On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:16 PM japin wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I find that the outputstr variable in logicalrep_write_tuple() only use in
> `else` branch, I think we can narrow the scope, just like variable outputbytes
> in `if` branch (for more readable).
>
> /*
> * Send in binary if
Hi folks
A few times lately I've been doing things in extensions that've made me
want to be able to run my own code whenever InterruptPending is true and
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls ProcessInterrupts()
So here's a simple patch to add ProcessInterrupts_hook. It follows the
usual pattern like Proc
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 15:59, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:16 PM japin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I find that the outputstr variable in logicalrep_write_tuple() only use in
>> `else` branch, I think we can narrow the scope, just like variable
>> outputbytes
>> in `if` br
From: Tang, Haiying
> (does this patch make some optimizes in serial insert? I'm a little confused
> here, Because the patched execution time is less than unpatched, but I didn't
> find information in commit messages about it. If I missed something, please
> kindly let me know.)
I haven't thought
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:02 PM Tang, Haiying
wrote:
>
> > From: Amit Kapila
> > > Can we test cases when we have few rows in the Select table (say
> > > 1000) and there 500 or 1000 partitions. In that case, we won't
> > > select parallelism but we have to pay the price of checking
> > > parallel
At Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:02:18 -0800, Noah Misch wrote in
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36:31PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I wrote the above based on the "PageGetLSN(page) > (snapshot)->lsn" check in
> > TestForOldSnapshot(). If the LSN isn't important, what else explains
> > RelationAllowsEarlyP
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:27 AM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> From: Amit Kapila
> > We already allow users to specify the degree of parallelism for all
> > the parallel operations via guc's max_parallel_maintenance_workers,
> > max_parallel_workers_per_gather, then we have a reloption
>
On 2021-01-15 12:28, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
Hello
Look good for
From: Amit Kapila
> Good question. I think if we choose to have a separate parameter for
> DML, it can probably a boolean to just indicate whether to enable
> parallel DML for a specified table and use the parallel_workers
> specified in the table used in SELECT.
Agreed.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunak
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:18:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 01:45:26PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It's a lot like what I wrote as [PATCH v31 1/5] ExecReindex and
> > ReindexParams
> > In my v31 patch, I moved ReindexOptions to a private structure in
> > indexcm
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021, at 21:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>Well, SGML is actually plenty easy to parse as long as you've got xml
>tooling at hand. We'd never want to introduce such a dependency in the
>normal build process, but making something like findoidjoins depend on
>such tools seems within reason. I
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:45 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Here is an additional review of
> > v11-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT. There are
> > quite a few comments raised on the V11-0001* patch. I suggest first
> >
Hi Tsunakawa-san
> From: Tang, Haiying
> > (does this patch make some optimizes in serial insert? I'm a little
> > confused here, Because the patched execution time is less than
> > unpatched, but I didn't find information in commit messages about it.
> > If I missed something, please kindly le
Hi Amit
> I don't think the patch should have any impact on the serial case. I
> think you can try to repeat each test 3 times both with and without a
> patch and take the median of the three.
Actually, I repeated about 10 times, the execution time is always less than
unpatched.
Regards,
Tang
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Tang, Haiying
wrote:
>
> Hi Tsunakawa-san
>
> > From: Tang, Haiying
> > > (does this patch make some optimizes in serial insert? I'm a little
> > > confused here, Because the patched execution time is less than
> > > unpatched, but I didn't find information in comm
On 2021-01-11 17:13, David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:50:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-12-30 17:41, David Fetter wrote:
The input may have more than 2 billion bits set to 1. The biggest possible
result should be 8 billion for bytea (1 GB with all bits set to 1).
So s
čt 14. 1. 2021 v 10:24 odesílatel Erik Rijkers napsal:
> On 2021-01-14 07:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > [schema-variables-20210114.patch.gz]
>
>
> Build is fine. My (small) list of tests run OK.
>
> I did notice a few more documentation peculiarities:
>
>
> 'The PostgreSQL has schema variables' s
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:45 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is an additional review of
> > > v11-0001-Enable-parallel-SELECT-for-INSERT-INTO-.-SELECT. There are
> > > qui
Hi
čt 14. 1. 2021 v 11:31 odesílatel Josef Šimánek
napsal:
> I did some testing locally. All runs smoothly, compiled without warning.
>
> Later on (once merged) it would be nice to write down a documentation
> page for the whole feature as a set next to documented individual
> commands.
> It too
po 18. 1. 2021 v 10:50 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
>
>
> čt 14. 1. 2021 v 10:24 odesílatel Erik Rijkers napsal:
>
>> On 2021-01-14 07:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > [schema-variables-20210114.patch.gz]
>>
>>
>> Build is fine. My (small) list of tests run OK.
>>
>> I did notice a few more doc
> 2021年1月12日 02:37，Robert Haas 写道：
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:46 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> For 1) The DETACH old child table can be finished immediately, global index
>>> can be kept valid after DETACH is completed, and the cleanup of garbage
>>> data in global index can be deferred to
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > 1)
> >
> > >Here, it seems we are accessing the relation descriptor without any
> > >lock on the table which is dangerous considering the table can be
> > >modified in a parallel session. Is there a reason why you think this
> > >is safe? Di
I've circled back to this and tested/read it more, and I'm still of the opinion
that it's a good feature addition. A few small comments on the patch:
+ is the default, the username is matched against the certificate's
In the docs we use "user name" instead of "username" in descriptive text.
Hi hackers,
While working with cursors that reference plans with CustomScanStates
nodes, I encountered a segfault which originates from
search_plan_tree(). The query plan is the result of a simple SELECT
statement into which I inject a Custom Scan node at the root to do some
post-processing b
Hi Amit.
PSA the v16 patch for the Tablesync Solution1.
Main differences from v15:
+ Tablesync cleanups of DropSubscription/AlterSubscription_refresh are
re-implemented as as ProcessInterrupts function
Features:
* The tablesync slot is now permanent instead of temporary.
* The tablesync
пн, 18 янв. 2021 г. в 07:44, Amit Kapila :
> The summary of the above is that with Case-1 (clean-up based on hint
> received with the last item on the page) it takes fewer operations to
> cause a page split as compared to Case-2 (clean-up based on hint
> received with at least of the items on the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 4:13 PM David Geier wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> While working with cursors that reference plans with CustomScanStates
> nodes, I encountered a segfault which originates from
> search_plan_tree(). The query plan is the result of a simple SELECT
> statement into which I inject
> New version of this patch prints extra statistics for all cases of
> multiple loops, not only for Nested Loop. Also I fixed the example by
> adding VERBOSE.
>
> Please don't hesitate to share any thoughts on this topic!
Thanks a lot for working on this! I really like the extra details, and
inclu
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:39 PM japin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 15:59, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:16 PM japin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I find that the outputstr variable in logicalrep_write_tuple() only use in
> >> `else` branch, I think we can
On 18/01/2021 09:49, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Dear Heikki,
I apologize for sending again.
I will check another ResourceOwnerEnlarge() if I have a time.
I checked all ResourceOwnerEnlarge() types after applying patch 0001.
(searched by "grep -rI ResourceOwnerEnlarge")
No problem was f
On 18/01/2021 01:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:04 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I personally agree with you - it's not like there aren't other ways
for superusers to crash the server (most of which seem very similar to
this gist_page_items() issue, in fact). I just think that
While discussing the topic of foreign key performance off-list with
Robert and Corey (also came up briefly on the list recently [1], [2]),
a few ideas were thrown around to simplify our current system of RI
checks to enforce foreign keys with the aim of reducing some of its
overheads. The two main
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 5:11 PM Victor Yegorov wrote:
>
> пн, 18 янв. 2021 г. в 07:44, Amit Kapila :
>>
>> The summary of the above is that with Case-1 (clean-up based on hint
>> received with the last item on the page) it takes fewer operations to
>> cause a page split as compared to Case-2 (clea
On 2021/01/18 15:37, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:58 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
On 2021/01/18 15:02, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
We need to create the loopback3 with user mapping public, otherwise the
test might become unstable as shown below. Note that loopback and
loopback2 ar
Hi commiter,
Many of our customers expect to use BR triggers in partitioned tables.
After I followed your discussion, I also checked your patch.
Here are two questions confusing me:
1. Your modification removes the check BR triggers against partitioned table,
and a more friendly error message i
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:17 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> > +1 to add it after "dropped (Note )", how about as follows
> > with slight changes?
> >
> > dropped (Note that server name of an invalid connection can be NULL if
> > the server is dropped), and then such .
>
> Yes, I like this one
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the updated patch. As I've mentioned off the list I'm slowly
> looking through it with the intent to concentrate on undo progress
> tracking. But before I will post anything I want to mention couple of
> strange issues I see, otherwise I wi
On 1/18/21 8:31 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
Hi Tomas and Shinoda-san,
On 2021/01/17 23:31, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/17/21 3:01 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/17/21 2:41 AM, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP) wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I tested this committed feature.
It doesn't seem to be availabl
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:21 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > This feature adds schema option while creating publication. Users will
> > > be able to specify one or more schemas while cre
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:00 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
> A few times lately I've been doing things in extensions that've made me want
> to be able to run my own code whenever InterruptPending is true and
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls ProcessInterrupts()
I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 fr
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:41 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Does anyone maintain opensource pg_surgery analogs for released versions of
> PG?
> It seems to me I'll have to use something like this and I just though that I
> should consider pg_surgery in favour of our pg_dirty_hands.
I do not. I'm s
пн, 18 янв. 2021 г. в 13:42, Amit Kapila :
> I don't think any of these can happen in what I am actually saying. Do
> you still have the same feeling after reading this email? Off-hand, I
> don't see any downsides as compared to the current approach and it
> will have fewer splits in some other wo
Hi, Masahiko-san:
bq. How about FdwXactRequestToLaunchResolver()?
Sounds good to me.
bq. But there is already a function named FdwXactExists()
Then we can leave the function name as it is.
Cheers
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:55 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:45 AM Zhihon
On 20/11/2020 23:52, Erik Rijkers wrote:
(smallish) Changes to arch-dev.sgml
This looks good to me. One little complaint:
@@ -125,7 +122,7 @@
use a supervisor process (also
master process) that spawns a new
server process every time a connection is requested. This supervisor
-
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:44 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> > I will post patches for the other function postgres_fdw_disconnect,
> > GUC and server level option later.
>
> Thanks!
Attaching v12 patch set. 0001 is for postgres_fdw_disconnect()
function, 0002 is for keep_connections GUC and 0003 is for
Hi,
When I created a table consisting of 400 VARCHAR columns and tried
to INSERT a record which rows were all the same size, there were
cases where I got an error due to exceeding the size limit per
row.
=# -- create a table consisting of 400 VARCHAR columns
=# CREATE TABLE t1 (c1 VARCHAR(10
On 2021-01-18 10:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
and here is the patch
[schema-variables-20200118.patch.gz ]
One small thing:
The drop variable synopsis is:
DROP VARIABLE [ IF EXISTS ] name [, ...] [ CASCADE | RESTRICT ]
In that text following it, 'RESTRICT' is not documented. When used it
does
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:54:10AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:41 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > Does anyone maintain opensource pg_surgery analogs for released
> > versions of PG? It seems to me I'll have to use something like this
> > and I just though that I should con
On 2021-Jan-18, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> +static ResourceOwnerFuncs jit_funcs =
> +{
> + /* relcache references */
> + .name = "LLVM JIT context",
> + .phase = RESOURCE_RELEASE_BEFORE_LOCKS,
> + .ReleaseResource = ResOwnerReleaseJitContext,
> + .PrintLeakWarning = ResOwnerPr
Hi commiter,
Many of our customers expect to use BR triggers in partitioned tables.
After I followed your discussion, I also checked your patch.
Here are two questions confusing me:
1. Your modification removes the check BR triggers against partitioned table,
and a more friendly error message i
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:25 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> One other possiblity would be to push a version of pg_surgery that is
> compatible with the back-branches somewhere external (e.g. either
> git.postgresql.org and/or Github), so that it can be picked up by
> distributions and/or individual use
Hi, Masahiko-san:
For v2-0001-Introduce-IndexAM-API-for-choosing-index-vacuum-s.patch :
For blvacuumstrategy():
+ if (params->index_cleanup == VACOPT_TERNARY_DISABLED)
+ return INDEX_VACUUM_STRATEGY_NONE;
+ else
+ return INDEX_VACUUM_STRATEGY_BULKDELETE;
The 'else' can be omitte
On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0
numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. That seems a bit shocking.
Maybe you can claim that these operations aren't
Jaime Casanova just reported that this patch causes a crash on the
regression database with this query:
MERGE INTO public.pagg_tab_ml_p3 as target_0
USING public.prt2_l_p3_p2 as ref_0 ON target_0.a = ref_0.a
WHEN MATCHED AND cast(null as tid) <= cast(null as tid)THEN DELETE;
The reason
Hi, Takayuki-san:
+ if (batch_size <= 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+errmsg("%s requires a non-negative integer value",
It seems the message doesn't match the check w.r.t. the batch size of 0.
+ int
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> [ assorted nits ]
At the level of bikeshedding ... I quite dislike using the name "popcount"
for these functions. I'm aware that some C compilers provide primitives
of that name, but I wouldn't expect a SQL programmer to know that;
without that context the name seems p
On 2021/01/18 23:14, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:44 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
I will post patches for the other function postgres_fdw_disconnect,
GUC and server level option later.
Thanks!
Attaching v12 patch set. 0001 is for postgres_fdw_disconnect()
function, 0002 i
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 07:50:13PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:56 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think that's not at all acceptable. I don't mind hashing out details
> > on calls / off-list, but the design needs to be public, documented, and
> > reviewable. And if it's so
Looking through extended_stats.c, I found a corner case that can lead
to a seg-fault:
CREATE TABLE foo();
CREATE STATISTICS s ON (1) FROM foo;
ANALYSE foo;
This crashes in lookup_var_attr_stats(), because it isn't expecting
nvacatts to be 0. I can't think of any case where building stats on a
tab
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:54:57AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Is there a design document for a Postgres feature of this size and
> > scope that people feel would serve as a good example? Alternatively,
> > is there a design document template that has been successfully used in
> > the past?
>
>
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:58:47PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-01-17 11:54:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:38 AM Tom Kincaid
> > wrote:
> > > Admittedly I am a novice on this topic, and the majority of the
> > > PostgreSQL source code, however I am ho
Hi,
For 0001-Allow-REINDEX-to-change-tablespace.patch :
+ * InvalidOid, use the tablespace in-use instead.
'in-use' seems a bit redundant in the sentence.
How about : InvalidOid, use the tablespace of the index instead.
Cheers
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:38 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Ja
On 2021/01/18 22:03, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:17 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
+1 to add it after "dropped (Note )", how about as follows
with slight changes?
dropped (Note that server name of an invalid connection can be NULL if
the server is dropped), and then suc
> 18 янв. 2021 г., в 18:54, Robert Haas написал(а):
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:41 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> Does anyone maintain opensource pg_surgery analogs for released versions of
>> PG?
>> It seems to me I'll have to use something like this and I just though that I
>> should cons
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 8:48 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's a rebase of Simon/Pavan's MERGE patch to current sources. I
> cleaned up some minor things in it, but aside from rebasing, it's pretty
> much their work (even the commit message is Simon's).
It's my impression that the previous discu
On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 14:07 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I have applied this version, with some minor changes:
>
> * I renamed the n__time members in the struct to just
> total__time. The n_ indicates "number of" and is thus wrong for
> time parameters.
Right.
> * Some very minor wording chan
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:19 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
> > 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0
> > numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. Th
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:11 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:19 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
> > > 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + /*
> +* ceil(VARBITLEN(ARG1)/BITS_PER_BYTE)
> +* done to minimize branches and instructions.
> +*/
>
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean or why that kind of tuning
> would be necessary for a user-callable function.
Also, the formula jus
On 2021-Jan-18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 8:48 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Here's a rebase of Simon/Pavan's MERGE patch to current sources. I
> > cleaned up some minor things in it, but aside from rebasing, it's pretty
> > much their work (even the commit message is Simon'
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 5:11 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 14:07 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I have applied this version, with some minor changes:
> >
> > * I renamed the n__time members in the struct to just
> > total__time. The n_ indicates "number of" and is thus wrong
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:00 AM Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>> A few times lately I've been doing things in extensions that've made me want
>> to be able to run my own code whenever InterruptPending is true and
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls ProcessInterrupts()
> I've wanted t
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:50:37AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I looked at that and it is good, and I see my patch is missing that.
> Are people looking for me to take the wiki content, expand on it and tie
> it to the code that will be applied, or something else like all the
> various crypto
Robert Haas writes:
> I don't have any complaint about labelling some of the unique indexes
> as primary keys, but I think installing foreign keys that don't really
> enforce anything may lead to confusion.
I'm not sure if I buy the "confusion" argument, but after thinking
about this more I reali
Hi,
On 2021-01-18 12:06:35 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:50:37AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, I looked at that and it is good, and I see my patch is missing that.
> > Are people looking for me to take the wiki content, expand on it and tie
> > it to the code that
Hi,
I was looking at this statement:
insert into f select generate_series(1, 200, 2);
Since certain generated values (the second half) are not in table p,
wouldn't insertion for those values fail ?
I tried a scaled down version (1000th) of your example:
yugabyte=# insert into f select genera
On 1/18/21 7:51 AM, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Tomas-san,
From: Amit Langote
Good thing you reminded me that this is about inserts, and in that
case no, ExecInitModifyTable() doesn't know all leaf partitions,
it only sees the root table whose batch_size doesn't really matter.
So it'
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 from me.
>
> I dunno, this seems pretty scary and easily abusable. There's not all
> that much that can be done safely in ProcessInterrupts(), and we should
> not be encouraging extensions to think they
po 18. 1. 2021 v 13:40 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> While discussing the topic of foreign key performance off-list with
> Robert and Corey (also came up briefly on the list recently [1], [2]),
> a few ideas were thrown around to simplify our current system of RI
> checks to enforce foreign k
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:29 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> To move development, testing, and the review forward, I have commented out the
> code acquiring CheckpointLock from CreateCheckPoint() in the 0003 patch and
> added the changes for the checkpointer so that system read-write state change
> request c
Hi,
+* Custom scan nodes can be leaf nodes or inner nodes and
therfore need special treatment.
The special treatment applies to inner nodes. The above should be better
phrased to clarify.
Cheers
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:43 AM David Geier wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> While working wit
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:32:56AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached v30 adds the proposed optimizations in this thread as previously
> asked for, as well as some small cleanups to the procsignal calling codepath
> (replacing single call functions with just calling the function) a
po 18. 1. 2021 v 15:24 odesílatel Erik Rijkers napsal:
> On 2021-01-18 10:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>
> > and here is the patch
> > [schema-variables-20200118.patch.gz ]
>
>
> One small thing:
>
> The drop variable synopsis is:
>
> DROP VARIABLE [ IF EXISTS ] name [, ...] [ CASCADE | RESTRICT ]
I wrote:
> ... I still like the idea of marking OID relationships in the
> catalog headers though. Perhaps we should take Joel's suggestion
> of a new system catalog more seriously, and have genbki.pl populate
> such a catalog from info in the catalog header files.
On second thought, a catalog is
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 08:03:02PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 07:53:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 08:23:56PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:33:12PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > I'm attaching a counter-pro
David Geier writes:
> search_plan_tree() assumes that
> CustomScanState::ScanState::ss_currentRelation is never NULL. In my
> understanding that only holds for CustomScanState nodes which are at the
> bottom of the plan and actually read from a relation. CustomScanState
> nodes which are not a
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:43 AM Vik Fearing wrote:
>
> This is not good, and I see that DROP SYSTEM VERSIONING also removes
> these columns which is even worse. Please read the standard that you
> are trying to implement!
>
>
The standard states the function of ALTER TABLE ADD SYSTEM VERSIONING
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:42:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Personally, but I admit that there's legitimate reasons to differ on
> that note, I don't think it's reasonable for a feature this invasive to
> commit preliminary patches without the major subsequent patches being in
> a shape that a
> > I have to admit I was kind of baffled that the wiki page wasn't
> > sufficient, because it is one of the longest Postgres feature
> > explanations I have seen, but I now think the missing part is tying
> > the wiki contents to the code implementation. If that is it, please
> > confirm. If it
On 2021-01-18 13:58:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:42:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Personally, but I admit that there's legitimate reasons to differ on
> > that note, I don't think it's reasonable for a feature this invasive to
> > commit preliminary patches wit
Hi,
It seems sstate->ss_currentRelation being null can only
occur for T_ForeignScanState and T_CustomScanState.
What about the following change ?
Cheers
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execCurrent.c
b/src/backend/executor/execCurrent.c
index 0852bb9cec..56e31951d1 100644
--- a/src/backend/exec
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:21 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I think this lock is useless. In fact, I think it's harmful,
> because it makes large sections of the checkpointer code, basically
> all of it really, run with interrupts held off for no reason.
>
> It's not impossible that removing the l
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> With the above example, it seems like it would also help when this is not
> true.
I'll respond to your remarks here separately, in a later email.
> I am not sure what I proposed fits here but the bottom-up sounds like
> we are starting from
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020, at 22:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (Maybe the existing ltrim/rtrim descrs are also like this, but if so
>> I'd change them too.)
> They weren't, but I think the description for the bytea functions
> can be improved to have a more precise description
> if w
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 15:29, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> So one last remaining improvement was to have VACUUM ignore processes
> doing CIC and RC to compute the Xid horizon of tuples to remove. I
> think we can do something simple like the attached patch.
Regarding the patch:
> +if (
Zhihong Yu writes:
> It seems sstate->ss_currentRelation being null can only
> occur for T_ForeignScanState and T_CustomScanState.
> What about the following change ?
Seems like more code for no very good reason.
regards, tom lane
Robert Haas writes:
> Here's a patch to remove CheckpointLock completely. ...
> So I don't see any problem with just ripping this out entirely, but
> I'd like to know if anybody else does.
If memory serves, the reason for the lock was that the CHECKPOINT
command used to run the checkpointing cod
On 2021-Jan-18, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Example:
>
> 1.) RI starts
> 2.) PHASE 2: filling the index:
> 2.1.) scanning the heap (live tuple is cached)
> < tuple is deleted
> < last transaction other than RI commits, only snapshot of RI exists
> < vacuum drops the tuple, and cannot remove it
On 2021-Jan-18, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 15:29, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Would this not need to be the following? Right now, it resets
> potentially older h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable (which is set in the
> PROC_IN_SAFE_IC branch).
>
> > +if (statusFlag
Hello Alvaro,
The "no such file" error seems more like a machine local issue to me.
I'll look into it when I have time, which make take some time. Hopefully
over the holidays.
This is still happening ... Any chance you can have a look at it?
Indeed. I'll try to look (again) into it soon.
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
