On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:43:57AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:12:13 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
- if (ControlFile->st
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 09:49 +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> To prevent the circular recursive problem Vignesh is developing a
> patch [1] that introduces new SUBSCRIPTION options "local_only" (for
> publishing only data originating at the publisher node) and
> "copy_data=force". Using this patch, we ha
Hello Greg,
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:18:01 +0200
Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how to get this feature more attention. Everyone
> agrees it would be a huge help but it's a scary patch to review.
>
> I wonder if it would be helpful to have a kind of "readers guide"
> explanation of
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:29 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I modified mark_async_capable_plan() a bit further; 1) adjusted code
> in the ProjectionPath case, just for consistency with other cases, and
> 2) tweaked/improved comments a bit. Attached is a new version of the
> patch (“prevent-async-2.pat
Thank you for the reviews!
On 2022-04-26 05:19, Nathan Bossart wrote:
- printf(_(" -g, --role=ROLE new role will be a member of
this role\n"));
+ printf(_(" -g, --role=ROLEnew role will be a member of this
role\n"));
This looks lik an unexpected change.
I fixed it.
I'
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:42:04AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a new patch set with these assertions added. I think at least the
> xlog.c change ought to be back-patched. The problem may be unlikely, but
> AFAICT the possible consequences include WAL corruption.
Okay, so I have applie
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:26 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> so I've been looking at tweaking the code so that the behavior matches
> Alvaro's expectations. It passes check-world but I'm not claiming it's
> nowhere near commitable - the purpose is mostly to give better idea of
> how invasive the change
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 12:11 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> Another option might be to abandon this whole no-wait concept and
> revert 2258e76f's changes to xlogutils.c. pg_walinspect already does
> preliminary checks that LSNs are in range, so you can't enter a value
> that will wait indefinitely
At Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:31:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:36:10PM +0800, Rui Zhao wrote:
> >> Do you have interest in adding a test like one in my patch?
>
> > I have studied the test case you are proposing, and I am afraid that
> > it is too
At Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:12:13 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> - if (ControlFile->state == DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY &&
> >> - ControlFile->checkPointCop
At Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:16:01 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:26:09PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:43:53AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >> At Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:33:49 -0700, Nathan Bossart
> >> wrote in
> >>> I suspect we'll sta
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:27 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While reading worker.c, I noticed that the referred SQL command was wrong.
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION instead of ALTER TABLE ... REFRESH
> PUBLICATION. Trivial fix attached.
Pushed, thanks!
--
John Naylor
EDB: ht
Here are my review comments for v10-0002 (TAP tests part only)
FIle: src/test/subscription/t/032_localonly.pl
==
1.
+# Detach node C and clean the table contents.
+sub detach_node_clean_table_data
+{
1a. Maybe say "Detach node C from the node-group of (A, B, C) and
clean the table contents
got it, thanks for the explanation.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao writes:
> > In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
> > already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
> > to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
> >
Hi,
On 2022-04-27 14:08:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > It's been kind of hidden by other buildfarm noise, but
> > 031_recovery_conflict.pl is not as stable as it should be [1][2][3][4].
> > ...
> > I think this is showing us a real bug, ie we sometimes fail to cancel
> > the conflicting
Hi,
On 2022-04-27 10:11:53 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > [ starting a new thread cuz the shared-stats one is way too long ]
> >
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> Add minimal tests for recovery conflict handling.
> >
> > It's been kind of
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 2:16 PM Wang, Wei/王 威 wrote:
>
> Attach the new patches.[suggestions by Amit-San]
> The patch for HEAD:
> 1. Add a new function to get tables info by a publications array.
> The patch for REL14:
> 1. Use an alias to make the statement understandable. BTW, I adjusted the
> ali
Hi,
While reading worker.c, I noticed that the referred SQL command was wrong.
ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION instead of ALTER TABLE ... REFRESH
PUBLICATION. Trivial fix attached.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/worker
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> - if (ControlFile->state == DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY &&
>> - ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo < lastCheckPoint.redo)
>> - {
>> 7ff23c6 has removed the last c
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:22 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> Here's v2 patch (up on Thomas's v1 at [1]) using private_data to set
> the end of the WAL flag. Please have a look at it.
I don't have a strong view on whether it's better to use a NULL error
for this private communication between pg_wal
MULTI-MASTER LOGICAL REPLICATION
1.0 BACKGROUND
Let’s assume that a user wishes to set up a multi-master environment
so that a set of PostgreSQL instances (nodes) use logical replication
to share tables with every other node in the set.
We define this as a multi-master logical replication (MMLR)
Hi,
so I've been looking at tweaking the code so that the behavior matches
Alvaro's expectations. It passes check-world but I'm not claiming it's
nowhere near commitable - the purpose is mostly to give better idea of
how invasive the change is etc.
As described earlier, this abandons the idea of
Here is a patch that adds in NLS.
There are some opportunities to improve this. For example, we could
move the list of languages from the meson.build files into separate
LINGUAS files, which could be shared with the makefile-based build
system. I need to research this a bit more.
Also, thi
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 04:09:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am not sure that have any need to backpatch this change based on the
> unlikeliness of the problem, TBH. One thing that is itching me a bit,
> like Robert upthread, is that we don't check anymore that the newfile
> does not exist
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:26:09PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:43:53AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>>> + ControlFile->minRecoveryPoint = InvalidXLogRecPtr;
>>> + ControlFile->mi
I wrote:
> It's been kind of hidden by other buildfarm noise, but
> 031_recovery_conflict.pl is not as stable as it should be [1][2][3][4].
> ...
> I think this is showing us a real bug, ie we sometimes fail to cancel
> the conflicting query.
After digging around in the code, I think this is almos
> On Apr 27, 2022, at 10:11 AM, Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>
> I'll try again on master
Still with coverage and dtrace enabled, I get the same thing, except that
master formats the logs a bit differently:
# Postmaster PID for node "primary" is 19797
psql::1: ERROR: prepared transaction with
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 13:47 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I found an easy way to reproduce this consistently (I think on any
> server):
>
> I basically generated huge WAL record (I used a fun extension that I
> wrote - https://github.com/BRupireddy/pg_synthesize_wal, but one can
> use pg_logic
> On Apr 27, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ starting a new thread cuz the shared-stats one is way too long ]
>
> Andres Freund writes:
>> Add minimal tests for recovery conflict handling.
>
> It's been kind of hidden by other buildfarm noise, but
> 031_recovery_conflict.pl is not a
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 03:04:23PM +, Wilm Hoyer wrote:
>
> I used the following hack to get the "real" Major and Minor Version of
> Windows - it's in C# (.Net) and needs to be adjusted (you can compile as x64
> and use a long-long as return value ) to return the Service Number too and
> transl
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:13:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:54:35PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > so I'm still on the opinion that we should
> > unconditionally use the FILE_MAP_LARGE_PAGES flag if it's defined and call
> > it a
> > day.
>
> Are we sure that t
[ starting a new thread cuz the shared-stats one is way too long ]
Andres Freund writes:
> Add minimal tests for recovery conflict handling.
It's been kind of hidden by other buildfarm noise, but
031_recovery_conflict.pl is not as stable as it should be [1][2][3][4].
Three of those failures loo
Hi,
>Which Postgres version do you use?
I checked this on PG 11
postgres=# select version();
version
-
Junwang Zhao writes:
> In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
> already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
> to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
I do not think this change is worth making. The point
In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
v1-0001-remove-redundant-check-of-item-pointer.patch
Descr
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:54:35PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I searched a bit and apparently some people are using this function
>> directly opening some dll, which seems wrong.
> I was wondering about this whole business, and the manifest approach is a
> *horrible* design for an API whe
fork: <20220325000933.vgazz7pjk2ytj...@alap3.anarazel.de>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 05:09:33PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-03-24 18:51:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I wonder if we should add these compile flags to the cfbot's setup?
>
> Yes, I think we should. There's a bit of discu
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:44:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?koi8-r?B?8MHO1MDbyc4g4czFy9PBzsTSIOnXwc7P18ne?=
> writes:
> > When I create a new table, and then I evaluate the execution of the SELECT
> > query, I see a strange rows count in EXPLAIN
> > CREATE TABLE test1(f INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT
=?koi8-r?B?8MHO1MDbyc4g4czFy9PBzsTSIOnXwc7P18ne?=
writes:
> When I create a new table, and then I evaluate the execution of the SELECT
> query, I see a strange rows count in EXPLAIN
> CREATE TABLE test1(f INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL);
> ANALYZE test1;
> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM test1;
>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:32 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:15 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Updated patch by changing the syntax to use EXCEPT instead of SKIP.
> Hi
>
>
> This is my review comments on the v2 patch.
>
> (1) gram.y
>
> I think we can make a uni
In function ItemPointerEquals, the ItemPointerGetBlockNumber
already checked the ItemPointer if valid, there is no need
to check it again in ItemPointerGetOffset, so use
ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck instead.
Signed-off-by: Junwang Zhao
---
src/backend/storage/page/itemptr.c | 4 ++--
1 file
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:27 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Apr-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Changing this to behave the way you expect would be quite difficult,
> > > > because at the moment we build a single OR expressio
On 2022-Apr-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > > Changing this to behave the way you expect would be quite difficult,
> > > because at the moment we build a single OR expression from all the row
> > > filters. We'd have to keep the individual ex
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 21:08, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Which Postgres version do you use?
3d351d91 changed things so we could tell the difference between a
relation which was analyzed and is empty vs a relation that's never
been analyzed. That's why you're not seeing the same behaviour as the
OP.
> 27 апр. 2022 г., в 15:17, Пантюшин Александр Иванович
> написал(а):
>
> Hi,
> >Which Postgres version do you use?
> I checked this on PG 11
> ...
> and on PG 13
Yes, I think before 3d351d91 it was impossible to distinguish between actually
empty and never analyzed table.
But now it is wo
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Apr-26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > I'm not quite sure which of the two behaviors is more "desirable". In a
> > way, it's somewhat similar to publish_as_relid, which is also calculated
> > not considering which of the row filters matc
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> > >
> > > I've now done several runs with your patch and not seen the test failure.
> > > However, I think we ought to rethink this API a bit rather than just
> > > apply the patch as-is. Even if it were documented, relying on
> > > error
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 12:56 PM From: Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:00 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/25/22 17:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > The desired result on subscriber is:
> > >
> > > table uno;
> > > a │ b │ c
> > > ┼───┼───
> > > 1 │ 2 │
> > >
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 05:55 Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please keep the list in copy, especially if that's about Windows specific
> as
> I'm definitely not very knowledgeable about it.
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 09:18:03AM +, Wilm Hoyer wrote:
> >
> > If you don't wanna go the manifest w
On 2022-Apr-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:00 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > I can take a stab at it, but it seems strange to not apply the same
> > logic to evaluation of publish_as_relid.
>
> Yeah, the current behavior seems to be consistent with what we already
> do.
Sorry
On 2022-Apr-26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm not quite sure which of the two behaviors is more "desirable". In a
> way, it's somewhat similar to publish_as_relid, which is also calculated
> not considering which of the row filters match?
I grepped doc/src/sgml for `publish_as_relid` and found no hit
Hi!
> 26 апр. 2022 г., в 13:45, Пантюшин Александр Иванович
> написал(а):
>
> When I create a new table, and then I evaluate the execution of the SELECT
> query, I see a strange rows count in EXPLAIN
> CREATE TABLE test1(f INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL);
> ANALYZE test1;
> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 8:57 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 8:45 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> > > Thomas Munro writes:
> > >> BTW If you had your local change from debug.patch (upthread), that'd
> > >> defeat the patch. I mean this:
> >
> > >> +if(!*err
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:54:35PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I searched a bit and apparently some people are using this function directly
> opening some dll, which seems wrong.
I was wondering about this whole business, and the manifest approach
is a *horrible* design for an API where the goa
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:16:13PM +0800, Zhao Rui wrote:
> In function CreateRestartPoint, control file is updated and old wals are
> removed. But in some situations, control file is not updated, old wals are
> still removed. Thus produces an invalid checkpoint with nonexistent wal.
> Crucial l
When I create a new table, and then I evaluate the execution of the SELECT
query, I see a strange rows count in EXPLAIN
CREATE TABLE test1(f INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL);
ANALYZE test1;
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM test1;
QUERY PLAN
Newly promoted primary may leave an invalid checkpoint.
In function CreateRestartPoint, control file is updated and old wals are
removed. But in some situations, control file is not updated, old wals are
still removed. Thus produces an invalid checkpoint with nonexistent wal.
Crucial log: "inva
On 22.04.22 16:18, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 20.04.22 18:53, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that's another way to do it. I think though that the unresolved
question is whether or not we want the field name to appear in the output
when the field is null. I believe that I intentionall
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 01:09:35PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is an attempt at creating something that can be back-patched. 0001
> simply replaces calls to durable_rename_excl() with durable_rename() and is
> intended to be back-patched. 0002 removes the definition of
> durable_rename_ex
59 matches
Mail list logo
