After sending out my v18 patches:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240511.162307.2246647987352188848.t-ishii%40sranhm.sra.co.jp
CFbot complains that the patch was broken:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_48_4460.log
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
31e8f4e619d9b5856fa2bd5
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 1:14 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Either way, it seems like we'll need to skip that test on Windows if
>> we want hamerkop to be green. That can probably be cribbed from
>> collate.windows.win1252.sql into contrib/citext/sql/citext_utf8.sql's
>> prelud
On 5/9/24 17:44, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
I haven't really been following this thread, but after playing around
a bit with the feature I feel there are new gaps in error messages. I
also think there are gaps in the functionality regarding the (lack of)
support for CREATE UNIQUE INDEX, and att
On 5/11/24 17:00, jian he wrote:
I hope I understand the problem correctly.
my understanding is that we are trying to solve a corner case:
create table t(a int4range, b int4range, primary key(a, b WITHOUT OVERLAPS));
insert into t values ('[1,2]','empty'), ('[1,2]','empty');
but we still not
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:12 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The dependency is fairly simple. In the presence of multiple arrays on
> the same column, which must be contradictory/redundant, but cannot be
> simplified solely due to lack of suitable cross-type support, we have
> multiple arrays on the s
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 11:01 AM jian he wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:39 AM Paul Jungwirth
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/30/24 09:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Peter, could you have a look at
> > > http://postgr.es/m/47550967-260b-4180-9791-b224859fe...@illuminatedcomputing.com
> > > and express an
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 1:14 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Either way, it seems like we'll need to skip that test on Windows if
> we want hamerkop to be green. That can probably be cribbed from
> collate.windows.win1252.sql into contrib/citext/sql/citext_utf8.sql's
> prelude... I just don't know how t
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 5:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, I'm generally in favor of a lot of small patches rather than one
> enormously complex one. Isn't this point something that could be
> broken out?
That's not really possible here.
Skip scan generally works by consing up a special "skip" arra
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There's another problem along these lines, that seems at least as bad:
>>> queries involving contradictory >= and <= quals aren't recognized as
>>> contradictory during preprocessing. There's no reason why
>>> _bt_prepr
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:12 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Row comparisons are kind of a special case, both during preprocessing
> and during the scan itself. I find it natural to blame this problem on
> the fact that preprocessing makes exactly zero effort to detect
> contradictory conditions that
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> New proposal:
>
> - Remove the "try both" mode completely, and rename "requiredirect" to
> just "direct". So there would be just two modes: "postgres" and
> "direct". On reflection, the automatic fallback mode doesn't seem very
> useful. It
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > The dependency is fairly simple. In the presence of multiple arrays on
> > the same column, which must be contradictory/redundant, but cannot be
> > simplified solely due to lack of suitable cross-type support, we have
> > multiple arrays on the
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, despite the rather over-the-top verbosity of commenting in
>> _bt_advance_array_keys, it's far from clear why or how it depends on
>> that. So I feel a little stuck about what needs to be done here.
> The depe
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> This produces something like
>
> Index Only Scan using my_idx on t (cost=0.43..8.46 rows=1 width=8) (actual
> time=475.713..475.713 rows=0 loops=1)
>Index Cond: ((ROW(a, b) > ROW(123450, 123444)) AND (a = 0))
>Heap Fetches: 0
>Buffer
I just joined the mailing list and I don't know how to respond to old messages.
However, I have a few suggestions on the upcoming TLS and ALPN changes.
TL;DR
Prefer TLS over SSLRequest or plaintext (from the start)
- ?sslmode=default # try tls, then sslrequest, then plaintext
- ?sslmode=tls|tl
On 2024-05-09 Th 00:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have committed the first draft of the PG 17 release notes; you can
see the results here:
https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-17.html
It will be improved until the final release. The item count is 188,
which is similar to recent releas
I spent some time looking into the performance complaint at [1],
which for the sake of self-containedness is
CREATE TABLE t(a int, b int);
INSERT INTO t(a, b)
SELECT
(random() * 123456)::int AS a,
(random() * 123456)::int AS b
FROM
generate_series(1, 12345678);
CREATE INDEX my_idx ON
On 5/10/24 21:48, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:37 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/24 22:46, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:43 PM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
On 4/23/24 18:05, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> The patch with a fix is atta
On Saturday, May 11, 2024, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> Sat, May 11, 2024, 16:34 David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this
>> draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet.
>>
>
> + The cardinal rule, a given n
On Sat, May 11, 2024, 16:34 David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new
>>>
>> under DDL, before 5.2
On 09/05/2024 22:39, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 3:38 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
* Register ALPN protocol id with IANA. From the mailing list thread,
it is abundantly clear that IANA is in no hurry to finish dealing with
what seems to be a completely
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new
>>
> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first
>> place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls.
>
On 5/11/24 09:57, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I looked at both of these. In both cases I didn't see why the user
> would need to know these changes were made:
I agree that the buffering change is not likely interesting, but
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I looked at both of these. In both cases I didn't see why the user
> > would need to know these changes were made:
>
> I agree that the buffering change is not likely interesting, but
> the fact that you can now control
Hi!
11.05.2024 12:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Please look at one more anomaly with temporary tables:
Thank you, Alexander!
The problem affects the SPLIT PARTITION command.
CREATE TEMP TABLE t (a int) PARTITION BY RANGE (a);
CREATE TEMP TABLE tp_0 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (2) ;
-
On 2024-May-09, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I have to admit that the ongoing bug fixing here has started to
> make me a bit nervous, but I also can't totally follow everything
> that's under discussion, so I don't want to rush to judgement.
I have found two more problems that I think are going to
Hello Dmitry and Alexander,
Please look at one more anomaly with temporary tables:
CREATE TEMP TABLE t (a int) PARTITION BY RANGE (a);
CREATE TEMP TABLE tp_0 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (1) ;
CREATE TEMP TABLE tp_1 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (1) TO (2);
ALTER TABLE t MERGE PARTITION
27 matches
Mail list logo
