Hi,
On 2019-03-19 22:39:16 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.03.2019, 13:00 -0700 schrieb Andres Freund:
> > a) checks that the page is all zeroes if PageIsNew() (like
> >PageIsVerified() does for the backend). That avoids missing cases
> >where corruption just zeroed out t
>> I (and Hoshiai-san) concern about following case:
>>
>> # revoke usage on schema s1 from foo;
>> REVOKE
>> :
>> [connect as foo]
>> test=> select to_regclass('s1.t1')::oid;
>> ERROR: permission denied for schema s1
>
> That works in a transaction. It looks right that the actually
> revoked sc
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:47:17AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm not sure it needs to be this patch's responsibility to come up with
> a scheme here at all however. pg_rewind, pg_resetwal, pg_upgrade all
> don't really have a lockout mechanism, and it hasn't caused a ton of
> problems. I think
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:17 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The big difference is that you make the possible call to
> _bt_stepright() conditional on this being a checkingunique index --
> the duplicate code is indented in that branch of _bt_findsplitloc().
> Whereas I break early in the loop when "
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Paul Ramsey (pram...@cleverelephant.ca) wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> +1. I think Paul had it right originally.
>>
>> In that spirit, here is a “one pglz_decompress function, new param
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 08:16:21PM +0800, Shaoqi Bai wrote:
> Thanks for your advice, sorry for taking so long to give update in the
> thread, because I am stuck in modifing Perl script, knowing little about
> Perl language.
No problem. It is true that using perl for the first time can be a
certa
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM legrand legrand
wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to add it in auto explain ?
> I don't know for explain itself, but maybe ...
I'd think that people interested in getting the queryid in the logs
would configure the log_line_prefix to display it consistently rather
tha
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:44:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> That's *PRECISELY* my point. I think it's a bad idea to do online
> checksumming from outside the backend. It needs to be inside the
> backend, and if there's any verification failures on a block, it needs
> to acquire the IO lock on
At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:09:59 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20190319.190959.25783254.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> That works in a transaction. It looks right that the actually
> revoked schema cannot be accessed.
>From another viewpoint, the behavior really doesn
From: legrand legrand [mailto:legrand_legr...@hotmail.com]
> There are many projects that use alternate QueryId
> distinct from the famous pg_stat_statements jumbling algorithm.
I'd like to welcome the standard QueryID that DBAs and extension developers can
depend on. Are you surveying the needs
At Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:13:28 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii
wrote in <20190320.071328.48576044685486.t-is...@sraoss.co.jp>
> >> I (and Hoshiai-san) concern about following case:
> >>
> >> # revoke usage on schema s1 from foo;
> >> REVOKE
> >> :
> >> [connect as foo]
> >> test=> select to_regclass
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Maybe you know that range_table_mutator() spends quite a long time if
> there are many target children, but I realized there's no need for
> range_table_mutator() to copy/mutate child target RTEs. First, there's
> nothing to translate in their
On 2019/03/20 9:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Maybe you know that range_table_mutator() spends quite a long time if
>> there are many target children, but I realized there's no need for
>> range_table_mutator() to copy/mutate child target RTEs. F
On 14/03/2019 17:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:18 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I started to consider rewriting the data structure into something more
like B-tree. Then I remembered that I wrote a data structure pretty much
like that last year already! We discussed that on
At Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:23:30 +, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
wrote in
<0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBE20A4@G01JPEXMBYT05>
> From: legrand legrand [mailto:legrand_legr...@hotmail.com]
> > There are many projects that use alternate QueryId
> > distinct from the famous pg_stat_statements jumbling
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 01:23:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I actually think that what you propose here makes more sense than what
> HEAD does because the most inner expression gets evaluated first.
> This for example generates the same error as on HEAD:
> =# create table foo (a int default
Hi!
> 13 марта 2019 г., в 22:55, Evgeniy Efimkin
> написал(а):
>
> I've prepare patch with new system role, i'm not sure about name, called it
> "pg_subscription_users".
> In that patch we don't check permissions on target tables, i don't know,
> should we check it?
Currently, user with pg_s
Hi, thanks for all replies.
According to all your discussions, Maybe the problems is that
1) keep modifications just in client side;
2) modifications VS client current applications
Maybe we could create a new function(May called PQexecSafe() ) just likes
PQexec() but with additional input argumen
Amit-san,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 0:42 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/19 20:13, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> > Thanks for new patches.
> > I looked over them and there are little comments.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I have no more comments about codes other than above :)
>
> I have fixed all. Attach
Hi,
On 2019-03-20 02:19:54 +, Wu, Fei wrote:
> Hi, thanks for all replies.
> According to all your discussions, Maybe the problems is that
> 1) keep modifications just in client side;
> 2) modifications VS client current applications
>
> Maybe we could create a new function(May called PQexecS
I tried to confirm the patch with the following configuration:
max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 2
autovacuum = off
postgres=# BEGIN;
BEGIN
postgres=# select xact_commit from pg_stat_database where datname = 'postgres';
xact_commit
-
118
(1 row)
postgres=# explain analyz
Imai-san,
On 2019/03/20 11:21, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> (4)
> We expect the performance does not depend on the number of partitions after
> applying all patches, if possible.
>
> num of partTPS
> --- -
> 1024 7,257 (7274, 7246, 7252)
> 2048 6,718 (6627, 6780, 674
Hi!
Great job!
> 20 марта 2019 г., в 9:10, Heikki Linnakangas написал(а):
>
> Please review, if you have a chance.
>
> - Heikki
> <0001-Add-IntegerSet-to-hold-large-sets-of-64-bit-ints-eff.patch>
I'm looking into the code and have few questions:
1. I'm not sure it is the best interface for i
Amit-san,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/20 11:21, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> > (4)
> > We expect the performance does not depend on the number of partitions
> after applying all patches, if possible.
> >
> > num of partTPS
> > --- -
> > 1024
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 03:14:09PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> postgres=# update foo set name = 'bbbxx' where id = 1; -- error
> ERROR: no generation expression found for column number 3 of table
> "foo"
Yes I can see the problem after adding a generated column and dropping
it on an INSERT quer
At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:16:34 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote in
> I want to build automation to recover a database to a specific LSN
> *inclusive*, even if that LSN is from a subtransaction. The problem I am
> facing is that I know what specific LSN wrote a row on a remote system, but
> if I create
On 2019/03/20 11:51, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> Amit-san,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2019/03/20 11:21, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
>>> (4)
>>> We expect the performance does not depend on the number of partitions
>> after applying all patches, if possible.
>>>
>>> num
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> > > needs.1: stable accross different databases,
> >
> > Does this mean different database clusters, not different databases in
> a single database cluster?
>
> Does this mean you want different QueryID for the same-looking
> query
Amit-san,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:01 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 2019/03/20 11:21, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> >>> (4)
> >>> We expect the performance does not depend on the number of
> >>> partitions
> >> after applying all patches, if p
Em qui, 14 de mar de 2019 às 00:03, Stephen Frost escreveu:
>
> I view that as the first step towards building a more granular privilege
> system for subscription creation, and that was the second half of what I
> was trying to say before- I do think there's value in having something
> more granul
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:29 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:51:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Haribabu Kommi
> > wrote:
> > > The performance results are good. Do we want to add the recommended
> > > size in the document for th
Hi,
While looking at a partition pruning bug [1], I noticed something that
started to feel like a regression:
Setup:
create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
In PG 10:
set constraint_exclusion to on;
explain select * from p1 where a = 2;
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:18 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:09:03PM +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> > The first patch adds an option to automatically generate recovery conf
> > contents in related files, following pg_basebackup. In the patch,
> > GenerateRecoveryConf(), WriteReco
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:48:59 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time)
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:13:28 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii
> wrote in <20190320.071328.48576044685486.t-is...@sraoss.co.jp>
> > >> I (and Hoshiai-san) concern about following case:
> > >>
> > >> # revoke usage
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 08:09:07AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In short, you keep the main feature with:
> - No tweaks with postmaster.pid.
> - Rely just on the control file indicating an instance shutdown
> cleanly.
> - No tweaks with the system ID.
> - No renaming of the control file.
FWIW,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:48:52PM +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> This is a good suggestion also. Will do it.
Please note also that we don't care about recovery.conf since v12 as
recovery parameters are now GUCs. I would suggest appending those
extra parameters to postgresql.auto.conf, which is what pg
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:20 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:48:52PM +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> > This is a good suggestion also. Will do it.
>
> Please note also that we don't care about recovery.conf since v12 as
> recovery parameters are now GUCs. I would suggest appendin
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 06:51:37PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> IMO, this update is just a recommendation to the user, and sometimes it is
> still possible that there may be strict permissions for the log file
> even the data directory is allowed for the group access. So I feel
> it is still bett
st 20. 3. 2019 v 5:55 odesílatel Takuma Hoshiai
napsal:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:48:59 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time)
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> > At Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:13:28 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii <
> is...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote in <
> 20190320.071328.48576044685486.t-is...@sraoss.co.jp>
Hi!
> 7 марта 2019 г., в 20:27, Alexey Kondratov
> написал(а):
>
>
I'm a bit confused by by console output routines. E.g. in pg_rewind's main()
you call pg_fatal()s, and printf(), and pg_log() with various levels. Shouldn't
we use all the pg_* functions?
But most of this printing usages we
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
> I really dislike having both target_sesion_attrs and
> target_server_type. It doesn't solve any actual problem. master,
> slave, prefer-save, or whatever you like could be put in
> target_session_attrs just as easily, and then we wouldn't end up
Hi,
> hio.c:
>
> -saveFreeSpace = RelationGetTargetPageFreeSpace(relation,
> -
> HEAP_DEFAULT_FILLFACTOR);
> +if (IsToastRelation(relation))
> +saveFreeSpace = ToastGetTargetPageFreeSpace();
> +else
> +saveFreeSpace = HeapGetTargetPageFreeSpace(relation);
>
> This loc
Hallo Andres,
And you're basically adding it because Fabien doesn't like
postmaster.pid and wants to invent another lockout mechanism in this
thread.
I did not suggest to rename the control file, but as it is already done by
another command it did not look like a bad idea in itself, or at le
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
