Hi
fresh patch - rebase and fix issue reported by Remi - broken usage CREATE
VARIABLE inside PLpgSQL
Regards
Pavel
schema-variables-20200318.patch.gz
Description: application/gzip
> > > > Please feel free to work on any extension of this patch idea. I lack
> > > > both time and knowledge to do it all by myself.
> > >
> > > I'm adding a 3rd patch on top of yours to expose the new WAL counters in
> > > pg_stat_database, for vacuum and autovacuum. I'm not really
> > > enthius
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 01:20:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:29:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> With a large amount of
> >> shared buffer eviction you actually increase the risk of torn page
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 01:20:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:29:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Based on the feedback gathered on this thread, I guess that you should
> >> have a SRF returni
Hello Tom,
From: asaba.takan...@fujitsu.com
> Hello Tom,
>
> From: Tom Lane
> > Tomas Vondra writes:
> > > I think it depends how exactly it's implemented. As Tom pointed out in
> > > his message [1], we can't do the erasure itself in the post-commit is
> > > not being able to handle errors. B
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 08:48:33PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Mar-14, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > I am sorry --- I am confused. Why are we truncating or allowing control
> > > of truncation of BIND parameter values, but have no such facility for
> > > queries.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:07:37AM +0900, Atsushi Torikoshi wrote:
> As far as I read the reloptions.c, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay,
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor and autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor
> are the members of relopt_real, so their type seems the same, real.
In this case, the parsing
101 - 107 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
