In 6275f5d28a1577563f53f2171689d4f890a46881, we fixed warnings from the
options -Wformat-overflow and -Wformat-truncation, which are part of
-Wall in gcc 7.
Here, I propose to dial this up a bit by adding -Wformat-overflow=2
-Wformat-truncation=2, which use some more worst-case approaches for
esti
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I've now broken it into two patches.
Rebased.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Enable-parallel-query-with-SERIALIZABLE-isolatio-v13.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Enable-the-read-only-SERIALIZABLE-optimization-f-v13
This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
procedure without the CALL keyword. Here is a patch that attempts to
implement that in PL/pgSQL as well. It's not very pretty.
I seem to recall that th
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/02/28 19:14, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> BTW, should there be a relevant test in partition_join.sql? If yes,
>>> attached a patch (partitionwise-join-collation-test-1.patch) to add
From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki [mailto:tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com]
> Another idea to add to the current patch is to move the call to SetErrorMode()
> to the below function, which is called first in main(). How about this?
>
> void
> pgwin32_install_crashdump_handler(void)
> {
> SetUnhandledE
Hello,
While prowling through snapbuild & reorderbuffer code, I wondered: why a queue
of snapshots is used for replaying each transaction instead of just picking up
snapshot from snapbuilder once when COMMIT record is read? I am not aware of any
DDL/DML mix which would make this invalid: e.g. we c
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> I seem to recall that there were past discussions about this, with
> respect to the PERFORM command, but I couldn't find them anymore.
>
I'm thinking you are thinking of this one.
https://www.postgr
> 28 февр. 2018 г., в 22:06, Robert Haas написал(а):
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Also if that wasn't clear -- we only do the full page write if there isn't
>> already a checksum on the page and that checksum is correct.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Suppose that on the mast
Hi,
On 2018-03-01 08:17:33 +0300, Arseny Sher wrote:
> While prowling through snapbuild & reorderbuffer code, I wondered: why a queue
> of snapshots is used for replaying each transaction instead of just picking up
> snapshot from snapbuilder once when COMMIT record is read? I am not aware of
> a
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:24 AM, David Steele wrote:
> These tests were originally included in the exclude unlogged tables
> patch [1] to provide coverage for the refactoring of reinit.c.
Hi David,
+# The following tests test symlinks. Windows doesn't have symlinks, so
+# skip on Windows.
Could
Hello,
In LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation two fields (data.catalog_xmin and
effective_catalog_xmin) of ReplicationSlot structure are used for
advancing xmin of the slot. This allows to avoid hole when tuples might
already have been vacuumed, but slot's state was not yet flushed to the
disk: if we c
David Steele writes:
> I'll be starting the Commitfest at midnight AoE (07:00 ET, 13:00 CET) so
> please get your patches in before then.
> Please remember that if you drop a new and large (or invasive patch)
> into this CF it may be moved to the next CF.
> This last CF for PG11 should generally b
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I was pinged off-list by a fellow -hackers denizen interested in the
> synchronous replay feature and wanting a rebased patch to test. Here
> it goes, just in time for a Commitfest. Please skip to the bottom of
> this message for testing note
2018-03-01 5:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut :
> This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
> it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
> procedure without the CALL keyword. Here is a patch that attempts to
> implement that in PL/pgSQL as
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Nice test case. I pushed commit
> ce1663cdcdbd9bf15c81570277f70571b3727dd3, including your test case, to
> fix this.
Thanks Robert for fix and commit. I have reverified commit, this is working
fine now.
Thanks & Regards,
Rajkumar Raghuwans
Hello Tom,
Fabien COELHO writes:
This is a simple patch that does what it says on the tin. I ran into
trouble with the pgbench TAP test *even before applying the patch*, but
only because I was doing a VPATH build as a user without 'write'
on the source tree (001_pgbench_with_server.pl tried t
On 1 March 2018 at 13:39, Arseny Sher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation two fields (data.catalog_xmin and
> effective_catalog_xmin) of ReplicationSlot structure are used for
> advancing xmin of the slot. This allows to avoid hole when tuples might
> already have been vacuumed,
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> Yes, it should not copy those WAL files. Most of the time they are going
> to be meaningless. See this recent thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180126023609.GH17847%40paquier
> .xyz
> So I would rather go this way instead of hav
On 28.02.2018 16:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
On 26.02.2018 17:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
Can you please explain, how it can be done easily without extra tuple
locks? I have tried to read your patch but due to lack of comments,
it is not cle
> 28 февр. 2018 г., в 6:22, Daniel Gustafsson написал(а):
>
>> Is there any way we could provide this functionality for previous versions
>> (9.6,10)? Like implement utility for offline checksum enabling, without
>> WAL-logging, surely.
>
> While outside the scope of the patch in question (s
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
