise doesn't need to be changed. The proposed flag
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:13:00PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thanks for you work on this. Looks good.
I have been looking again at this patch again for a couple of hours
this morning to double-check if I have not missed anything, and I
think that we should be in good shape. This still needs
At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:49:53 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:03 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:25:22 +, "k.jami...@fujitsu.com"
> > wrote in:
> > > > Thanks for the detailed tests. NBuffers/32 seems like an appropriate
> > > > value for
At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:09:28 +, "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:52 PM Takayuki/綱川 貴之
> wrote:
> > From: Osumi, Takamichi/大墨 昂道
> > > I updated the patch following this discussion, and fixed the
> > > documentation as well.
> >
> >
> > +
> Also PSA some detailed logging evidence of some test scenarios involving
> Drop/AlterSubscription:
> + Test-20210112-AlterSubscriptionRefresh-ok.txt =
> AlterSubscription_refresh which successfully drops a tablesync slot
> + Test-20210112-AlterSubscriptionRefr
Dear Heikki,
I'm also interested in this patch, but it cannot be applied to the current
HEAD...
$ git apply ~/v2-0001-Make-resowners-more-easily-extensible.patch
error: patch failed: src/common/cryptohash_openssl.c:57
error: src/common/cryptohash_openssl.c: patch does not apply
error: patch fai
At Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:47:21 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:08 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Masao-san: Are you intending to act as committer for these? Since the
> > bug is mine I can look into it, but since you already did all the
> > reviewing work, I'm good with
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:39 AM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The parameter replication_timeout was retired in commit 6f60fdd701 back in
> 2012, but some comments and error messages seem to refer to that old setting
> instead of wal_sender_timeout or wal_receiver_timeout. The attached patch
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:21:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good catch. I'll go fix it tomorrow if nobody objects.
And applied. Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 3:59 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 3:34 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I pushed it with that name, and a couple more cosmetic changes. I'll
> > keep an eye on the build farm.
>
> Since only sifaka has managed to return a result so far (nice CPU), I
> had pl
On 2021-Jan-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think actually the cleanest fix would be to invent ALTER INDEX DETACH
> PARTITION and use that as the dropStmt for the INDEX ATTACH object.
> No idea how painful that would be to do, though. I suppose it'd involve
> reverting the parent index back to an invalid
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:02 AM Simon Riggs
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:39 AM Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:19 PM Ryan Lambert
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Updated v11 with additional docs and some rewording of messages/tests
> > >> to use "system versioning" correctly.
>
Hi Tomas,
On 2021/01/12 20:08, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/12/21 2:57 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 2021/01/09 9:01, Tomas Vondra wrote:
...>
While working on that, I realized that 'defined' might be a bit
ambiguous, I initially thought it means 'NOT NULL' (which it does not).
I propo
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> Hi, this entry is "Waiting on Author" and the thread was inactive for a
>> while. I see this discussion still has some open questions. Are you
>> going to continue working on it, or should I mark it as "returned with
>> feedback" until a better time?
> IMHO the propose
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Jan-12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Since there's no ALTER INDEX DETACH PARTITION, it's not entirely
>> clear what to do about this. We could possibly not emit any
>> dropStmt for partition child indexes, but that seems very likely
>> to cause problems for partial-restore
On 1/12/21 12:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:53AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Uh, what exactly is missing from the beta checklist? I read the patch
>>> and commit message but don't understand it.
>
On 2021-Jan-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> then "pg_dump -n s1 -c mydb >mydb.dump" will emit
>
> ALTER TABLE ONLY s1.at12 DROP CONSTRAINT at12_pkey;
> ALTER TABLE ONLY s1.at11 DROP CONSTRAINT at11_pkey;
> ALTER TABLE ONLY s1.at1 DROP CONSTRAINT at1_pkey;
> DROP TABLE s1.at12;
> DROP TABLE s1.at11;
> DROP
Hi,
The parameter replication_timeout was retired in commit 6f60fdd701 back in
2012, but some comments and error messages seem to refer to that old
setting instead of wal_sender_timeout or wal_receiver_timeout. The attached
patch replaces the old language with more specific references.
--
John N
On 2021-Jan-12, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > For the 0001 patch, since ReindexIndexInfo is used only within
> > ReindexRelationConcurrently() I think it’s a function-local structure
> > type. So we can declare it within the function. What do you think?
>
> That's a good idea. Pushed with that chang
On 2021-Jan-04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:18 PM Hamid Akhtar wrote:
> >
> > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> > make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> > Implements feature: not tested
> > Spec compliant: not test
On 2020-Dec-01, James Coleman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:51 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Makes sense. ISTM that if we want to have a cautionary blurb CIC docs,
> > it should go in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well.
>
> Agreed. Or, alternatively, a blurb something like "Please note how CIC
>
I noticed that pg_dump --clean does not work with partitioned
indexes. Given for instance
create schema s1;
create table s1.at1 (f1 int, f2 int, primary key(f1,f2)) partition by list(f1);
create table s1.at11 partition of s1.at1 for values in(11);
create table s1.at12 partition of s1.at1 for valu
Hi,
On 2021-01-11 20:12:00 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> diff --git a/contrib/bloom/blinsert.c b/contrib/bloom/blinsert.c
> index 32b5d62e1f..d474af753c 100644
> --- a/contrib/bloom/blinsert.c
> +++ b/contrib/bloom/blinsert.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ blbuildempty(Relation index)
>* XLOG_DB
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:44:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > > > Well, we have eight unused bits in the IV, so we coul
Thanks. These patches seem to resolve the TOAST table issue, freezing it
as expected. I think the code duplication is not an issue, but I wonder
why heap_insert uses this condition:
/*
* ...
*
* No need to update the visibilitymap if it had all_frozen bit set
* before th
ne 10. 1. 2021 v 19:52 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
> Hi
>
>
>> I'm thinking of the update path as a kind of implicit schema. JSON is
>> intentionally not bound to any schema on creation, so I don't see a
>> failure to enforce another schema at runtime (and outside the WHERE
>> clause, at tha
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:44:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > > Well, we have eight unused bits in the IV, so we could just increment
> > > that for every hint bit change that uses the same LS
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:44:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Well, we have eight unused bits in the IV, so we could just increment
> > that for every hint bit change that uses the same LSN, and then force a
> > dummy WAL record when that 8-bit count
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:15:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:11:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I don't think there's any doubt that we need to make sure that the IV is
> > distinct and advancing the LSN to get a new one when needed for this
> > case seems like i
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:11:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I think one big question is that, since we are using a streaming cipher,
> > > do we care about hint bit changes showing to users? I actually don't
> > > know. If we do, so
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:11:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I think one big question is that, since we are using a streaming cipher,
> > do we care about hint bit changes showing to users? I actually don't
> > know. If we do, some kind of dummy LSN record might be required, as you
> > sugg
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:26:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The two only things that were not present are the set of checks for
> overflows, and the adjustments for varlena.c. The first point makes
> the code of encode.c safer, as previously the code would issue a FATAL
> *after* writing ou
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:40:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > This says:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Transparent_Data_Encryption#Other_requirements
> > >
> > > wal_log_hints will be enabled auto
On 2021-01-12 13:03:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think one big question is that, since we are using a streaming cipher,
> do we care about hint bit changes showing to users? I actually don't
> know. If we do, some kind of dummy LSN record might be required, as you
> suggested.
That'd lead
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:40:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > This says:
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Transparent_Data_Encryption#Other_requirements
> >
> > wal_log_hints will be enabled automatically in encryption mode.
> >
> > Does that help?
>
> IIUC it h
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:53AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, what exactly is missing from the beta checklist? I read the patch
> > and commit message but don't understand it.
>
> Did you try to use test.sh to upgrade from
On 1/12/21 6:28 PM, John Naylor wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:15 PM Tomas Vondra
mailto:tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com>>
wrote:
> [12-20 version]
Hi Tomas,
The measurements look good. In case it fell through the cracks, my
earlier review comments for Bloom BRIN indexes regarding minor
Although pg_publication_rel entries don't have an owner per se,
it's still important for the ArchiveEntry created for one to be
marked with an appropriate owner, because that is what determines
which role will be used to run the ALTER PUBLICATION command when
doing a restore with --use-set-session-
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:15 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> [12-20 version]
Hi Tomas,
The measurements look good. In case it fell through the cracks, my earlier
review comments for Bloom BRIN indexes regarding minor details don't seem
to have been addressed in this version. I'll point to earlier discu
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:13:52PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they
> > > are
> > > tryin
On 12.01.2021 00:51, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/11/21 10:00 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
On 11.01.2021 01:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
I started looking at this patch again, hoping to get it committed in
this CF, but I think there's a regression in handling TOAST tables
(compared to the v
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:13:52PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I think these patches could use some in-place documentation of what they are
> > trying to achieve and how they do it. The required information is spread
> > over
> 12 янв. 2021 г., в 20:47, Konstantin Knizhnik
> написал(а):
>
>> I think we should come up with an minimal, prelimininary 0001 patch which is
>> common between the 3 compression patches (or at least the two using zstd).
>> The
>> ./configure changes and a compressionlibs struct would also
> 12 янв. 2021 г., в 13:49, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
> What do you think of abandoning slru-truncate-t-insurance entirely? As of
> https://postgr.es/m/20200330052809.gb2324...@rfd.leadboat.com I liked the idea
> behind it, despite its complicating the system for hackers and DBAs. The
> Trunc
> 12 янв. 2021 г., в 18:49, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
>> PFA patch with implementation.
>
> I did a bit of cleanup on the function signature. The .sql script claimed
> that gist_page_items() took bytea as argument, but in reality it was a
> relation name, as text. I changed it so tha
Greetings,
* Neil Chen (carpenter.nail...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:47 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This is an interesting question but ultimately I don't think we should
> > be looking at this from the perspective of allowing arbitrary changes to
> > the page format. The cha
On 12.01.2021 18:38, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:44:43AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 11.01.2021 20:38, Tomas Vondra wrote:
1) Fixes the MSVC makefile. The list of files is sorted alphabetically,
so I've added the file at the end.
Thank you
This is still failing
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:44:43AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 11.01.2021 20:38, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > 1) Fixes the MSVC makefile. The list of files is sorted alphabetically,
> > so I've added the file at the end.
> Thank you
This is still failing the windows build.
I think you need
BTW, just for the archives' sake: inet_client_addr() and
inet_client_port() also access MyProcPort, so they'd also have
this issue, except that they're already marked parallel-restricted.
So somebody just missed the server equivalents when marking the
parallel safety of built-in functions.
contrib
On 2021-Jan-11, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I didn't check the migration history of this code but it seems that
> endlogSegNo doesn't currently have the right scoping to achieve the
> goal of that last comment, so checkpoints finish up repeatedly search
> for the next free slot, starting at the low end
On 2021-Jan-12, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The function comment of RestoreBlockImage() seems not correct since it
> returns a boolean, not the buffer number.
You're right -- this has always been wrong. Pushed your patch.
Thank you!
--
Álvaro Herrera39°49'3
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> While investigating a customer issue it's turned out that if a
> parallel worker executes inet_server_addr() and inet_server_port() the
> results are always null because MyProcPort is not set in parallel
> workers.
Check.
> To fix this issue, I think there are two optio
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:45 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:21 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > > I think this feature can be useful, in case a user has a lot of tables
> > > to publish inside a schema. Having sa
On 12.01.2021 4:20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:53:51PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 09.01.2021 23:31, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I suggest that there should be an enum of algorithms, which is constant across
all servers. They would be unconditionally included and not #
On 1/5/21 11:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> It seems we can make our own, either on-the-fly with caching, or
> hosted somewhere, like this:
>
> https://cirrus-ci.org/guide/docker-builder-vm/#dockerfile-as-a-ci-environment
>
>
OK, I got this working.
There is some weirdness that I had to work
On 10/12/2020 12:16, Andrey Borodin wrote:
9 дек. 2020 г., в 14:47, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
7 дек. 2020 г., в 23:56, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:05 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
Here's version with tests and docs. I still have no idea how to print some
useful informa
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:18 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> > Now, let us see how the tests mentioned by me cover this code. In the
> > first test (check that 2PC gets replicated to subscriber then ROLLBACK
> > PREPARED), we do below on publish
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 3:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:20 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:14 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI, I was able to reproduce this case in debugger. PSA logs showing
> > > details.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for reproducing
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:09 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:32:54AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:23 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Right, or ensure that the actual IV used is distinct (such as by using
> > > another bit in the IV to distingui
Hi,
While investigating a customer issue it's turned out that if a
parallel worker executes inet_server_addr() and inet_server_port() the
results are always null because MyProcPort is not set in parallel
workers. We can reproduce it in all supported versions higher than
9.6. Here is an example:
p
v7 that fixes recent conflicts.
It also changed the behavior of requestor when another requestor is
already working for simplicity.
In this case, v6 patch makes the requestor wait. v7 patch makes the
requestor quit.
Regards,
--
Atsushi TorikoshiFrom f20e48d99f2770bfec275805185aa5ce08661fce Mon
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:55 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:02 PM Hou, Zhijie
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 3.
> > > + /*
> > > +* To build a slot name for the sync work, we are limited to
> > > NAMEDATALEN
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Li Japin wrote:
>> IIUC the logical replication only replicate the tables in publication, I
>> think
>> when the tables that aren't in publication should not be replicated.
>>
>> Attached the patch that fix
Hi Vignesh,
I had a look at the patch, please consider following comments.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This feature adds schema option while creating publication. Users will
> be able to specify one or more schemas while creating publication,
> when the user speci
wrote in
ISTM now that creating pg_stat_statements_xxx views
both for generic andcustom plans is better than my PoC patch.
On my second thought, it also makes pg_stat_statements too complicated
compared to what it makes possible..
I'm also worrying that whether taking generic and custom pla
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Li Japin wrote:
> IIUC the logical replication only replicate the tables in publication, I think
> when the tables that aren't in publication should not be replicated.
>
> Attached the patch that fixes it. Thought?
With that change, we don't get the behaviour that
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:06 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > Here's my analysis:
> > 1) in the publisher, alter publication drop table successfully
> > removes(PublicationDropTables) the table from the catalogue
> > pg_publication_rel
> > 2) in the subscriber, alter subscription refresh publication
> >
On Jan 12, 2021, at 5:47 PM, japin
mailto:japi...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 14:38, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:39 AM Bharath Rupireddy
mailto:bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:05 AM Amit Kapila
mailto:amit.kapil...@g
On 1/12/21 2:57 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 2021/01/09 9:01, Tomas Vondra wrote:
...>
While working on that, I realized that 'defined' might be a bit
ambiguous, I initially thought it means 'NOT NULL' (which it does not).
I propose to change it to 'requested' instead. Tatsuro, do
Hi,
The function comment of RestoreBlockImage() seems not correct since it
returns a boolean, not the buffer number.
/*
* Restore a full-page image from a backup block attached to an XLOG record.
*
* Returns the buffer number containing the page.
*/
bool
RestoreBlockImage(XLogReaderSta
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 8:27 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, this rings a bell. I never went back to it even if the thing
> looks rather clean at quick glance (not tested), but I may be able
> to spend some cycles on that. I don't think that's critical enough
> for a backpatch, so doing someth
Hi,
Attached is the revised patch (v21) to add support for Incremental
Materialized View Maintenance (IVM).
In addition to some typos in the previous enhancement, I fixed a check to
prevent a view from containing an expression including aggregates like
sum(x)/sum(y) in this revision.
Regards,
Yu
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
