Hi Alvaro,
Recently, Alexander reported the same issue on [1]. And before that,
another same issue was reported on [2].
So I try to re-work those issues. In my last email on this thread, I said
that
"
I slightly modified the previous patch，but I didn't add test case, because
I found another issu
On 16.07.2024 21:30, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi, Vardan!
Great, thank you!
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 5:26 PM Вардан Погосян wrote:
I did the SJE testing at Andrey's request.
To do this, I used the automatic testing tool EET (Equivalent Expression
Transformation) [1] with some modifications.
On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:03 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> If I'm counting the votes right
...
> , you and Tom have voted that the feature's
> current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not
> okay.
...
> A tie would become a decision against the unreleased behavior.
...
> In th
we still have problem in transformJsonBehavior
currently transformJsonBehavior:
SELECT JSON_VALUE(jsonb '1234', '$' RETURNING bit(3) DEFAULT 010111 ON ERROR);
ERROR: cannot cast behavior expression of type text to bit
LINE 1: ...VALUE(jsonb '1234', '$' RETURNING bit(3) DEFAULT 010111 ON ...
he
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:27:25AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Perhaps we should have a few more inline functions like
> pgstat_get_entry_len() to retrieve the parts of the custom data in the
> snapshot and shmem control structures for fixed-numbered stats. That
> would limit what extensions n
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:52 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 11, 2024 1:03 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> >
> > I have one concern about how we deal with conflicts. As for insert_exists,
> > we
> > keep on erroring out while raising confli
On 17/7/2024 16:33, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 05:29, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
As I see, the code:
aggsortop = fetch_agg_sort_op(aggref->aggfnoid);
if (!OidIsValid(aggsortop))
return false;/* not a MIN/MAX aggregate */
used twice and can be evaluated
Hi Shubham, here are my review comments for patch v19-0001.
==
src/backend/replication/pgoutput/pgoutput.c
1.
/*
* Columns included in the publication, or NULL if all columns are
* included implicitly. Note that the attnums in this bitmap are not
+ * publication and include_generated_c
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 9:58 AM Joe Conway wrote:
> On 7/17/24 16:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Does "tart pull ghcr.io/cirruslabs/macos-runner:sonoma" as the CI user
> > succeed?
>
> Yes, with about 25 GB to spare.
Thanks. Now it works! But for some reason it spends several minutes
in the "sche
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 07:43:13AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 7/16/24 18:14, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> As for the feature, I've never done a fleet-wide analysis, so if this is
>> one of the main use cases, I'm not really sure I can judge if this is a
>> good tool for that. It seems like it might be
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 9:25 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:42 AM John H wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Can we make it a default
> > > behavior that logical slots marked with a failover option will wait
> > > for 'synchronous_standby_names' as per your patch's idea unless
> > > 'stand
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 07:48:15AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> I think including version in the key makes most sense. Also do we even have
> a mechanism to grab the commit sha in running code?
Not directly, still that's doable.
The closest thing I would consider here is to get the output of
someth
Nathan Bossart writes:
> Here is an attempt at adding a new function that returns the sequence tuple
> and using that to avoid querying each sequence relation individually in
> dumpSequenceData().
Didn't read the patch yet, but ...
> If we instead wanted to change pg_sequence_last_value() to ret
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:42 AM John H wrote:
>
>
> > Can we make it a default
> > behavior that logical slots marked with a failover option will wait
> > for 'synchronous_standby_names' as per your patch's idea unless
> > 'standby_slot_names' is specified? I don't know if there is any value
> > i
Here is an attempt at adding a new function that returns the sequence tuple
and using that to avoid querying each sequence relation individually in
dumpSequenceData().
If we instead wanted to change pg_sequence_last_value() to return both
is_called and last_value, I think we could modify the pg_se
On 7/9/24 00:15, jian he wrote:
**Option 2**: Add a new operator, called &&&, that works like && except an
empty range *does*
overlap another empty range. Empty ranges should still not overlap anything
else. This would fix the
exclusion constraint. You could add `(5, 'empty')` once but not twic
On Thursday, July 18, 2024 10:11 AM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for giving comments! PSA new version.
I did a few more tests and analysis and didn't find issues. Just share the
cases I tested:
1. After manually rolling back xacts for two_pc and switch two_pc option
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:02 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> I noticed this while reviewing patch [1], thinking that it might be
> worth fixing. Any thoughts?
Here is the patch.
Thanks
Richard
v1-0001-Remove-redundant-code-in-create_gather_merge_path.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 5:28 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > Your analysis sounds correct to me.
>
> Okay, so we could have a same picture...
>
> > > IIUC, the root cause is that pg_create_logical_replication_slot() returns
> > > a LSN
> > > which is not generated yet. So, I think both mi
Dear Peter,
Thanks for giving comments! PSA new version.
I think most of comments were addressed, and I ran pgindent/pgperltidy again.
Regarding the CheckAlterSubOption(), the ordering is still preserved
because I preferred to keep some specs. But I can agree that yours
make codes simpler.
BTW,
In create_gather_merge_path, we should always guarantee that the
subpath is adequately ordered, and we do not add a Sort node in
createplan.c for a Gather Merge node. Therefore, the 'else' branch in
the snippet from create_gather_merge_path is redundant.
if (pathkeys_contained_in(pathkeys, su
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 9:23 AM Joseph Koshakow wrote:
>
> Updated in the attached patch.
>
> Once again, the other patches, 0001, 0003, and 0004 are unchanged but
> have their version number incremented.
>
+-- Test for overflow in array slicing
+CREATE temp table arroverflowtest (i int[]);
+INS
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:31 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> I am confused. Does the SQL standard explicitly define or standardize
> the behavior of grouping by volatile expressions? Does anyone know
> about that?
Just for the record, multiple instances of non-volatile grouping
expressions should alway
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> As far as I can see (having analyzed a number of runs), the hanging occurs
> when some itimer-related activity happens before "peek_socket" in this
> event sequence:
> [main] postgres {pid} select_stuff::wait: res after verify 0
> [main] po
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:19:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It works for me to do as you are proposing at the end, that could
> always be changed if there are more arguments in favor of a different
> behavior that plays more with the shmem data.
I have taken some time this morning and appli
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:17 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> I've attached an editorialized version of 0002 based on my thoughts above.
Looks great, thanks!
Thanks,
Joe Koshakow
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:50 AM Paul George wrote:
> > Since a subquery is a volatile expression, each of its instances
> should be evaluated separately.
I don't think this conclusion is correct. Look at:
select random(), random() from t group by random();
random | random
---
Hi Kuroda-San, here are some review comment for patch v19-1
==
doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml
The previous patches have common failover/two_phase code checking for
"Do not allow changing the option if the subscription is enabled", but
it seems the docs were mentioning that only
Hi, here are my review comments for patch v19-0002.
==
src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c
CheckAlterSubOption:
nitpick - tweak some comment wording
~
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:13 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > 1c.
> > If the error checks can be moved to be done up-front, then
= Design =
It looks like this design relies on the DBA to manually prefetch OCSP
responses for their cert chain, and cache them in the local
ssl_ocsp_file. This is similar to Nginx's ssl_stapling_file directive
[1]. I think this may make sense for a v1 (much less code!), but it's
going to take a
Over on [1], there's a complaint about a query OOMing because the use
of enable_partitionwise_aggregate caused a plan with 1000 Hash
Aggregate nodes.
The only mention in the docs is the additional memory requirements and
CPU for query planning when that GUC is enabled. There's no mention
that exec
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 17:12, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> I generally like the idea of a support function. But as I can see, the
> can_minmax_aggs() rejects if any of the aggregates don't pass the
> checks. The prosupport feature is designed to be applied to each
> function separately. How do you th
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:48:46AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 05:50 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > This is still marked as an open item for 17, but you've already
> > > acknowledged[1] that no code changes are necessary in version 17.
> >
> > Later posts on the thread made th
On 7/17/24 16:41, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2024-07-17 13:20:06 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > Or maybe simpler -- how do people typically add storage to a mac mini? I
> > don't mind buying an external disk or whatever.
>
> That I do not know, not a mac person at all...
Well maybe unneeded?
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:16:59PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> First reaction after a read-through is that this seems really cool, can't wait
> to see how much v18 pg_upgrade will be over v17. I will do more testing and
> review once back from vacation, below are some comments from reading w
> On 9 Jul 2024, at 05:33, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The code is still very rough and nowhere near committable, but this at
> least gets the patch set into the editing phase.
First reaction after a read-through is that this seems really cool, can't wait
to see how much v18 pg_upgrade will be over
On 16.07.2024 18:00, Robert Haas wrote:
On the question of display width, my personal opinion is that the
current patch is worse than what we have now.
Robert, David, thanks for the detailed explanation.
I tried to remember all the thoughts that led to this version of the patch.
So the main
Hi,
On 2024-07-17 13:20:06 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > > Or maybe simpler -- how do people typically add storage to a mac mini? I
> > > don't mind buying an external disk or whatever.
> >
> > That I do not know, not a mac person at all...
>
> Well maybe unneeded?
Does "tart pull ghcr.io/cirrus
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:22:49PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 15:19, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:11:20PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 02:52, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:12:19PM +0300, Nazir
Hi, Alena!
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:53 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
> On 17.07.2024 03:03, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Hi, Alena!
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:17 PM Alena Rybakina
> > wrote:
> >> I have finished patch and processed almost your suggestions (from [0],
> [1], [2]). It remains
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:59:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh ... why do we need a function, rather than just
>> select * from pg_sequence
> We can use that for dumpSequence(), but dumpSequenceData() requires
> information from the sequence tuple itself. Right now, we
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:59:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> On second thought, I worry that this change might needlessly complicate the
>> pg_sequences system view. Maybe we should just add a
>> pg_sequence_get_tuple() function that returns everything in
>> FormData_pg_s
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On second thought, I worry that this change might needlessly complicate the
> pg_sequences system view. Maybe we should just add a
> pg_sequence_get_tuple() function that returns everything in
> FormData_pg_sequence_data for a given sequence OID...
Uh ... why do we need
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:23:08PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:30:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, I have bumped on the same issue. In the long term, I also think
>> that we'd better have pg_sequence_last_value() return a row with
>> is_called and the value
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:01 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
>> environment variable, ie it's a runtime option not a configure option.
>> Making it be the latter seems like a significant loss of flexibility
>> to m
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-07-16 12:12:37 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Or maybe simpler -- how do people typically add storage to a mac mini? I
>> don't mind buying an external disk or whatever.
> That I do not know, not a mac person at all...
I think USB SSD is the way at present. MacRumor
On 7/17/24 13:01, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-16 12:12:37 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> It's possible you have some old images stored as your user, check
> "tart list" for both users.
Hmm, this is not the easiest ever to parse for me...
Unfortunately due to the wrapping it's not easy to read
Nathan Bossart writes:
> The only thing stopping me from committing this right now is Tom's upthread
> objection about adding more GUCs that just expose values that you can't
> actually set. If that objection still stands, I'll withdraw this patch
> (and maybe try introducing a new way to surface
Hi,
On 2024-07-16 12:12:37 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > It's possible you have some old images stored as your user, check
> > "tart list" for both users.
>
> Hmm, this is not the easiest ever to parse for me...
Unfortunately due to the wrapping it's not easy to read here either...
I don't think
Hi,
On 2024-07-16 15:53:45 -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> Other than that, it looks pretty solid.
Thanks for looking! I'm thinking of pushing the first few patches soon-ish.
I'm debating between going for 17 + HEAD or also applying it to 16, to keep
the trees more similar.
> Looks like we cou
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:11 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:07 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > We didn't end up doing two index vacuum passes. Because it doesn't
> > repro locally for me, I can only assume that the conditions for
> > forcing two index vacuuming passes
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 02:04:17PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here's a new version of the patch with the GUC renamed to
> num_os_semaphores.
The only thing stopping me from committing this right now is Tom's upthread
objection about adding more GUCs that just expose values that you can't
actua
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:07 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> We didn't end up doing two index vacuum passes. Because it doesn't
> repro locally for me, I can only assume that the conditions for
> forcing two index vacuuming passes in master just weren't met in this
> case. I'm unsurprised, as it is
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:07 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:02 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >
> > I think that there is some chance that this test will break the build
> > farm in whatever way, since there is a long history of VACUUM not
> > quite behaving as expected wi
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 04:38:06PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Alright. Well, I guess I'll flip a coin tomorrow unless someone else
> chimes in with an opinion.
Committed and back-patched to v17. I left it as PqMsg_Progress.
--
nathan
On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 05:50 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > This is still marked as an open item for 17, but you've already
> > acknowledged[1] that no code changes are necessary in version 17.
>
> Later posts on the thread made that obsolete. The next step is to
> settle the
> question at https://p
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:01 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jacob Champion writes:
> > Personally I use the config-time PG_TEST_EXTRA extensively. I'd be sad
> > to see it go, especially if developers are no longer forced to use it.
>
> The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
>
On 2024-07-17 We 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jacob Champion writes:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:02 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:25 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > I could still use another pair of eyes on the test (looking out for
> > stability enhancing measures I could take).
>
> First, the basics: I found that your test failed reliably
Jacob Champion writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>> Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
>> Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
>> config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.
> Personall
On 2024-07-16 Tu 7:21 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:27:26AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Our docs currently state this regarding the perl requirement for building on
Windows:
ActiveState Perl
ActiveState Perl is required to run the build generation scripts.
M
On 2024-07-16 Tu 7:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 03:04:13PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This was called by poll_query_until(), which is changed by the patch to use
a libpq session rather than constantly forking psql. ISTM we should be
passing true as a second parameter
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
> Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
> config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.
Personally I use the config-time PG_TEST
On 17/7/2024 16:33, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 05:29, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
Thanks for the job! I guess you could be more brave and push down also
FILTER statement.
While probably not impossible, I wasn't planning on changing this code
with new optimizations; just ex
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:16 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> I don't have another solution that can be pushed into v17. I understand
> the risks raised so far, so I'm okay with just pushing the "fast_forward"
> patch.
> It might be helpful to add a note to the summarize_wal documentation,
> for example,
Hi Robert,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 9:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:55 AM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Just to confirm, are you suggesting to remove the protected flag and
> > set the default search_path (as $extension_schema,) for all functions
> > within an extension wher
Hello.
I'd like to make MergeAppend node Async-capable like Append node.
Nowadays when planner chooses MergeAppend plan, asynchronous execution
is not possible. With attached patches you can see plans like
EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS OFF)
SELECT * FROM async_pt WHERE b % 100 = 0 ORDER BY b, a;
On 2024-07-03 02:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
However, if we support REJECT_LIMIT, I'm not sure if the ON_ERROR
option is still necessary.
I remembered another reason for the necessity of ON_ERROR.
ON_ERROR defines how to behave when encountering an error and it just
accepts 'ignore' and 'stop' cur
Hi! Thanks for your contribution to this topic!
On 17.07.2024 03:03, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi, Alena!
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:17 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
I have finished patch and processed almost your suggestions (from [0], [1],
[2]). It remains only to add tests where the conversion
Dear Amit,
> Your analysis sounds correct to me.
Okay, so we could have a same picture...
> > IIUC, the root cause is that pg_create_logical_replication_slot() returns a
> > LSN
> > which is not generated yet. So, I think both mine [1] and Euler's approach
> > [2]
> > can solve the issue. My p
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 11:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 6:54 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 11:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 9:29 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One related comment:
> > > > @@ -1219,8 +1219,14 @
On 7/16/24 19:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:14:36AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I noticed this patch hasn't moved since September 2023, so I wonder
what's the main blocker / what is needed to move this?
+ /* Location of permanent stats file (valid when database is shut d
On 7/16/24 18:14, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I noticed this patch hasn't moved since September 2023, so I wonder
what's the main blocker / what is needed to move this?
Mainly me finding time I'm afraid.
As for the feature, I've never done a fleet-wide analysis, so if this is
one of the main use case
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:23, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > xid_wraparound tests are run if PG_TEST_EXTRA contains xid_wraparound
> > or it is not set. Any other setting will not run xid_wraparound test.
> > That's how the patc
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 13:13, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> xid_wraparound tests are run if PG_TEST_EXTRA contains xid_wraparound
> or it is not set. Any other setting will not run xid_wraparound test.
> That's how the patch is coded but it isn't intuitive that changing
> whether a test is run by d
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:31 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 00:27, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 2:12 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 2- If PG_TEST_EXTRA is set from the setup command, use it from the
> > > setup command and
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:23 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I also analyzed this failure, let me share it. Here, I think events in below
> ordering were occurred.
>
> 1. Backend created a publication on $db2,
> 2. BGWriter generated RUNNING_XACT record, then
> 3. Backend created a replicati
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 05:29, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>
> On 5/8/24 17:13, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > As you may know, aggregates like SELECT MIN(unique1) FROM tenk1; are
> > rewritten as SELECT unique1 FROM tenk1 ORDER BY unique1 USING < LIMIT
> > 1; by using the optional sortop field in the
Hi,
Wouldn't it be enough to call pgstat_report_query_id in ExecutorRun
and ProcessUtility? With those changes [1], both normal statements and
utility statements called through extended protocol will correctly
report the query_id.
-- Test utility statement with extended protocol
show all \bind \g
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 15:19, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:11:20PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 02:52, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:12:19PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > > > --- a/src/backend/storage/aio/read_strea
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 7:31 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 7/16/24 14:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:58 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW I'd expect that to be handled at the libpq level - there's already
> >> a patch for that, but I haven't checked if it would hand
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 5:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 3:19 PM jian he wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 6:45 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 3:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > > >> +/*
> > > > >> + * For domains
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 07:29, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> It is just not clear to me how verbose the document should to be, and
> where the document should be, tablefunc.sgml, the comment above the
> function or the places just the code? In many cases you provides above
> or below are just implementation
On Tue, 2024-07-16 at 18:36 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 15:46, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> > Currently, it is pretty easy to subvert the restrictions imposed
> > by row-level security and security_barrier views. All you have to
> > to is use EXPLAIN (ANALYZE) and see how man
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your clear answer.
On 16/07/2024 19:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 7/16/24 17:43, Pierrick Chovelon wrote:
...
Quite fast as well...
Have you got an idea on the initial issue ? Why when using a prepared
statement and a gin index the execution time "explode" ?
Something to
Hi, here are my review comments for v19-0001.
==
doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
nitpick - Now there is >1 option. /The following option is supported:/The
following options are supported:/
==
src/backend/access/transam/twophase.c
TwoPhaseTransactionGid:
nitpick - renamed parameter /gid/gid_r
Dear Alexander, Euler, Amit,
I also analyzed this failure, let me share it. Here, I think events in below
ordering were occurred.
1. Backend created a publication on $db2,
2. BGWriter generated RUNNING_XACT record, then
3. Backend created a replication slot on $db2.
In this case, the recovery_ta
87 matches
Mail list logo
