gt; later. It would be nicer to open the file just once and then keep it
> open. Here again, I wonder if the separation of duties could be a bit
> cleaner.
>
Prefer to keep those separate, assuming that reopening the file won't
cause any significant harm. Let me know if you think otherwise.
Attached the updated ver
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 7:07 PM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 1:53 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> [..patch]
>
> Hi Amul!
>
Thanks for your review. I'm replying to a few of your comments now,
but for the rest, I need to think about them. I'm kind of
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 08:10:00AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Sure. I'll handle it. Thanks.
>
> Applied after a few tweaks, including changes to the comments, the
> suggestion of "division_by_zero" for the goto labels, and splitti
ontext, NULL,
> +errcode(ERRCODE_DIVISION_BY_ZERO),
> +errmsg("division by zero"));
>
> This might as well now be made to check for division-by-zero even if
> escontext is NULL.
Agreed -- did the same in the attached version including the erro
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 9:46 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 12:21:18PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sept 2025 at 10:36, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> I believe we should update all *_opt_error functions to use the new
> >> soft error repor
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:59 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 12:40:25PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Just a quick question regarding the naming conventions. It looks like
> > we have a choice between two options for consistency. Should we rename
> >
part of that thread[1]. It's a significant improvement in itself, as
it would make the code more compact and consistent.
1]http://postgr.es/m/CACJufxE053=bo3pdupgba6yz3vgpu_xcbg4ho6rew5ej7k7...@mail.gmail.com
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 5:58 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 7:47 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > []
> > ---
> > Known Issues & Status:
> > ---
> > - Timeline Switching: The curr
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 7:47 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> []
> ---
> Known Issues & Status:
> ---
> - Timeline Switching: The current implementation in patch 006 does not
> correctly handle timeline switching.
s.
1]
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/8dfd3129027969fdd2d9d294220c867d2efd84aa
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 420ab4e05566f81fb15488ae7060b9d5648994b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:33:20 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/9] Refactor: pg_waldump: Move s
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:31 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jun-04, jian he wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:14 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> > v7 is way more intuitive compared with v5, v6.
>
> Agreed, this version is better than the previous
rEnforceability().
Kindly take a look at the attached version and share your thoughts.
Regards,
Amul
From 10dd1def49327b65b5c5b30d405ebdf02811ecf7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 08:44:26 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v7] Skip adding action-based foreign key constraints to the
ph
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 6:05 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:32 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
[...]
>
> + * Note that validation should be performed against the referencing
> + * root table only, not its child partitions. See
> + * QueueFKConstraintValid
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 4:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 4:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Quick question -- due to my limited understanding of this area: why
> > can't we perform an action similar to pg_logical_slot_get_changes()
> > implic
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 3:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:07 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In the case presented here, the logical slot is expected to keep
> > > forwarding, and in the consecut
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 1:37 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:58 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > >
> > > I just realized we have the same problem with ALTER FOREIGN KEY ENFORCED.
> > > for example:
> >
> > Yeah, I think adding a "currcon-
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 5:57 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:12 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > > >> > [...]
> > > The attached *draft* patch is based on your idea.
> > >
> > > The idea is that we only need to conditional
ion in the code comments. If we choose to move forward
with this patch, I am happy to refine it and add proper tests.
Regards,
Amul
From b2aaecf0df3c2ea15a84150ef0a91329587e4f20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 17:22:44 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] POC - FK validati
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 4:23 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Back in [1], Andres complained that repeated attempts to create
> an invalid plpgsql function (one that fails initial compilation)
> leak memory, for example
>
> DO $do$
> BEGIN
> FOR i IN 1 .. 10 LOOP
> BEGIN
> CREATE OR REPLACE
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:16 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr 2025, at 06:22, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch that corrects the code comment for
> > process_directory_recursively() in pg_combinebackup, where the comment
> > incorrectly refers to
Hi,
Cc: Robert
Attached is a patch that corrects the code comment for
process_directory_recursively() in pg_combinebackup, where the comment
incorrectly refers to "output_directory" instead of the intended
"input_directory".
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.e
congratulations, Jacob.
Regards,
Amul
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I tested the "not enforced" constraint feature extensively today
> especially the cases of partitioned table. Everything seems to be
> working fine.
>
> While doing that, I found that foreign_key.sql does not have a test to
> make sure
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:02 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 28.03.25 14:27, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:34 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:25 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:28 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 25.03.25 17:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I have committed patches 0001 through 0003. I made some small changes:
>
> > I will work through the remaining patches. It looks good to me so far.
>
> For the time being, here are the rema
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:29 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-26, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > The reason for the change is to revert to the behavior before commit
> > #80d7f990496b1c, where recursion occurred regardless of the
> > changed flags. This is also describe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 10:18 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 21.03.25 06:58, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > []
> > Attached is the updated version, where the commit messages for patch
> > 0005 and 0006 have been slightly corrected. Additionally, a few code
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit.
>
The approach looks good to me, but instead of adding a CAS_flags struct, could
we use macros like SEEN_DEFERRABILITY(bits), SEEN_ENFORCEABILITY(bits),
e
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:56 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-11, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit.
> >
> &g
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 4:48 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Feb-27, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Attached is the rebased patch set against the latest master head,
> > which also includes a *new* refactoring patch (0001). In this patch,
> > I’ve re-added ATExecAlterChild
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:47 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2025-Feb-17, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I have renamed AlterConstraintStmt to ATAlterConstraint as per your
> > suggestion in the attached version. Apart from this, there are no
> > other change
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:41 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:27 PM Álvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2025-Feb-13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >
> > > > So considering that, I think a three-state system makes more sense.
> > > > Something like:
> > > >
> > > > 1) NOT ENFORCED
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 10:49 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 9:57 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:10 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2025-Jan-31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:10 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> 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 ENFOR
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 8:31 PM jian he wrote:
>
> [...]
> So the code should only call AlterConstrTriggerDeferrability,
> not call ATExecAlterConstrEnforceability?
Right. Thank you for the report. We need to know whether the
enforceability and/or deferability has actually been set or not before
c
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:01 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 20.01.25 17:53, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> Attached is a new set of patches. Please ignore patch 0001 here, which
> >> was posted separately [1] -- proposes allowing invalid foreign key
> >> constraints
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:08 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 6:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > > Hello Álvaro,
> > >
> > > Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
> >
> > Ah yes, this is my bug:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> > OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivial
> > amendments.
>
> Looks like some of the queries need ORDER BY for stability.
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:36 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
>
> parent
> |
> child
>/\
> / \
> /grandchild2
> /
> grandchild1
>
> and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
> constraint on c
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:25 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> > Patch looks good to me,
>
> Thanks, pushed.
>
A big thanks to Álvaro and Sami for getting it fixed!
Regards,
Amul
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 2:14 AM Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> This is a bug indeed. I tried your patch, but it ends up in a seg fault.
>
> [...]
> If the relation on the parent and child constraint match, that
> tells us we don't have inheritance.
> So, I am thinking we should add another condition for c
child_fk_con FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES bar;
ALTER TABLE foo DETACH PARTITION foo_p0;
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
index c42a740ccef..cacdb9b475d 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 6:07 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 11.01.25 18:26, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 January 2025, Peter Eisentraut > <mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I have applied v8-0001, with some editing of the documenta
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:53 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
I made the minor changes to the attached version and rebased it
against the latest master(9a45a89c38f).
Regards,
Amul
v2-0001-Refactor-Split-ATExecValidateConstraint.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Allow-NOT-VALID-foreign-
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:06 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2024-Dec-05, jian he wrote:
>
> > I found for foreign keys, check constraints,
> > you specify it as NOT VALID, it will not be marked as NOT VALID in the
> > CREATE TABLE statement.
>
> Uhmm, okay.
>
> > reading transformCheckC
On Saturday, 11 January 2025, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have applied v8-0001, with some editing of the documentation and in the
> tests. I'll continue reviewing the subsequent patches.
>
Thank you for the improvement and commit.
Regards,
Amul
--
Regards,
Amul
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:11 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> When adding a new FK constraint or attaching a partitioned table, where
> matching FK constraints are merged, we allow the parent constraint to be NOT
&g
pvqz_+c7ckkuya77g_5rgtjvnuyepuh...@mail.gmail.com
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 7b03ff68ae24ded5547a9e268be8692b196cf509 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:15:30 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] Refactor: Split ATExecValidateConstraint()
Spli
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 6:12 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:48 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > static bool
> > > MergeWithExistingConstraint(Relation rel, const char *ccname, Node *expr,
> > > bool allow_merge, bool
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 9:40 PM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> only applied v7-0001.
>
> alter_table.sgml says we can specify enforceability
> for ALTER TABLE ADD column_constraint
> and ALTER TABLE ADD column_constraint table_constraint.
> but we didn't have a test for column_constraint in alter_table.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 11:02 AM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> accidentally hit segfault.
> create table c11 (a int not enforced);
> create table c11 (a int enforced);
> we can solve it via the following or changing SUPPORTS_ATTRS accordingly.
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c
> b/src/
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 1:40 PM jian he wrote:
>
> i just only apply v5-0001 for now.
>
> create table t(a int);
> alter table t ADD CONSTRAINT cc CHECK (a > 0);
> alter table t alter CONSTRAINT cc NOT ENFORCED;
> alter table t alter CONSTRAINT cc ENFORCED;
>
> the last two queries will fail, which
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:31 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about 0001 but I think 0002 deserves a back patch as I think
> > > it fits
> > > int
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 6:45 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-10-09 We 5:14 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024, at 11:06, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> The attached patch proposes adding the ability to define CHECK and
> FOREIGN KEY constraints as NOT ENFORCED.
&
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:44 PM Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024, at 11:06, Amul Sul wrote:
> > The attached patch proposes adding the ability to define CHECK and
> > FOREIGN KEY constraints as NOT ENFORCED.
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
> > Adding
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 7:25 PM Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The PostgreSQL Contributor Page
> (https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/) includes people who have
> made substantial, long-term contributions of time and effort to the PostgreSQL
> project. The PostgreSQL Contributors
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 7:05 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The updated version attached. Thank you for the review !
>
> I have spent a bunch of time on this and have made numerous revisions.
> I hope to commit the result, aft
ndle unpacking and
repacking tar files and the required path formats for these tests but
the "Cirrus CI / Windows - Server 2019, VS 2019" workflow doesn’t have
any issues with them. I’ve removed the flag.
> + my @files = glob("*");
> + system_or_bail($tar,
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 2:02 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:08 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> []
> Then the result verifies. But I feel like we should have some test
> cases that do this kind of stuff so that there is automated
> verification. In fact, the curr
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 1:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
[...]
> > There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for
> > tod
etical: you added .tgz elsewhere
> but not here.
>
Did this way.
> There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for today.
>
Thank you for the review and committing 0004 and 0006 patches.
Regards,
Amul
From dfaeebdc09fd689b7e45a705e32111cb226a0
acb44cfb526bdabcd3a3d9c06443f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:44:56 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary #include statements.
---
src/bin/pg_verifybackup/pg_verifybackup.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_verify
Hi,
The Assert(buffer != NULL) is placed after the buffer is accessed,
which could lead to a segmentation fault before the check is executed.
Attached a small patch to correct that.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c b/src/backend
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:49 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I tried this in the attached version and made a few additional changes
> > based on Sravan's off-list comments regarding function names and
> > descriptio
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 1:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The main issue I have is computing the total_size of valid files that
> > will be checksummed and that exist in both the manifests and the
> > backup, in the ca
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> [ I committed 0001, then noticed I had a type in the subject line of
> the commit message. Argh. ]
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:41 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > With the patch, I am concerned that we won't be able to giv
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:39 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > I think I would have made this pass context->show_progress to
> > > progress_report() instead of the whole verifier_context, but that's an
> > > ar
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> [...]
> Here is a rebased version of the patch. No other changes since v1.
>
Here are two minor comments on this:
$ pg_combinebackup /tmp/backup_full/ /tmp/backup_incr2/
/tmp/backup_
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:05 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi Amul,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 8:38 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > >
> >[...]
> > static Relat
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:43 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Please consider the attached version for the review.
>
> Thanks. I committed 0001-0003. The only thing that I changed was that
> in 0001, you forgot to pgindent, wh
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> In [1], it is suggested that it might be a good idea to support
> specifying the tablespace for each merged/split partition.
>
> We can do the following after this feature is supported:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE tblspc LOCATION '/tmp/tblspc';
>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 5:00 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 12:24, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> [...
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> [...]
> A new catalog table, pg_subscription_seq, has been introduced for
> mapping subscriptions to sequences. Additionally, the sequence LSN
> (Log Sequence Number) is stored, facilitating deter
ease join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 17:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to
> the
> > README.
>
> Thanks for noticing and working on the patch.
>
> There were a
Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to the
README.
Regards,
Amul
0001-Add-BumpContext-description-to-mmgr-README.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:48 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:14 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thank you for the improvement.
> >
> > The caller of verify_control_file() has the full path of the control
> file that
> > can pass it and avoid recomputing
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:02 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Mar-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Maybe we can add a flag RelationData->rd_ispkdeferred, so that
> > RelationGetPrimaryKeyIndex returned InvalidOid for deferrable PKs; then
> > logical replication would continue to not know about t
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 1:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:16 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > It could. I just thought this was clearer. I agree that it's a bit
> > long, but I don't think this is worth bikeshedding very much. If at a
> > later time somebody feels strongly that it ne
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:05:36AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So with that in mind, here's my proposal. This is an adjustment of
> > Amit's previous refactoring patch. He renamed the existing
> > get_controlfile() to get_dir_controlfile()
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:06:19PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Agreed, now they will have an error as _could not read file "":
> Is
> > a directory_. But, IIUC, that what usually happens with the dev version,
&
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:06:19PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:22 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >> And the new option should be documented at the top of the init()
> >> routine for
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 9:28 PM Joe Conway wrote:
> All,
>
> The PostgreSQL Contributor Page
> (https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/) includes people who
> have made substantial, long-term contributions of time and effort to the
> PostgreSQL project. The PostgreSQL Contributors Team
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:22 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:41:46PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > Kindly have a look at the attached version.
> >
> > IMHO, 0001 looks fine, except probabl
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 7:18 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:29:07PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Ok, I did that way in the attached version, I have passed the control
> file's
> > full path as a second argument to verify_system_identif
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:18 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I intended to minimize the out param of parse_manifest_file(), which
> currently
> > returns manifest_files_hash and manifest_wal_range, and I need two more
> --
> >
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:06 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 2:52 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thank you for the review-comments, updated version attached.
>
> I generally agree with 0001. I spent a long time thinking about your
> decision to make verifier_context co
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:22 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thinking a bit more on this, I realized parse_manifest_file() has many
> out
> > parameters. Instead parse_manifest_file() should simply return manifest
> data
> >
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 18:45, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 8:29 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-Sep-20, Amul Sul wrote:
> >>
> >> >
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:08 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:36 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> Updated version is attached.
>>
>
> Another
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:36 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Updated version is attached.
>
Another updated version attached -- fix missing manifest version check in
pg_verifybackup before system identifier validat
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:39 AM Sravan Kumar
wrote:
> I have also done a review of the patch and some testing. The patch looks
> good, and I agree with Robert's comments.
>
Thank you for your review, testing and the offline discussion.
Regards,
Amul
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 6:31 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > With the attached patch, the backup manifest will have a new key item as
> > "System-Identifier" 64-bit integer whose value is derived from
> pg_control whil
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:15 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Jan-17, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > This helps to identify the correct database server and/or backup for the
> > subsequent backup operations. pg_verifybackup validates the manifest
> system
> > identifier agai
binebackup is already a bit smarter -- checks the system identifier
from
the pg_control of all the backups, with this patch the manifest system
identifier also validated.
For backward compatibility, the manifest system identifier validation will
be
skipped for version 1.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:48 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:13:42AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > +void *
> > +dsm_registry_init_or_attach(const char *key, size_t size,
> >
> > I think the name could be simple as dsm_registry_init() li
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:05 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
> >
> > I kept this the same, as I didn't see any need to tie the key size to
> > NAMEDATALEN.
>
> Thanks. A fresh look at the v5 patches le
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 25.12.23 13:10, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> I have committed this patch set.
>
> I couple of notes:
>
> You had included the moving of the AT_PASS_ADD_COL enum in the first
> patch. This is not a good style. Ref
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:01 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11.12.23 13:22, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > create table t1 (a int, b int generated always as (a + 1) stored);
> > alter table t1 add column c int, alter column b set expression as (a
> > + c);
>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:42 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:30 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:58 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
>
> Here is the updated patch based on some comments by tender wang (those
> comments were sent only to me)
>
few nitpicks:
+
+
1 - 100 of 423 matches
Mail list logo
