On 17.06.2018 03:00, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-16 23:25:34 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 16.06.2018 22:02, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-16 11:38:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wro
Hi Alvaro,
>> There was a slight oversight in the twophase_gid length calculation in
>> the XactLogCommitRecord() code path in the cf5a1890592 commit. The
>> corresponding XactLogAbortRecord() code path was ok. PFA, a small
>> patch to fix the oversight.
>
> Forgot to add: maybe it would be usefu
> "Amit" == Amit Kapila writes:
>> Presumably the problem is that the standby isn't authorized to change
>> the btree index's "entry is dead" bits,
Amit> I don't see anything like that in the code. We use _bt_killitems
Amit> to mark the items as dead and neither that function or any of i
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:49:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thoughts?
Okay, this is still an open item. Are there any objections to the
previous patch applied on master and the addition of the following
undefined flags to pg_config.h.win32 for back-branches? Here is the
list of flags whic
On 06/17/2018 08:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:49:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thoughts?
Okay, this is still an open item. Are there any objections to the
previous patch applied on master and the addition of the following
undefined flags to pg_config.h.win32
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:14:54PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I'll go ahead and mark this as Ready for Committer.
Another thing not mentioned on this thread is that bms_membership is
faster than bms_num_members by design with many members, so this change
makes sense to shave a couple of cycle
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:38:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
>>> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
>>> have to disallow is
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 05:23:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I still think that the fact that we are still discussing what is basically
>> the *basic concepts* of how this would be set up after we have released
>> beta1 is a clear sign t
[ trimming cc's ]
Andrew Gierth writes:
> See index_fetch_heap:
> /*
>* If we scanned a whole HOT chain and found only dead tuples, tell
> index
>* AM to kill its entry for that TID (this will take effect in the next
>* amgettuple call, in index_getnext_tid). We do
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:49:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Okay, this is still an open item. Are there any objections to the
>> previous patch applied on master and the addition of the following
>> undefined flags to pg_config.h.win32 for back-branches? Here is
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> * During recovery we ignore killed tuples and don't bother to kill
them
Tom> * either. We do this because the xmin on the primary node could
easily be
Tom> * later than the xmin on the standby node, so that what the primary
Tom> * thi
> On 17 Jun 2018, at 14:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:14:54PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I'll go ahead and mark this as Ready for Committer.
>
> Another thing not mentioned on this thread is that bms_membership is
> faster than bms_num_members by design with man
2018-06-16 16:21 GMT+02:00 John Dent :
> Hi folks,
>
> I thought I’d share an update to my pet project, which dynamically
> rewrites queries to target materialized views when they are available and
> can satisfy a query (or part of it) with a lower cost plan.
>
> The extension is now a regular EXT
I wrote:
> So I'm now pretty well convinced that this is a good change and we
> should slip it into v11.
I wrote a test case and was about ready to commit this, when I started
wondering about the behavior for fdresult == FUNCDETAIL_MULTIPLE.
That is, suppose that the notation f(x) matches more tha
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?
The doc section that I removed was a last minute additi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:00:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Note for everybody on this list: I will be out for a couple of days at
> the end of this week, and my intention is to finish wrapping this patch
> at the beginning of next week, with a back-patch down to 9.5 where
> palloc_extended
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 10:57:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're just leaving them undefined, isn't this purely cosmetic?
> At least, that was what I understood to be the reasoning for leaving
> such symbols out of pg_config.h.win32 in the past.
>
> I'm on board with making things more consiste
Michael Paquier writes:
> Trying to run regression tests in parallel in ~9.5 leads to spurious
> failures, which is annoying... I had a patch fixing that but I cannot
> put my finger on the thread where this has been discussed.
Yeah, for me parallelized check-world only works in >= 9.6. My (vag
Hi,
On 2018-06-17 22:31:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > Trying to run regression tests in parallel in ~9.5 leads to spurious
> > failures, which is annoying... I had a patch fixing that but I cannot
> > put my finger on the thread where this has been discussed.
>
> Yeah,
On 2018/06/15 20:41, David Rowley wrote:
> On 15 June 2018 at 20:37, Amit Langote wrote:
>> select * from partitioned_table_a
>> union all
>> select * from partitioned_table_b
>>
>> The only thing that changes with the patch is that
>> ExecLockNonLeafAppendTables is called *twice* for the two nest
On 18 June 2018 at 14:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/06/15 20:41, David Rowley wrote:
>> If the top level Append is the UNION ALL one, then there won't be any
>> partitioned_rels. If that's what you mean by no-op then, yeah. There
>> are no duplicate locks already obtained in the parent with th
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:33 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> > should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
>
> What wait period do you think is appropriate in
Hi.
On 2018/06/17 22:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:38:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Rowley writes:
>>> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
in which all the rels are temp tables of
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 07:33:01PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-17 22:31:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, for me parallelized check-world only works in >= 9.6. My (vague)
>> recollection is that multiple fixes were needed to get to that point,
>> so I doubt it's worth trying to fix i
Hi,
I have written a code for quick indextuple deletion from an relation by
heap tuple TID. The code relate to "Retail IndexTuple deletion"
enhancement of btree index on postgresql wiki [1].
Briefly, it includes three steps:
1. Key generation for index tuple searching.
2. Index relation search
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:50:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I would go as far as suggesting to remove qualifiers that indicate what
>> the file is for (such as "relation mapping file"); relying on the path
>> as indicator of what's goi
On 11 June 2018 at 15:29, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> On 7 June 2018 at 11:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Amit Khandekar
wrote:
I think this
Hi!
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 11:23 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
wrote:
> It is cool to see this in Postgres 11. However:
>
>>
>> 4) vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor can be set either by GUC or reloption.
>> Default value is 0.1. So, by default cleanup scan is triggered after
>> increasing
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> By that logic, we should not have suggested that anyone use table
> inheritance, because they would have to change their configuration
> when we implemented table partitioning. Indeed, switching from table
> inheritance to table partitioning
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Kato, Sho wrote:
> I add a function called ECPGfreeSQLDA() becasue there is no API for releasing
> the SQLDA stored the result set.
Hello Kato-san,
Thank you for sending the patch!
+ Alternatively, use the standard C library's free() function as
in the exam
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Attached is v2 version of the patch. It contains the above
> trigger-related issue fixed.
>
> The updated tuple is passed back using the existing newslot parameter
> of GetTupleForTrigger(). When ExecBRDeleteTriggers() is called using a
> n
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:27:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/06/17 22:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Which checks do you think are missing other than those added by the
> proposed patch?
I was just wondering how this reacted if trying to attach a foreign
table to a partition tree which is
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> One question I have is whether it is against project policy to
>> backport a new file and a new user-facing function.
>
> Given that this has been broken since forever, and there've been
> no complaints before now, I do no
33 matches
Mail list logo
