The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, failed
Spec compliant: tested, failed
Documentation:tested, failed
As tree is branched out for PG17, I guess now it's time to co
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 3:45 AM Kevin Hale Boyes wrote:
> I noticed the commit and had a question and a comment.
> There is a small problem in func.sgml in the sentence "After that the changes
> made of primary". Should be "on primary".
Thank you for spotting this. Will fix.
> In the for loop i
I noticed the commit and had a question and a comment.
There is a small problem in func.sgml in the sentence "After that the
changes made of primary". Should be "on primary".
In the for loop in WaitForLSNReplay, shouldn't the check for in-recovery be
moved up above the call to GetXLogReplayRecPtr
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 2:11 AM David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Haven’t been following this thread, but this post reminded me of an issue I
> saw with locales on Windows[1]. Could it be that the introduction of
> Universal CRT[2] in Windows 10 has improved UTF-8 support?
Yeah. We have a few places th
See
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=ee219ee8c40d88e7a0ef52c3c1b76c90bbd0d164
As usual, please send corrections/comments by Sunday.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:33:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned about this on two grounds:
>
> 1. Is it a win for DBs with not so many functions?
>
> 2. On the other end of the scale, if you've got a *boatload* of
> functions, what does it do to pg_dump's memory requirements?
> I'
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 01:32:18PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > > [*] What is the correct name for this?
> >
> > I believe in this section it should be "Visual Studio" as we specify
> > elsewhere [1][2]. In [2] we name specific required versions. Maybe we
> > should reference this section.
Hi,
I found a bug in the memory counter update in reorderbuffer. It was
introduced by commit 5bec1d6bc5e, so pg17 and master are affected.
In ReorderBufferCleanupTXN() we zero the transaction size and then
free the transaction entry as follows:
/* Update the memory counter */
ReorderBuff
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 31.07.24 20:39, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I Wonder if I should also should add -Wno-clobbered to serinus' config.
>> Afaict
>> -Wclobbered is pretty useless once optimizations are used. I've long added
>> that to my local dev environment flags because it's so noisy (wh
On 02.08.24 19:51, Jacob Champion wrote:
But it sounds like we agree that we shouldn't be using fe_memutils at
all in shlib builds. (If you can't use palloc -- it calls exit -- then
you can't use pfree either.) Is 0002 still worth pursuing, once I've
correctly wordsmithed the commit? Or did I mis
On 01.08.24 23:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Not totally opposed, and I will probably give it a try very soon, but
I'm wondering if this really needs to go in the core repo. We've
generally shied away from doing much in the way of editor / devenv
support, trying to be fairly agnostic. It's true we
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:40 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> My belief is that nearly everything in unsafe. We ship with very
> little marked leakproof right now, and that might be too conservative,
> but probably not by much.
Then to me, that seems like the best-case scenario for a "maybe"
classificatio
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:13 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> You shouldn't use pfree() interchangeably with free(), even if that is
> not enforced because it's the same thing underneath. First, it just
> makes sense to keep the alloc and free pairs matched up. And second, on
> Windows there is some
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 12:33 PM Jacob Champion
wrote:
> (Now, if there aren't that many cases where we can all agree on
> "unsafe", then the proposal loses pretty much all value, because we'll
> never shrink the uncertainty.)
My belief is that nearly everything in unsafe. We ship with very
little
On 31.07.24 20:39, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-31 11:32:56 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-31 10:11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like serinus needs this fix too.
Added to both. I've forced runs for both animals, so the bf should show
results of that soon.
I Wonder if I sho
On 30.07.24 00:30, Jacob Champion wrote:
But under what circumstances does "the linker doesn't strip out" happen?
If this happens accidentally, then we should have seen some buildfarm
failures or something?
On my machine, for example, I see differences with optimization
levels. Say you inadve
Hello, Amit!
> I think it is rather less likely or not possible in a parallel apply
> case because such conflicting updates (updates on the same tuple)
> should be serialized at the publisher itself. So one of the updates
> will be after the commit that has the second update.
Glad to hear! But an
> On 18 Jul 2024, at 03:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> If there is anything else you would like to see adjusted in this area,
> please let me know.
I’ve tried to switch my multixact test to new INJECTION_POINT_CACHED… and it
does not work for me. Could you please take a look?
2024-08-02 18:5
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> That absolutely is the expectation, and we'd better be careful not
> to break it.
I have every intention of not breaking it. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM David Rowley wrote:
>> ... That way you maintain the
>> existing behaviour of not optimising for disabled node types and don't
>> risk plan changes if the final cost comes out cheaper than the initial
>> cost.
> All three initial_cost_XXX func
We did run our application under valgrind on Linux. We did not see any
leaks. There is no platform dependent code in our application. We are
seeing gradual memory growth only on windows.
That is what lead me to believe the leak may be present in postgresql. I
will run under available memory tools
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I'll be honest: I don't like it, either. I don't even like
> proleakproof=true/false/maybe; I asked about that to understand if
> that was what Jacob was proposing, not because I actually think we
> should do it. The problem is that there's likel
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 11:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
> >
> > Hmmm, and then have "leakproof_mode" = strict/lax/off where 'strict' is
> > current behavior, 'lax' allows the 'maybe's to get pushed down, and
> > 'off' ignores the leakproof attribute entirely and pushes down anything
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM Joe Conway wrote:
>
> On 8/2/24 11:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Joe Conway writes:
> >>
> >> Hmmm, and then have "leakproof_mode" = strict/lax/off where 'strict' is
> >> current behavior, 'lax' allows the 'maybe's to get pushed down, and
> >> 'off' ignores the leakproof
Em sex., 2 de ago. de 2024 às 11:54, Rajesh Kokkonda <
rajeshk.kokko...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Okay. I will try to create one sample program and send it to you sometime
> next week. In the meantime, I am listing down all the methods we are
> consuming from libpq.
>
> PQconnectdbParams
> PQstatus
>
On 8/2/24 11:07, Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway writes:
Hmmm, and then have "leakproof_mode" = strict/lax/off where 'strict' is
current behavior, 'lax' allows the 'maybe's to get pushed down, and
'off' ignores the leakproof attribute entirely and pushes down anything
that merits being pushed?
Hello,
On 2024-Aug-02, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I found that pg_createsubscriber doesn't use NLS files. This is due to
> the wrong reference name "pg_createsubscriber" being passed to
> set_pglocale_pgservice(). It should be "pg_basebackup" instead. See
> the attached patch.
Absolutely right.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:13 AM David Rowley wrote:
> I now think neither of us got it right. I now think what you'd need to
> do to be aligned to the current behaviour is have
> initial_cost_nestloop() add the disabled_nodes for the join's subnodes
> *only* and have final_cost_nestloop() add the a
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 03:18, Andy Fan wrote:
>> and later we called 'tuplesort_performsort(state->bs_sortstate);'. Even
>> we have some CTID merges activity in '(1)', the tuples are still
>> ordered, so the sort (in both tuplesort_putgintuple and
>> 'tuplesort_performsort) are not necessary,
Joe Conway writes:
>
> Hmmm, and then have "leakproof_mode" = strict/lax/off where 'strict' is
> current behavior, 'lax' allows the 'maybe's to get pushed down, and
> 'off' ignores the leakproof attribute entirely and pushes down anything
> that merits being pushed?
>
So in other words, we m
Okay. I will try to create one sample program and send it to you sometime
next week. In the meantime, I am listing down all the methods we are
consuming from libpq.
PQconnectdbParams
PQstatus
PQerrorMessage
PQpingParams
PQfinish
PQresultStatus
PQclear
PQsetSingleRowMode
PQntuples
PQnfields
PQftype
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:58 AM Joe Conway wrote:
> On 8/2/24 09:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:03 PM Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:45 PM Jacob Champion
> >> wrote:
> >> > Would it provide enough value for effort to explicitly mark leaky
> >> > p
On Aug 1, 2024, at 18:54, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Done (e52a44b8, 91f498fd).
>
> Any elucidation on how and why Windows machines have started using
> UTF-8 would be welcome.
Haven’t been following this thread, but this post reminded me of an issue I saw
with locales on Windows[1]. Could it be th
On 8/2/24 09:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:45 PM Jacob Champion
wrote:
> Would it provide enough value for effort to explicitly mark leaky
> procedures as such? Maybe that could shrink the grey area enough to be
> protecti
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I propose to remove the obsolete RECHECK keyword completely. This used
> to be part of CREATE OPERATOR CLASS and ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY, but it
> has done nothing (except issue a NOTICE) since PostgreSQL 8.4. Commit
> 30e7c175b81 removed support for dumping from pre-
Rajesh Kokkonda writes:
> Are you looking for a fully functional sample program or only the APIs from
> libpq library that our product uses? I am asking this because if the
> requirement is to have a sample code, then I will have to work on creating
> one on the same lines as our product.
Just fo
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:45 PM Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> > Would it provide enough value for effort to explicitly mark leaky
> > procedures as such? Maybe that could shrink the grey area enough to be
> > protective?
>
> You mean like proleakpr
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Hmm, that's an interesting perspective. I've always been very
> skeptical of doing verification only around missing files and not
> anything else. I figured that wouldn't be particularly meaningful, and
> that's pretty much the only kind of val
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 00:17, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:34 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > I'm not planning on pushing this any further. I've just tried to
> > highlight that there's the possibility of a behavioural change. You're
> > claiming there isn't one. I claim there is.
>
Performance tests done on the v8-0001 and v8-0002 patches, available at [1].
The purpose of the performance tests is to measure the impact on
logical replication with track_commit_timestamp enabled, as this
involves fetching the commit_ts data to determine
delete_differ/update_differ conflicts.
F
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:34 PM David Rowley wrote:
> I'm not planning on pushing this any further. I've just tried to
> highlight that there's the possibility of a behavioural change. You're
> claiming there isn't one. I claim there is.
I don't know what to tell you. The original version of the
Hi,
I have read the entire thread discussion. I understood the importance of
this enhancement related to /conninfo+ meta command. I really appreciate
the efforts of Maiquel and suggestions made by the reviewers. According to
best of my understanding, libpq API should be used instead of creating
se
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:53 PM Rajesh Kokkonda
wrote:
> Hi Yasir,
>
> Are you looking for a fully functional sample program or only the APIs
> from libpq library that our product uses? I am asking this because if the
> requirement is to have a sample code, then I will have to work on creating
> o
Hi Yasir,
Are you looking for a fully functional sample program or only the APIs from
libpq library that our product uses? I am asking this because if the
requirement is to have a sample code, then I will have to work on creating
one on the same lines as our product.
Rajesh
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 a
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 5:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:26 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > 04. general
> >
> > According to the documentation [1], there is another constraint "exclude",
> > which
> > can cause another type of conflict. But this pattern cannot b
I propose to remove the obsolete RECHECK keyword completely. This used
to be part of CREATE OPERATOR CLASS and ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY, but it
has done nothing (except issue a NOTICE) since PostgreSQL 8.4. Commit
30e7c175b81 removed support for dumping from pre-9.2 servers, so this no
longer se
Thanks for review!
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:55 PM Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >
> > I hate to be "that guy", but there are many places in sources where we use
> > LOCKMODE lockmode; variable and exactly one where we use LOCKMODE
> > lmode: it is
I've been looking at cases where there are grouping-set keys that
reduce to Consts, and I noticed a plan with v11 patch that is not very
great.
explain (verbose, costs off)
select 1 as one group by rollup(one) order by one nulls first;
QUERY PLAN
---
Sort
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:55 PM Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> I hate to be "that guy", but there are many places in sources where we use
> LOCKMODE lockmode; variable and exactly one where we use LOCKMODE
> lmode: it is vacuum_open_relation function.
There are more instances of LOCKMODE lmode; I spotte
> On 24 Jul 2024, at 17:42, Marat Bukharov wrote:
>
> V5 patch. I've added more tests with different bytea sizes
Hi Marat!
This looks like a nice feature to have.
I’ve took a look into the patch and have few suggestions:
0. Please write more descriptive commit message akin to [0]
1. Use oid
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:24 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:26 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 4:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for reporting this, these issues are fixed in the attached
> > > v20240730_2 version patch.
> > >
>
> I was review
01.08.2024 06:41, Tom Lane wrote:
But beside that, I've found a separate regression. Bisecting for this
degradation:
Best pg-src-17--.* worse than pg-src-16--.* by 105.0 percents (356.63 >
173.96): s64da_tpcds.query95
Average pg-src-17--.* worse than pg-src-16--.* by 105.2 percents (357.79 >
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:26 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 4:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for reporting this, these issues are fixed in the attached
> > v20240730_2 version patch.
> >
I was reviewing the design of patch003, and I have a query. Do we need
to even star
I hate to be "that guy", but there are many places in sources where we use
LOCKMODE lockmode; variable and exactly one where we use LOCKMODE
lmode: it is vacuum_open_relation function.
Is it worth a patch?
v1-0001-Rename-vacuum_open_relation-argument-to-lockmode.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi all,
Some utility statements like Explain, CreateTableAs and DeclareCursor
contain a query which will be planned and executed. During post parse,
only the top utility statement is jumbled, leaving the contained query
without a query_id set. Explain does the query jumble in ExplainQuery
but for
Thanks, I have set my name in the Authors column of CF.
Steven
Junwang Zhao 于2024年8月2日周五 13:22写道：
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 12:12 PM Steven Niu wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Junwang,
> >
> > Thank you for the review and excellent summary in commit message!
> >
> > This is my first contribut
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 11:09, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Kirill Reshke wrote:
> > However, in general, the 3rd patch is really big, very hard to
> > comprehend. Please consider splitting this into smaller (and
> > reviewable) pieces.
>
> I'll try to move some preparation steps into separate diffs,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:33 PM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 11:22, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > Trivial rebase, following c7301c3b6f.
> >
>
> Rebased version, forced by a7f107df2b. Evaluating the input parameters
> of correlated SubPlans in the referencing ExprState simplifies th
On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 11:31:53 -0700
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-07-31 at 18:20 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > I agree that it might not be important, but I think adding the flag
> > would be
> > also helpful for improving code-readability because it clarify the
> > function
> > is used in the
59 matches
Mail list logo
