On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:17:31AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I'm ok to drop this from open items for v12 because this is not a bug.
> Let's work on this next CommitFest.
Okay, I have moved out the item from the list of opened ones.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 7:19 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:11:53PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > My impression is that these are better treated as feature work, to be
> > tackled in v13. I see no urgency to push this for v12. There's still
> > some disagreements on how
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:11:53PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> My impression is that these are better treated as feature work, to be
> tackled in v13. I see no urgency to push this for v12. There's still
> some disagreements on how parts of this are implemented, and we've beta1
> coming up.
It i
Hi,
On 2019-05-15 15:44:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> From de60d212b50a6412e483c995b83e28c5597089ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Masahiko Sawada
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 20:02:05 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] Add --index-cleanup option to vacuumdb.
> From 59e3146f585e288d41738daa9a1d18
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:09 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:44:22PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I've attached new version patch that takes the way to let the backend
> > parser do all work.
>
> I was wondering how the error handling gets by not having the parsing
>
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:44:22PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached new version patch that takes the way to let the backend
> parser do all work.
I was wondering how the error handling gets by not having the parsing
on the frontend, and it could be worse:
$ vacuumdb --index-cleanup=po
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-05-15 11:36:52 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > I might be missing something but if the frontend code doesn't check
> > > arguments and we let the backen
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-05-15 11:36:52 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I might be missing something but if the frontend code doesn't check
> > arguments and we let the backend parsing logic do all the work then it
> > allows user to execute an ar
Hi,
On 2019-05-15 11:36:52 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I might be missing something but if the frontend code doesn't check
> arguments and we let the backend parsing logic do all the work then it
> allows user to execute an arbitrary SQL command via vacuumdb.
But, so what? The user could just
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:51 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:19:29AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > + if (strncasecmp(opt_str, "true", 4) != 0 &&
> > + strncasecmp(opt_str, "false", 5) != 0)
> >
> > Shouldn't we allow also "on" and "off", "1", "0" as a valid boolean value,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:19:29AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + if (strncasecmp(opt_str, "true", 4) != 0 &&
> + strncasecmp(opt_str, "false", 5) != 0)
>
> Shouldn't we allow also "on" and "off", "1", "0" as a valid boolean value,
> like VACUUM does?
I am wondering, in order to keep this patch si
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:20 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao
> > > escreveu:
> > >> The question is; we should support
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:28:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thank you! I've incorporated your comment in my branch. I'll post the
> > updated version patch after the above discussion got a consensus.
>
> Fujii-san, any input abou
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:28:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you! I've incorporated your comment in my branch. I'll post the
> updated version patch after the above discussion got a consensus.
Fujii-san, any input about the way to move forward here? Beta1 is
planned for next week, hen
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:03 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:39 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote in
> >
> > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 08,
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:39 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14
At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao
> > > escreveu:
> > >> The question is; we should su
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao
> > escreveu:
> >> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,,
> >> something like --index-cleanup o
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao
> escreveu:
>> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,,
>> something like --index-cleanup option is added?
>> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-
Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao escreveu:
>
> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,,
> something like --index-cleanup option is added?
> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-cleanup option is added
> as your patch does? Or for both?
>
--index-
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:32 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:41 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > vacuumdb command supports the corresponding options to
> > any VACUUM parameters except INDEX_CLEANUP and TRUNCATE
> > that were added recently. Should vacuumdb also sup
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:06 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:26:35AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I think it's a good idea to add new options of these parameters for
> > vacuumdb. While making INDEX_CLEANUP option patch I also attached the
> > patch for INDEX_CLEANUP p
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:26:35AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think it's a good idea to add new options of these parameters for
> vacuumdb. While making INDEX_CLEANUP option patch I also attached the
> patch for INDEX_CLEANUP parameter before[1], although it adds
> --disable-index-cleanup op
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:41 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> vacuumdb command supports the corresponding options to
> any VACUUM parameters except INDEX_CLEANUP and TRUNCATE
> that were added recently. Should vacuumdb also support those
> new parameters, i.e., add --index-cleanup and --truncate o
Hi,
vacuumdb command supports the corresponding options to
any VACUUM parameters except INDEX_CLEANUP and TRUNCATE
that were added recently. Should vacuumdb also support those
new parameters, i.e., add --index-cleanup and --truncate options
to the command?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
25 matches
Mail list logo
