On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:18 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > Here, we can notice that for the index, we are getting context
> > information but not for the heap. The reason
At Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:25:36 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote
in
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:14:48AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > As the result of a discussion with Fujita-san off-list, I'm going to
> > hold off development until he decides whether mine or Thomas' is
> > better.
>
> The lates
On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 03:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
With the patch, for example, whatever "summary" settng is, "buffers on"
displays the planner's buffer usage if it happens.
I forgot to mention earlier, you'll also need to remove the part in
the docs t
Can you please show what the plan would look like for?
=# explain (buffers on, summary on, format JSON) select * from t;
Le 20/08/2020 à 09:58, Fujii Masao a écrit :
>
>
> On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 03:31, Fujii Masao
>> wrote:
>>> With the patch, for
On 2020/08/20 17:03, Pierre Giraud wrote:
Can you please show what the plan would look like for?
=# explain (buffers on, summary on, format JSON) select * from t;
With my patch, the following is reported in that case.
=# explain (buffers on, summary on, format JSON) select * from pg_class;
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:20:50AM +, k.jami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:53 AM (GMT+9), Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> During crash recovery, the server writes this to log:
>> Please change to say "recovery checkpoint" or similar, as I mentioned here.
>> https://www.postgr
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:10 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:29 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In last patch v49-0001, there is one
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, 20 August 2020 07:31, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:10:05PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:12 AM vignesh C vignes...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > +-- access method column should not be displayed for seque
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:17 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:13:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > In other words I propose to reword this paragraph as follows:
> >
> >If the transient index created during the concurrent operation is
> >suffixed ccnew, the recom
Hello.
At Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in
> Hi,
>
> I started to hack on making pg_rewind crash-safe (see [1]), but I
> quickly got side-tracked into refactoring and tidying up up the code
> in general. I ended up with this series of patches:
^^;
> The first four
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:20 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:10 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:29 PM Dilip
Hi,
I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
documentation typos. The attached fixes them.
I'll push this in my UTC+12 morning if nobody objects to any of the
changes before then.
Unsure if it'll be worth backpatching or not.
David
fix_a_few_jit_typos.patch
Descript
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:58, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
> > I forgot to mention earlier, you'll also need to remove the part in
> > the docs that mentions BUFFERS requires ANALYZE.
>
> Thanks for the review! I removed that.
> Attached is the updated version of
At 2020-08-20 22:19:49 +1200, dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
> documentation typos. The attached fixes them.
The first change does not seem to be correct:
-That this is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases
-
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 22:29, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>
> At 2020-08-20 22:19:49 +1200, dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
> > documentation typos. The attached fixes them.
>
> The first change does not seem to be correct:
>
> -
On 2020/08/19 14:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2020-08-19 13:49, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Masahiro Ikeda
If my understanding is correct, we have to measure the performance
impact first.
Do you know HariBabu is now trying to solve it? If not, I will try to
modify patches to ap
On 2020/08/20 20:01, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/08/19 14:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2020-08-19 13:49, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Masahiro Ikeda
If my understanding is correct, we have to measure the performance
impact first.
Do you know HariBabu is now trying to solve it?
At 2020-08-20 22:51:41 +1200, dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > +This is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases where
> > +the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT, rather than
> > +ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used in PostgreSQL,
> > +th
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 8:00 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2020, at 9:37 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > In addition to this, I found a few more things while reading v13 patch are
> > as
> > below:
> >
> > Patch v13-0001:
> >
> > -
> > +#include "amcheck.h"
> >
> > Not in correct order.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> I have updated the patch (attached) based on your comments, with
> adjustments made for additional changes based on feedback (which I
> tend to agree with) from Robert Haas and Tsunakawa san, who suggested
> read-write/read-only should be f
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:11 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> I have fixed my patch again.
Hi Osumi-san,
FYI - The latest patch (v06) has conflicts when applied.
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Hello,
I am trying to handle the limit that we can't do a tuple move caused by BEFORE
TRIGGER,
during which I get two doubt points:
The first issue:
In ExecBRUpdateTriggers() or ExecBRInsertTriggers() function why we need to
check the
result slot after every trigger call. If we should check the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:18 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here, we can notice that for the index
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:22 PM movead...@highgo.ca wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to handle the limit that we can't do a tuple move caused by
> BEFORE TRIGGER,
> during which I get two doubt points:
>
> The first issue:
> In ExecBRUpdateTriggers() or ExecBRInsertTriggers() function why we nee
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:58, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
> > > I forgot to mention earlier, you'll also need to remove the part in
> > > the docs that mentions BUFFERS requires ANALYZE.
> >
> > Thank
Hi,
On 2020-08-20 15:59:26 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> The original sentence may not be the most shining example of
> sentence-ry, but it is correct, and removing the "That" breaks it.
That made me laugh ;)
David, sounds good, after adapting to Abhijit's concerns.
Greetings,
Andres Freun
On 2020/07/27 15:59, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 22:51, Muhammad Usama wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 01:55, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/07/16 14:47, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:19, Fuji
On 2020/08/20 22:34, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:58, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
I forgot to mention earlier, you'll also need to remove the part in
the docs that mentions BUFFERS re
While trying to make sense of Adam Sjøgren's problem [1], I found
myself staring at ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin() in slot.c.
It seems to me that that is very shaky code, on two different
grounds:
1. Sometimes it's called with ProcArrayLock already held exclusively.
This means that any dela
Thanks, Michael and Julien! Pushed to 12-master, with a slight
rewording to use the passive voice, hopefully matching the surrounding
text. I also changed "temporary" to "transient" in another line, for
consistency.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Develo
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:27 AM David Steele wrote:
> On 6/17/20 12:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan
> > mailto:andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com>>
>
> >
> > I'm not sure I like doing s/Black/Block/ here. It reads oddly. There
> are
> > too man
Hi
čt 20. 8. 2020 v 4:07 odesílatel Peter Smith napsal:
> Hi.
>
> I have been looking at the patch: string_to_table-20200706-2.patch
>
> Below are some review comments for your consideration.
>
>
>
> COMMENT func.sgml (style)
>
> +
> +splits string into table using supplied d
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:23 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:04 PM Roger Pack wrote:
>>
>> As a note I tried to use the deb repo today:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/debian/
>>
>> with an old box on Wheezy.
>> It only seems to have binaries up to pos
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 02:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> David, sounds good, after adapting to Abhijit's concerns.
Thank you both for having a look. Now pushed.
David
I'm concerned about how the FSM gives out pages to heapam. Disabling
the FSM entirely helps TPC-C/BenchmarkSQL, which uses non-default heap
fillfactors for most tables [1]. Testing has shown that this actually
increases throughput for the benchmark (as measured in TPM) by 5% -
9%, even though my ap
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 21:41, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/08/12 15:32, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 14:06, Asim Praveen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 11-Aug-2020, at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think this gets to the root of the issue. If we check the f
Hi,
I've attached the patch for $subject.
s/replications lots/replication slots/
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawadahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
fix_typo.patch
Description: Binary data
On 2020/08/21 10:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Hi,
I've attached the patch for $subject.
s/replications lots/replication slots/
Thanks for the patch!
Also it's better to s/replications slots/replication slots/ ?
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarr
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:50 AM Amit Langote wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:06 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> > On 2020-Aug-19, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM kato-...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:43 AM I wrote:
> > > > > I'll report t
From: Fujii Masao
> I agree to expose the number of WAL write caused by full of WAL buffers.
> It's helpful when tuning wal_buffers size. Haribabu separated that number
> into two fields in his patch; one is the number of WAL write by backend,
> and another is by background processes and workers.
From: Fujii Masao
> Just idea; it may be worth exposing the number of when new WAL file is
> created and zero-filled. This initialization may have impact on
> the performance of write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this
> number is reported high, to reduce the number of this initializat
On 2020/08/21 12:08, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Fujii Masao
Just idea; it may be worth exposing the number of when new WAL file is
created and zero-filled. This initialization may have impact on
the performance of write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this
number is r
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 11:18, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/08/21 10:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've attached the patch for $subject.
> >
> > s/replications lots/replication slots/
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> Also it's better to s/replications slots/replication slots/ ?
>
>
On 2020/08/21 12:29, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 11:18, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/08/21 10:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Hi,
I've attached the patch for $subject.
s/replications lots/replication slots/
Thanks for the patch!
Also it's better to s/replications slots/re
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > before doing truncate. We should fix that case as well.
>
> Right.
>
> > > I will work on those along w
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > > before doing truncate. We should fix
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > > before doing truncate. We should fix
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the further review, an updated patch is attached. Please
see my responses to your comments below:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT (help text)
>
> The help text is probably accurate but it does seem a bit confusing still.
>
> ...
>
> IMO if
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > > before doing truncate. We should fix
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:20 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right, I think this can happen if o
Le 20/08/2020 à 17:41, Fujii Masao a écrit :
>
>
> On 2020/08/20 22:34, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:58, Fujii Masao
>>> wrote:
On 2020/08/20 13:00, David Rowley wrote:
> I forgot to mention earl
On 7/1/20 2:10 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2019, at 08:34, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
The attached v2 fixed the problem, and regression test finished correctly.
This patch no longer applies to HEAD, please submit an rebased version.
Marking the entry Waiting on Author in the meantime.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 12:39, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/08/21 12:29, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 11:18, Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2020/08/21 10:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've attached the patch for $subject.
> >>>
> >>> s/
53 matches
Mail list logo
