Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-23, Nathan Bossart wrote: > This one was briefly discussed in an RMT meeting. > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 01:16:20PM +0800, jian he wrote: > > attached patch is for address pg_dump inconsistency > > when parent is "not null not valid" while child is "not null". > > I see an open item

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-09, jian he wrote: > hi. > > attached patch is for address pg_dump inconsistency > when parent is "not null not valid" while child is "not null". Here's my take on this patch. We don't really need the notnull_parent_invalid flag; in flagInhAttrs we can just set "islocal" to convince

Re: not null constraints, again

On 2025-Apr-16, Tender Wang wrote: > if (conForm->contype != CONSTRAINT_NOTNULL) > elog(ERROR, "constraint %u is not a not-null constraint", conForm->oid); > > I feel that using conForm->conname is more friendly than oid for users. Yeah, this doesn't really matter because this function would

Re: not null constraints, again

Here's another version where I do skip searching for children twice, and rewrote the comments. I also noticed that in child tables we were only looking for pg_attribute.attnotnull, and not whether the constraints had been validated or made inheritable. This seemed a wasted opportunity, so I refac

Re: not null constraints, again

On 2025-Apr-15, Tom Lane wrote: > +1. Fundamentally the problem here is that pg_restore needs > > ALTER TABLE ONLY foo ADD PRIMARY KEY > > to not recurse to child tables at all. It is expecting this command > to acquire a lock on foo and nothing else; and it has already taken > care of making

Re: not null constraints, again

On 2025-Apr-15, Tender Wang wrote: > I thought further about the lockmode calling find_inheritance_children > in ATPrepAddPrimaryKey. > What we do here? We first get oids of children, then check the if the > column of children has marked not-null, if not, report an error. > No operation here on c

Re: not null constraints, again

On 2025-Apr-14, Tom Lane wrote: > The patch I propose there seems to prevent this, but I wonder if we > shouldn't look closer into why it's failing in the first place. > I would not have expected that adding pg_constraint rows implies > stronger locks than what ALTER ADD PRIMARY KEY was using befo

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-07, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I have pushed this after some small additional changes. > > Looks like some of the test cases have issues with locale-dependent > ordering. > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jay&

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-07, jian he wrote: > CREATE TABLE t (a int, b int); > INSERT INTO t VALUES (NULL, 1), (300, 3); > ALTER TABLE t ADD CONSTRAINT nn NOT NULL a NOT VALID; -- ok > ALTER TABLE t add column c float8 default random(); > the last query should not fail. Agreed. > if we want more places use C

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-05, jian he wrote: > hi. > + /* FIXME use CompactAttribute */ > Form_pg_attribute att = TupleDescAttr(relation->rd_att, i - > 1); > if (att->attnotnull && att->attnotnullvalid && > !att->attisdropped) > { >

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-21, jian he wrote: > * if partitioned table have valid not-null, then partition with > invalid not-null can not attach to the partition tree. Correct. > if partitioned table have not valid not-null, we *can* attach a > valid not-null to the partition tree. Also correct. > (inhe

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-28, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > However, it's a very painful process to come up with the schedule and > more painful and error prone to maintain it. It could take many days > to come up with the right schedule which can become inaccurate the > moment next SQL file is added OR an existing f

Re: two occurrences of assign print_notnull within pg_dump.c

On 2025-Apr-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM jian he wrote: > > > > hi. > > > > in src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c > > within function dumpTableSchema: > > there are two occurrences of: > > print_notnull = (tbinfo->notnull_constrs[j] != NULL && > >

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

Hello, I have pushed this now, hoping it won't explode. Thanks! -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "No es bueno caminar con un hombre muerto"

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

Hello, I triggered a run of this on CI on all platforms. It seems to have gone well, so unless I hear complaints, I intend to get this out later today. https://cirrus-ci.com/build/4613871211642880 Thanks, -- Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Apr-02, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I have closed the CF entry > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/4564/ committed. I will > create another CF entry to park --no-statistics reversal change. That > way, we will know when statistics dump/restore has become stable. No commitfest entry ple

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Apr-03, Andres Freund wrote: > I've increased the timeout even further, but I can't say that I am happy about > the slowest test getting even slower. Adding test time in the serially slowest > test is way worse than adding the same time in a concurrent test. Yeah. We discussed strategies

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Apr-01, Antonin Houska wrote: > Besides that, it occurred to me that 0005 ("Preserve visibility > information of the concurrent data changes.") will probably introduce > significant overhead. The problem is that the table we're repacking is > treated like a catalog, for reorderbuffer.c to

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

On 2025-Mar-11, Bernd Helmle wrote: > Please find attached v4 of this patch. I added the following changes: > > - Check for non-supported characters in the salt like passlib does. > - Check for reserved tokens when parsing the salt string (i find this > very strict, but it covers the cases Japin

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Apr-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Looks like the problem is in the test itself as pointed out by Jeff in > [1]. PFA patch fixing the test and enabling statistics back. Thanks, pushed. > A note about variable name changes and introduction of new variables. > We run step 2 between 1 and 3 so

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-03, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > It occurred to me that we will also want to have NOT NULL NOT ENFORCED > constraints eventually. As we have discussed elsewhere, the NOT > ENFORCED state is closely related to the NOT VALID state. So that > should probably be considered in the design her

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Apr-02, jian he wrote: > we need special code for handing parent is invalid, child is valid > (table inheritance or partitioning). H. I'm going to focus on this case, which is the simplest one we care about (no multi-level hierarchy, only not null constraint): create table singlepp

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-31, Robert Haas wrote: > It seems like a bad idea to make conislocal and coninhcount have > anything to do with whether the constraint is valid. We need those to > mean what they have traditionally meant just to make the correct > things happen when the constraint is dropped, either di

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

Hello, thanks for the review. On 2025-Apr-02, jian he wrote: > the following are reviews of changes in pg_dump > on v6-0001-NOT-NULL-NOT-VALID.patch > > minor style tweak: > + "CASE WHEN NOT co.convalidated THEN co.oid" > + " ELSE NULL END AS notnull_invalidoid,\n" > > align with surrounding co

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-28, jian he wrote: > ATPrepAddPrimaryKey > + if (!conForm->convalidated) > + ereport(ERROR, > + errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), > + errmsg("not-null constraint \"%s\" of table \"%s\" has not been validated", > + NameStr(conForm->conname), > + RelationGetRelationN

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Apr-01, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Just today morning, I found something which looks like another bug in > statistics dump/restore [1]. As Daniel has expressed upthread [2], we > should go ahead and commit the test even if the bug is not fixed. But > in case it creates a lot of noise and make

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Given where we are in the cycle, it seems to make sense to stick to using the > schedule we already have rather than invent a new process for generating it, > and work on that for 19? No objections to that. I'll see about getting this committed during m

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-31, jian he wrote: > hi. > in notnull-notvalid.patch > > + if (coninfo->contype == 'c') > + keyword = "CHECK CONSTRAINT"; > + else > + keyword = "INVALID NOT NULL CONSTRAINT"; > we have a new TocEntry->desc kind. Yeah, I wasn't sure that this change made much actual sense. I think i

Re: Reducing memory consumed by RestrictInfo list translations in partitionwise join planning

On 2025-Mar-28, David Rowley wrote: > I experimented by applying your v4 along with 0001-0003 of Yuya's v35 > patchset from [2]. See the attached bz2 for my results run on an AMD > Zen2 machine. The CREATE TABLE statement is in the attached script. Eyeballing these results, unless I am misreadin

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-28, jian he wrote: > i think your patch messed up with pg_constraint.conislocal. > for example: > > CREATE TABLE parted (id bigint default 1,id_abc bigint) PARTITION BY LIST > (id); > alter TABLE parted add CONSTRAINT dummy_constr not null id not valid; > CREATE TABLE parted_1 (id bi

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-28, Tom Lane wrote: > I think instead of going this direction, we really need to create a > separately-purposed script that simply creates "one of everything" > without doing anything else (except maybe loading a little data). > I believe it'd be a lot easier to remember to add to that

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-28, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > No, that's losing some information like default installation and the > same version. You don't need to preserve such information. This is just a test name. People looking for more details can grep for the name and they will find the comments. -- Álvaro H

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-24, jian he wrote: > hi. > you may like the attached. it's based on your idea: attnotnullvalid. This is quite close to what I was thinking, yeah. I noticed a couple of bugs however, and ended up cleaning up the whole thing. Here's what I have so far. I'm not sure the pg_dump bits a

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:01 PM vignesh C wrote: > > Couple of minor thoughts: > > 1) I felt this error message is not conveying the error message correctly: > > + if ($src_node->pg_version != $dst_node->pg_version > > + or defined $src

Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

Hello On 2025-Mar-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > A patch in the NOT ENFORCED constraints patch series proposes to refactor > some of the code added by this patch series ([0] patch v18-0001). I noticed > that the code paths from this patch series do not call > InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() or CacheI

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-24, Robert Haas wrote: > I mean, maybe there's an argument that some changes are more > disruptive than others. For instance, if removing attndims would force > drivers to run extra more complicated queries to learn whether a > certain type is an array type, one could argue that taking

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > One concern I have with directory format is the dumped database is not > readable. This might make investigating a but identified the test a > bit more complex. Oh, it's readable all right. You just need to use `pg_restore -f-` to read it. No big deal.

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I used the same parallelism in pg_restore and pg_dump too. And your > numbers seem to be similar to mine; slightly less than 20% slowdown. > But is that slowdown acceptable? From the earlier discussions, it > seems the answer is No. Haven't heard otherwise.

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-21, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't agree with this conclusion. Uhm. > The 8.3 casting changes were problematic because any piece of SQL > you'd ever written could have problems. Okay, this much I agree with. > This change will only break queries that look at the attnotnull > column.

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

I passed PROVE_FLAGS="--timer -v" to get the timings and run under --format=directory. Without new test: ok23400 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 2.84 cusr 1.53 csys = 4.37 CPU) ok23409 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.01 sys + 2.81 cusr 1.53 csys = 4.35 CPU) With new test, under --format=directory: -j2

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:37 PM vignesh C wrote: > > Should the copyright be only 2025 in this case: > The patch was posted in 2024 to this mailing list. So we better > protect the copyright since then. I remember a hackers discussion > where a senior mem

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-20, jian he wrote: > > Is it expected that a child may have VALID constraint but parent has > > not valid constraint? > > but the MergeConstraintsIntoExisting logic is when > ALTER TABLE ATTACH PARTITION, > it expects the child table to also have an equivalent constraint > definition o

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-20, vignesh C wrote: > Will it help the execution time if we use --jobs in case of pg_dump > and pg_restore wherever supported: As I said in another thread, I think we should enable this test to run without requiring any PG_TEST_EXTRA, because otherwise the only way to know about prob

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-20, jian he wrote: > as you can see the output of `\d+ notnull_tbl1` > That means the pg_attribute.attnotnull definition is changed. That's correct, it changed in that way. I propose for the new docs: > > >attnotnull bool > > >This column h

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

Hello On 2025-Mar-20, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Attached is another version of the patch (WIP), where I have > introduced a new catalog column, pg_attribute.attinvalidnotnull > (boolean). This column will default to FALSE but will be set to TRUE > when an INVALID NOT NULL constraint is created. Wi

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-17, jian he wrote: > hi. > I played around with it. > > current syntax, we don't need to deal with column constraint grammar. > like the following can fail directly: > create table t0(a int constraint nn not null a not valid); > we only support table constraint cases like: > alter tab

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

Hello When running these tests, I encounter this strange diff in the dumps, which seems to be that the locale for type money does not match. I imagine the problem is that the locale is not set correctly when initdb'ing one of them? Grepping the regress_log for initdb, I see this: $ grep -B1 'Ru

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-10, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > I adjusted the set_attnotnull() API and removed the added > queue_validation parameter. Rather, the function start using wqueue > input parameter as a check. > If wqueue is NULL, skip the queue_validation. Attaching patch here, > but not sure how clear it

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > If the test passes for you, can you please try the patches at [1] on > top of your patches? Please apply those, set and export environment > variable PG_TEST_EXTRA=regress_dump_test, and run 002_pg_upgrade test? > I intended to do this but can not do it sinc

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

Hello On 2025-Mar-13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > 1. can you please run the test again and share the dump outputs. They > will be located in a temporary directory with names > src_dump.sql_adjusted and dest_dump..sql_adjusted. Ah, I see the problem :-) The first initdb does this: # Running

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-12, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Hi Alvaro, > > Here are the latest patches, which includes the regression fix. Thank you. Taking a step back after discussing this with some colleagues, I need to contradict what I said at the start of this thread. There's a worry that changing pg_attrib

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Mar-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Does the test pass for you if you don't apply my patches? Yes. It also passes if I keep PG_TEST_EXTRA empty. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > The 002_pg_upgrade test passes with and without my patches now. But > then the tests added here do not leave behind any parent-child table. > Previously we have found problems in dumping and restoring constraints > in an inheritance hierarchy. I think the te

Re: refactor AlterDomainAddConstraint (alter domain add constraint)

Hello, On 2025-Jan-15, jian he wrote: > we cannot error out AlterDomainAddConstraint for cases like ALTER > DOMAIN ADD CHECK NO INHERIT. > because "NO INHERIT" is actually a separate Constraint Node, and > AlterDomainAddConstraint > can only handle one Constraint node. I had forgotten this threa

Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Mar-03, Suraj Kharage wrote: > Thanks Alvaro for the review and fixup patch. > > I agree with your changes and merged that into the main patch along with a > couple of other changes. > > Please find attached v6 for further review. Thanks, I have pushed this. I made some changes to the

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Feb-26, Antonin Houska wrote: > @@ -403,39 +381,38 @@ cluster_rel(Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, > ClusterParams *params) >* would work in most respects, but the index would only get marked as >* indisclustered in the current database, leading to unexpected > behavior >

Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Feb-21, Suraj Kharage wrote: > Thanks, Alvaro. > > I have revised the patch as per your last update. > Please find attached v5 for further review. Hello I noticed two issues. One is that we are OK to modify a constraint that's defined in our parent, which breaks everything. We can onl

Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

On 2025-Feb-22, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Also, there's a bunch of "(char *)" casts that are 100% due to > printTableAddCell() taking a char * instead of const char * for the cell > value. That seems a bit silly, we should change that. Ah, but the problem is that most

Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

On 2025-Feb-21, Sami Imseih wrote: > > If we want to include 'role' in this output, what I'd propose is to > > have \conninfo issue "SHOW role", which is accepted by every server > > version. If it fails (say because we're in an aborted transaction), > > just omit that row from the output. > > v

Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

I suggest the attached, which gets 99% there with 10% of the complexity, and has \conninfo (no plus sign) output this: Connection Information Parámetro │ Valor ───┼ Base de Datos │ alvherre Client Use

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Feb-21, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I see a nonrepeatable problem under valgrind which I'm going to look > into. Sorry, pilot error. The pg_upgrade test works fine under valgrind. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Feb-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > If I apply your patches, build binaries, I see failure. I reverted > your patches, built binaries, I don't see failure. I apply your > patches again, built binaries, it fails again. I can't reproduce the problem either. Are you running asserts disabled or

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

Hello, Thanks! I noticed a typo 'constrint' in several places; fixed in the attached. I discovered that this sequence, taken from added regression tests, CREATE TABLE notnull_tbl1 (a int); ALTER TABLE notnull_tbl1 ADD CONSTRAINT nn_parent not null a not valid; CREATE TABLE notnull_chld (a int);

Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Feb-10, Suraj Kharage wrote: > Thanks, Alvaro, for the review. > > I have addressed your comments per the above suggestions in the attached v4 > patch. Okay, thanks. It looks good to me, but I realized a few days ago that this patch affects the same code as the patch from Amul Sul to ch

Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query

On 2025-Feb-12, Sami Imseih wrote: > Greg S. Mullane wrote: > > > I agree fingerprint is the right final word. But "jumble" conveys > > the *process* better than "fingerprinting". I view it as jumbling > > produces an object that can be fingerprinted. > > hmm, "jumble" describes something that i

Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query

On 2025-Feb-12, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Anyway, I think that's different. We do support compute_query_id=off as > > a way for a custom module to compute completely different query IDs > > using th

Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query

On 2025-Feb-12, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > FWIW, I think options to tweak queryId computation is something that > > should be in core. It was discussed earlier in the context of IN > > list merging; the patch for this currently has the guc for the > > feature in pg_stat_statements, but there was a

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

Recursion to child tables is incorrectly trying to locate the constraint by name: create table notnull_tbl1 (a int); alter table notnull_tbl1 add constraint foo not null a not valid; create table notnull_chld (a int); alter table notnull_chld add constraint blah not null a not valid; alter table

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

On 2025-Feb-07, Japin Li wrote: > Since there is no standard, how do we handle this? I prefer to use > the strict mode like passlib. I definitely like that passlib have documented their thought process thoroughly. I think using their strict mode is good on principle, but if we're going to do th

Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

Hello Rushabh, On 2025-Feb-06, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Commit 14e87ffa5c543b5f30ead7413084c25f7735039f > > added the support for named NOT NULL constraints. We can now support > the NOT VALID/VALID named NOT

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

On 2025-Jan-28, Bernd Helmle wrote: > Python's passlib is very strict when it comes to supported characters > within a salt string. It rejects everything thats not matching '[./0- > 9A-Za-z]'. So when you provide the example above you get The reason it uses these chars is that in their scheme the

Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression

On 2025-Feb-06, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:28:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Hmm. I was reading through the patch and there is something that > > clearly stands out IMO: the new compare_dumps(). It is in Utils.pm, > > and it acts as a wrapper of `diff` with its f

Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

On 2025-Jan-13, Suraj Kharage wrote: > Please find attached revised version of patch which added the INHERIT to NO > INHERIT state change for not null constraint. Thanks! I find the doc changes a little odd. First, you seem to have added a [INHERIT/NO INHERIT] flag in the wrong place (line 112)

Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

On 2025-Feb-04, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 03.02.25 08:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2025-Feb-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > > > VALID, NOT ENFORCED changed to VALID, ENFORCED - data validation > > > required, constraint is enforced > > There&

Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

On 2025-Feb-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > ``` > If the > constraint is NOT ENFORCED, the database system will > not check the constraint. It is then up to the application code to > ensure that the constraints are satisfied. The database system might > still assume tha

Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

On 2025-Feb-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > VALID, NOT ENFORCED changed to VALID, ENFORCED - data validation > required, constraint is enforced There's no such thing as a VALID NOT ENFORCED constraint. It just cannot exist. > NOT VALID, NOT ENFORCED changed to NOT_VALID, ENFORCED - no data > valida

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

> From bf2ec8c5d753de340140839f1b061044ec4c1149 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Antonin Houska > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 14:29:54 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 4/8] Add CONCURRENTLY option to both VACUUM FULL and CLUSTER > commands. > @@ -950,8 +1412,46 @@ copy_table_data(Relation NewHeap, Relation

Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

On 2025-Jan-31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > But if the constraint is NOT VALID and later marked as NOT ENFORCED, > what is expected behaviour while changing it to ENFORCED? I think what you want is a different mode that would be ENFORCED NOT VALID, which would be an extension of the standard, because

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Jan-31, Antonin Houska wrote: > Matthias van de Meent wrote: > > First, due to the XLog-based change detection this feature can't work > > for unlogged tables without first changing them to logged (which > > implies first writing the whole table to XLog, to not cause issues on > > any re

Re: Reducing memory consumed by RestrictInfo list translations in partitionwise join planning

On 2024-Nov-25, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Hmm, I am doing something similar to what you are doing. Here are my > scripts. setup.sql - creates partitioned table, and functions, tables > used to run the benchmark benchmark.sh - creates queries with all > combinations of enable_partitionwise_join, num

Re: Reducing memory consumed by RestrictInfo list translations in partitionwise join planning

On 2025-Jan-31, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So I tried to rerun Ashutosh's benchmark (of course, on a build > with no C assertions, otherwise the numbers are meaningless). First, > the patches still apply to current master. (BTW I just realized that I applied patches 0001-0004,

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Jan-31, Antonin Houska wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Something that Robert Haas just mentioned to me is handling of row > > locks: if concurrent transactions are keeping rows in the original table > > locked (especially SELECT FOR KEY SHARE, since

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Jan-31, Antonin Houska wrote: > I assume the patch should mark CLUSTER deprecated rather than removing it > immediately. Yeah, we should certainly not make any statements fail that work today. Same goes for VACUUM FULL. > I also agree that tables not being REPACKed should be treated as n

Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?

On 2025-Jan-30, Michael Banck wrote: > > I haven't addressed the problem of a new command yet - for that I'd like to > > see some sort of consensus, so that I do not have to do all the related > > changes many times. > > Well, looks like this patch-set is blocked on the bikeshedding part? > > So

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

On 2025-Jan-24, Bernd Helmle wrote: > So we behave exactly the same way as px_crypt_md5(): It stops after the > first '$' after the magic byte preamble. For shacrypt, this could be > the next '$' after the closing one of the non-mandatory 'rounds' > option, but with your example this doesn't happe

Re: Quadratic planning time for ordered paths over partitioned tables

On 2025-Jan-24, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Did you consider checking if the referenced patchset addresses the > issue you described? I ran Kuzmenkov's test case with Watari-san's patch. Planning time goes from 2700ms to 600ms or so. -- Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://

Re: Quadratic planning time for ordered paths over partitioned tables

On 2025-Jan-22, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:36 PM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think this is closely related to the work Yuya Watari has been doing > > at > > https://postgr.es/m/caj2pmkzzhrhgq5uv0y+stkqx7xvgzenmhl98ubkm-oarvk9...@mail.gmail.c

Re: Quadratic planning time for ordered paths over partitioned tables

Hello, On 2025-Jan-22, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > Hi hackers, > > There's currently an unfortunate CPU sink in the planning for > partitioned tables. It happens both for the declarative partitioning, > and for the partitioning through inheritance like we use in > TimescaleDB. > > The gist of

Re: SQLJSON: errmsg(" .. should ...") -> must

On 2025-Jan-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > There's a few recent SQL/JSON error messages in which we say something > "should" be something else. We avoid this, so I think we shouldn't use > it here either. Pushed. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

On 2025-Jan-17, Sami Imseih wrote: > > Wait a second, why do we have these here? Aren't they already in > > \dconfig? > > \dconfig is generated by querying pg_settings and this > requires a halthy connection. The parameters being proposed with > \conninfo+ are set in libpq by the server [1] and

Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

On 2025-Jan-16, Hunaid Sohail wrote: > server_encoding | UTF8 > server_version| 18devel > client_encoding | UTF8 > session_authorization | hunaid > standard_conforming_strings | on > DateStyle | ISO, MDY > scram_itera

Re: CREATE TABLE NOT VALID for check and foreign key

On 2025-Jan-15, Amul Sul wrote: > I might be mistaken, but I believe this behavior is reasonable since > we're creating a new table with no data initially. Future inserts will > be validated against the constraint, ensuring all data added complies > with it. Given that any data in the table at any

Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection

On 2025-Jan-14, Melanie Plageman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where > > (short_desc ilike '%vacuum%' or extra_desc ilike '%vacuum%'

Re: Reduce TupleHashEntryData struct size by half

On 2025-Jan-14, David Rowley wrote: > The trick would be to ensure ExecClearTuple() still works. You > obviously don't want to try and pfree() something that isn't a pointer > to a palloc'd chunk. I'm not sure what the best API is, but I do see > there are other places that might benefit from some

Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection

On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote: > I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and > VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback. Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whose results appear correct: 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where categ

Re: CREATE TABLE NOT VALID for check and foreign key

On 2025-Jan-08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2025-Jan-07, Yasuo Honda wrote: > > > I'd like PostgreSQL to raise errors and/or warnings for the NOT VALID > > check constraint for CREATE TABLE. > > Ruby on Rails supports creating check constraints with the NOT VALID &

Re: refactor AlterDomainAddConstraint (alter domain add constraint)

Hello, On 2024-Dec-09, jian he wrote: > ALTER DOMAIN ADD CONSTRAINT syntax more simple than CREATE DOMAIN. Your proposed patch makes the code simpler, yes, but I think it also makes the error messages worse. I don't think that's an improvement from the user point of view. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2

Hello, I came across this email by chance while looking for something else. On 2024-Oct-07, Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) wrote: > Therefore, we propose Vertical Clustered Indexing (VCI), an in-memory > column store function that holds data in a state suitable for business > analysis and is also expected

Re: Modern SHA2- based password hashes for pgcrypto

Hello Bernd, On 2025-Jan-14, Bernd Helmle wrote: > > It's been said in my presence that pgcrypto is obsolete and > > shouldn't be used anymore.  I'm not sure I believe that, but even if > > that's true, it's clear that there's plenty of people who has an > > interest on it, so I don't see that as

Re: downgrade some aclchk.c errors to internal

On 2024-Dec-20, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 20.12.24 12:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > In aclchk.c, there are a few error messages that use ereport() but it > > seems like they should be internal error messages.  Moreover, they are > > using get_object_class_descr(), which is only meant for inte

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >