On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 9:28 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 6:51 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 2:25 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 11:41 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> >
>
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 3:18 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jun-19, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Thanks for looking so far. It's the weekend here and I need to
> > unplug, but I'll test these changes and if all looks good push on
> > Monday.
>
> Surely not the same day as the beta stamp...
Becaus
On Saturday, June 19, 2021 6:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 2:25 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 18, 2021 11:41 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
>
> > > Simon, I appreciate your suggestions and yes, if the user catalog
> > > table is r
On 2021-Jun-19, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks for looking so far. It's the weekend here and I need to
> unplug, but I'll test these changes and if all looks good push on
> Monday.
Surely not the same day as the beta stamp...
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
"Always assume the user will d
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> I also don't feel comfortable hurrying with unnest part to beta2.
> According to the open items wiki page, there should be beta3. Does
> unnest part have a chance for beta3?
Hm. I'd prefer to avoid another forced initdb after beta2. On the
other hand, it's entirely
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > Patch successfully passed commitfest.cputube.org. I'm going to
> > re-push it if there are no objections.
>
> I'm still not happy about the way you've done the multirange-to-array
> part. I think we'd be better off
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 07:14:16AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> Recycling and preallocation are wasteful during archive recovery, because
> KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() unlinks every entry in its path. I propose to
> fix the race by adding an XLogCtl flag indicating which regime currently owns
> th
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> It occurred to me that this could be made better by sigstopping both
> walreceiver and walsender, then letting only the latter run; AFAICS this
> makes the test stable. I'll register this on the upcoming commitfest to
> let cfbot run it, and if it looks g
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> Patch successfully passed commitfest.cputube.org. I'm going to
> re-push it if there are no objections.
I'm still not happy about the way you've done the multirange-to-array
part. I think we'd be better off improving the polymorphism rules so
that that can be handle
> On Jun 19, 2021, at 7:44 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> Wouldn't the user rather skip just the problematic rows? I understand that
> on the subscriber side it is difficult to do so, but if you are going to
> implement this sort of thing, it makes more sense to allow the user to filter
> out
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Well, if we do want docs for these macros, then IMO it'd be okay to have
>> them in libpq-fe.h itself rather than SGML. A one-line comment for each
>> would suffice:
> WFM. I'd sort of supposed that the symbol names were self-documenting,
> but you're right
> On Jun 19, 2021, at 3:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Right, but there are things that could be common from the design
> perspective.
I went to reconcile my patch with that from [1] only to discover there is no
patch on that thread. Is there one in progress that I can see?
I don't mind try
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:07 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> if (error != LLVMErrorSuccess)
>> LLVMOrcDisposeMaterializationUnit(mu);
>>
>> +#if LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR > 12
>> + for (int i = 0; i < LookupSetSize; i++)
>> + LLVMOrcRetainSymbolStringPoolEntry(symbo
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:56:42 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote in
> > On 2021-Jun-17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see a call to hash_*seq*_search there. Instead, I see one in
> > > ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit().
> >
> > D
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 1:06 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2021, at 9:47 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > We are also discussing another action like skipping the apply of the
> > transaction on an error [1]. I think it is better to evaluate both the
> > proposals as one seems to be an extensio
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:25 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 15:19 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I don't think the message is neded, but I don't oppose it as far as
> > the level is LOG and the messages were changed as something like
> > this:
> >
> >
> > - elog(
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 2:25 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 11:41 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > Simon, I appreciate your suggestions and yes, if the user catalog table is
> > referenced by the output plugin, it can be another cause of the deadl
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:07 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> if (error != LLVMErrorSuccess)
> LLVMOrcDisposeMaterializationUnit(mu);
>
> +#if LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR > 12
> + for (int i = 0; i < LookupSetSize; i++)
> + LLVMOrcRetainSymbolStringPoolEntry(symbols[i].N
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I thought it was cheap enough to check that the relation we open is an
> > index, because if it is not, we'll segfault when accessing fields of the
> > relation->rd_index struct. I wouldn't necessarily advocate doing any
> > really expen
19 matches
Mail list logo
