On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:12:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It's not clear to me what the next action should be on this patch. I
> think Jeff got some feedback from Tom, but was that enough to expect a
> new version to be posted? That was in February; should we now (in late
> September) clo
On 25.09.2019 23:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This broke recently. Can you please rebase?
Rebased version of the patch is attached.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/contrib/pg_buffercache/pg_buffercache_pages.c
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> On 2019-Sep-03, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > I don't think it's rejected. It would be a pity (mottainai) to refuse
> > this, because it provides significant speedup despite its simple
> > modification.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree wit
On 25.09.2019 23:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Travis complains that the SGML docs are broken. Please fix.
Sorry.
Patch with fixed SGML formating error is attached.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/contrib/spi
On 25.09.2019 23:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This patch fails the "rules" tests. Please fix.
Sorry,
New version of the patch with corrected expected output for rules test
is attached.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:47:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This patch has been absolutely overlooked by reviewers. Euler, you're
> registered as a reviewer for it. Will you submit a review soon? :-)
>
> It does not currently apply, so if we get a rebase, that'd be good too.
Here you go.
Hi Ahsan, Usama
Thanks for starting work on this.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:46 AM Ahsan Hadi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> As Fabien noted, there's been some related discussion about this
>> area, but nobody was advocating a solution of this particular shape.
>
> T
Hi,
When we do archive recovery from the database cluster of which
timeline ID is more than 2 pg_wal/RECOVERYHISTORY is remained even
after archive recovery completed.
The cause of this seems cbc55da556b that moved exitArchiveRecovery()
to before writeTimeLineHistory(). writeTimeLineHIstory() res
Hi Shiraishi-san,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:06 PM Youki Shiraishi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just started to read the PostgreSQL code and found a lack of comments
> for a postgres backend program in bootstrap mode.
> When I saw the --boot option implemented in src/backend/main/main.c at first
>
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 19:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> I took a bit of a look at
> 0004-New-TAP-test-for-logical-decoding-on-standby.patch and saw some
> things I don't like in terms of general code quality:
>
> - Not many comments. I think each set of tests should have a block
> comment at the top ex
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When we do archive recovery from the database cluster of which
> timeline ID is more than 2 pg_wal/RECOVERYHISTORY is remained even
> after archive recovery completed.
>
> The cause of this seems cbc55da556b that moved exitArchiveR
Hello Amit,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Shiraishi-san,
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:06 PM Youki Shiraishi
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just started to read the PostgreSQL code and found a lack of
> > comments for a postgres backend program in bootstrap mo
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:22 AM David Steele wrote:
>
> While testing against PG12 I noticed the documentation states that
> recovery targets are not valid when standby.signal is present.
Or that description in the doc is not true? Other recovery target
parameters seem to take effect even when st
I have started to learn postgresql. While going through the WAL dump saw
the below records,
rmgr: Heap2 len (rec/tot): 60/60, tx: 0, lsn:
4F/CFF1F0F8, prev 4F/CFF1EB70, desc: CLEAN remxid 0, blkref #0: rel
1663/16385/1259 blk 1301
rmgr: Heap2 len (rec/tot): 60/
Building the 12rc1 package on Ubuntu eoan/amd64, I got this
regression diff:
12:06:27 diff -U3
/<>/build/../src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out
/<>/build/src/bin/pg_upgrade/tmp_check/regress/results/select_parallel.out
12:06:27 ---
/<>/build/../src/test/regress/expected/select_paralle
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-24, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > If you don't have any strong dislikes for these changes, I'll push this
> > > part and let you rebase the remains on top.
> >
> > No objections here.
>
> oK, pushed. Please rebase the other par
On 01.08.2019 19:53, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 26.07.2019 20:43, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
On a more general note, I wonder if everyone is happy with the
--using-postgresql-conf option name, or we should continue searching
for a narrower term. Unfortunately, I don't have any better
suggestions
On 2019-Sep-26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:47:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This patch has been absolutely overlooked by reviewers. Euler, you're
> > registered as a reviewer for it. Will you submit a review soon? :-)
> >
> > It does not currently apply, so if
pgbench's main() is overly long already, and the new code being added
seems to pollute it even more. Can we split it out into a static
function that gets placed, say, just below disconnect_all() or maybe
after runInitSteps?
(Also, we seem to be afraid of function prototypes. Why not move the
app
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:06:50PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >In the interest of moving things forward, how far are we from making
> >0001 committable? If I understand correctly, the rest of this patchset
> >depends on https://commitfest
On 2019-Sep-25, Asim R P wrote:
> I reviewed your patch today. It looks good overall. My concern is that
> the ExecFetchSlotHeapTuple call does not seem appropriate. In a generic
> place such as createas.c, we should be using generic tableam API only.
> However, I can also see that there is no
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see how the addition of a new permissions check could sanely
> be back-patched unless it were to default to "allow", which seems like
> an odd choice.
>
> regards, tom lane
That makes sense. Alternatively, we coul
I don't disagree with adding FOREIGN, though.
Your patch is failing the pg_dump TAP tests. Please use
configure --enable-tap-tests, fix the problems, then resubmit.
Fixed, I've attached a new version.
Cheers
Luis M Carril
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
ind
út 24. 9. 2019 v 14:52 odesílatel Amit Kapila
napsal:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:09 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for check. I am sending updated patch
> >
>
> Alvaro has up thread suggested some alternative syntax [1] for this
> patch, but I don't see any good argument to not go
0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there
something we can do to make it more manageable?
I think it would be better to put your 0001 in second place rather than
first, since your other patch doesn't use it AFAICS and it adds
functionality that has not yet received appro
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:48 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> CC Alexey for reasons that become clear below.
>
> On 2019-Sep-25, Paul Guo wrote:
>
> > > Question about 0003. If we specify --skip-clean-shutdown and the
> cluter
> > > was not cleanly shut down, shouldn't we error out instead of trying t
>
>
> Yes, -R is already used in pg_basebackup for the same functionality, so
> it seems natural to use it here as well for consistency.
>
> I will review options naming in my own patch and update it accordingly.
> Maybe -w/-W or -a/-A options will be good, since it's about WALs
> retrieval from ar
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> 0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there
> something we can do to make it more manageable?
Initially we were thinking of submitting one patch for the
centralization work and then separate patches per backend typ
út 24. 9. 2019 v 17:51 odesílatel vignesh C napsal:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:22 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:09 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for check. I am sending updated patch
> > >
> >
> Session termination in case of drop database is solv
On 2019-09-25 16:46, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> On 9/25/19 12:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-09-23 00:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> While we're whining about this, I find it very off-putting that
>>> the jsonpath stuff was inserted in the JSON functions section
>>> ahead of the actual JSON fun
On 2019-09-26 06:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So I agree with the proposal to rely on the presence of
> TLS_MAX_VERSION, and base our decision-making on that.
But then there is this:
commit 04cd70c6899c6b36517b2b07d7a12b2cceba1bef
Author: Kurt Roeckx
Date: Tue Sep 18 22:17:14 2018
Depreca
> Thanks. I've updated the reset two patches and attached as v8.
Great, thanks.
> Note in the 2nd patch, the long option is changed as below. Both the option
> and description
> now seems to be more concise since we want db state as either DB_SHUTDOWNED
> or
> DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY.
>
> "-
On 2019-Sep-26, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > 0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there
> > something we can do to make it more manageable?
>
> Initially we were thinking of submitting one patch for the
> centr
Hi Shiraishi-san,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:32 PM Youki Shiraishi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:06 PM Youki Shiraishi
> > wrote:
> > > I have just started to read the PostgreSQL code and found a lack of
> > > comments for a postgres
Christoph Berg writes:
> Building the 12rc1 package on Ubuntu eoan/amd64, I got this
> regression diff:
The append-order differences have been seen before, per this thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKG%2B0CxrKRWRMf5ymN3gm%2BBECHna2B-q1w8onKBep4HasUw%40mail.gmail.com
We h
Youki Shiraishi writes:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>> * The main entry point for auxiliary processes, such as the bgwriter,
>> - * walwriter, walreceiver, bootstrapper and the shared memory checker code.
>> + * walwriter, walreceiver, postgres program in bootstrap mod
st 25. 9. 2019 v 6:38 odesílatel vignesh C napsal:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:09 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > fixed
> >
> > Thank you for check. I am sending updated patch
> >
> Thanks for fixing all the comments.
> Couple of suggestions:
> -DROP DATABASE [ IF EXISTS ] class="parameter">name
st 25. 9. 2019 v 4:14 odesílatel Amit Kapila
napsal:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:22 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:09 PM Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for check. I am sending updated patch
> > >
> >
> > Alvaro has up thread suggested some alternative synta
On 2019-Sep-26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Alternative is DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name [ CASCADE | RESTRICT ] [ WITH
> FORCE ]
>
> but in this case WIDTH keyword should not be optional (If I need to solve
> Tom's note). Currently WITH keyword is optional every where, so I think so
> using syntax wi
čt 26. 9. 2019 v 17:35 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Sep-26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Alternative is DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name [ CASCADE | RESTRICT ] [
> WITH
> > FORCE ]
> >
> > but in this case WIDTH keyword should not be optional (If I need to solve
> > Tom's note). Curren
Here is my proposed patch, currently completely untested.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>From 35324dbe908a779c9d84b438cb54328cfd74e403 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 2
On 2019-09-26 17:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, you would have one of those:
>
> DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name WITH (FORCE)
> DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name
>
> Naturally, the WITH is optional in the sense that the clause itself is
> optional. (Note we don't have CASCADE/RESTRICT in DROP DAT
Hello,
Thank you for the work done on this subject.
After starting to play with it, I have a question and a remark:
> - previous hook calls were only called for normal backends, which was
> incorrect as we define the backend so as we apply no backend-related
> filtering for the hook.
Does that
I wrote:
> Yeah. I think we've had quite enough of the stats-transmission-related
> failures, and they're no longer proving anything about the original
> problem. So I will go do what I proposed in mid-July and revert the
> stats queries, while keeping the reltuples/relpages check. (I'd kind
> o
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:44:10 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:06 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 00:32:03 +0900
> > Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
[...]
> Thanks for updating the patch!
Thank you for your review!
Please find in attachment a new
čt 26. 9. 2019 v 18:34 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2019-09-26 17:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Well, you would have one of those:
> >
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name WITH (FORCE)
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name
> >
> > Naturally, the WITH is o
On 9/26/19 5:55 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:22 AM David Steele wrote:
>>
>> While testing against PG12 I noticed the documentation states that
>> recovery targets are not valid when standby.signal is present.
>
> Or that description in the doc is not true? Other recovery ta
BA, Training & Services
0001-Add-logical_work_mem-to-limit-ReorderBuffer-20190926.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
0002-Immediately-WAL-log-assignments-20190926.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
0003-Issue-individual-invalidations-with-wal_lev-20190926.patch.gz
Description: application/
On 9/24/19 1:25 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> When backup_label exists, the startup process enters archive recovery mode
> even if recovery.signal file doesn't exist. In this case, the startup process
> tries to retrieve WAL files by using restore_command. Then, at the beginning
> of the archive reco
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 06:58:17PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:06:50PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>In the interest of moving things forward, how far are we from making
>0001 committable? If I understand correctly, t
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:57 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> This patch no longer applies. Can you please rebase?
Thank you for the notification.
The patch rot after commit 1a950f3, a rebased version is attached.
Regards,
Juan José Santamaría Flecha
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:14:53AM +0530, Looserof7 wrote:
I have started to learn postgresql. While going through the WAL dump saw
the below records,
rmgr: Heap2 len (rec/tot): 60/60, tx: 0, lsn:
4F/CFF1F0F8, prev 4F/CFF1EB70, desc: CLEAN remxid 0, blkref #0: rel
1663/163
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:07:48PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This patch fails to apply (or the opclass params one, maybe). Please
update.
Yeah, the opclass params patches got broken by 773df883e adding enum
reloptions. The breakage is somewhat extensive so I'll leave it up to
Nikita to fix
On 2019-Sep-10, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Here's a quick rebase. It needs testing, review and (probably)
> adjustment from AIX users. I'm not going to be able to do anything
> with it on my own due to lack of access, though I'm happy to help get
> this committed eventually. If we don't get any trac
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:46:49AM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
Hi Soumyadeep and Melanie,
Thank you for the review!
> max_stack_depth max level lazy
On 2019-Sep-26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is an updated patch series, rebased on current master. It does
> fix one memory accounting bug in ReorderBufferToastReplace (the code was
> not properly updating the amount of memory).
Cool.
Can we aim to get 0001 pushed during this commitf
On 2019-Sep-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> How certain are you about the approach to measure memory used by a
> reorderbuffer transaction ... does it not cause a measurable performance
> drop? I wonder if it would make more sense to use a separate contexts
> per transaction and use context-level acc
On 2019-Aug-26, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> OK, let's try this again :)
>
> This is work mainly based in the first version of the online checksums
> patch, but based on top of Andres WIP patchset for global barriers (
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181030051643.elbxjww5jjgnjaxg%40alap3.an
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 06:25:38PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Aug-21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > 1) How exactly should we report this incompatibility to a user?
> > > I think it's fine to leave the warnings and also write some hint for the
> > > user by analogy with other checks.
> >
On 2019-Sep-26, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 06:25:38PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2019-Aug-21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > 1) How exactly should we report this incompatibility to a user?
> > > > I think it's fine to leave the warnings and also write some hint for
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 05:16:19PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-26, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, right now, pg_upgrade --check succeeds, but the upgrade fails. I
> > am proposing, at a minimum, that pg_upgrade --check fails in such cases,
>
> Agreed, that should be a minimum fix.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:14 AM Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Actually in some of the conflict-recovery testcases, I am still using
> wait_for_xmins() so that we could test the xmin values back after we
> drop the slots. So xmin-related testing is embedded in these recovery
> tests as well. We can move
On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 21:22 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> It's worth mentioning that those bechmarks (I'm assuming we're
> talking
> about the numbers Rober shared in [1]) were done on patches that used
> the eager accounting approach (i.e. walking all parent contexts and
> updating the accounting f
On 2019-09-25 22:21, David Steele wrote:
> While testing against PG12 I noticed the documentation states that
> recovery targets are not valid when standby.signal is present.
>
> But surely the exception is recovery_target_timeline? My testing
> confirms that this works just as in prior versions
Hello Alvaro,
pgbench's main() is overly long already, and the new code being added
seems to pollute it even more. Can we split it out into a static
function that gets placed, say, just below disconnect_all() or maybe
after runInitSteps?
I agree that refactoring is a good idea, but I do not
On 9/26/19 4:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2019-09-25 22:21, David Steele wrote:
While testing against PG12 I noticed the documentation states that
recovery targets are not valid when standby.signal is present.
But surely the exception is recovery_target_timeline? My testing
confirms that
On 2019-Sep-26, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Alvaro,
>
> > pgbench's main() is overly long already, and the new code being added
> > seems to pollute it even more. Can we split it out into a static
> > function that gets placed, say, just below disconnect_all() or maybe
> > after runInitSteps
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:52 AM Surafel Temesgen
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> In the attached patch i include the comments given
>
> regards
> Surafel
>
Patch v9 applies and passes make installcheck-world.
> From: Tom Lane
> Date: 2019-09-05 22:26:29
> * I didn't really study the changes in nodeLimit.c
Hello Paul, I've started to review this patch. Here's a few minor
things I ran across -- mostly compiler warnings (is my compiler too
ancient?). You don't have to agree with every fix -- feel free to use
different fixes if you have them. Also, feel free to squash them onto
whatever commit you li
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:36:20PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Sep-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
How certain are you about the approach to measure memory used by a
reorderbuffer transaction ... does it not cause a measurable performance
drop? I wonder if it would make more sense to use a
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:33:59PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Sep-26, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
Attached is an updated patch series, rebased on current master. It does
fix one memory accounting bug in ReorderBufferToastReplace (the code was
not properly updating the amount of memory).
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> On 2019-Sep-26, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there
> > > something we can do to make it more manageable?
Every so often the partition_prune test falls over, for example
here, here, and here:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sidewinder&dt=2019-08-15%2021%3A45%3A00
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=anole&dt=2019-08-21%2022%3A19%3A23
https://buildfarm.postgre
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this functio
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:38:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hello, can you please update this patch?
I'm not the patch author, but I've been looking at the patch recently
and I have a rebased version at hand - so attached.
FWIW I believe the patch is solid and in good shape, and it got st
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Reading over this code, I noticed that the detection of the catch-up
> state ends up being duplicate code, so I would rework that function as
> in the attached patch.
>
> The naming of those flags (got_SIGUSR2, got_STOPPING) is terrible, b
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Ka
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:43:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-09-26 06:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > So I agree with the proposal to rely on the presence of
> > TLS_MAX_VERSION, and base our decision-making on that.
>
> But then there is this:
>
> commit 04cd70c6899c6b36517b2b07d7a
At Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:13:42 -0600, Ryan Lambert wrote
in
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:52 AM Surafel Temesgen
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > In the attached patch i include the comments given
> >
> > regards
> > Surafel
> >
>
> Patch v9 applies and passes make installcheck-world.
>
> > From: Tom
On 2019-Sep-26, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > Reading over this code, I noticed that the detection of the catch-up
> > state ends up being duplicate code, so I would rework that function as
> > in the attached patch.
> >
> > The naming of those
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 06:24:22PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is my proposed patch, currently completely untested.
I have tested compilation of REL_12_STABLE with the top of OpenSSL
0.9.8, 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1.0 and 1.1.1. Our SSL tests also pass
in all the setups I have tested.
Y
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:36 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-26, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > pgbench's main() is overly long already, and the new code being added
> > > seems to pollute it even more. Can we split it out into a static
> > > function that gets placed, say, just below disconne
Here's to hoping this is the worst omission in v12.
Justin
>From e21f58504e5006de9766fe586550b59167e00ffd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:12:26 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v1] tab completion for explain (SETTINGS)
missed at ea569d64ac7174d3fe657e3e682d11053ecf186
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Every so often the partition_prune test falls over, for example
> here, here, and here:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sidewinder&dt=2019-08-15%2021%3A45%3A00
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=an
Hi all,
(Jeff Davis in CC)
As $subject tells, any version of OpenSSL not including
X509_get_signature_nid() (version <= 1.0.1) causes the SSL tests to
fail. This has been introduced by d6e612f.
We need to do something similar to c3d41cc for the test, as per the
attached. I have tested that with
> Have you had any thoughts for more than two joined tables?
I am not sure what you are asking here but if you are asking if IVM
supports two or more tables involved in a join, we already support it:
DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mv1;
DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW
DROP TABLE t1;
DROP TABLE
DROP TABLE t2;
DROP
Hello,
I found the problem that clang compiler introduces warnings when building
PostgreSQL. Attached patch fixes it.
===
Compiler version
===
clang version 10.0.0-svn372772-1~exp1+0~20190924181208.2504~1.gbpb209ff
(trunk)
Older versions of clang may not generate this warning.
===
Warning
===
At Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:50:32 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
<20190925.155032.13779064.horikyota@gmail.com>
> 709d003fbd hit this. Rebased.
Oops! I found a silly silent bug that it doesn't verify the first
page in new segments. Moreover it didin't load the first page
On 2019/09/27 11:20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Here's to hoping this is the worst omission in v12.
Justin
Hi Justin,
I share my test result of your patch.
I used two commits REL_12_RC1 and Head, and got a Hunk below:
#REL_12_RC1 (17822c0e4f5ab8093e78f665c9e44766ae648a44)
===
Hi all,
While reviewing the area, I have bumped into the following bit in
fe-secure-openssl.c and be-secure-openssl.c:
-/* OpenSSL 0.96 does not support X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK */
-#ifdef X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK
[... stuff ...]
I think that this did not get removed because of the incorrect v
>
>
> > Note in the 2nd patch, the long option is changed as below. Both the
> option
> > and description
> > now seems to be more concise since we want db state as either
> DB_SHUTDOWNED
> > or
> > DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY.
> >
> > "-s, --no-ensure-shutdowned do not auto-fix unclean shutdown"
Hello Tom,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:23 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Youki Shiraishi writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >> * The main entry point for auxiliary processes, such as the bgwriter,
> >> - * walwriter, walreceiver, bootstrapper and the shared memory c
Thanks Alvaro!
I rebased this patch with the newest master branch. Attached the new
patch disk_quota_hooks_v5.patch in the attachment.
Regards,
Haozhou
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:54 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> This patch no longer applies. Can you please rebase?
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera
> https://
Hi Amit,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:10 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi Shiraishi-san,
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:32 PM Youki Shiraishi
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:38 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:06 PM Youki Shiraishi
> > > wrote:
> > > > I have just
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:18:17PM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> Anyway, I tested the patch and it looks fine. :)
Thanks Justin and Yamada-san. The order of the options in the list to
display and in the check did not match the order of the documentation,
which is the intention here, so fixed and
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:29:08PM +0900, Youki Shiraishi wrote:
> I also vote to get rid of such ambiguous stuff.
> As you can see by grepping, "bootstrap-mode backend" (and something
> like that) is also called in the sources as:
>
> - bootstrap backend
> - (basic) bootstrap process
> - backend
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:04 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2019-09-26 17:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Well, you would have one of those:
> >
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name WITH (FORCE)
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name
> >
> > Naturally, the WITH is optional in the sense that the clause
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:29:08PM +0900, Youki Shiraishi wrote:
> > I also vote to get rid of such ambiguous stuff.
> > As you can see by grepping, "bootstrap-mode backend" (and something
> > like that) is also called in the sources as:
>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different
> > expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > I don't see
> > why that
Asim Thanks for the review.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:39 PM Asim R P wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:02 PM Paul Guo wrote:
> >
> > So in theory
> > we should not worry about additional tuple copy overhead now, and then I
> tried the patch without setting
> > multi-insert threshold as at
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
