On 2019/04/19 4:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2019/02/23 2:23, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Fix plan created for inherited UPDATE/DELETE with all tables excluded.
>
>> I noticed that we may have forgotten to fix one more thing in this commit
>> -- nominalRelation may refer to a range ta
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM John Naylor
> wrote:
> > Agreed. I suspect the most realistic way to address most of the
> > objections in a short amount of time would be to:
> >
> > 1. rip out the local map
> > 2. restore hio.c to only che
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:18:28AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Find attached updated patches for v12 docs.
Thanks for taking the time to dig into such things.
> Note that Alvaro applied an early patch for log_statement_sample_rate, but
> unfortunately I hadn't sent a v2 patch with additional ch
On 2019/04/19 2:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> Another idea is to teach explain.c about this special case of run-time
>> pruning having pruned all child subplans even though appendplans contains
>> one element to cater for targetlist accesses. That is, Append will be
>> displayed w
On 2019/04/19 3:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:49 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Maybe, not show them? That may be a bit inconsistent, because the point
>> of VERBOSE is to the targetlist among other things, but maybe the users
>> wouldn't mind not seeing it on such empty Append
On 2019/04/19 17:00, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/04/19 2:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote writes:
>>> Another idea is to teach explain.c about this special case of run-time
>>> pruning having pruned all child subplans even though appendplans contains
>>> one element to cater for targetlist ac
Hello.
At Fri, 12 Apr 2019 18:45:51 +0200, Juan José SantamarÃa Flecha
wrote in
> Hackers,
>
> I will use as an example the code in the regression test
> 'collate.linux.utf8'.
> There you can find:
>
> SET lc_time TO 'tr_TR';
> SELECT to_char(date '2010-04-01', 'DD TMMON ');
>to_char
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Naylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think if we go this route, then
> > we might need to revisit it in the future to optimize it, but maybe
> > that is the best alternative as of now.
>
> It's a much lighter-weight API
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:51 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:09 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-12-03 18:43:04 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > Sorry for my silence... I got stuck on a design problem with the lower
> > > level undo log management code that I'm now close t
Thanks for committing those portions.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 05:00:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am particularly referring to patches 0005
> (publications use "a superuser" in error messages as well which could
> be fixed as well?),
I deliberately avoided changing thesee "errhint" messa
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 6:16 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Currently, undo branch[1] contain an older version of the (undo
> interface + some fixup). Now, I have merged the latest changes from
> the zheap branch[2] to the undo branch[1]
> which can be applied on top of the undo storage commit[3]. For
=?UTF-8?Q?Juan_Jos=C3=A9_Santamar=C3=ADa_Flecha?=
writes:
> The problem is that the locale 'tr_TR' uses the encoding ISO-8859-9 (LATIN5),
> while the test runs in UTF8. So the following code will raise an error:
> SET lc_time TO 'tr_TR';
> SELECT to_char(date '2010-02-01', 'DD TMMON ');
> ER
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> While thinking about that, it occurred to me that we could close the
> gap if the server somehow understood that the master was waiting for
> the worker. And it's actually not that hard to make that happen:
> we could use advisory locks. Conside
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... If there are user applications
>> running that also use advisory locks, there could be unwanted
>> interference. One easy improvement is to use pg_try_advisory_lock(k) in
>> step 2, and just choose a different k if the
Hi,
On 2019-04-18 19:04:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-15 22:46:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Using HEAD,
> >
> > create table t1 as select generate_series(1,4000) id;
> > vacuum analyze t1;
> > explain select * from t1, t1 t1b where t1.id = t1b.id;
> > -- should indicate a hash
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... If there are user applications
> >> running that also use advisory locks, there could be unwanted
> >> interference. One easy improvement is to use pg_try_adviso
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> My thought was that we'd like this to work without requiring any new
>> server-side facilities, so that pg_dump could use it against any server
>> version that supports parallel dump.
> Couldn't we use LOCKTAG_USERLOCK f
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > Wow. I have to admit that I feel completely opposite of that- I'd
> > > *love* to have an independent tool (which ideally uses the same code
> > > through the common library, or similar) that can be run to apply WAL.
> > >
> > > In othe
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:45 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Any caller of XLogWrite() could switch to a new segment once the
> > current one is done, and I am not sure that we would want some random
> > backend to potentially slow down to
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 08:24:52AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The tests are really fast enough with one KDC that I don't think it
> > makes sense to have two independent tests.
>
> Perhaps you should add a comment about the need of
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It just occurred to me that the final patch will need to be more
> careful about non-key attributes in INCLUDE indexes. It's not okay for
> it to avoid calling _bt_check_unique() just because a non-key
> attribute was NULL. It should only do
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:39 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Where is the client going to get the threshold LSN from?
>
> If it doesn't have access to the old backup, then I'm a bit confused as
> to how a incremental backup would be possible? Isn't that a requirement
> here?
I explained this in the ve
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:47 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> How would the modblock file record all the modified blocks across
> restarts and crashes? I assume that 1G of WAL would not be available
> for scanning. I suppose that writing a modblock file to some PGDATA
> location when WAL is removed wou
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:39 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> While I do think we should at least be thinking about the load caused
> from scanning the WAL to generate a list of blocks that are changed, the
> load I was more concerned with in the other thread is the effort
> required to actually merge al
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> What I'm NOT willing to
> do is build a whole bunch of infrastructure that will help pgbackrest
> do amazing things but will not provide a simple and convenient way of
> taking incremental backups using only core tools. I do care about
> h
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:38 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:51:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I was thinking that a dedicated background worker would be a good
> > option, but Stephen Frost seems concerned (over on the other thread)
> > about how much load that would ge
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:39 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > While I do think we should at least be thinking about the load caused
> > from scanning the WAL to generate a list of blocks that are changed, the
> > load I was more concerned with
27 matches
Mail list logo
