Hi,
On 4/4/23 12:08 AM, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
This looks like it was a good discussion -- last summer. But it
doesn't seem to be a patch under active development now.
It sounds like there were some design constraints that still need some
new ideas to solve and a new patch will be needed
This looks like it was a good discussion -- last summer. But it
doesn't seem to be a patch under active development now.
It sounds like there were some design constraints that still need some
new ideas to solve and a new patch will be needed to address them.
Should this be marked Returned With Fe
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:16 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:55 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/16/22 10:10 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 8/14/22 7:52 AM, Gurjeet Singh w
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:55 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/16/22 10:10 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/14/22 7:52 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >>> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/16/22 10:10 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 8/14/22 7:52 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
I think we can reduce the number of places the hook is called, if we
call the hook from
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> On 8/14/22 7:52 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
>
> > I think we can reduce the number of places the hook is called, if we
> > call the hook from proc_exit(), and at all the othe
(reposting the same review, with many grammatical fixes)
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Please find attached v2-0004-connection_hooks.patch
/*
* Stop here if it was bad or a cancel packet. ProcessStartupPacket
* already did any appropriate error repor
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Please find attached v2-0004-connection_hooks.patch
/*
* Stop here if it was bad or a cancel packet. ProcessStartupPacket
* already did any appropriate error reporting.
*/
if (status != STATUS_OK)
+{
+#ifnd
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 6:55 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi Bharath,
>
> On 7/14/22 11:43 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >> Looking at v2-0003 patch and emit_log_hook, how about we filter out
> >> for those connectivity errors eit
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Looking at v2-0003 patch and emit_log_hook, how about we filter out
> for those connectivity errors either based on error codes and if they
> aren't unique, perhaps passing special flags to ereport API indicating
> that it's a connectivit
Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't seem like a great place for a hook, because the list of stuff
>> you could safely do there would be mighty short, possibly the empty set.
> I agree with this. But, all of the areas that v2-0003 touched for
>
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Joe Conway writes:
> > It isn't clear to me if having a hook in the timeout handler is a
> > nonstarter -- perhaps a comment with suitable warning for prospective
> > extension authors is enough? Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue
> > spe
Joe Conway writes:
> It isn't clear to me if having a hook in the timeout handler is a
> nonstarter -- perhaps a comment with suitable warning for prospective
> extension authors is enough? Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue
> specifically?
It doesn't seem like a great place for a hook
On 7/6/22 04:13, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 7/6/22 12:11 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 7/5/22 03:37, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
2. Timeout Handler is a signal handler, called as part of SIGALRM
signal handler, most of the times, signal handlers ought to be doing
small things, now that we are handing
Hi,
On 7/6/22 12:11 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 7/5/22 03:37, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 6:23 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 7/2/22 1:00 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Could we model this after fmgr_hook? The first argument in that hook
> indicates where it is being called fr
On 7/5/22 03:37, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 6:23 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 7/2/22 1:00 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Could we model this after fmgr_hook? The first argument in that hook
> indicates where it is being called from. This doesn't alleviate the need
> for se
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 6:23 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/2/22 1:00 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Could we model this after fmgr_hook? The first argument in that hook
> > indicates where it is being called from. This doesn't alleviate the need
> > for several calls to the hook in
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 6:29 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> On 7/2/22 2:49 AM, Roberto Mello wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:00 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>>
>> That being said, I don't see why this information couldn't be provided in a
>> system view. IMO it is generically useful.
>
> +1 f
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 5:54 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/2/22 1:00 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Could we model this after fmgr_hook? The first argument in that hook
> > indicates where it is being called from. This doesn't alleviate the need
> > for several calls to the hook in t
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:00 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
>
>
> That being said, I don't see why this information couldn't be provided in a
> system view. IMO it is generically useful.
+1 for a system view with appropriate permissions, in addition to the
hooks.
That would make the information easi
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:48:40AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> However, I'm personally not okay with having multiple hooks
>> as proposed in the v1 patch.
>
> I agree that it would be great to reduce the number of proposed hooks.
>
> But,
>
>> Can we think of having a single hook
>
> T
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> While commit 960869da08 added some information about connections that have
> been successfully authenticated, there is no metrics for connections that
> have not (or did not reached the authentication stage).
>
> Adding
Hi hackers,
While commit 960869da08 added some information about connections that
have been successfully authenticated, there is no metrics for
connections that have not (or did not reached the authentication stage).
Adding metrics about failed connections attempts could also help, for
examp
23 matches
Mail list logo
