Justin Pryzby writes:
> ...but, I realized just now that *zero* other GUCs use "REPLICATION".
> And the documentation puts it in 20.6.1. Sending Servers,
> so it still seems to me that this is correct to move this, too.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-replication.html
> Then
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:50:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - {"track_commit_timestamp", PGC_POSTMASTER, REPLICATION,
> + {"track_commit_timestamp", PGC_POSTMASTER, REPLICATION_SENDING,
> I can get behind this change for clarity where it gets actively used.
I'm not sure what you
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 10:50:21AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:23:26PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > The patch seems to apply cleanly on v12 but cherry-pick needs help for other
> > branches...
>
> FWIW, this did not seem bad enough to me to require a back-patch.
>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:23:26PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> The patch seems to apply cleanly on v12 but cherry-pick needs help for other
> branches...
FWIW, this did not seem bad enough to me to require a back-patch.
This parameter got introduced in 2016 and this was the only report
related t
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:57:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:31:39AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Good point.
>
> Thanks. I have used the wording that Tom has proposed upthread, added
> one GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE that you forgot, and applied the
> force_parallel_mod
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:31:39AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Good point.
Thanks. I have used the wording that Tom has proposed upthread, added
one GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE that you forgot, and applied the
force_parallel_mode patch.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:12:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The following parameters are intended for developer testing, and
> should never be enabled for production work. However, some of
> them can be used to assist with the recovery of severely
> damaged databases.
Okay, that's fine by me.
--
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:40:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps ... what did you have in mind?
> The first sentence of the page now says that:
> "The following parameters are intended for work on the PostgreSQL
> source code, and in some cases to assist with recover
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:34:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:40:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> - Should we make more general the description of the developer options
> >> in the docs?
> >
> > Perhaps ... what did you have in mind?
>
> The first sentence of the p
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:40:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> However, I'd like to think that we can do better than what's proposed
>> in the patch. There are a couple of things to consider here:
>> - Should the parameter be renamed to reflect that it should only be
>> us
Michael Paquier writes:
> However, I'd like to think that we can do better than what's proposed
> in the patch. There are a couple of things to consider here:
> - Should the parameter be renamed to reflect that it should only be
> used for testing purposes?
-1 to that part, because it would brea
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:31 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:39:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> This is the main motive behind the patch.
> >>
> >> Developer options aren't shown in postgresql.conf.s
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:39:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> This is the main motive behind the patch.
>>
>> Developer options aren't shown in postgresql.conf.sample, which it seems like
>> sometimes people read through quickly,
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:50:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:25:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Forking this thread
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210403154336.GG29125%40momjian
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:50:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:25:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Forking this thread
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210403154336.GG29125%40momjian.us
>
> Didn't see this one, thanks for forking.
>
> - {"force_
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:25:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Forking this thread
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210403154336.GG29125%40momjian.us
Didn't see this one, thanks for forking.
> I understood "developer" to mean someone who's debugging postgres itself, not
> (say) a funct
The previous patches accidentally included some unrelated changes.
--
Justin
>From fd67dd04d1b824a25e113796c235fd9fc9db23e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 19:06:37 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] track_activity_query_size is STATS_COLLECTOR category
Not Resourc
Forking this thread
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210403154336.GG29125%40momjian.us
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 08:38:18PM +0530, aditya desai wrote:
> > > >> Yes, force_parallel_mode is on. Should we set it off?
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > Yes. I bet someone set it without reading our
18 matches
Mail list logo
