On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 03:36:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - gettext_noop("Forces a switch to the next WAL file if a
> "
> - "new file has not been started
> within N seconds."),
> + gettext_noop("Sets th
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:22:30PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> It seems like there's a following typo in code comments:
> - /* determine how many segments slots can be kept by slots */
> + /* determine how many segments can be kept by slots */
>
> Attaching a tiny patch to fix it. This typo
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:58:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + ver >= 905 AND ver <= 1300 AS oldpgversion_95_13,
> + ver >= 906 AND ver <= 1300 AS oldpgversion_96_13,
> + ver >= 906 AND ver <= 1000 AS oldpgversion_96_10,
> So here, we have the choice between conditions that play with ve
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:03:06 -0300
Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> >
> > > 2138: Incremental Materialized View Maintenance
> >
> > I've responded to it in the following thread, and described the recent
> > discussions,
> > current status, summary of IVM feature and design, and past discussions.
> >
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 9:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:13 AM Bossart, Nathan
> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/30/21, 6:14 AM, "Peter Eisentraut" <
> peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > > On 23.11.21 06:09, Bharath Rupireddy w
Hi,
I recently did a small experiment to see how one can create extensions
properly in HA(primary-standby) setup.
Here are my findings:
1) ALTER SYSTEM SET or GUC(configuration parameters) settings are not
replicated to standby.
2) CREATE EXTENSION statements are replicated to standby.
3) If the
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:37 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 4:48 PM Amit Kapila
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote
> > wr
Hi,
It seems like there's a following typo in code comments:
- /* determine how many segments slots can be kept by slots */
+ /* determine how many segments can be kept by slots */
Attaching a tiny patch to fix it. This typo exists all the way until PG 13.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
v1-0001-f
> 30 нояб. 2021 г., в 17:19, Simon Riggs
> написал(а):
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 11:25, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pengcheng!
>>
>> You are solving important problem, thank you!
>>
>>> 30 авг. 2021 г., в 13:43, Pengchengliu написал(а):
>>>
>>> To resolve this performance problem, w
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 8:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> 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.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:17 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review and many valuable comments, I have fixed all of
> them except this comment (/* If we got a cancel signal during the copy
> of the data, quit */) because this looks fine to me. 0007, I have
> dropped from the patchset fo
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 1:23 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > If so, the result from the second check_sql is unstable and it's
> > > probably better to check the result only
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:09 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 30 Nov 2021, at 08:00, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > The attached patch updates the code comment which is no longer true
> > after commit # 4a92a1c3d1c361ffb031ed05bf65b801241d7cdd
>
> Agreed, but looking at this shouldn't we also tweak th
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:09 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 12:13:08PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > Thanks. Here's the v5.
> >
> > By the way, one thing that I completely forgot here is that SIGINT i
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:34 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:10 PM Greg Nancarrow
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 1:36 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This v7 uses v26 of skip xid patch [1]
> > This patch no longer applies on
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:13 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 11/30/21, 6:14 AM, "Peter Eisentraut"
> wrote:
> > On 23.11.21 06:09, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >> The replication slots data is stored in binary format on the disk under
> >> the pg_replslot/<> directory which isn't human readable.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 4:42 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
>
> Thanks again for working on that.
>
> > Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
> >
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have a question about the testc
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a question about the testcase (I could be wrong here).
> > >
> > > Is it possible that the race
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 30, 2021 9:39 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we someway check that the error message also starts with
> > > > > "duplicate key value v
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 11:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 30, 2021 9:39 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we someway check that the error message also starts with
> > > > > "duplicate key value viol
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tues, Nov 30, 2021 9:39 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > > Shouldn't we someway check that the error message also starts with
> > > > "duplicate key value violates ..."?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think it's a good idea to make the
On Tues, Nov 30, 2021 9:39 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:41 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C
> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have pushed this patch and there is
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:55 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, at 7:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > What about the initial table sync? during that, we are going to
> > combine all the filters or we are going to apply only th
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 03:17:07PM +, Asif Rehman wrote:
> The patch applies cleanly and the functionality seems to work well. (master
> e7122548a3)
>
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
+ else if (Matches("DROP", "MATERIALIZED", "VIEW", MatchAny))
+ COMPLETE_WITH(
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:17 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review and many valuable comments, I have fixed all of
> them except this comment (/* If we got a cancel signal during the copy
> of the data, quit */) because this looks fine to me. 0007, I have
> dropped from the patchset fo
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:54 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:58:15PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > The main objections as I recall are that it is much harder for simple
> backup
> > scripts and commercial backup integrations to hold a connection to
> postgres
> > open and
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:09 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I believe that there have been several historic reasons why we need a
> cleanup lock during nbtree VACUUM, and that there is only one
> remaining reason for it today. So the history is unusually complicated.
Minor correction: we actually al
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, at 7:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > What about the initial table sync? during that, we are going to
> > combine all the filters or we are going to apply only the insert
> > filters?
> >
>
> AFAIK, currently, initial ta
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:26 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 4 нояб. 2021 г., в 20:58, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
> > That's a pretty unlikely scenario. And even
> > if it happened it would only happen once (until the next time we get
> > unlucky). What are the chances of somebody noticing a more or
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:58:15PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> The main objections as I recall are that it is much harder for simple backup
> scripts and commercial backup integrations to hold a connection to postgres
> open and write the backup label separately into the backup.
I don't quite und
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:33 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:47 AM Andy Fan wrote:
> >> my exception should be that the relcache should not be invalidated
> _after the first relation open_
> >> in the executor (not the beginning of executorRun)。
> >
> > s/exception/expectation.
In commit 276db875, I made vacuumlazy.c consistently use the term
"cleanup lock", rather than the term "super-exclusive lock". But on
further reflection I should have gone further, and removed the term
"super-exclusive lock" from the tree completely. The actual relevant C
symbols only use the term
On 11/30/21, 2:58 PM, "David Steele" wrote:
> I did figure out how to keep the safe part of exclusive backup (not
> having to maintain a connection) while removing the dangerous part
> (writing backup_label into PGDATA), but it was a substantial amount of
> work and I felt that it had little chanc
On 11/30/21 17:26, Tom Lane wrote:
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
It looks like the exclusive way has been marked deprecated in all
supported versions along with a note that it will eventually be
removed. If it's not going to be removed out of fear of breaking
backward compatibility, I think the do
On 11/30/21, 2:27 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> If we're willing to outright remove it, I don't have any great objection.
> My original two cents was that we shouldn't put effort into improving it;
> but removing it isn't that.
I might try to put a patch together for the January commitfest, given
there
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> It looks like the exclusive way has been marked deprecated in all
> supported versions along with a note that it will eventually be
> removed. If it's not going to be removed out of fear of breaking
> backward compatibility, I think the documentation should be updated
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 9:34 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> 3) Can a user remove the row filter without removing the table from
> the publication after creating the publication or should the user drop
> the table and add the table in this case?
>
AFAIK to remove an existing filter use ALTER PUBLICATION
On 11/30/21, 9:51 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> I disagree that that’s a satisfactory approach. It certainly wasn’t
> intended or documented as part of the original feature and therefore
> to call it satisfactory strikes me quite strongly as revisionist
> history.
It looks like the exclusive way
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:35:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:12:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Interesting. I can probably adjust my MUA to send "text/x-patch",
> >> but I'll have to look around to see where that's determined.
>
> > I would b
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:12:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Interesting. I can probably adjust my MUA to send "text/x-patch",
>> but I'll have to look around to see where that's determined.
> I would be interesting to know if "text/x-patch" is better than
> "text/x-diff"
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:12:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Nancarrow writes:
> > After a bit of investigation, it seems that patch attachments (like
> > yours) with a Context-Type of "text/x-diff" download through Gmail in
> > CRLF format for me (I'm running a browser on Windows, but my Post
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 17:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think it would be better to do it before we allow subscription
> owners to be non-superusers.
There are a couple other things to consider before allowing non-
superusers to create subscriptions anyway. For instance, a non-
superuser shouldn
On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 15:32 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Where does that leave us with what Jonathan is suggesting though? For
> my 2c, we shouldn't allow 'map=' to be used for scram or md5 because
> it'll just confuse users, until and unless we actually do the PGAUTHUSER
> thing and then we can
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:01 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Behaviour that lead to a "sudden" falling over, rather than getting
> > gradually
> > worse are bad - they somehow tend to happen on Friday evenings :).
>
> These are among our most important challenges IMV.
I haven't had time to work th
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
Thanks again for working on that.
> Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
> lazyvacuum.c where we can change "dead tuples” to "dead items”:
>
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:47 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>> my exception should be that the relcache should not be invalidated _after
>> the first relation open_
>> in the executor (not the beginning of executorRun)。
>
> s/exception/expectation.
>
> To be more accurate, my expectation is for a single sql
OK,
I've polished the last version of the patch a bit (added a regression
test with update of attribute in index predicate and docs about the new
flag into indexam.sgml) and pushed.
I wonder if we could/should improve handling of index predicates. In
particular, it seems to me we could simpl
On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 15:44 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > Speaking of IP addresses in SANs, it doesn't look like our OpenSSL
> > backend can handle those. That's a separate conversation, but I might
> > take a look at a patch for next commitfest.
>
> Please do.
Didn't get around to it for N
On 11/30/21, 6:14 AM, "Peter Eisentraut"
wrote:
> On 23.11.21 06:09, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>> The replication slots data is stored in binary format on the disk under
>> the pg_replslot/<> directory which isn't human readable. If
>> the server is crashed/down (for whatever reasons) and unable t
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:47 Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 09:20 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
> wrote:
Hi
The flags for calling the CreateFile function have been changed.
Victor Spirin
Postgres Professional:http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
05.07.2021 16:53, Victor Spirin пишет:
Hi
I used the SetFileInformationByHandle function with the
FILE_RENAME_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS f
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 09:20 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
> > > > If we are keeping it then why not make it better?
> >
> > > Well, no
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:09 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have pushed this patch and there is a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:33 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for all the review comments so far! We are endeavouring to keep
> > pace with them.
> >
> > All feedback is being tracked and we will fix and/or reply to everything
> > ASAP
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
The patch applies cleanly and the functionality seems to work wel
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
> >> If we are keeping it then why not make it better?
>
> > Well, non-exclusive backups are better by design in many aspects, so I
> > don't
On 23.11.21 06:09, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
The replication slots data is stored in binary format on the disk under
the pg_replslot/<> directory which isn't human readable. If
the server is crashed/down (for whatever reasons) and unable to come up,
currently there's no way for the user/admin/de
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I have pushed this patch and there is a buildfarm failure for it. See:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bi
> On 27 Nov 2021, at 14:55, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> ISTM the worst case is that there will be undetected unused variables in
> Windows-only code. I guess that would mostly be detected by Msys systems
> running gcc.
Yes, that should be caught there. I've applied this now together with the
remova
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 11:25, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> Hi Pengcheng!
>
> You are solving important problem, thank you!
>
> > 30 авг. 2021 г., в 13:43, Pengchengliu написал(а):
> >
> > To resolve this performance problem, we think about a solution which cache
> > SubtransSLRU to local cache.
> >
On Monday, November 29, 2021 2:38 PM vignesh C
> Thanks for the updated patch, Few comments:
Thank you for your review !
> 1) Since this function is used only from 027_disable_on_error and not used by
> others, this can be moved to 027_disable_on_error:
> +sub wait_for_subscriptions
> +{
> +
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 17:39, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> So +1 to just get this committed, as it is.
This is a real issue affecting Postgres users. Please commit this soon.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:10 PM Greg Nancarrow
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 1:36 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > This v7 uses v26 of skip xid patch [1]
> This patch no longer applies on the latest source.
> Also, the patch is missing an update to doc/src/sgml/catalogs.s
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:56 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 09:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The first reason is that way it would be consistent with what we can
> > see while doing the operations from the backend.
>
> Logical replication is not interactive, so it doesn't seem
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:52 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 08:26 -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> > > I agree that if we want to do all of this then that would require a
> > > lot of changes. However, giving an error for RLS-enabled tables
> > > might
> > > also be too restrictive.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
>
> I have pushed this patch and there is a buildfarm failure for it. See:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sidewinder&dt=2021-11-30%2005%3A05%3A25
>
> Sawada-San
> On 30 Nov 2021, at 00:16, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2021, at 23:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Otherwise I think it's good to go, so I marked it RFC.
>
> Great! I'll take another look over it tomorrow and will go ahead with it
> then.
I applied your nitpick diff and took it for another
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:33 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:22 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for all the review comments so far! We are endeavouring to keep
> > pace with them.
> >
> > All feedback is being tracked and we will fix and/or reply to everything
> > ASAP
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > We can try that way but I think we should still be able to combine in
> > > many cases like where all the operations are specified for
> > > publications having the table or maybe pubactions are same. So, we
> > > should not give up on
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:26 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 8:40 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it is a good idea to combine the row
Thanks for everyone's insight so far!
my exception should be that the relcache should not be invalidated _after
> the first relation open_
> in the executor (not the beginning of executorRun)。
>
>
s/exception/expectation.
To be more accurate, my expectation is for a single sql statement, after
> On 30 Nov 2021, at 08:00, Amul Sul wrote:
> The attached patch updates the code comment which is no longer true
> after commit # 4a92a1c3d1c361ffb031ed05bf65b801241d7cdd
Agreed, but looking at this shouldn't we also tweak the comment on
RecoveryInProgress() as per the attached v2 diff?
--
Dan
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
I have pushed this patch and there is a buildfarm failure for it. See:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sidewinder&dt=2021-11-30%2005%3A05%3A25
Sawada-San has shared his initial analysis on pgsql-committers [1] and
I am r
Hi, Michael
Thank you for your attention!
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 17:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm. Why should we care about invalid indexes at all, including
> pg_statio_all_indexes?
>
I think we should care about them at least because they are exists and
can consume resources. For exa
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 05:04:29PM +0300, Andrei Zubkov wrote:
> However it is possible that the TOAST table will have more than one
> index. For example, this happens when REINDEX CONCURRENTLY operation
> lefts an index in invalid state (indisvalid = false) due to some kind
> of a failure. It's of
Le mar. 30 nov. 2021 à 00:25, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge writes:
> > Le lun. 29 nov. 2021 à 22:27, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> I'm checking it in HEAD though; perhaps there's something else wrong
> >> in the back branches?
>
> > That's also what I was thinking. I was only trying with v1
77 matches
Mail list logo
