On 2022-Feb-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11.02.22 13:51, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > > I'm wondering why you changed this function to return an ObjectAddress
> > > > rather
> > > > than an Oid? There's no event trigger support for ALTER DATABASE, and
> > > > the rest
> > > > of similar util
On 14.02.22 10:14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
Do you plan to send a rebased version of the ICU default collation
soon or should I start looking at the current v4?
I will send an updated patch in the next few days.
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:55:19AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have committed this patch.
Great! Do you plan to send a rebased version of the ICU default collation
soon or should I start looking at the current v4?
> I didn't address the above issue. I looked at it a bit, but I also
On 11.02.22 13:51, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
I'm wondering why you changed this function to return an ObjectAddress rather
than an Oid? There's no event trigger support for ALTER DATABASE, and the rest
of similar utility commands also returns Oid.
Hmm, I was looking at RenameDatabase() and AlterDa
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:07:02PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10.02.22 12:08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > + errhint("Rebuild all objects affected
> > > by collation in the template database and run "
> > > +
On 10.02.22 12:08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
+errhint("Rebuild all objects affected by
collation in the template database and run "
+"ALTER DATABASE %s REFRESH
COLLATION VERSION, "
+
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> New patch that fixes all reported issues, I think:
>
> - Added test for ALTER DATABASE / REFRESH COLLATION VERSION
>
> - Rewrote AlterDatabaseRefreshCollVersion() with better locking
>
> - Added version checking in createdb()
T
New patch that fixes all reported issues, I think:
- Added test for ALTER DATABASE / REFRESH COLLATION VERSION
- Rewrote AlterDatabaseRefreshCollVersion() with better locking
- Added version checking in createdb()From 290ebb9ca743a2272181f435d5ea76d8a7280a0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 08.02.22 13:55, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Apart from that I still think that we should check the collation version of
> > the
> > source database when creating a new database. It won't cost much but will
> > give
> > the DBA
On 2022-Feb-08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:14:02PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I don't think you can run ALTER DATABASE from the regression test scripts,
> > since the database name is not fixed. You'd have to paste the command
> > together using psql tricks or som
On 08.02.22 13:55, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
Apart from that I still think that we should check the collation version of the
source database when creating a new database. It won't cost much but will give
the DBA a chance to recreate the indexes before risking invalid index usage.
A question on thi
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:48:35PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 08.02.22 13:55, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I'm just saying that without such a lock you can easily trigger the "cache
> > lookup" error, and that's something that's supposed to happen with normal
> > usage I think. So it should
On 08.02.22 13:55, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
I'm just saying that without such a lock you can easily trigger the "cache
lookup" error, and that's something that's supposed to happen with normal
usage I think. So it should be a better message saying that the database has
been concurrently dropped, or
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:44:24PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.02.22 11:29, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > - that's not really something new with this patch, but should we output the
> >collation version info or mismatch info in \l / \dO?
>
> It's a possibility. Perhaps there is a quest
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:14:02PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.02.22 17:08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > There's so limited testing in collate.* regression tests, so I thought it
> > would
> > be ok to add it there. At least some ALTER DATABASE ... REFRESH VERSION
> > would
> > be good,
On 07.02.22 17:08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
There's so limited testing in collate.* regression tests, so I thought it would
be ok to add it there. At least some ALTER DATABASE ... REFRESH VERSION would
be good, similarly to collation-level versioning.
I don't think you can run ALTER DATABASE from
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:44:24PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.02.22 11:29, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > - there is no test
>
> Suggestions where to put it? We don't really have tests for the
> collation-level versioning either, do we?
There's so limited testing in collate.* regressio
On 07.02.22 11:29, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
- there should be a mention to the need for a catversion bump in the message
comment
done
- there is no test
Suggestions where to put it? We don't really have tests for the
collation-level versioning either, do we?
- it's missing some updates
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 04:20:14PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch adds to database objects the same version tracking that collation
> objects have.
This version conflicts with 87669de72c2 (Some cleanup for change of collate and
ctype fields to type text), so I'm attaching a simple reb
19 matches
Mail list logo
