On 11/18/18 12:47 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> This patch went through last few commitfests without any activity, but cfbot
> says it still applies and doesn't break any tests. From what I see there was
> some agreement about naming, so the patch is indeed needs more review. Could
> anyone from the r
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 8:51 AM Adam Brusselback
wrote:
> > I don't know how much what I write on this thread is read by others or
> how useful this is for others who are following this work
>
> I've been following this thread and many others like it, silently soaking
> it up, because I don't fe
Hello Alvaro,
I think this patch's Command->lines would benefit from using PQExpBuffer
(or maybe StringInfo?) for the command string instead of open-coding
string manipulation and allocation.
[...]
Ok.
I'm not sure that Command->first_line is really all that useful. It
seems we go to a l
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 10:52, Adrien Nayrat
> wrote:
>
> For me, the question is how to name this GUC? Is "log_sample_rate" is enough?
> I am not sure because it is only related to queries logged by
> log_min_duration_statements.
Since it's hard to come up with a concise name that will mention
Hi all,
Here is a tiny patch removing PreventCommandDuringRecovery() for UNLISTEN.
See previous discussion in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADT4RqBweu7QKRYAYzeRW77b%2BMhJdUikNe45m%2BfL4GJSq_u2Fg%40mail.gmail.com
.
In a nutshell, this prevents an error being raised when UNLISTEN is issued
On 11/17/18 2:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-07-12 11:28:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/12/2018 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 07/12/2018 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
bowerbird and hamerkop have some gripes like this:
bowerbird | c:\perl64\lib\core\w
On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The comment in expand_dbname_patterns is ungrammatical and mentions
"OID" rather than "name", so I suggest
/*
* The loop below might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the
* output name list, but we don't care.
Hello Tom,
Thanks for this precise feedback.
Progress on this patch seems to be blocked on the question of whether
we want to keep enlarging the amount of psql-specific information
in the GRANT reference page, or move that all somewhere else.
Yep.
FWIW, I think I agree with Peter's positio
Hi,
On 2018-11-18 12:46:14 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/17/18 2:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-07-12 11:28:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > By inspection the perl header is just defining it to _isnan, for every MSC
> > > version.
> > Let's try undefining it before plperl.h th
Hi,
while investigating something on a cluster with a non-default WAL
segment (say 256MB), I've noticed a somewhat surprising behavior of
max_wal_size default. While the docs claim the default is 1GB, the
actual default depends on the WAL segment size.
For example with the 256MB WAL segments, you
Hi,
On 2018-11-17 23:32:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've seen repeated complaints about bogus build warnings when using
> "clang": it complains that strlcpy and some related library functions
> haven't been declared. Several of the buildfarm animals exhibit such
> warnings, for instance. That's
Hi,
On 2018-11-18 22:16:12 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> while investigating something on a cluster with a non-default WAL
> segment (say 256MB), I've noticed a somewhat surprising behavior of
> max_wal_size default. While the docs claim the default is 1GB, the
> actual default depends on the WAL s
Antonin Houska writes:
> [ agg_pushdown_v8.tgz ]
I spent a few hours looking at this today. It seems to me that at no
point has there been a clear explanation of what the patch is trying to
accomplish, so let me see whether I've got it straight or not. (I suggest
that something like this ought
Hi,
It seems we have pretty annoying problem with logical decoding when
performing VACUUM FULL / CLUSTER on a table with toast-ed data.
The trouble is that the rewritten heap is WAL-logged using XLOG/FPI
records, the TOAST data is logged as regular INSERT records. XLOG/FPI is
ignored in logical d
Andres Freund writes:
> Seems like a good plan. The problem doesn't reproduce for me on debian
> (using any version of clang), so all I can report is that at patched
> build still works as it should.
Interesting. It's hardly surprising that the problem would occur only
on some platforms, since i
On 11/18/18 10:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-11-18 22:16:12 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> while investigating something on a cluster with a non-default WAL
>> segment (say 256MB), I've noticed a somewhat surprising behavior of
>> max_wal_size default. While the docs claim the de
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's a backwards-compatibility argument for not changing this behavior,
>> sure, but I don't buy the other arguments you made here. And I don't
>> think there's all that much to the backwards-compatibility argum
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 1:11 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-17, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > > Uh, ouch! Seems to me that this is a high-caliber foot-gun, and will
> > > cause nasty suprises when production stats data disappear
>
On 13/11/2018 16:34, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> So while investigating a case of this warning (in
> UpdateMinRecoveryPoint):
>
> "xlog min recovery request %X/%X is past current point %X/%X"
>
> I noticed that it is issued even in cases where we know that
> minRecoveryPoint is not yet valid, for exam
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:23:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was looking at this patch, and shouldn't we worry about compatibility
> with plugins or utilities which look directly at what's in readRecordBuf
> for the record contents? Let's not forget that the contents of
> XLogReaderState a
Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
> [ Inequality-merge-join-v10.patch ]
Just thinking about this patch a bit ... I wonder why you were so quick to
reject the UNION approach at the outset. This patch is pretty messy, and
it complicates a lot of stuff that is quite fundamental to the planner,
and you st
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:41:22AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> So 6 new functions needs to be added to cover all the above cases,
> IMO, we may need functions for all combinations, because I feel some
> user may have the requirement of left out combination, in case if we choose
> only some combi
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:18:33PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Since it's hard to come up with a concise name that will mention sampling rate
> in the context of min_duration_statement, I think it's fine to name this
> configuration "log_sample_rate", as long as it's dependency from
> log_min_dur
On 11/16/18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> +/* Status codes for the local map. */
> +#define FSM_LOCAL_ZERO 0x00 /* Beyond the end of the relation */
> +#define FSM_LOCAL_AVAIL 0x01 /* Available to try */
> +#define FSM_LOCAL_TRIED 0x02 /* Already tried, not enough space */
>
> Instead of maintaining three
On 2018-Jul-23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> p.s. Another patch can be replacement of relation type from "table" to
> "partitioned table"
>
> postgres=# \dt+
> List of relations
> +++---+---+-+-+
> | Schema |Na
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:20:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a rebased version, fixing the rejects, pgindenting, and fixing
> some "git show --check" whitespace issues. Haven't reviewed any further
> than that.
Schema qualifications are missing in many places, and they are added
somet
On 2018-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:41:22AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > So 6 new functions needs to be added to cover all the above cases,
> > IMO, we may need functions for all combinations, because I feel some
> > user may have the requirement of left out com
On 2018/11/19 11:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> p.s. Another patch can be replacement of relation type from "table" to
>> "partitioned table"
>>
>> postgres=# \dt+
>> List of relations
>> +++---
On 2018-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:20:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Here's a rebased version, fixing the rejects, pgindenting, and fixing
> > some "git show --check" whitespace issues. Haven't reviewed any further
> > than that.
>
> Schema qualifications
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:17:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> To be certain I'm not going against some old decision, I digged up
> Amit's old patches. Turns out he submitted psql's describe.c using the
> term "partitioned table" on August 10th [1] and then based on a
> discussion where Robert
On 2018/11/17 9:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 09:38:40AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, but it seems to me that your version of my patch rearranges the
>> code more than necessary.
>>
>> How about the attached?
>
> What you are proposing here looks good to me. Thanks!
Me
At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:14:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
<23489.1542471...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> I wrote:
> > After still further thought, it seems like "if (bytesread == 0)"
> > is the right way to proceed. That protects us against incorrectly
> > setting reached_eof if the pipe is being run in unbuffe
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your input.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What is the argument that this occurs often enough to be worth expending
> >> extra cycles and code space on?
>
> > I am not using a
Thank you for taking this.
At Mon, 19 Nov 2018 10:27:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in <20181119012728.ga1...@paquier.xyz>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:23:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I was looking at this patch, and shouldn't we worry about compatibility
> > with plugins or utilities
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 10:12, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Andrew Gierth (and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk) wrote:
> > > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> >
> > >> [ inlining-ctes-v5.patch ]
> >
> > Tom> I took a little bit of a look through this. Some thoughts:
> >
> > Tom> * I think it
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:41 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2018-Nov-17, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > > Uh, ouch! Seems to me that this is a high-caliber foot-gun, and will
> > > cause nasty suprises when production stats data disappe
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 3:42 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 8:51 AM Adam Brusselback
> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't know how much what I write on this thread is read by others or
>> how useful this is for others who are following this work
>>
>> I've been followi
(2018/11/17 8:10), Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether the reached_eof test should be
"if (bytesread == 0)" or "if (bytesread< maxread)". The former
seems more certain to indicate real EOF; are there other cases where
the fread might return a short read? On the other hand, if
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:51:24PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Or we could use "the function returns true immediately after initiating
> the promotion by sending the promotion signal to the postmaster"? As a
> native speaker which one feels more natural to you?
Sorry for the time it took. Af
At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20181117141554.4dkx2u4j6md3bqdh@alvherre.pgsql>
> Is this patch committable now?
I don't think so. We should make a decision on a point.
I was a bit confused (sorry) but IIUIC Haribabu suggested that
the RBM_ZERO_ON_ERROR case should
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:28:06PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Yeah, it is incorrect in some sense, but the comment was
> suggesting the lifetime of the pointed record. So I'd like to
> have a comment like this instead.
I think that we can still live without as it is not the business of this
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:26:36AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> The reason for doing that in the fucntion is it can happen also
> for physical replication when walsender is active but far
> behind. The removed(renamed)-but-still-open segment may be
> recycled and can be overwritten while readi
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 9:03 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:07 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:41 PM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > My plan is do a round of testing and review of this stuff next week
> > > once the dust is settled on the current minor releases
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:30 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On 11/16/18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > +/* Status codes for the local map. */
> > +#define FSM_LOCAL_ZERO 0x00 /* Beyond the end of the relation */
> > +#define FSM_LOCAL_AVAIL 0x01 /* Available to try */
> > +#define FSM_LOCAL_TRIED 0x02 /* Alr
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:41:22AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > > So 6 new functions needs to be added to cover all the above cases,
> > > IMO, we may need functions for all combinations, beca
On 16.11.2018 11:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:12:38PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
This patch eliminates unnecessary copying that was done for
non-continued records. Now the return value of XLogReadRecord
directly points into page buffer holded in XLogReaderStats. I
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:07 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:03 AM Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>
> > The test multiple-row-versions is failing because of the
> > above-discussed scenario. I've attached the regression diff file and
> > the result output file for the same. Here is
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:07 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> I would say this should be considered a resounding success. We should
> probably add an alternative result file to cover this case, but
> otherwise I don't see anything which requires action.
>
As of now, we've added an extra expected file
On 10/10/2018 19:42, Catalin Iacob wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:17 PM wrote:
I just caught an error in my patch, it's fixed in the attachment. The
'never' and 'maybe' collapse modes were mixed up in one location.
Here's a partial review of this version, did not read the doc part
very caref
49 matches
Mail list logo
