On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:35:03AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Indeed, thanks for looking. I thought that the callback was called
> after checking for max_prepared_transaction, but that's not the case.
> So let's add at least a test case. Any objections?
Okay, done.
--
Michael
signature.as
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Hi Michael, it looks that a separate test is not required at least for
> this test. Here is a patch that enable the test in
> contrib/postgres_fdw/, expected output:
Indeed, thanks for looking. I thought that the callback was called
Le 09/11/2019 à 02:22, Michael Paquier a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
>> I don't think so. The support or not of 2PC is on foreign data wrapper
>> side. In postgres_fdw contrib the error for use with 2PC is not part of
>> the test but it will be thrown an
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:19:01AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> I don't think so. The support or not of 2PC is on foreign data wrapper
> side. In postgres_fdw contrib the error for use with 2PC is not part of
> the test but it will be thrown anyway. I guess that a test will be
> valuable only if t
Hi Michael,
Le 08/11/2019 à 10:05, Michael Paquier a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:25:52PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> Pushed after modifying the commit message a bit. Thanks!
> Should we have more tests for 2PC then?
> --
> Michael
I don't think so. The support or not of 2PC is on f
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:25:52PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Pushed after modifying the commit message a bit. Thanks!
Should we have more tests for 2PC then?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Gilles,
Sorry, I have sent an unfinished email.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 5:20 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Gilles Darold wrote:
> > Le 07/11/2019 à 11:52, Etsuro Fujita a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > >> I forgot to
Hi Gilles,
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 07/11/2019 à 11:52, Etsuro Fujita a écrit :
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> >> I forgot to mention that the comment in XACT_EVENT_PRE_PREPARE
> >> contains the same mistake and needs more or les
Hi Michael-san,
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:40:36PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:28 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> >> At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:20:07 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
> >> wrote in
> >>> Only two people compl
Le 07/11/2019 à 11:52, Etsuro Fujita a écrit :
> Horiguchi-san,
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that the comment in XACT_EVENT_PRE_PREPARE
>> contains the same mistake and needs more or less the same fix.
> Good catch! How about rewriting "We d
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:40:36PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:28 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:20:07 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote in
>>> Only two people complaining about the wording? Considering as well
That's like.. Half the folks partic
Horiguchi-san,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> I forgot to mention that the comment in XACT_EVENT_PRE_PREPARE
> contains the same mistake and needs more or less the same fix.
Good catch! How about rewriting "We disallow remote transactions that
modified anything" in th
Horiguchi-san,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:28 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:20:07 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote in
> > Only two people complaining about the wording? Considering as well
> > that we use that wording in the docs and there were no complains about
> > that IIRC,
At Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:27:47 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> "modified" is my mistake as in the just posted mail. But the most
> significant point in the previous mail is using "foreign tables using
> postgres_fdw" instead of "postgres_fdw foreign tables". And the other
> point is usin
Hello, Fujita-san.
At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:20:07 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in
> Only two people complaining about the wording? Considering as well
> that we use that wording in the docs and there were no complains about
> that IIRC, I don't feel a need to change that, TBH.
>
> > And perhaps "p
Hello Gilles. I made a silly mistake.
At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:05:55 +0100, Gilles Darold wrote in
> > FWIW, I see it a bit weird, too. And perhaps "prepare" should be in
> > upper case letters. Plus, any operation including a SELECT on a
> > temporary table inhibits PREAPRE TRANSACTION, but the sa
Horiguchi-san,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:13:10 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote in
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:1
Hi Kyotaro,
Le 07/11/2019 à 08:10, Kyotaro Horiguchi a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> At Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:13:10 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote in
>> Hi Michael-san,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Wed,
Hello.
At Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:13:10 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in
> Hi Michael-san,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > >> "postgres_
Hi Michael-san,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
> >> tables using postgres_fdw"
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
>> tables using postgres_fdw" be a better wording? I am wondering as
>> well if we should not split this info
Hi Michael-san,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
> tables using postgres_fdw" be a better wording? I am wondering as
> well if we should not split this information into two parts: one for
> the actual error
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:57:10PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I added the commit message. Does that make
> sense? If there are no objections, I'll apply the patch to all
> supported branches.
"postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
tables using
Hi Gilles,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:41 PM Gilles Darold wrote:
> I have attached a single patch that include Etsuro Fujita's patch on
> postgres_fdw documentation and mine on postgres_fdw error message with
> the precision that it comes from postgres_fdw. The modification about
> prepared transac
Hi Esturo,
Le 05/11/2019 à 10:35, Etsuro Fujita a écrit :
> Hi Gilles,
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:29 AM Gilles Darold wrote:
>> As per the following code, t1 is a remote table through postgres_fdw:
>> test=# BEGIN;
>> BEGIN
>> test=# SELECT * FROM t1;
>> ...
>>
>> test=# PREPARE TRANSACTION 'gx
Hi Gilles,
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:29 AM Gilles Darold wrote:
> As per the following code, t1 is a remote table through postgres_fdw:
> test=# BEGIN;
> BEGIN
> test=# SELECT * FROM t1;
> ...
>
> test=# PREPARE TRANSACTION 'gxid1';
> ERROR: cannot prepare a transaction that modified remote tabl
Le 02/11/2019 à 08:31, Michael Paquier a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
>> I have attached a patch to the documentation that adds remote tables to
>> the list of objects where any operation prevent using a prepared
>> transaction, currently it is just notif
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> I have attached a patch to the documentation that adds remote tables to
> the list of objects where any operation prevent using a prepared
> transaction, currently it is just notified "operations involving
> temporary tables or the se
28 matches
Mail list logo
