Hello,
I think reimplementing list_member_oid() under a different name
(is_ancestor_member_relids) is pointless and should not be done.
It also appears to me that we haven't nailed the error messages just
yet. I tried to fix it upthread, but didn't really get it correct. For
instance, consider
On Saturday, May 10, 2025, Miguel Ferreira
wrote:
> ALTER TABLE table_name
>
> ADD CONSTRAINT constraint_name
>
> CHECK (condition)
>
> MESSAGE 'Custom error message when the condition is not met.';
>
>
I’m seeing some value here but, odds are, there is not enough obvious
benefit or design to con
"Miguel Ferreira" writes:
> I propose extending the syntax of the ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT
> statement (and potentially CREATE TABLE) to allow for the
> specification of a custom error message for each CHECK constraint.
Why don't you just choose better names for your constraints?
I'd argue tha
PostgreSQL Project Leaders,
Currently, when a CHECK constraint is violated, PostgreSQL returns a generic
error message that includes the constraint name. While informative for
developers familiar with the database schema, this message can be less clear
for other team members, end-users, or i
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:24 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:24 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 09:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I don't think I was aware of the open item; I was just catching up on
> > > email.
> >
> > I lean towards making it opt-in for pg_
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 1:10 PM Daniil Davydov <3daniss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 2:14 PM Stepan Neretin wrote:
> >
> > The first thing we both noticed is that the macro calls a function that
> won't be available without an additional header. This seems a bit
> inconv
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 10:29:25AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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 8e
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 8:45 PM ikedarintarof
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> I would like to suggest adding a new option to pgbench, which enables
> the client to continue processing transactions even if some errors occur
> during a transaction.
> Currently, a client stops sending requests when its tra
On 5/10/25 13:14, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> ...
>
> I've attached a patch that makes IndexAmRoutine a static const*,
> removing it from rd_indexcxt, and returning some of the index ctx
> memory usage to normal:
>
> count (patch 1) | total_bytes | combined_size
> -+--
Hi hackers,
I would like to suggest adding a new option to pgbench, which enables
the client to continue processing transactions even if some errors occur
during a transaction.
Currently, a client stops sending requests when its transaction is
aborted due to reasons other than serialization fa
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 5:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 3:33 PM Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> >
> > A clear benefit of addressing this in code is to ensure that the user sees
> > the log message, which can be valuable for trouble-shooting—even under race
> > conditions.
> >
>
> I do
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 4:52 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is possible. Here is my theory as to how it can happen in the
> > current
> > case. In the failed test, after the primary has prepared a transaction, the
> > tran
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 6:57 AM Matthew Sterrett
wrote:
> Hello! I'm still trying to figure out those CI failures, I just wanted
> to update things.
>
> From my testing, with this patch repeatedly disabling/enabling
> checksums is about 12.4% on an approximately 15 GB database.
>
> By the way, I'd
On Sat, 10 May 2025 at 00:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 5/9/25 23:30, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > ...
> >> The difference shown by your flame graph is absolutely enormous --
> >> that's *very* surprising to me. btbeginscan and btrescan go from being
> >> microscopic to being very prominent.
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 1:05 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Right, but to an extent, this is also similar to having a requirement
> > of a logical slot on the primary. Now, it seems to me that the point
> > you are trying to make is t
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 6:01 PM Stepan Neretin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 6:57 AM Matthew Sterrett <
> matthewsterre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello! I'm still trying to figure out those CI failures, I just wanted
>> to update things.
>>
>> From my testing, with this patch repeatedly dis
Hi:
In join_is_legal(), i wonder wether the 2 "return false" statements can be
covered by any query.
/*
* If one input contains min_lefthand and the other contains
* min_righthand, then we can perform the SJ at this join.
*
* Reject
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 1:06 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 11:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 5:30 AM Ami
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 1:06 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 11:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 5:30 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 9:35 PM
19 matches
Mail list logo
