On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached an updated patch, please review it.
>
Thanks for your patch. Here are some comments for the REL14-v1 patch.
1.
+ Sizesz = sizeof(TransactionId) * nxacts;;
There is a redundant semicolon at the end.
On 7/14/22 17:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2022-07-08 Fr 16:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2022-07-08 Fr 16:03, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Hi,
Attached are a few small changes to the JSON_TABLE section in func.sgml.
The first two changes are simple typos.
Then there was this line:
context_item
On Friday, July 15, 2022 11:41 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:21:30AM +, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Sounds good. I grepped ATExecXXX() functions called in ATExecCmd(),
> > and I confirmed that all returned values have been collected except them.
> >
>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:19, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Pushed, after going through the patch once more, running check-world
> under valgrind, and updating the commit message.
I'm still working in this area and I noticed that db0d67db2 updated
some regression tests in partition_aggregate.out without
Dear Jelte,
I like your idea. But do we have to sort randomly even if target_session_attr
is set to 'primary' or 'read-write'?
I think this parameter can be used when all listed servers have same data,
and we can assume that one of members is a primary and others are secondary.
In this case use
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> (Someday we oughta go ahead and make our Windows signal API look more
> like POSIX, as I suggested back in 2015. I'm still not taking
> point on that, though.)
For the sigprocmask() part, here's a patch that passes CI. Only the
SIG_SETMASK case
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 03:59:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please note that patch authors should not switch a patch as RfC by
> themselves. This is something that a reviewer should do.
This patch has been marked as waiting for a review, however the CF bot
is completely red:
http://commitf
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:21:30AM +, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Sounds good. I grepped ATExecXXX() functions called in ATExecCmd(),
> and I confirmed that all returned values have been collected except them.
>
> While checking test code test about EVENT TRIGGER,
> I found there were n
Hi,
> > I noticed that we didn't collect the ObjectAddress returned by
> > ATExec[Attach|Detach]Partition. I think collecting this information can
> > make it
> > easier for users to get the partition OID of the attached or detached table
> > in
> > the event trigger. So how about collecting it
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 5:58 PM Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> I noticed that we didn't collect the ObjectAddress returned by
> ATExec[Attach|Detach]Partition. I think collecting this information can make
> it
> easier for users to get the partition OID of the attached or detached table
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 10:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> for non-Assert builds, ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck() and
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber() are the same, so I don't see the point to
> making this change. Frankly, I don't know why we even have two
> functions for this. I am guessing ItemPo
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 2:41 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:55:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > The/that inconsistency ... choose one. Or actually, the "an ... the"
> > > combination you used elsewhere doesn't grate on the ear either.
> > >
> > > + For each exten
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 08:02:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Precondition" is an overly fancy word that makes things less clear
> not more so. Does it mean that setting wal_level = minimal will fail
> if you don't do these other things, or does it just mean that you
> won't be getting the absolute
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 04:07:32PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have observed that the table naming conventions used in
> 'progress-reporting.html' are not consistent across different
> sections. For some cases "Phases" (Table 28.37. CREATE INDEX Phases)
> is used and for some cases "pha
Hi,
I had missed David's original email on this topic...
On 2022-07-14 18:58:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 04:40:44PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > The new cumulative stats subsystem no longer has a "lost under heavy load"
> > problem so that parenthetical should
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Even in an assert-enabled build, wouldn't you expect the compiler to
> optimize away the second assertion as unreachable code?
I think that it probably would, even at -O0 (GCC doesn't really allow
you to opt out of all optimizations). I did think
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> The proposal doesn't seem like an improvement. Technically the
> assertion cannot possibly fail here because the earlier assertion
> would always fail instead, so strictly speaking it is redundant -- at
> least right now. That is true. But it seems much more important to
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 04:40:44PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> The new cumulative stats subsystem no longer has a "lost under heavy load"
> problem so that parenthetical should go (or at least be modified).
>
> These stats can be reset so some discussion about how the system us
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 06:03:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 04:02:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I noted something that ought to be looked at separately:
>>> validate_option_array_item() seems like it needs to be taught about
>>> grantable permiss
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:33:47AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Both the location and name of the linked to section make no sense to me:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-admin.html#
>> FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-DBOBJECT
>> Neither of the tables listed there
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:31 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:04:00PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> for non-Assert builds, ItemPointerGetOffsetNumberNoCheck() and
> ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber() are the same, so I don't see the point to
> making this change. Frankly, I don't kno
In addition to adding several new tests, the attached version 26 fixes a
major bug in constructing the view.
The only valid combination of IOPATH/IOOP that is not tested now is
IOPATH_STRATEGY + IOOP_WRITE. In most cases when I ran this in regress,
the checkpointer wrote out the dirty strategy buf
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:33:47AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Both the location and name of the linked to section make no sense to me:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-admin.html#
> FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-DBOBJECT
>
> Neither of the tables listed there manage (cause
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:04:00PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> 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-
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 04:02:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I noted something that ought to be looked at separately:
>> validate_option_array_item() seems like it needs to be taught about
>> grantable permissions on GUCs. I think that right now it may report
>> permissio
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 04:02:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a draft patch for that. I initially ran around and changed all
> the set_config_option callers as I threatened before, but as I did it
> I could not help observing that they were all changing in exactly the
> same way: basically, t
Here's a couple of fixups. 0001 is the same as before. In 0002 I think
CheckTablespaceDirectory ends up easier to read if we split out the test
for validity of the link. Looking at that again, I think we don't need
to piggyback on ignore_invalid_pages, which is already a stretch, so
let's not --
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:55:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The/that inconsistency ... choose one. Or actually, the "an ... the"
> > combination you used elsewhere doesn't grate on the ear either.
> >
> > + For each extension, refuse to drop anything if any objects (other
> > than th
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022, at 8:20 AM, Sergey Dudoladov wrote:
> I've taken connection stages and terminology from the existing log messages.
> The reason I have separated "authorized" and "authenticated" are [1]
> and [2] usages of "log_connections";
> "received" is mentioned at [3].
After checking the
Thomas Munro writes:
> So why would I add another wrapper like PG_SETMASK and leave it
> unimplemented for now on Windows, when I could just use sigprocmask()
> directly and leave it unimplemented for now on Windows?
Fair enough, I guess. No objection to this patch.
(Someday we oughta go ahead
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:27 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > ISTM it would be cleaner to patch PG_SETMASK to have a second argument
> > and to return the original mask if that's not NULL. This is more
> > invasive, but there aren't that many callsites of that macro.
>
> [ shoulda
On 7/14/22 04:26, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:41:40 -0400, David Steele wrote in
While it is certainly true that timeline 2 cannot be replayed to from
timeline 1, it should not matter for an immediate recovery that stops
at consistency. No timeline switch will occur until pr
Dean Rasheed writes:
> Attached is an update with the following changes:
> * Docs updated as suggested.
> * transformLockingClause() updated to skip subquery and values rtes
> without aliases.
> * eref->aliasname changed to "unnamed_subquery" for subqueries without
> aliases.
This looks good to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 1:12 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Concretely, I was thinking like the attached top-up patch.
>
> The other way can surely be made to work somehow, but this seems much
> simpler and with fewer questions about the details.
Ah, seeing it side-by-side helps. That's much easier
On 13.07.22 01:06, Jacob Champion wrote:
I had to read up on this "ex_data" API. Interesting. But I'm wondering
a bit about how the life cycle of these objects is managed. What
happens if the allocated error string is deallocated before its
containing object? Or vice versa?
Yeah, I'm curren
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 05:16:41PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:56:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 08.07.22 18:07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > so I guess we can backpatch this with no issues.
> >
> > It inserts a new chapter, which would renumber all other cha
Hi,
On 2022-07-07 12:09:32 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.07.22 15:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Here is my rough assessment of where we are with this patch set:
> > >
> > > 08b4330ded prereq: deal with \ paths in basebackup_to_shell tests.
> > >
> > > This still needs clarification, pe
I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Looks like a bug to me, so I have added an open item assigned to Tom.
> Yeah. So the fix here seems pretty obvious: rather than applying the
> permissions check using bare GetUserId(), we need to remember the role
> OID that originally applied the setting, a
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 12:59:23PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 09:14:56AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > So leave the "release" behavior implied from the rollback behavior?
> >
> > On the whole I'm slightly in favor of your proposed wording (mostly due to
> > the
>
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:18:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with
> > respect
> > to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
> >
> > Cu
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:22:41PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> > I was not happy with putting this in the Transaction Isolation section.
> > I rewrote it and put it in the INSERT secion, right before ON CONFLICT;
> > patch attached.
>
> Looks good.
Applied to all supported
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:12:12PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that this will be committed for v15, so I've adjusted the
>> commitfest entry to v16 and moved it to the next commitfest.
>
> rebased
It's now bee
Hi Bharath,
Thanks for taking a look.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 03:10:56PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Aren't these snapshot arrays always sorted? I see the following code:
>
> /* sort so we can bsearch() */
> qsort(snapshot->xip, snapshot->xcnt, sizeof(TransactionId), xidComparator);
>
> /
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:16 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 5:23 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 5:58 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It happened when
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 4:34 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:55 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 12:22:06PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > > Most of the code is common between GetSubscription
We've used INSERT ON CONFLICT for a few years (with partitions as the target).
That's also combined with prepared statements, for bulk loading.
I was looking to see if we should use MERGE (probably not, but looking anyway).
And came across this behavior. I'm not sure if it's any issue.
CREATE TA
On 2022-07-08 Fr 16:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2022-07-08 Fr 16:03, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached are a few small changes to the JSON_TABLE section in func.sgml.
>>
>> The first two changes are simple typos.
>>
>> Then there was this line:
>>
>>
>> context_item, path_expressio
Thomas Munro writes:
> ... but now I'm wondering if we should be more defensive and possibly
> even save/restore the mask.
+1, sounds like a more future-proof solution.
> Originally I discounted that because I
> thought I had to go through PG_SETMASK for portability reasons, but on
> closer insp
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> ISTM it would be cleaner to patch PG_SETMASK to have a second argument
> and to return the original mask if that's not NULL. This is more
> invasive, but there aren't that many callsites of that macro.
[ shoulda read your message before replying ]
Given that this needs
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 01:24:41PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> Regarding this item:
>
> "Allow hash lookup for NOT IN clauses with many constants (David Rowley, James
> Coleman)
> Previously the code always sequentially scanned the list of values."
>
> The todo list has an entry titled "Planning
On 7/11/22 11:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Oops. Here is a rebased version of v3 which aims to fix this bug.
I found one issue where pg_upgrade is failing
PG v14.4 , create these below objects
create user u1 with superuser;
create user u3;
create group g2 with user u1;
now try to perform pg_upg
On 2022-Jul-15, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I checked that this throw-away assertion doesn't fail currently:
>
> if (IsUnderPostmaster)
> + {
> + sigset_t old;
> + sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, NULL, &old);
> + Assert(memcmp(&old, &UnBlockSig, sizeof(U
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:02 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:15 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Yeah. Done, and pushed. 0002 not back-patched.
>
> Hmm, there were a couple of hard to understand build farm failures.
> My first thought is that the signal mask stuff should only be d
Richard Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 3:42 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>
> To fix this problem, I'm thinking we can leverage 'root->all_baserels'
> to tell if we are at the topmost scan/join rel, something like:
>
> --- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c
> +++ b/src/backend/optimizer
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 6:34 PM, vignesh C wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:26 AM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:49 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:58 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:51 AM Amit Kapila
> wrot
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:15 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah. Done, and pushed. 0002 not back-patched.
Hmm, there were a couple of hard to understand build farm failures.
My first thought is that the signal mask stuff should only be done if
IsUnderPostmaster, otherwise it clobbers the postmaster
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 10:32 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-06-27 16:55:55 +0200, David Geier wrote:
> > Indeed, the total JIT time increases the more modules are used. The
> reason
> > for this to happen is that the inlining pass loads and deserializes all
> to
> > be inlined modules
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 5:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm - given that we've observed ftruncate failing with strace, and that
> stracing to find problems isn't insane, shouldn't we retry the ftruncate too?
> It's kind of obsoleted by your next patch, but not really, because it's not
> unconceivabl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 9:45 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Mon, 11 Jul 2022 01:45:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> > > At Sat, 9 Jul 2022 21:53:31 -0300, Ranier Vilela
> > > wrote in
> > >> 528 |entry = (PendingUnlinkEntry *) lfirst(cell);
> >
> > > Actually,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 8:20 PM Dmitry Koval wrote:
> > I agree that the patch shouldn't have changed that behavior, so I've
> > fixed the patch so that EnableDisableTrigger() recurses even if the
> > parent trigger is unchanged.
>
> Thanks, I think this patch is ready for committer.
Great, thank
Hello,
Thank you for the constructive feedback.
> Your proposal will add more confusion to the already-confused logging-related
> GUCs.
> I wouldn't introduce a new GUC that depends on the stage of other GUC as you
> proposed.
Agreed, coupling a new GUC with "log_connections" is likely to lead
I agree that the patch shouldn't have changed that behavior, so I've
fixed the patch so that EnableDisableTrigger() recurses even if the
parent trigger is unchanged.
Thanks, I think this patch is ready for committer.
--
With best regards,
Dmitry Koval
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.
В письме от среда, 13 июля 2022 г. 16:14:39 MSK пользователь Aleksander
Alekseev написал:
Hi! Let me join the review process. Postgres data types is field of expertise I
am interested in.
0. Though it looks like a steady bug, I can't reproduce it. Not using
valgrind, not using ASan (address sa
Hello,
Here is a new version of the patch that applies to HEAD.
It also adds some regression tests for overriding {system,user} values
based on Wenjing Zeng's work.
Gareth
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 22:40, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:29 AM Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > I can h
Hi hackers,
While debugging some slow queries containing Bitmap Heap/Index Scans (in
short BHS / BIS), we observed a few issues regarding scalability:
1. The BIS always only runs in a single process, also when the parent
BHS is parallel. The first process arriving in the BHS serves as leade
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:31 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I tried the attached quick-hack patch that just prevents
> remove_useless_groupby_columns from removing anything that
> appears in ORDER BY. That successfully fixes the complained-of
> case, and it doesn't change any existing regression test resu
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Looking at v2-0003 patch and emit_log_hook, how about we filter out
> for those connectivity errors either based on error codes and if they
> aren't unique, perhaps passing special flags to ereport API indicating
> that it's a connectivit
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 10:40 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> A few years ago, there was a proposal to create hash tables for long
> [sub]xip arrays in snapshots [0], but the thread seems to have fizzled out.
> I was curious whether this idea still showed measurable benefits, so I
> r
Hello,
Please find a new patch (no further changes) rebased on top of the master.
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 02:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 12:44:22PM +0100, Niyas Sait wrote:
> > Microsoft updated documentation [1] and clarified that ASLR cannot be
> > disabled for Arm64 t
At Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:41:40 -0400, David Steele wrote in
> While it is certainly true that timeline 2 cannot be replayed to from
> timeline 1, it should not matter for an immediate recovery that stops
> at consistency. No timeline switch will occur until promotion. Of
> course the cluster could
This is not a review, but I think the isolation tests should be
expanded. At least, include the case of serializable transactions being
involved.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pensar que el espectro que vemos es ilusorio no lo despoja de espant
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 08:56:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:58 AM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
>> But if many think that it's worth adding the test, I will give a
>> try. But even in that case, I think it's better to commit the
>> proposed patch at first to fix the bug, and t
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 08:51:24AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Shouldn't the patch status be set to "Waiting on Author"?
>
> (I was curious if this is a patch that I can review.)
Ah indeed, I just updated the CF entry!
73 matches
Mail list logo
