Hello David,
I do not understand why dump_inserts declaration has left the "flags for
options" section.
I moved that because it's no longer just a flag. It now stores an int value.
Hmmm. Indeed, all th "int"s of this section should be "bool" instead. Now,
some "flags" do not appear althou
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 07:07:36AM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> In that case I propose that we avoid the whole issue by removing
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement entirely.
Some folks who skip $SUBJECT will be interested in your proposal. If you wish
to pursue that proposal, please start a new thr
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> After further reflection I really don't like Andrew's suggestion
Tom> that we not document the rule that multiply-referenced CTEs won't
Tom> be inlined by default. That would be giving up the principle that
Tom> WITH calculations are not done multiple time
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 21:00, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >> There is a test, that is good! Charater "." should be backslashed in the
> >> regexpr.
> >
> > Yeah, you're right. I wonder if we should fix the test of them in
> > another patch.
>
> From a software engineering perspective, I'd say that a f
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:51:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Attached is a patch doing that. Thoughts?
>
> WFM.
Thanks, pushed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 06:02:15PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Just for the records, cfbot complains during the compilation:
>
> option.c: In function ‘parseCommandLine’:
> option.c:265:8: error: ignoring return value of ‘getcwd’, declared
> with attribute warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-resu
Hi,
On 2019-01-10 15:56:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Demoor writes:
> > [ postgres-notify-all-v8.patch ]
>
> I took a quick look through this. A few comments:
>
> * I find the proposed syntax extension for NOTIFY to be fairly bizarre;
> it's unlike the way that we handle options for any
Hi,
On 2018-11-22 19:15:42 +0300, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I took a look at the v2, here are some comments:
>
> * This feature needs tests, especially for the cases where opfamilies or
> data types or collations don't match, and other non-obvious cases where it
> shouldn't wo
Hi,
On 2018-12-25 10:25:46 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Hallo Michael,
>
> > Yeah, new rebased version attached.
>
> Patch v8 applies cleanly, compiles, global & local make check are ok.
>
> A few comments:
>
> About added tests: the node is left running at the end of the script, which
> is n
Hi,
On 2018-12-03 18:43:04 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:12 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:03 AM Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:42 AM Kuntal Ghosh
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:53
Hi,
On 2018-11-23 13:15:08 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Besides the problem presented by Hironobu-san, I'm doing some cleanup
> and improving docs. I also forget to declare pg_publication_rel TOAST
> table.
>
> Thanks for your review.
As far as I can tell, the patch has not been refreshed since
Hi,
On 2019-01-09 07:07:17 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> There is still no documentation.
Michael, are you planning to address this? It'd also be useful to state
when you just don't agree with things / don't plan to address them.
Given the docs piece hasn't been addressed, and seems uncontrover
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:00 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> >> I do not understand why dump_inserts declaration has left the "flags for
> >> options" section.
> >
> > I moved that because it's no longer just a flag. It now stores an int
> value.
>
> Hmmm. Indeed, all th "int"s of th
Hi,
This thread is curently marked as returned with feedback, set so
2018-12-01. Given there've been several new versions submitted since, is
that accurate?
- Andres
Hi,
On 2019-01-11 18:35:13 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jan-04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Your reasoning seems correct to me.
> >
> > Maybe add a code comment along the lines of "once we have found the
> > right ... we don't need to check the remaining ...".
> >
> > Or, you can ma
Hi,
On 2019-01-13 20:22:32 -0200, José Arthur Benetasso Villanova wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Matheus de Oliveira wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Updated the last patch so it can apply cleanly on HEAD.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Matheus.
>
> I applied your patch on top of bb874e30fbf9e85bdb117bad34865a5fae29
Hi,
On 2019-01-13 19:52:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:59 PM Asim R P wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>> I wonder if it would be a better idea to enable Valgrind's memcheck to
> >>> mark buffers as read-only o
Hi,
On 2019-01-19 17:04:13 +1300, Edmund Horner wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 05:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Edmund Horner writes:
> > > My patch uses the same path type and executor for all extractable
> > tidquals.
> >
> > > This worked pretty well, but I am finding it difficult to reimplemen
Hi,
On 2018-11-29 17:23:11 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > By the way, I can see that the latest patch available does not apply at
> > tries to juggle with multiple concepts. I can see at least two of them:
> > failover_timeout and ho
Hi Tomas,
On 2019-01-24 14:59:50 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 12:46, David Rowley
> wrote:
> > (Stopped in statext_mcv_build(). Need to take a break)
>
> Continuing...
Are you planning to update the patch, or should the entry be marked as
RWF?
- Andres
Hi,
On 2019-01-31 16:13:22 +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> Yeah, we have no consensus.
>
Are you planning to update the patch? Given there's not been much
progress here, I think we ough tot mark the CF entry as returned with
feedback for now.
> Another open question is about loggin
Hi,
On 2019-02-01 09:40:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:17 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > I think there are essentially two ways:
> >
> > (a) Define max amount of memory available for shared dictionarires, and
> > come up with an eviction algorithm. This will be tricky, bec
Hi,
On 2019-02-01 14:14:27 -0500, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> From 4b5856725af5d971a26a2ba150c1067ee21bb242 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: jesperpedersen
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the --jobs option isn't passed down to
> vacuumdb by default.
This
On 28/01/2019 23:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 28/01/2019 21:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Conceivably we could make it work without the parens:
>>> ...
>
>> Or put it at the end?
>> WITH ctename AS ( query ) MATERIALIZED
>
> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't se
On 1/28/19 2:53 AM, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> BTW, I give you a suggestion about a test.
> This parameter enables users to log statements randomly, hence adding some
> tests is very difficult.
> Perhaps Only three cases are available:
>
> * When log_transaction_sample_rate is set to 1, all statemen
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:49 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I am planning to commit the 0001 patch shortly, unless there are
> objections. I attach a new version, which improves the documentation
> a bit (cross-referencing the new GUC and the section on sysctl
> settings). That will give us shared_mem
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:12 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:25 AM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > Here's a new version. I did some cosmetic clean-up, and I dropped the
> > changes to pg_controldata output, replication epoch/xid processing
> > code and
Hi
> I agree that this doesn't need to be solved as part of this patch.
Thank you!
> Are you planning to update the patch?
Sorry, i was busy last month. But, well, i already did such update:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9653601544523383%40iva8-37fc2ad204cd.qloud-c.yandex.net
v003 vers
Re: Michael Paquier 2019-02-03 <20190203090737.ga18...@paquier.xyz>
> >> Attached is a patch doing that. Thoughts?
> >
> > WFM.
>
> Thanks, pushed.
Thanks. It makes much more sense that way round.
Christoph
--
Senior Berater, Tel.: +49 2166 9901 187
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080, U
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:02 PM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > FYI, the second comment is still present in v20.
> >
>
> oops, forgot to include in commit after making a change, done now.
>
This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commi
Andrew Gierth writes:
> The spec doesn't require the inverse functions (asinh, acosh, atanh),
> but surely there is no principled reason to omit them?
+1 --- AFAICS, the C library has offered all six since C89.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
On 2019-02-01 07:14:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Here's a version of the patch implementing this approach. I assume this
> solves the FreeBSD issue, but I'm running tests in a loop on Thomas'
> machine.
I pushed this, and the buildfarm so far is showing more love.
There's a failure on j
Noah Misch writes:
> The -Wno-declaration-after-statement approach takes eight lines of code, and
> the filter-out approach takes one. On the other hand, using $(filter-out)
> changes any runs of whitespace to single spaces ("$(filter-out foo,ab c)"
> yields "a b c"). We do risk that with CP
Vik Fearing writes:
> On 28/01/2019 23:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Or put it at the end?
>>> WITH ctename AS ( query ) MATERIALIZED
>> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it doesn't seem like an improvement.
>> If the query is very long (which isn't unlikely) I think peop
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 07:07:36AM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Noah" == Noah Misch writes:
>
> >> I found it much simpler to strip out -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> >> instead:
> >>
> >> $(RYU_OBJS): override CFLAGS := $(filter-out
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement,$(CFLAGS))
>
>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit 0d1fe9f74e.
> Attached is a rebased version. I have checked once that the changes
> done by 0d1fe9f74e don't impact this patch. John, s
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:04:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a bug tracking system that Nathan set up many years ago and
> apparently has kept going unattended. It seems to me that it's
> something that we could base a semi-official bug tracking system on.
>
> https://granicus.if.org/
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:00 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2019-Feb-01, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> > IMHO we could document this feature at a slightly higher level without
> > leaving out any really important user-facing behavior. Here's a quick
> > attempt to show what I am thinking:
> >
> >
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 08:50:14AM +0200, David Steele wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > +files created by initdb. This option is
> ignored
> > +on Windows, which does not support
> > +POSIX-style group permissions.
>
>
Hi, my apologies for the delay.
I've finished rebasing and rewriting it for Tom's changes to tidpath.c and
his recommendations for tid range scans, but I then found a bug with cursor
interaction. Specifically, FETCH LAST scans through the whole range, and
then proceeds to scan backwards to get th
I wrote:
> I've posted some preliminary design ideas at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15193.1548028...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> and
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15289.1548028...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> While there's a nontrivial amount of work needed to make that happen,
> I think it's doable,
Andrew Gierth writes:
> [ ryu11.patch ]
I can confirm this compiles and passes core regression tests on
my HPPA dinosaur.
regards, tom lane
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:11:50AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Perhaps "vacuum_shrink_enabled" would be even better.
>
> Naming it just vacuum_truncate and autovacuum_truncate (with aliases for
> toast and such), looks more natural to me. "s
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:27:05AM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> +1 to the above changes. Thanks for working on it.
Okay, done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:22 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:50:40AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yes, we should update the documentation in this regard, though it's
> > really an independent thing as that documentation should have been
> > updated in the original group-a
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:48:14AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> That would be fine. But as I mentioned in another mail, I think
> "get read-only session" and "connect to standby" differ. So I find
> it better to separate parameters for those request;
> target_session_attr and target_server
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:38:39PM +0300, s.cherkas...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
> Here are some fixes. But I'm not sure that the renaming of columns for the
> '\dAp' command is sufficiently laconic and informative. If you have any
> suggestions on how to improve them, I will be very grateful.
I have
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:38:16AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am sending updated patch.
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:08:51PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Why then not split the original proposal into two patches, one to improve the
> documentation, and another to make it more user friendly?
Moved to next CF for now. From what I can see the latest patch
manipulates the same areas of t
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 01:21:45PM +0300, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> at least for processing user argument i think it is better to use strtol or
> other
> function that have better error handling. i can make a patch that change
> usage
> of atoi for user argument processing after getting feedback fr
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:46:42AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> Nobody give comments, but I revised my patches.
There are many patches in the bucket. I can see that you are
reviewing a bit other's patches, though those are really lower
complexity.
> In this update, I combined files, fixed some
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:44:24PM +0100, didier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Why are you not including a test for \set VERBOSITY verbose?
>>
>> Stability of the output would be a problem ...
>>
>> Yes it could moreover the functionality
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:38:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm setting this to "Waiting on Author", awaiting a new version based on
> pg_partition_root() once that one is done.
pg_partition_root() has not made it to the finish line yet, still it
would have been nice to see a rebase, and t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:55:09AM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> attached is a new signal handing patch. Path is corrected and moved. The
> documentation is sightly streamlined in some places and expanded in others.
This has not been reviewed, so moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Desc
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:21:23PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 04/01/2019 00:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Besides that, I have a hard time considering this patch committable.
>> There are some good additions, but they are mixed with some wording
>> changes that seem to be there just because
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:21:03PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm not in favor of listing all these versions here. It's one more
> thing to keep updated. The version requirements are not outrageous, so
> we can assume that someone with a reasonably up-to-date development
> machine has appro
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 07:23:09PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> Unfortunately, I couldn't find much time for this activity, but as far as I
> understand, thread [1] only requires jsonpath documentation right now. So I
> extracted the relevant parts from this patch, reworked path expression
> d
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:14:03PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I definitely am. In fact, I was ages ago (was planning for early December,
> but hey, see wher that let me), so my apologies for failing at that. But it
> definitely remains on my list of things to get to!
So, Magnus, where are we
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
Moved to next CF, waiting on author as the patch conflicts with HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
The patch is ready for committer, so it has not attracted much
attention. Perhaps Teodor or Alexander could look at it?
I have moved the patch to next CF with the same status.
--
Micha
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:48 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-01 07:14:11 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Here's a version of the patch implementing this approach. I assume this
> > solves the FreeBSD issue, but I'm running tests in a loop on Thomas'
> > machine.
>
> I pushed this, a
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 06:26:18PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Heikki, how do you think, is implementing our own radix tree for
> this is viable solution?
> I've written working implementation with 4-level statically typed
> tree. If we follow this route, probably, there must be tests for
> thi
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 04:07:34AM +, Ideriha, Takeshi wrote:
> Sure. I didn't have a strong opinion about it, so it's ok.
From what I can see this is waiting input from a native English
speaker, so for now I have moved this entry to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:54:49PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Unfortunately, the development of libxml2 is frozen.
>
> I have to accept it.
And marked as rejected, based on the last consensus.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:20:29AM +0100, John Naylor wrote:
> That particular test could be removed -- it's just verifying behavior
> that's already been there for years and is a direct consquence of
> normal truncation combined with the addressing scheme of the FSM
> logic.
Moved to next CF, ple
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:35:21PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Apparently due the minor conflict, mentioned above, the patch was in "Waiting
> on author" state, which probably is not exactly correct. I'm moving it to the
> next CF, but still, it would be nice if you post an updated version withou
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:08:03PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> maybe "supertype". It is one char shorter .. somewhere is term
> "supperclass, ..."
>
> In Czech language this term is short, "nadtyp", but probably it is not
> acceptable :)
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:29:06AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yes, that's an omission in the docs. Will fix.
Could you fix your patch then? I am moving it to next CF, waiting on
author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 04:51:11AM +, Nagaura, Ryohei wrote:
> Sorry for my late.
Moved to next CF per the latest updates: there is a patch with no
reviews for it.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 12:23:00PM +0100, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
> I did not find any test for log_min_duration that could help me. LCOV indicate
> there is no tests on this part (look check_log_duration()):
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c.gcov.html
These would take tim
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:48:02PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Fixed doubious memory context usage.
That's quite something that we have here for 0005:
84 files changed, 6588 insertions(+), 7501 deletions(-)
Moved to next CF for now.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:39 PM Nishant, Fnu wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Amit for your review.
> >
> > On 1/20/19, 6:55 AM, "Amit Kapila" wrote:
> > > I think you need to change below code as well
> >Assert(buffer2 == InvalidBuff
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:15:51AM +, Alexey Bashtanov wrote:
> I'm sorry for the delay, feel free to move it to next commitfest if
> needed.
Done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 07:45:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Other than those minor changes, I think we should just get this pushed
> and see what the buildfarm thinks. In the words of a famous PG hacker:
> if a platform ain't in the buildfarm, we don't support it.
Moved to next CF, waiting
Hi,
On February 1, 2019 8:14 PM +, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 2/1/19 4:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2019-Feb-01, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if misunderstood the purpose of $VACUUMDB_OPTS. I
>>> thought what the other developers suggested is to utilize it so that
>>> --job
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:06:45AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-12-25 10:25:46 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> About added tests: the node is left running at the end of the script, which
>> is not very clean. I'd suggest to either move the added checks before
>> stopping, or to stop again a
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:45:09PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Umm, this is established coding pattern in pg_basebackup.c.
> Stylistically I'd change all those cases to "fprintf(stderr,
> isatty(fileno(stderr)) ? "\r" : "\n")" but leave the string alone, since
> AFAIR it took some time to figure
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 10:31:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > The -Wno-declaration-after-statement approach takes eight lines of code, and
> > the filter-out approach takes one. On the other hand, using $(filter-out)
> > changes any runs of whitespace to single spaces ("$(fil
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:39 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit 0d1fe9f74e.
> > Attached is a rebased version. I have checked once that th
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:43 PM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> OK. I will work on the doc changes.
>
Sorry for the delay.
Attached a draft patch of doc and comments changes that I worked upon.
Currently I added comments to the callbacks that are present in the
TableAmRoutine
structure and I copied
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Rowley
wrote:
> I think we do need to ensure that the PartitionDesc matches between
> worker and leader. Have a look at choose_next_subplan_for_worker() in
> nodeAppend.c. Notice that a call is made to
> ExecFindMatchingSubPlans().
Thanks for the tip. I see t
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:48 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > And one on eelpout, which appears to be unrelated as well:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=eelpout&dt=2019-02-03%2011%3A54%3A13
> None of these failures seem to
04.02.2019 5:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:58:13AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> Rebased the patch once more after d3c09b9b.
> Moved to next CF, waiting on author as the patch conflicts with HEAD.
> --
> Michael
Hello Michael,
It's very strange, I looked at http://cfbo
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:39 AM John Naylor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > This doesn't get applied cleanly after recent commit
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:31:43PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I'll consider the last choice and will come up with a patch.
Update is recent, so I have just moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:12:09PM +, Ideriha, Takeshi wrote:
> On this allocation stuffs I'm trying to handle it in another thread
> [1] in a broader way.
Based on the latets updates of this thread, this is waiting for
review, so moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:24 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> One more similar failure:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing&dt=2019-02-04%2003%3A20%3A01
>
> So, basically, this is due to difference in the number of tuples t
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see if you are around and
> have some thoughts on it.
Maybe we can use the same plpgsql loop as fsm.sql that exits after 1
tuple h
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 06:32:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So at this point I'm not sure what to think, other than that things
> are inconsistent (and underdocumented).
Nagata-san, do you have some plans to do something about the comments
raised. The thread has been inactive for a couple of mont
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:59:38PM -0800, Shawn Debnath wrote:
> I (finally) got a chance to go through these patches and they look
> great. Thank you for working on this!
This review is very recent, so I have moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:43:24AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Are you planning to update the patch, or should the entry be marked as
> RWF?
Moved the patch to next CF for now, waiting on author as the last
review happened not so long ago.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 02:23:16AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> This thread is curently marked as returned with feedback, set so
> 2018-12-01. Given there've been several new versions submitted since, is
> that accurate?
From the latest status of this thread, there have been new patches but
no re
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks. Actually I'm updating the patch set, changing API interface as
> I proposed before and improving the document and README. I'll submit
> the latest patch next week.
Cool, I have moved the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
signa
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:51:46AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Oh, sorry. I've missed we have ERRCODE_TO_CATEGORY() here.
Note: patch set moved to next CF, still waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Horiguchi-san, Bruce,
Thank you for telling me your ideas behind this feature. Frankly, I don't
think I understood the proposed specification is OK, but I can't explain it
well at this instant. So, let me discuss that in a subsequent mail.
Anyway, here are my review comments on 0001:
(1)
(
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:29:56PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached a rebased patch which fixes up the recent conflicts. No
> other changes were made.
Moved to next CF, waiting for review.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> > contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see if you are around and
> > have some thoughts on it.
>
> Maybe we ca
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 16:45, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Rowley
> wrote:
> > I think we do need to ensure that the PartitionDesc matches between
> > worker and leader. Have a look at choose_next_subplan_for_worker() in
> > nodeAppend.c. Notice that a call is made t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:41:48AM +0500, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> Ok. It is used only for demonstration.
The latest patch set needs a rebase, so moved to next CF, waiting on
author as this got no reviews.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:44:37PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Just for the records, patch still has no conflicts and
> pass all the tests. Yura, do you have any plans about this patch, could you
> respond to the feedback? In the meantime I'm moving it to the next CF.
No a
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
