On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:22:11AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> I think for parsing we use getopt_long(), as per that if you use the
>> prefix of the string and that is not conflicting with any other option
>> then that is allowed. So --
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:04:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have not check the performance implication of that with a micro
> benchmark or the like, but I can get behind 0001 on consistency
> grounds between the backend and the frontend.
/* Now create pg_control */
InitControlFile
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:01 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > Do you mean to say that we should give an error on Update/Delete if any
> > > > of the
> > > > publications contain table rowfilter that has columns that are not part
> > > > o
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 01:55:46PM +0900, Ken Kato wrote:
> I noticed that there are some tab completions missing for the following
> commands:
> -ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES: missing FOR USER
FOR ROLE is an equivalent. That does not seem mandatory to me.
> -ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER: missing NO H
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f..
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:46:35AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Thanks. Here's the v3 patch, a much simpler one. Please review it.
+ pqsignal(SIGINT, SignalHandlerForTermination);
+ pqsignal(SIGTERM, SignalHandlerForTermination);
+ pqsignal(SIGQUIT, SignalHandlerForTermination);
FWIW, I
Here is how it can be reproduced.
create table point_tbl (f1 point);
insert into point_tbl(f1) values ('(5.1, 34.5)');
insert into point_tbl(f1) values (' ( Nan , NaN ) ');
analyze;
create index gpointind on point_tbl using gist (f1);
set enable_seqscan to on;
set enable_indexscan to off;
# sel
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
> Is there a plan in place to remove the exclusive backup option from the
> core in PG 15/16?
This was discussed, but removing it could also harm users relying on
it. Perhaps it could be revisited, but I am not sure if this
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > >
> > > When researching and writing a top-
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >
> > When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> > I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm f
Hi hackers,
I noticed that there are some tab completions missing for the following
commands:
-ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES: missing FOR USER
-ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER: missing NO HANDLER, NO VALIDATOR
-ALTER SEQUENCE: missing AS
-ALTER VIEW: no completion after ALTER COLUMN column_name
-ALTER TR
Greg Nancarrow writes:
> AFAICS, the fundamental difference here seems to be that the GCC
> compiler still regards a variable as "unused" if it is never read,
> whereas if the variable is set (but not necessarily read) that's
> enough for the Windows C compiler to regard it as "used".
It depends.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> To silence the warnings in the meantime (if the rework at all happens) we
> should either apply the patch from Greg or add C4101 to disablewarnings in
> src/tools/msvc/Project.pm as mentioned above. On top of that, we should apply
> th
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:42 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
> >> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
>
> > I don't know what is the cor
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:16 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Based on this direction, I tried to write a top up POC patch(0005) which I'd
> like to share.
>
I noticed a minor issue.
In the top-up patch, the following error message detail:
+ errdetail("Not all row filter columns are not par
On 2021-11-17 22:44, Ekaterina Sokolova wrote:
Hi!
You forgot my last fix to build correctly on Mac. I have added it.
Thanks for the notification!
Since the patch could not be applied to the HEAD anymore, I also updated
it.
About our discussion of pg_query_state:
torikoshia писал 2021-11
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first.
>
> It's possible the table is published in two publicat
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 7:10 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 4:57 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote
> > >
> > > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > > master, though it also appears to
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 8:00 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the way you are doing I think it is bound to happen. There is
>> some discussion about why this is happening in email [2]. AFAIK, it is
>> not documented and if so, I think it will be a good idea to document
>>
> And my problem rema
Thanks Michael!
This is a known issue with exclusive backups, which is a reason why
> non-exclusive backups have been implemented. pg_basebackup does that,
> and using "false" as the third argument of pg_start_backup() would
> have the same effect. So I would recommend to switch to that.
>
Is t
On Friday, November 26, 2021 9:30 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Indeed. Attached an updated patch. Thanks!
Thanks for your patch. A small comment:
+ OID of the relation that the worker is synchronizing; null for the
+ main apply worker
Should we modify it to "OID of the relation t
On Thursday, November 25, 2021 4:57 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote
> >
> > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > master, though it also appears to apply to 13 and 14 branches.
> >
>
> I think we can for publish_via_partit
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:06 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thur, Nov 25, 2021 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Changed. I've removed first_error
Hi,
It's great you posted a new version of this patch, so I took a look a
brief look at it. The code seems in pretty good shape, I haven't found
any real issues - just two minor comments:
This seems a bit strange:
#define DEFAULT_DECODE_BUFFER_SIZE 0x1
Why not to define this as a simple
I wrote:
> However, this seems too forgiving:
... also, I don't know if you intended this already, but the
VerifyOverwriteContrecord change should only be applied in
back branches. There's no need for it in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
>> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
> I don't know what is the correct value for a record that comes exactly
> after the page he
On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 09:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't it be better to just check if the current user is superuser
> before applying each change as a matter of this first patch? Sorry, I
> was under impression that first, we want to close the current gap
> where we allow to proceed with repl
On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>
> > The problem is that the bug occurs while writing the WAL record. Fixed
> > servers won't produce such records, but if you run an unpatched server
> > and it happens to write one, without a mitigation you cannot get away
> > from FAT
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, why? The fix should remove the problem, and if it doesn't, we're
>> still looking at inconsistent WAL aren't we?
> The problem is that the bug occurs while writing the WAL record. Fixed
> servers won't produce such records, but if
On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
> > system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
> > if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
>
> Uh, why? The fix should remove the
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
> system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
> if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
Uh, why? The fix should remove the problem, and if it doesn't, we're
still looki
Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Entristecido, Wutra
On 2021-Nov-25, Amul Sul wrote:
> In XLogReadRecord(), both the variables being compared have
> inconsistency in the assignment -- one gets assigned from
> state->currRecPtr where other is from RecPtr.
>
> .
> state->overwrittenRecPtr = state->currRecPtr;
> .
> state->abortedRecPtr = RecP
Hi Peter,
0001
-/* we no longer allow unary minus in numbers.
- * instead we pass it separately to parser. there it gets
- * coerced via doNegate() -- Leon aug 20 1999
+/*
+ * Numbers
+ *
+ * Unary minus is not part of a number here. Instead we pass it
separately to
+ * parser, and there it gets
> On Nov 24, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> Another option we might consider is only checking for the
> HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY bit instead of everything in
> HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY. IIUC everything else is only expected to
> happen for upgrades from v9.2 or earlier, so it might
On 11/24/21 22:57, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Which things does it break exactly?
> -Bsymbolic causes symbols that are defined and referenced within one shared
> library to use that definition. E.g. if a shared lib has a function
> "do_something()" and some of its code calls do_something(), you ca
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
> > bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
> > trailing id
"Given the size of toasted data, the overhead is unlikely to be a
significant overhead. It's much more an issue for the main table, where
narrow rows are common."
Completely agree, row size should not be a big concern for toast tables.
However write amplification will happen with vacuum freeze wh
>
> The reason is after an upgrade, there won't be any data in
> pg_subscription_rel, and only when you tried to refresh it is trying
> to sync again which leads to the "duplicate key value ..." problem you
> are seeing.
>
> So, is pg_upgrade populating pg_subscription and not pg_subscription_rel ?
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first.
>
> It's possible the table is published in two publications A and B, publication
> A
> only publish "insert" , pu
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:13 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> A publication for all tables was running fine, Master is a PostgreSQL 11.11.
> Replica was running version 13 (don´t remember minor version).
>
> Then we tried to update only subscriber server, nothing was done on master
> side.
>
> Then
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 1:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 6:51 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 23, 2021 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:29 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tues, Nov 23, 2021 2:27 PM vign
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:49 AM Joshua Brindle
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:46 AM Joshua Brindle
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 6:59 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23 Nov 2021, at 23:39, Joshua Brindle
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It no longer happens with v49,
> 17 нояб. 2021 г., в 16:33, Daniel Gustafsson написал(а):
>
>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 08:27, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I couldn't understand patch number 2 "Remove DEBUG1 verification". It
>> seems like something rather useful.
Emre, thanks for the review! And sorry for this delay.
On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
trailing identifier parts without whitespace in between, as discussed.
Maybe I should split that into incremental p
On Thur, Nov 25, 2021 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Changed. I've removed first_error_time as per discussion on the
> > > thread for adding xact stats.
> > >
> >
> >
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:08 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated version patch. Unless I miss something, all
> > comments I got so far have been incorporated into this patch. Please
> > review it.
> >
>
> Only a
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right. I've fixed this issue and atta
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Changed. I've removed first_error_time as per discussion on the thread
> > for adding xact stats.
> >
>
> We also agreed to change the column names to start with last_error_*
> [1
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 3:49 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all. Here's the v1 patch set for the new extension pg_walinspect.
> > Note that I didn't include the documentation part now, I will be doing it a
> > bit later.
> >
> > Please feel free to review and provide your thoughts.
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > master, though it also appears to apply to 13 and 14 branches.
>
> I think we can for publish_via_partition_root,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached an updated version patch. Unless I miss something, all
> comments I got so far have been incorporated into this patch. Please
> review it.
>
Only a couple of minor points:
src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c
(1) pgstat_get_sub
> On 22 Nov 2021, at 16:06, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> .. but see
>> https://postgr.es/m/cah2-wznwwu+9on9nzcnztk7ua238mctgpxyr1ty7u_msn5z...@mail.gmail.com
>> where this was already discussed. I think if we're going to workaround
>> PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY not actually worki
A publication for all tables was running fine, Master is a PostgreSQL
11.11. Replica was running version 13 (don´t remember minor version).
Then we tried to update only subscriber server, nothing was done on master
side.
Then we did ...
- installed postgresql-14.
- configured postgresql.conf to b
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:07 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 7:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Patch details:
> > 0001 to 0006 implements an approach1
> > 0007 removes the code of pg_class scanning and adds the directory scan.
> >
>
> I had a scan through the patches, though
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
One very minor comment:
conflict can be move
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:43 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > > Looking at the proposed API from the initial email, I like that there's
> > > both stats functionality and WAL record inspection functionality
> > > (similar to pg_waldum
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > So yeah, documenting the ATTACH issue as a limitation sounds like the
> > > best course for now. I might word it as foll
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > So yeah, documenting the ATTACH issue as a limitation sounds like the
> > best course for now. I might word it as follows and add it under
> > Notes at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/cu
59 matches
Mail list logo
