On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 3:44 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 15:27, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:48 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > >
> > > I have included the changes for
> > > it in v14-0003 patch.
> > >
> > Thanks for the patches. I have reviewed patch001 al
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-13 11:53:03 +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Attached are a few proposals for minor comment fixes.
>
> Thanks, applied.
After reading the code a bit more, I noticed that the 'cb_flags' argument of
PgAioHandleCallbackStage is not really used, at least in the exi
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:16 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:20 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:15:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:21:03AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:31:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Attached is the remaining patch for HEAD, planned once v19 opens, and
>> the tests I have used on the back-branches as a txt to not confuse the
>> CI, for reference.
Hi Shlok,
One more thing, I noticed there is no tab-completion code yet for this
new EXCEPT (column_list) syntax.
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Hi Shlok.
Some review comments for v15-0003.
==
doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
1.
- True if the relation must be excluded
+ True if the column list or relation must be excluded from publication.
+ If a column list is specified in prattrs, then
+ exclude only those
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 10:59:09 +
"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" wrote:
> > > Retrying the failed transaction is not necessary when the transaction
> > > failed due to SQL-level errors. Unlike real-world applications, pgbench
> > > does not need to complete specific transaction successfully. In the c
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 4:35 PM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In
> "Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations"
> on Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:48:46 +0900,
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> >> >> It's natural to add more related APIs with this
> >> >> approach. The singl
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:20 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:15:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 20
Attached is the v15 patch to fix CFbot complains.
Other than that, nothing has been changed since v14.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
v15-0001-Add-IGNORE-NULLS-RESPECT-NULLS-option-to-Window-.patch
Descriptio
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 04:20:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Coming back to this thread as v19 is going to open up rather soon, the
> suggestion from Tom seems to be the consensus reached, which is to use
> the same value of log_line_prefix in the CI and the TAP as in
> pg_regress.c. Attache
I noticed an inconsistency between uppercase and lowercase letters in only
one place of pg_stat_activity definition, so I'll report it. I think this
is just a typo and there is no functionality issue.
When I compared to the content before and after, I think the capital letter
"S" than "s" is suitab
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:44:58PM +0900, Daisuke Higuchi wrote:
>> When I compared to the content before and after, I think the capital letter
>> "S" than "s" is suitable for alias, as shown below.
> Yeah, makes sense to me to fix this inconsistency on HEAD, even if
> i
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:44:58PM +0900, Daisuke Higuchi wrote:
> I noticed an inconsistency between uppercase and lowercase letters in only
> one place of pg_stat_activity definition, so I'll report it. I think this
> is just a typo and there is no functionality issue.
> When I compared to the co
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 4:02 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 03:10:56PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Barring comments/objections, I'll plan on committing/back-patching this in
> > the near future.
>
> Here is what I have staged for commit. I ended up moving it to the
> "T
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 07:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 05:25:42PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 06:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> So you are suggesting the addition of an extra ReadPageInternal() that
> >> forces a read of only the read, perform the
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 2:37 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 22.06.25 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 17.06.25 20:19, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various
> slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:51 AM Daniil Davydov <3daniss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I noticed that some asserts and cycles use magic numbers 1 and 0
> instead of BTLessStrategyNumber and InvalidStrategy.
> At the same time, the BTMaxStrategyNumber macro is used there.
> I suggest using appropria
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> One thing I was
> thinking is whether it makes sense to add these checks only in
> --dry-run mode because we normally don't expect such conflicts.
> Otherwise, each such check adds an additional network round-trip.
>
I did wonder why it bother
Hi,
I noticed that some asserts and cycles use magic numbers 1 and 0
instead of BTLessStrategyNumber and InvalidStrategy.
At the same time, the BTMaxStrategyNumber macro is used there.
I suggest using appropriate macros for 1 and 0 values.
Please, see attached patch (targeted on the master branch)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:37 AM Zane Duffield wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see the difference you are pointing to. Ideally, the checks should
>> be the same unless there is a specific reason for them to be
>> different, which should be mentioned in the
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I see the difference you are pointing to. Ideally, the checks should
> be the same unless there is a specific reason for them to be
> different, which should be mentioned in the comments. BTW, do you see
> any problems due to name conflicts w
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 1:13 PM Zane Duffield wrote:
>
> Hackers,
>
> I noticed in testing and usage that pg_createsubscriber doesn't check for an
> existing replication slot before attempting to create one, whereas it *does*
> check for existing publications.
>
I see the difference you are poi
Tender Wang 于2025年4月24日周四 22:07写道：
>
>
> Tender Wang 于2025年4月14日周一 14:17写道：
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I debug hashjoin codes, in estimate_multivariate_bucketsize(), I
>> find that
>> the list_copy(hashclauses) below is unnecessary if we have a single join
>> clause.
>>
>> List *clauses = list_
On 22.06.25 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 17.06.25 20:19, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various
slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as: "
The --two-phase and --failover options can be specified with
--create-sl
On 27.06.25 11:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025, at 23:06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
I'll propose changes for these comments in the morning when coffee has been
had.
The attached moves to logging on stderr along with a test for this, and also
removes the WARNING prefix that was ad
On 12.06.25 07:49, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2025-02-07 at 11:19 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
Attached v15. Just a rebase.
Attached v16.
* commit this on the grounds that it's a desirable code improvement
and
the worst-case regression isn't a major concern; or
I plan to commit this soon after
27 matches
Mail list logo
