On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 8:49 PM Xuneng Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi, I was able to reproduce the failure by adding a 1-second sleep in the
> LogicalRepApplyLoop function
> However, I noticed that the tests under src/test/subscription run
> significantly slower— is this normal?
>
Yes, because you made app
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 6:30 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> 3. Allow reading LSN written by walreciever, but not flushed yet
>
> Problem: if we have synchronous_standby_names = ANY(node1,node2), node2 might
> be ahead of node1 by flush LSN, but before by written LSN. If we do a
> failover we choose
On 5/11/25 18:07, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 10:59 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> But doesn't it also highlight how fragile this memory allocation is? The
>> skip scan patch didn't do anything wrong - it just added a couple
>> fields, using a little bit more memory. I think we
I wrote:
> Okay, here is a patch series that updates the
> 0001-Make-memory-contexts-themselves-more-visible-to-valg.patch
> patch you posted in that thread,
I forgot to mention that I did try to implement the "two-level
pool" scheme that the Valgrind documentation talks about, and
could not make
I wrote:
> And, since there's nothing new under the sun around here,
> we already had a discussion about that back in 2021:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3471359.1615937770%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> That thread seems to have led to fixing some specific bugs,
> but we never committed any of t
Hello,
I was running into the same thing, and the fix for me was mounting xfs with -o
inodes64
Best,
Pierre
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024, at 08:34, Michael Harris wrote:
> Hello PG Hackers
>
> Our application has recently migrated to PG16, and we have experienced
> some failed upgrades. The upgrades are
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 12:12 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 5/6/25 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The attached patch is a response to the discussion at [1], where
> > it emerged that lots of rows with null join keys can send a hash
> > join into too-many-batches hell, if they are on the outer side
> > of
Hi hackers,
I’ve been exploring the idea of integrating an LSM tree–based storage engine
into PostgreSQL — similar in spirit to MyRocks for MySQL — by
replacing the underlying
storage while preserving PostgreSQL’s upper layers (planner, executor, MVCC,
etc.).
The motivation stems from the well‑kn
On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 7:07 PM Matthias van de Meent <
boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 8:45 PM ikedarintarof <
> ikedarinta...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi hackers,
> >>
> >> I would like to suggest adding a new option to pgbench, which enables
> >> the cl
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 10:59 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> But doesn't it also highlight how fragile this memory allocation is? The
> skip scan patch didn't do anything wrong - it just added a couple
> fields, using a little bit more memory. I think we understand allocating
> more memory may need more
Hi, I was able to reproduce the failure by adding a 1-second sleep in the
LogicalRepApplyLoop function
However, I noticed that the tests under src/test/subscription run
significantly slower— is this normal?
Also, it looks like the patch mentioned in this thread addresses the issue:
https://www.pos
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> On 2025-May-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So it seems like valgrind is wrong here, or else we're leaking the
>> whole rd_att structure later on somehow.
> Well, the problem is that if num_check is zero, FreeTupleDesc() doesn't
> free ->check.
Ah-hah.
> Done th
On Sun, 11 May 2025, at 15:48, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> So we should also have tab-completion for ALTER TABLE ADD NOT NULL, as
> in the attached. Any opinions?
LGTM
--
- ilmari
So we should also have tab-completion for ALTER TABLE ADD NOT NULL, as
in the attached. Any opinions?
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que la verdad absoluta no existe...
El problema es que la mentira sí existe y tu est
On 2025-Apr-29, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> jian he writes:
> > + /* ALTER DOMAIN ADD */
> > + else if (Matches("ALTER", "DOMAIN", MatchAny, "ADD"))
> > + COMPLETE_WITH("CONSTRAINT", "NOT NULL", "CHECK");
>
> I think the completion for CHECK should include the opening paren
Hello,
On 2025-Mar-06, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> Patch is attached.
Looks correct to me. It's harmless obviously (and nobody appears to
have been damanged by it) but I still backpatched to all live branches.
Thanks, Emre.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseD
Em sáb., 10 de mai. de 2025 às 21:57, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Constraints can be targeted by “comment on”.
>
So, why not using that COMMENT ON message to raise when that constraint
gets violated ?
A GUC like Constraint_Exception_Returns_MessageOn = {Never | Alw
On 2025-May-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Uh ... yeah it is, down at the bottom of the function:
>
> /* Install array only after it's fully valid */
> relation->rd_att->constr->check = check;
> relation->rd_att->constr->num_check = found;
>
> So it seems like valgrind is wrong here, or
> 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
De: David G. Johnston
Enviada: 11 de maio de 2025 01:58
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 t
Tom Lane writes:
> Why don't you just choose better names for your constraints?
A word versus a sentence. It's a big difference that greatly improves the
user experience.
> I'd argue that the proposed change might actually be a net loss for
usability, if it entirely obscures the fact that what h
21 matches
Mail list logo
