On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 04:25:41AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> We are using sizeof(PgStat_HashKey) in pgstat_cmp_hash_key() and we compute
> the
> hash hash key in pgstat_hash_hash_key() using the PgStat_HashKey struct size
> as
> input: this lead to unexpected results if the keys contain ra
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 1:46 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
> +typentry = lookup_type_cache(elmtyp, TYPECACHE_LT_OPR);
> +if (!OidIsValid(typentry->lt_opr))
> +ereport(ERROR,
> +(errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_FUNCTION),
> + errmsg("could not identify order
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 01:42:55PM +0100, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> I was in the process of experimenting with this idea and found that
> pg_recvlogical can:
> - only create the slot or
> - create the slot and immediately use it
> - try to create the slot and if the slot is already there use it
>
>
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 06:29:42AM +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> The attached patchset contains patch 0001, which improves handling of
> not in recovery state by usage of PromoteIsTriggered(). When
> (PromoteIsTriggered() == false), last replay LSN is not accepted and
> not reported in errdet
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 03:23:15PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> While unfortunately named, we cannot deprecate TRIM_ARRAY() because it
>> is mandated by the standard.
>
> I didn't know that, thanks.
Wow. Neither did I.
> Still PostgreSQL doesn't follow the standard precisely in more tha
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 11:33:05AM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> Rebase needed due to array_reverse committed, PFA v11.
There has been another conflict since you have posted this version
(noticed that after my business in 027124a872d7). I have looked at
0001.
+if (ARR_NDIM(array) < 1)
+
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 10:30 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:28 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks for the latest doc v2 "fix" patch. Here are my review comments about
> it.
>
> ==
> src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
>
> 1.
> During initial data synchronization, only the
Hi there.
zero knowledge of Oath, just reading through the v35-0001.
forgive me if my comments are naive.
+static int
+parse_interval(struct async_ctx *actx, const char *interval_str)
+{
+ double parsed;
+ int cnt;
+
+ /*
+ * The JSON lexer has already validated the number, which is stricter than
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:28 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 16:44, Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:55 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >>
> >> I ran some tests and verified that the patch works with previous versions
> >> of PG12 and PG17
> >> 1. Verified w
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:31 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about 0001 but I think 0002 deserves a back patch as I think
> > > it fits
> > > int
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 4:26 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > 5. Verified that publications with different column list are disallowed to
> > be subscribed by one subscription
> >a. PUB_A(column list = (a, b)) PUB_B(no column list, with
> >
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 11:03 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:54 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 9:42 PM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:36 AM Heikki Linnakangas
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 25/10/
hi.
about v5.
if (exprs_known_equal(root, expr1, expr2, btree_opfamily))
{
/*
* Ensure that the collation of the expression matches
* that of the partition key. Checking just one collation
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 4:26 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> 5. Verified that publications with different column list are disallowed to be
> subscribed by one subscription
>a. PUB_A(column list = (a, b)) PUB_B(no column list, with
> publish_generated_column) - OK
>b. PUB_A(column list = (a, b
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:16 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 15:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 8:50 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for reporting this issue. The attached v46 patch addresses
> > > the problem and includes some adjustments to the c
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 at 08:43, Andy Fan wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed feedback! Here is the rebased version.
>>
>
> I took another look at this and I think it's in reasonable shape.
>
> I'm attaching an update, rebasing it on top of 9be4e5d293.
Thank you Dean.
>
Hi Tom,
Did I understand correctly that you would prefer the documentation part to
be much smaller than it is now and all current the discussion about things
that are not strictly about the pg_test_timing to be not in the docs for it
?
My current plan is to move the other discussions around timin
Hannu Krosing writes:
> Did I understand correctly that you would prefer the documentation part to
> be much smaller than it is now and all current the discussion about things
> that are not strictly about the pg_test_timing to be not in the docs for it
> ?
Well, I would like for the docs not to
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:54 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 9:42 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:36 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25/10/2024 14:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > I see that pg_wal_replay_wait_status()
Hi, Heikki!
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 9:42 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:36 AM Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> >
> > On 25/10/2024 14:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > I see that pg_wal_replay_wait_status() might look weird, but it seems
> > > to me like the best of fea
> On 1 Nov 2024, at 13:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 01.11.24 12:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2024-Oct-31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> When looking at our Git tree for a recent conference presentation I
>>> happened to
>>> notice that we have recently gained duplicate names in the short
"bigbro...@hotmail.com" writes:
> I notice that check the condtion again when after invoked process_equivalence
> and return failed.
> /* EC rejected it, so set left_ec/right_ec the hard way ... */
> if (restrictinfo->mergeopfamilies) /* EC might have changed this */
> Above the cod
Yugo Nagata writes:
> While looking into the commit b4da732fd64e936970f38c792f8b32c4bdf2bcd5,
> I noticed that we can create a materialized view using Ephemeral Named
> Relation in PostgreSQL 16 or earler.
Yeah, we should reject that, but I feel like this patch is not
ambitious enough, because t
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 04:38:29PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> This was a near miss to having a worst-in-years regression in a minor release,
> so I'm proposing this sequence:
>
> - Revert from non-master branches commits 8e7e672 (inplace180, "WAL-log
> inplace update before revealing it to other
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 13:27, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Vignesh,
>
> Thanks for rebasing the patch! Before reviewing deeply, I want to confirm the
> specification.
> I understood like below based on the documentation.
>
> - If publish_generated_columns is false, the publication won't
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 16:44, Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:55 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>>
>> I ran some tests and verified that the patch works with previous versions of
>> PG12 and PG17
>> 1. Verified with publications with generated columns and without generated
>> colu
> On Nov 1, 2024, at 18:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2024 10:41, feichanghong wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 2024, at 16:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2024 09:19, feichanghong wrote:
Hi hackers,
In the _bt_killitems function, the following logic is present: we s
27 matches
Mail list logo
