On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:19:35PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> If you can wait for the next commitfest (the original one I put the
> patch into, i.e. September) I am committed to making it happen. But if
> you are anxious to getting this into the current commitfest, go for it.
> I am in the middle o
On 2018-07-10 13:20:52 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> defined in transam.h because c.h didn't feel right.
Yea, that looks better.
> Client code lost the ability to use operator < directly. I needed to
> use a static inline function as a constructor. I lost the
> interchangeability with the wide
Hi,
I prepared a patch which adds a timestamp into a XLOG_BACKUP_END
WAL-record. This functionality is needed in practice when we have to
determine a recovery time of specific backup.
This code developed in compatibility with WAL segments, which do not
have a timestamp in a XLOG_BACKUP_END reco
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:59:57PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:24:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I am not sure we can fix this without requiring people to drop and
> > > recreate such indexes. However, I am even at a loss in how to fix the
> > > CREATE FUNCTION to
Hi,
On 2018-07-10 06:41:32 +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
> This functionality is needed in practice when we have to determine a
> recovery time of specific backup.
What do you mean by "recovery time of specific backup"?
> This code developed in compatibility with WAL segments, which do not h
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-10 13:20:52 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I don't know what to think about the encoding or meaning of non-normal
>> xids in this thing.
>
> I'm not following what you mean by this?
While defining FullTransactionIdPrecedes() in the
On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro
wrote:
>
> I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch
> attached. Approach:
>
> 1. Introduce a new type BigTransactionId (better names welcome).
>
txid_current() should be changed to BigTransactionId too. It's currently
bigint.
Use
On 10 July 2018 at 10:32, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
>> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving
>> between big and small transaction IDs, hence the including of the word
>> 'big' in variable and function names and the use of a function-like
>> macro (rather than impli
On 2018-07-10 10:32:44 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch
> > attached. Approach:
> >
> > 1. Introduce a new type BigTransactionId (better names welcome).
> >
>
> txid_current(
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
>> I got an assertion failure when I use GROUPS mode and specifies offset
>> without ORDER BY clause. The reproduction steps and the backtrace I
>> got are following.
>
>> =# create table test as select 1 as c;
>> =# selec
On 10 July 2018 at 10:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-10 10:32:44 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch
> > > attached. Approach:
> > >
> > > 1. Introduce a new ty
(2018/07/09 20:43), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I don't have any numbers right now, so that is nothing but a concern. But as
I said in a previous email, in the approach I proposed, we don't need to
spend extra cycles where partitioning is not involved. I think that is a
good thing in itself. No?
A
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:,
>>> (errmsg_internal("next transaction ID: %u:%u; next
>>> OID: %u",
>>> -
>>> checkPoint.nextXidEpoch, checkP
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:42:20AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> TBH, I have no numbers measured by the test.
> One question about your test is; how did you measure the *recovery time*
> of DROP DATABASE? Since it's *recovery* performance, basically it's not easy
> to measure that.
It would be simpl
Thank you for the notice.
At Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:30:22 +0300, Arthur Zakirov
wrote in <20180709093021.GA9309@zakirov.localdomain>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:07:24PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > The new version v4 is changed in the following points.
> >
> > - Don't renumber t
Hi,
Le 09/07/2018 à 22:10, David Rowley a écrit :
> On 10 July 2018 at 00:47, Christophe Courtois
> wrote:
> (Christophe reports 2x performance regression with PG11 when using
> 1 partitions)
> Thanks for the report. Can you supply your test case when shows this
> regression?
> Please, can y
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
