I read the patch and have two points:
1. I do basebackup for database then switch wal level from logical to none to
logical and
of cause I archive the wal segments. Next I do PITR base on the basebackup, as
a result
it success startup with a waring said maybe data missed.
Because the 'none' lev
>Thanks. Movead, please note that the patch is waiting on author?
>Could you send an update if you think that those changes make sense?
Thanks for approval the issue, I will send a patch at Monday.
Regards,
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : http://www.highgo.ca/
EMAIL: mailto
Thanks for the remarks,
>Some remarks on your patch:
>1. The variable last_max_csn can be an atomic variable.
Yes will consider.
>2. GenerateCSN() routine: in the case than csn < csnState->last_max_csn
>This is the case when someone changed the value of the system clock. I
>think it i
Hello hackers,
I have read the community mail from 'postgrespro' which the link
below ①, a summary for the patch, it generals a CSN by timestamp
when a transaction is committed and assigns a special value as CSN
for abort transaction, and record them in CSN SLRU file. Now we can
judge if a xi
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
It builds failed by applying to the latest code version, and
Hello,
When I test the patch, I find an issue: I start a stream with
'promote_trigger_file'
GUC valid, and exec pg_wal_replay_pause() during recovery and as below it
shows success to pause at the first time. I think it use a initialize
'SharedPromoteIsTriggered' value first time I exec the pg_wal
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
I redo the make installcheck-world as Kyotaro Horiguchi point out
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
I occur a strange issue when a exec 'make installcheck-world', it
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
I have tested the feature and it shows great performance in queries
which
Hello Kyotaro,
>"Parallel scan" at the moment means multiple workers fetch unique
>blocks from *one* table in an arbitrated manner. In this sense
>"parallel FDW scan" means multiple local workers fetch unique bundles
>of tuples from *one* foreign table, which means it is running on a
>si
Hello
I find several problems as below when I test the patches:
1. There be some regression problem after apply 0001.patch~0005.patch
The regression problem is solved in 0006.patch
2. There be a data wrong after create subscription if the relation contains
inherits table, for example:
> This review seems not very on-point, because I made no claim to have fixed
> any of those bugs. The issue at the moment is how to structure the code
I am sorry for that and I have another question now. I researched the related
code and find something as below:
Code:
~~~
I applied the 'alter-table-with-recursive-process-utility-calls-wip.patch'
on the master(e788e849addd56007a0e75f3b5514f294a0f3bca). And
when I test the cases, I find it works well on 'alter table t1 add column
f2 int not null, alter column f2 add generated always as identity' case,
but it doesn't
13 matches
Mail list logo
