Re: Using per-transaction memory contexts for storing decoded tuples

On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 17:46, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 5:13 AM David Rowley wrote: > > In general, it's a bit annoying to have to code around this > > GenerationContext fragmentation issue. > > Right, and I am also slightly afraid that this may not cause some > regression i

Re: Why don't we consider explicit Incremental Sort?

On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 20:48, Richard Guo wrote: > I agree with you that sometimes the definition of 'regression' can > depend on when the alternative plans are introduced. Imagine if we > initially did not have the 1.5x pessimism factor and introduced it > later, it would be treated as a 'regre

Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica.

On 20.09.2024 19:19, Fujii Masao wrote: I've attached the updated version (0001.patch). I made some cosmetic changes, including reverting the switch in the entries for pg_stat_get_checkpointer_write_time and pg_stat_get_checkpointer_sync_time in pg_proc.dat, as I didn’t think that change was nec

Re: Why mention to Oracle ?

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 01:50:37PM -0300, Marcos Pegoraro wrote: > I didn't say no more people are migrating from Oracle, I just say that maybe > migrations are now coming from other databases, like SQL Server, MySQL, DB2, > Firebird, Mongo and many others. So why do you document only for those whi

Re: Add llvm version into the version string

Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > In many jit related bug reports, one of the first questions is often > "which llvm version is used". How about adding it into the > PG_VERSION_STR, similar to the gcc version? I'm pretty down on this idea as presented, first because our version strin

Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?

> On 21 Sep 2024, at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Florents Tselai writes: >> Ah, swapped them by mistake on the previous email: >> They're both available in the pg_dump and note on -n missing in pg_restore. >> The question remains though: >> Shouldn’t there be a note about -n in pg_restore ?

Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:27:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nitpick: the message should say "%d bytes" not "%d characters", > because we're counting bytes. Passes an eyeball check otherwise. Thanks for reviewing. I went ahead and committed 0002 since it seems like there's consensus on that one.

Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more)

Hi, I've finally pushed this, after many rounds of careful testing to ensure no regressions, and polishing. All changes since the version shared on September 13 are only cosmetic - renaming a macro to keep it consistent with the other ones, clarifying a couple comments etc. Nothing major. I ended

Re: Extensible storage manager API - SMGR hook Redux

Hi, I reviewed the discussion and took a look at the patch sets. It seems like many things are combined here. Based on the subject, I initially thought it aimed to provide the infrastructure to easily extend storage managers. This would allow anyone to create their own storage managers using this

Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?

Florents Tselai writes: > Ah, swapped them by mistake on the previous email: > They're both available in the pg_dump and note on -n missing in pg_restore. > The question remains though: > Shouldn’t there be a note about -n in pg_restore ? Probably. I see that pg_dump has a third copy of the exa

Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 8:34 PM Florents Tselai wrote: > I’m in the process of trying to restore some PG15/16 backups in PG17. > > While playing with different -t and -n combinations I was browsing through > the docs. > > In *pg_restore* there are two notes about both -t / -n > > > When -n / -t i

Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?

I’m in the process of trying to restore some PG15/16 backups in PG17. While playing with different -t and -n combinations I was browsing through the docs. In pg_restore there are two notes about both -t / -n > When -n / -t is specified, pg_dump makes no attempt to ... In pg_dump though there’

Re: Why mention to Oracle ?

Em sex., 20 de set. de 2024 às 18:34, Jonah H. Harris < jonah.har...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Seems to me this has already been answered well multiple times by multiple > people; I’m not sure why this is such an issue, or one that warrants > continued discussion. > No, I do not want to continue a d

Re: pg_checksums: Reorder headers in alphabetical order

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 02:48:32PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2024/09/21 12:09, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fujii Masao writes: >> > I don´t have any objections to this commit, but I´d like to confirm >> > whether we really want to proactively reorder #include directives, >> > even for standard C libra