Patch v3-0001 LGTM
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:52 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 15:57, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 8:16 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Nisha,
> > >
> > > Here are some minor review comments for patch v58-0002.
> > >
...
>
> 2) We can mention this as 1d ins
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 08:47, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> Some review comments for your v2 patch.
>
> ==
> doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
>
> AFAICT the only difference you made is changing:
> FROM "a special kind of apply process"
> TO "a special kind of table synchronization
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 8:28 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 11:30 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sawada-San.
> >
> > FWIW, I also thought it was a good idea suggested by Bertrand [1] to
> > "hide" everything behind the slot create/delete, and thereby eliminate
> >
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 15:57, Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 8:16 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nisha,
> >
> > Here are some minor review comments for patch v58-0002.
> >
>
> Thank you for your feedback! Please find the v59 patch set addressing
> all the comments.
> Note: There a
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 6:13 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> 3. If the apply worker cannot catch up, it could enter to a bad loop;
> the publisher sends huge amount of data -> the apply worker cannot
> catch up -> it needs to wait for a longer time to advance its
> oldest_nonremovable_xid -> more ga
Hi! Thanks for looking into this!
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 23:36, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> initdb fails when configured with --without-zstd
Yes, the patch is intended to demonstrate improvement when using Zstd.
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 17:43, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>
> WAL_DEBUG and wal_compressio
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
> > tweaks the link to alter table replica status.
> >
>
> IIUC, we have changed following to clarify the REPLICA ID
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and
> tweaks the link to alter table replica status.
>
IIUC, we have changed following to clarify the REPLICA IDENTITY usage:
If a table without a replica identity is
- added to
On 1/13/25 01:39, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
The revised patch is attached. Most notably it revises
group_similar_or_args() to have the same notion of const-ness as
others. In that function we split potential index key and constant
early to save time on enumerating all possible index keys. But
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Nov-25, Suraj Kharage wrote:
>
> > Another case which needs conclusion is -
> > When changing from INHERIT to NO INHERIT, we need to walk all children
> and
> > decrement coninhcount for the corresponding constraint. If a constraint
>
Hi Tomas,
Thank you for the review.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:32 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi Rahila,
>
> Thanks for the updated and rebased patch. I've tried the pgbench test
> again, to see if it gets stuck somewhere, and I'm observing this on a
> new / idle cluster:
>
> $ pgbench -n -f test.sq
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 5:03 AM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, at 17:52, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 2024-12-12 Th 12:08 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> >>
> >> command_ok(
> >> [
> >> 'pg_dump',
> >> ('--schema', 'pg_catalog'),
> >>
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 12:58 AM Robert Treat wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 10:41 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robert.
> >
> > The content and rendering of patch v2 LGTM.
> >
> > Should the word wrapping within the file
> > doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml be tidied up though?
> >
>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 2:47 AM Yura Sokolov wrote:
> Вс, 12 янв. 2025 г. в 21:39, Alexander Korotkov :
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:51 AM Alena Rybakina
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 29.11.2024 03:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hello, everyone!
While stabilizing tests for [0] I have noticed unclear (and confusing in my
opinion) behavior of markers in the isolation tester.
I have attached a test with reproducer.
There are two permutations in the test:
permutation
after(before)
before
detach1
wak
Вс, 12 янв. 2025 г. в 21:39, Alexander Korotkov :On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:51 AM Alena Rybakina
> wrote:
> >
> > On 29.11.2024 03:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 9:33 PM Alena Rybakina
> > > wrote:
> > >> On
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:08 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 5:36 PM Shubham Khanna
> wrote:
> >
> The patch no longer applies on HEAD. Please do rebase.
>
Sorry, I was mistaken. Ignore this. The patch does apply on HEAD.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:55 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some patches of this thread have fallen though the cracks for more
> than 2 months now, so I am re-posting them so that do not get
> overlooked any longer.
>
> For v49 [1] there were 2 patches:
> v49-0001-Enable-support-for-publish_ge
Hi,
Some patches of this thread have fallen though the cracks for more
than 2 months now, so I am re-posting them so that do not get
overlooked any longer.
For v49 [1] there were 2 patches:
v49-0001-Enable-support-for-publish_generated_columns-par
v49-0002-DOCS-Generated-Column-Replication
Then,
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 10:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> I want to register that I'm not a fan of this change:
Thanks for the feedback. Much bigger changes are coming soon (spoiler:
cfbot integration). Feedback is definitely welcome on those changes
too.
> Rationale: It puts the least important
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 4:40 AM yuansong wrote:
> If such index anomalies need to be checked, it would be better to do so using
> external tools rather than checking during the core search process.
Why? Did you use an external tool?
> If you agree with this proposal, I can try to implement the
Here's a rebased v5 due to conflicts with de1e298857. No other changes
since v4.
--
Erik Wienhold
From ac9bba0960f7a6fa507020400f1b4bcf4c9a25d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Erik Wienhold
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 18:35:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/3] Add CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW
---
Hi!
On 12.01.2025 21:39, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:51 AM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
On 29.11.2024 03:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 9:33 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
On 28.11.2024 22:28, Rani
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 5:50 PM Sami Imseih wrote:
> Here is a use-case where the GUC may be useful. I can see a user
> wanting to try out the index before committing to using it across the
> board. They can create the index as invisible and force using
> it in a specific part of the application.
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h?
> I don't know what our policy around this is, and maybe the backpatching hazard
> isn't too bad here, but it doesn't entirely seem worth the churn.
I think the entire point of
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 17:10, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While experimenting with some changes in BufFile, I noticed a harmless
> bug in BufFileLoadBuffer. It calls sizeof on the whole PGAlignedBuffer,
> instead of just on the "data" field. It's benign because the "data" is
> the largest part
> On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-10, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
>> Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
>
> Hmm, doesn't this need a corresponding rearrangement of the
> postgresql.conf.sample file
That's a good point.
> and the GUC groupi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:51 AM Alena Rybakina
> wrote:
> >
> > On 29.11.2024 03:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 9:33 PM Alena Rybakina
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 28.11.2024 22:28, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > >>
> >
I
./pgbin/bin/pg_waldump
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 at 17:43, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>
> Hi hackers!
>
> I propose a slight change to WAL compression: compress body of big records,
> if it's bigger than some threshold.
>
Hi,
initdb fails when configured with --without-zstd
```
reshke@ygp-jammy:
Hello, everyone!
Decide just to clarify - the patch is failing on CFbot [0], but it is as
designed - it contains a reproducer which shows how unrelated backends may
affect each other even in case of **local** injection points, causing the
crash.
Best regards,
Michail.
[0]: https://cirrus-ci.com/
Hi,
While experimenting with some changes in BufFile, I noticed a harmless
bug in BufFileLoadBuffer. It calls sizeof on the whole PGAlignedBuffer,
instead of just on the "data" field. It's benign because the "data" is
the largest part of the union, so the sizes are equal.
But it's still confusing
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> +1, but you also need to update the xml_1.out and xml_2.out files.
> IIRC, xml_1.out is what comes out without --with-libxml.
> I forget what's different about xml_2.out, but you can probably
> just clone the diff for xml.out and be fine.
>
Ah yes
Hi hackers!
I propose a slight change to WAL compression: compress body of big records, if
it's bigger than some threshold.
===Rationale===
0. Better compression ratio for full page images when pages are compressed
together.
Consider following test:
set wal_compression to 'zstd';
create table
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 12:56 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/01/12 2:04, Ryo Kanbayashi wrote:
> > I wrote a patch for release v13 - v17 additionally and tested it for
> > each release branch :)
> > As a result, two patch is needed for this fix.
>
> Thanks for the patches! Barring any objec
35 matches
Mail list logo
