On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:19 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > Attaching v10 with the above changes.
> > >
> >
> > The patch does not apply on HEAD. Can you please rebase?
>
> Rebas
On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 7:53 PM -03, Rishu Bagga wrote:
> Attached is an initial patch that implements this idea.
>
Thanks for working on this! I haven't looked at the code yet, but have
some questions related with the issue discussed at [1].
> Additionally, this would help solve the issue being dis
Hi Ilia!
On 29.07.2025 16:07, Ilia Evdokimov wrote:
>
> On 21.07.2025 16:55, Ilia Evdokimov wrote:
>>
>> While analyzing planner performance on JOB with
>> default_statistics_target = 1000, I noticed that a significant portion
>> of planning time is spent inside the eqjoinsel() function. Accordin
Sorry for the slow response.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 3:42 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> The transformation of eager aggregation is:
>
> GROUP BY G, AGG(A) on (R1 JOIN R2 ON J)
> =
> GROUP BY G, AGG(agg_A) on ((GROUP BY G1, AGG(A) AS agg_A on R1)
> JOIN R2 ON J)
>
> This equivalence holds un
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:52 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> Looking at TPC-DS queries 4 and 11, a threshold of 10 is the minimum
> needed to consider eager aggregation for them. The resulting plans
> show nice performance improvements without any measurable increase in
> planning time. So, I'm inclined
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 07:17, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review. Since we agreed to back-patch both fixes, I am
> attaching
> The patches for all branches (added a new function as suggested in back
> branches).
Thanks.
I've pushed these, though I swapped the order of commit
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Plain (not-outer) joins will never be included in a relid set in the
> first place.
Ah, well then Richard's idea might work! Let me try it and see what happens...
Thanks,
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> While I agree that the user won't be happy, that's sort of the point.
> The warning is trying to coerce the user into changing the file
> permissions.
My point is not that the user is not happy, that they have to change
permissions.
It is that the user would rather get a clear error message than
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 13:39, Oreo Yang wrote:
>
> It looks very cool.
Thanks!
> So our goal over 90%?
I am not sure of that but of course the higher the better.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
Hello, Amit!
Amit Kapila :
> So, in such cases as we won't be able to detect
> transaction dependencies, it would be better to allow out-of-order
> commits optionally.
I think it is better to enable preserve order by default - for safety reasons.
I also checked the patch for potential issues lik
Hi Tom
On 05.09.25 23:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> I remain unsure which way I like better. The NULL approach has the
> advantage of not foreclosing use of empty-string list elements, which
> we might want someday even if there's no obvious value today. (And
> for the same reason, it's less of a behavi
On Fri Sep 5, 2025 at 9:56 AM -03, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
>> Ok, I agree that that this may happen but I don't see this as a common
>> case to fix the issue based on this behaviour. I think that we check the
>> transaction status also to skip notifications that were added on the
>> queue by transact
> On 6 Sep 2025, at 16:00, Sergey Fukanchik wrote:
>
> <0001-Perform-check-for-oversized-WAL-record-before-calcul.patch>
Hi Sergey!
It seems to me reasonable to move size check above CRC computation. However, it
seems suspicious to me to run a test that allocates 1Gb in `make check`. Maybe,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 02:11:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 09:47:24AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I caught a couple of other minor outdated things in the comments when
> > finishing
> > rebasing my own work:
> >
> > - long_segment_names has been added to Simple
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:50 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Good to hear that you’re also interested in working on this task.
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:26 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ashutosh,
>>
>> I am also interested in this thread. And was working on a patch for it.
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Sept 2
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:32 AM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 5:22 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2025-06-30 12:27:10 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2025-06-05 14:32:10 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2025-06-05 12:47:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > >
is
that the subscription owner will also own this table, having full
control over it, including the ability to drop or alter its schema.
This might not be an issue. If an INSERT into the conflict table
fails, we can check the table's existence and schema. If they are not
as expected, the conf
On Sat, 6 Sept 2025 at 02:17, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Requiring schema owner privilege wouldn't allow the user who created the
> extension to allow other users to mess up with the extension's private schema?
> At least not with a simple GRANT on the schema.
I think that sounds like reasonable cha
While you are correct that the structure will create a UDT (which is how
I framed a possible solution to the larger problem in my second
message), the example:
Begin
...
Return Query
Select T1.T1F7 as F1, T2.T2F3 as F2, Tp.Fq as Fn
From T1 Join T2 On...Join...Tp
Wh
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:13 PM Doruk Yilmaz wrote:
>
> Dear Hayato,
>
> > So, your python process establishes two connections, for publisher
> > (replication connection)
> > and subscriber (normal connection). It receives changes from the publisher,
> > constructs SQL statements from the received
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 4:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the initial POC patch for this idea.
>
> The basic implementation is outlined below. Please note that there are several
> TODO items remaining, which we are actively working on; these are also
> detailed
> further down.
Tha
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:21 AM Chao Li wrote:
>
> I was doing some test about logical replication a few days ago. When I tried
> to setup a logical replication on my Macbook.
>
> The basic workflow is simple:
>
> ```
> Step 1: edit postgresql.conf and set:
>
> wal_level = logical
> max_replicatio
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> +1 for the idea. So I see we already have the parallel apply workers
> for the large streaming transaction so I am trying to think what
> additional problem we need to solve here. I
On Sat, Sep 6, 2025 at 3:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:12 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> >
> > I tested the behaviour with HEAD and with Patch. And I confirmed the
> > change in behaviour between HEAD and Patch
> >
> > Suppose we have a primary and a standby with wal_level
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 1:24 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 4:35 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:38 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached the updated patch.
> > >
> >
> > Few comments:
>
> Thank you for the comments!
>
> > =
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 11:39 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:20 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attaching v10 with the above changes.
> > > >
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 5:15 PM Mihail Nikalayeu
wrote:
>
> Hello, Amit!
>
> Amit Kapila :
> > So, in such cases as we won't be able to detect
> > transaction dependencies, it would be better to allow out-of-order
> > commits optionally.
>
> I think it is better to enable preserve order by default
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 06:49:42PM +0530, Karthik wrote:
> This patch fixes a missing entry in the parser README. The file
> parse_jsontable.c exists but wasn't documented in the README.
>
> The patch adds the missing line with an appropriate description.
>
> Please find the patch attached.
That
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 11:50:15AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Perhaps calling this a compiler bug is not appropriate.
> However, memset is in fact called when the key is created
>
> ```
> /* clear padding */
> memset(&key, 0, sizeof(struct PgStat_HashKey));
> ```
>
> but the zeroed out paddi
> On Sep 5, 2025, at 16:29, Chao Li wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2025, at 14:24, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Kirill Reshke
>>
>
>
> LGTM. SlruRecentlyUsed() is now an inline function.
>
After pulling master, I just found this patch has been pushed.
--
Chao Li (Evan)
H
Philip Warner writes:
> The Problem
> Currently, if one has:
> Create Type FOO(
>VALUE1 Int,
>VALUE2 Int);
> And one has a query:
> Select F1, F2 from A_TABLE;
> One can return the rows, or one can create a row object and cast it to
> FOO type.
I'm kind of wondering where is the
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 01:12:49PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> How does this look?
+# We can only test security labels if both the old and new installations
+# have dummy_seclabel.
+my $test_seclabel = 1;
+$old->start;
+if (!$old->check_extension('dummy_seclabel'))
+{
+
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 03:49:19PM +0800, Rider wrote:
> And, the PG_RE_THROW() within the PG_CATCH block causes a non-local jump,
> immediately aborting the current execution path to handle the error at a
> higher level. This guarantees that the code following PG_END_TRY is
> unreachable in the er
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 09:46:55PM +0100, Mikhail Kot wrote:
> Do you want me to update the patch based on your suggestion on fault
> injection, or update the try/catch to the callers as discussed, or
> it's good to be included in Postgres?
I would prefer the approach of letting the callers deal w
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:35:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:02 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Requiring superuser permission seems like a big penalty, especially since
> > the
> > last few years have been all about *not* requiring superuser privileges.
> > Note
>
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:20 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > Attaching v10 with the above changes.
> > >
> >
> > The patch does not apply on HEAD. Can you please rebase?
>
>
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 3:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 11:15 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > od On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 8:11 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Sawada-san,
> > >
> > > Here are my comments.
> > >
> > > 01.
> > > ```
> > > che
On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 13:25 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As an aside, I'm building with meson using -Dc_args="-msse4.2 -Wtype-
> limits -Werror=missing-braces". But I notice that the meson build
> doesn't seem to use -funroll-loops or -ftree-vectorize when building
> checksums.c. Is that intentional?
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 5:06 AM Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> small comments regarding new series
>
> 0001, 0002, 0017 LGTM
Thanks for continuing to review!
> In 0015:
>
> Also, maybe GlobalVisXidTestAllVisible is a slightly better name? (The
> term 'all-visible' is one that we occasionally utilize)
>> v7 patch looks good to me. BTW, how do you want to be credited in the
>> commit message?
>>
>> Author: Chao Li mailto:l...@highgo.com>>
>> Author: Chao Li mailto:li.evan.c...@gmail.com>>
>>
>> It seems your email is the latter, however you wrote the former in
>> your patch.
>>
>
> Please use
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 1:53 AM Rishu Bagga wrote:
>
> Attached is an initial patch that implements this idea.
Thank you for sharing the patch and for working on this!
I briefly read the patch and there are some points:
1) There are some compilation warnings about unused functions.
2) I th
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:12 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
>
> I tested the behaviour with HEAD and with Patch. And I confirmed the
> change in behaviour between HEAD and Patch
>
> Suppose we have a primary and a standby with wal_level = logical and
> guc parameters to enable slot sync worker are set acco
Hi,
Do you want me to update the patch based on your suggestion on fault
injection, or update the try/catch to the callers as discussed, or
it's good to be included in Postgres?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 11:15 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> od On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 8:11 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sawada-san,
> >
> > Here are my comments.
> >
> > 01.
> > ```
> > checkPoint.logicalDecodingEnabled = IsLogicalDecodingEnabled();
> > ```
> >
> > Per
Jim Jones writes:
> On 04.09.25 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure if this is the way to go, or if we want to
>> adopt some other solution that doesn't involve forbidding empty
>> list elements. I suspect that anything else we come up with would
>> be less intuitive than letting SET
On Wed, 2025-09-03 at 11:55 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think the regression is not due to anything inherent to worker, but
> due to
> pressure on AioWorkerSubmissionQueueLock - at least that's what I'm
> seeing on
> a older two socket machine. It's possible the bottleneck is different
> on a
>
x27;s no option to
retroactively go back in time and save more or different information.
I don't really know what to do about that. We could ignore that case
and let extensions that work in this way document this as a caveat, or
we could try to force GetCachedPlan() to re-plan if an ExplainState
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 22:14, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
> On 2025-Sep-05, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> > 1- One Github Actions run takes ~50 minutes for now and since this
> > runs daily it is ~1500 minutes in total for a month. If you include
> > manual triggers
On 2025-Sep-04, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Sep-04, jian he wrote:
> > + else if (notenforced)
> > + {
> > + /*
> > +* We can't use ATExecSetNotNull here because it adds
> > an enforced
> > +* not-null constraint,
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 04:01, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 4:57 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the comments, the updated version has the changes for the same.
> > >
> >
> > I wanted to first discuss a fe
Thanks for working on this!
On 2025-Sep-05, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> 1- One Github Actions run takes ~50 minutes for now and since this
> runs daily it is ~1500 minutes in total for a month. If you include
> manual triggers and failures, it is more than 1500 minutes. Github
> allows 2000 minute
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 3:48 PM Greg Burd wrote:
> I briefly considered how one might use what was left after surgery to produce
> some similar boolean signal to no avail. I think that autoprewarm was simply
> trying to at most warm NBuffers then stop. The freelist at startup was just
> a con
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 6:50 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Flag used by pg_sync_replic
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025, at 12:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-09-04 13:24:00 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2025-08-27 15:42:48 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
>> >> Regardless, I feel the first two patches on this set ad
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 03:35:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +$old->safe_psql('postgres', q|
> +CREATE EXTENSION dummy_seclabel;
>
> Still I think that this bit is going to fail with installcheck,
> because src/test/modules/ is not installed by default :)
>
> You can mak
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 7:22 PM Paul Ohlhauser
wrote:
> > Another idea could be to fail the connection instead of treating this as a
> > warning condition.
> As noted in the proposal, if the check stays I'd argue that it should be an
> error.
> I can't imaging a case where the user is happy with
Hi,
On 2025-09-04 13:24:00 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2025-08-27 15:42:48 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
> >> Regardless, I feel the first two patches on this set address the
> >> intention of this thread.
> >
> > I'm planning to co
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 18:14, Jacob Champion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:09 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > I have been working on generating differential code coverage for
> > Postgres and was able to do so with this script [1]. The script checks
> > out HEAD and the latest release
Hi,
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 18:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2025-09-05 10:09:27 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > I have been working on generating differential code coverage for
> > Postgres and was able to do so with this script [1]. The script checks
> > out HEAD and the latest release bra
Robert Haas writes:
> I was not aware of outer_join_rels, so thank you for pointing it out.
> However, consider this query:
> select 1 from pg_class a inner join pg_class b on a.relfilenode =
> b.relfilenode;
> Here, we end up with a three-item range table: one for a, one for b,
> and one for t
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:50 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> I like the idea of some kind of fallback for multiple reasons. I
> noticed that if I set io_workers=1, and then I SIGSTOP that worker,
> then sequential scans make no progress at all until I send SIGCONT. A
> fallback to synchronous sounds more ro
On Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:38 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 29, 2025 12:05 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > bool
> > > -AllTablesyncsReady(void)
> > > +AllTablesyncsReady(bool ready_if_no_tables)
> >
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:09 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I have been working on generating differential code coverage for
> Postgres and was able to do so with this script [1]. The script checks
> out HEAD and the latest release branch (currently REL_18_STABLE), then
> generates a differential c
Hi,
On 2025-09-05 10:09:27 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I have been working on generating differential code coverage for
> Postgres and was able to do so with this script [1]. The script checks
> out HEAD and the latest release branch (currently REL_18_STABLE), then
> generates a differential
> On Sep 4, 2025, at 10:00 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
>> I noticed that there are no tests for Bitmapset in src/test/modules as
>> is the case for other similar things like radixtree, rbtree, etc. so I
>> created one. I realize that
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 3:35 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> Here is a rebase after the GUC tables change.
I spent a bit of time scrolling through this today. Here are a few
observations/review comments.
It looks as though this will create a bunch of RelOptInfo objects that
don't end up getting used for
Philip Warner writes:
> I'd like a formulation like:
> Select Row(T1.T1F7 as F1, T2.T2F3 as F2, Tp.Fq as Fn)::FOO By Name
> Or
> Select FOO(F1:=T1.T1F7, F2:=T2.T2F3, Fn:=Tp.Fq)
> Basically: it's some form of UDT constructor with named parameters,
> whether by cast, pseudo functi
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 6:50 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * Flag used by pg_sync_replication_slots()
> > + * to do retries if the slot did not persist while syncin
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:52 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> To avoid potential memory blowout risks from large partial aggregation
> values, v18 avoids applying eager aggregation if any aggregate uses an
> INTERNAL transition type, as this typically indicates a large internal
> data structure (as in strin
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 1:44 PM Matheus Alcantara
wrote:
>
> On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 8:51 PM -03, Rishu Bagga wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 2:14 PM Matheus Alcantara
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> IIUC we don't store notifications of aborted transactions on the
> >
> >> queue. On PreCommit_Notify w
On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 8:02 PM -03, Rishu Bagga wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 7:14 AM Arseniy Mukhin
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, have you shared your patch and results somewhere? IIUC
>> Tom's approach resolves this bug, because with it we have queue
>> entries produced by committed transactions o
On 29.08.25 14:48, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Aug-29, jian he wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 5:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
WFM, although I think you could shorten it to "tables, materialized
views, and foreign tables". We generally expect that partitioned
tables are included when saying "tabl
> On Sep 5, 2025, at 18:06, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> v7 patch looks good to me. BTW, how do you want to be credited in the
> commit message?
>
> Author: Chao Li mailto:l...@highgo.com>>
> Author: Chao Li mailto:li.evan.c...@gmail.com>>
>
> It seems your email is the latter, however yo
On Mon, 1 Sept 2025 at 04:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> So, taking a step back, I don't know what would be a good fit for
> these duplicates of the "next power" routines upper-bounded on input
> when attached to pg_bitutils.h. However, I do see that we can get rid
> of pg_log2() and dynahash.h w
On Friday, September 5, 2025 2:01 PM shveta malik
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As reported by Robert[1], it is worth adding a test for the race condition
> > in
> > the RecordTransactionCommitPrepared() function to reduce the risk
Dmitry Mityugov писал(а) 2025-09-05 11:11:
Dmitry Mityugov писал(а) 2025-09-05 00:32:
It seems that when I add --with-llvm flag to ./configure on any 32-bit
platform that I have (Debian 12, Debian 13, Arch Linux), many tests
invoked by `make check` fail, or, sometimes, hang forever. Is this a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 11:32 PM Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>
> Replication origins is a useful feature for external replication
> systems to do conflict resolution in bi-directional replication. It's
> possible for the external systems to make use of this feature using
> the SQL functions pg_replicatio
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:46 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 04:01, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 4:57 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the comments, the updated version has the c
On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 8:51 PM -03, Rishu Bagga wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 2:14 PM Matheus Alcantara
>
> wrote:
>
>
>> IIUC we don't store notifications of aborted transactions on the
>
>> queue. On PreCommit_Notify we add the notifications on the queue
>
>> and on Commit_Notify() we signal th
> On Sep 5, 2025, at 14:24, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> --
> Best regards,
> Kirill Reshke
>
LGTM. SlruRecentlyUsed() is now an inline function.
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025, at 00:53, Rishu Bagga wrote:
> With the following sql script, I ran
> pgbench -T 100 -c 100 -j 8 -f pgbench_transaction_notify.sql -d postgres
>
> BEGIN;
> INSERT INTO test VALUES(1);
> NOTIFY benchmark_channel, 'transaction_completed';
> COMMIT;
Thanks for working on this.
I
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Background and Motivation
> -
> In high-throughput systems, where hundreds of sessions generate data
> on the publisher, the subscriber's apply process often becomes a
> bottleneck due to the single
Attempt to clear the compilation warning, overwrite the plpgsql.out file, and
update the patch.
002_cleanup_spl_funccache_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
As it solves the initial issue, it SGTM too.
I applied v3, updated the docs and added some tests in attached v4.
Hopefully it's OK.
Please take a look
Thanks
Regards
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 9:33 AM Jim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 04.09.25 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Note that the patch includes changin
Hi Tatsuo san,
I just rebased the commit for the GUC change.
On Sep 3, 2025, at 09:57, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
That's 0.3% difference, definitely noise-level. Ok, I withdraw my
claim and commit the patch without unlikely().
I also removed unlikely() in v7.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo S
> On Sep 5, 2025, at 13:49, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 03:04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> Please rebase the patches as they conflict with current HEAD (due to
>> commit 6359989654).
>
> Attached a rebased version of the patches.
>
> Regards,
> Vignesh
>
A few small comm
Dmitry Mityugov писал(а) 2025-09-05 00:32:
It seems that when I add --with-llvm flag to ./configure on any 32-bit
platform that I have (Debian 12, Debian 13, Arch Linux), many tests
invoked by `make check` fail, or, sometimes, hang forever. Is this a
known problem? It's not critical to me, just
On Thu, 4 Sept 2025 at 16:03, Yugo Nagata wrote:
>
> > I've updated that to use tupleid in the attached v3 patch, and added a
> > couple more isolation tests. In practice, however, I don't think that
> > error can ever happen because this check follows table_tuple_lock()
> > which has a similar te
y observed
Thank you for reporting this issue. It seems you've added a nonexistent slot to
synchronized_standby_slots before the server startup. The server does not verify
the existence of slots at startup due to the absence of slot shared information,
allowing the server to start successfull
On 04.09.25 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that the patch includes changing SplitIdentifierString and its
> clones to forbid zero-length quoted elements, which were formerly
> allowed. Without this, we'd accept values from config files that
> could not be represented in SET, which is exactly the
@Tom Lane Yes, a good question. I abstracted my example to the point of
meaninglessness. A more concreate example:
Create Type FOO(
F1 Int,
F2 Int,
...
Fn Int)
Create Function GET_SOMETHING(...) Returns SetOf FOO
Language PLPGSQL
...
Begin
...
Return Query
Sel
Hi Shlok,
Good to hear that you’re also interested in working on this task.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:26 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> I am also interested in this thread. And was working on a patch for it.
>
> On Wed, 3 Sept 2025 at 17:52, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Amit,
>
Dear Alyona,
Thanks for updating the patch!
Sadly, your patch cannot be applied cleanly. Even after the manual merge, it
could not
be built. Maybe `dbinfo` should be `dbinfos.dbinfo`. Obtained message is
written in [1].
(cfbot seemed not to run correctly)
Regarding patch content, your patch res
On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 11:17, I wrote:
> I also allowed myself to standardise description of
> xl_hash_move_page_contents and xl_hash_init_bitmap_page, so
> xl_hash_delete, xl_hash_init_bitmap_page and
> xl_hash_move_page_contents describes their zeroth backup block akin to
> each other.
Ahh... s
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 08:23:58PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Ah, I'd forgotten about EXTRA_INSTALL. That simplifies things. There's
> enough special handling for large objects in pg_upgrade that I think we
> ought to test it end-to-end, so I sneaked it into 006_tranfer_modes.pl.
> WDYT?
Nea
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As reported by Robert[1], it is worth adding a test for the race condition in
> the RecordTransactionCommitPrepared() function to reduce the risk of future
> code
> changes:
>
> /*
> * Note it is important to
Dear Hayato,
Thank you for the review! My apologies for the error in the patch -- it
looks like I accidentally modified it before sending =(. I've attached the
fixed versions below.
> Regarding patch content, your patch restores the postgresql.auto.conf
after the
> command runs. Initially I felt
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
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 09:47:24AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I caught a couple of other minor outdated things in the comments when
> finishing
> rebasing my own work:
>
> - long_segment_names has been added to SimpleLruInit
> - SlruRecentlyUsed is not a macro anymore
Right. The source of e
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 splitting
the patch into two parts for pg_lsn and numeric.
--
Michael
si
1 - 100 of 20610 matches
Mail list logo
