On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:48 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Does it really make sense that pg_wait_for_backend_termination()
> defaults to waiting *100 milliseconds*, and then logs a warning? That
> seems extremely short if I'm explicitly asking it to wait.
I increased the default wait timeout to 5s
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:31 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 02:28:43AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > Let's move this patch forward. Based on the responses, I agree the
> > > default behavior should be to remove the
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 11:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > With HEAD (I think v12 and greater), I see $subject when trying out
> > the following scenario:
>
> I wonder if this is related to
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/89429.1584443208%40antos
>
> which we've st
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:41 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 8:25 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > > > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> > > > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> > > > from trying to acce
Alvaro-san,
Thank you for taking your time to take a look at an incomplete patch. I
thought I would ask you for final check for commit after Iwata-san has
reflected my review comments.
I discussed with Iwata-sn your below comments. Let me convey her opinions.
(She is now focusing on fixing
Hi,
David, there's a question about a commit of yours below, hence adding
you.
On 2021-03-16 19:36:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Out of curiosity I poked at this for a little while.
Cool.
> It doesn't appear to me that we leak much at all, at least not if you
> are willing to take "still reachab
On 2021-03-16 20:51, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:23 AM torikoshia
wrote:
On 2021-03-07 19:16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
>> "PID
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > 2) table_states_not_ready global variable is u
Hi,
For the second last trace involving SearchCatCacheList (catcache.c:1691),
the ctlist's members are stored in cl->members array where cl is returned
at the end of SearchCatCacheList.
Maybe this was not accounted for by valgrind ?
Cheers
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:31 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
At Wed, 17 Mar 2021 07:01:39 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> Attaching v10 patch for further review.
The time-out mechanism doesn't count remainingtime as expected,
concretely it does the following.
do {
kill();
WaitLatch(WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT | WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, waittime);
Re
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-03-16 19:36:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't appear to me that we leak much at all, at least not if you
>> are willing to take "still reachable" blocks as not-leaked.
> Well, I think for any sort of automated testing - which I think would be
> useful - we'd
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:10 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> +When set to fsync, which is the default,
> +PostgreSQL will recursively open and fsync
> +all files in the data directory before crash recovery begins.
>
> Isn't this a bit misleading? This may
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:56 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:45 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Attached, please find the patch to update the description of substream
> > in pg_subscription.
> >
>
> I applied your patch and regenerated the PG docs to check the result.
>
> L
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
>
> To me, this correctly works because
> the timing I put the while loop and stops the walsender
> makes the DROP SUBSCRIPTION affects two slots. Any comments ?
>
No, your testing looks fine. I have also done the similar test.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:07 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila
> > > >
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:29 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/03/16 8:15, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I don't want to add a hypothetical sync_after_crash=none, because it
> > seems like generally a bad idea. We already have a
> > running-with-scissors mode you could use for that: fsync=off.
>
> I hear
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, at 20:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2021-03-16 19:36:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It doesn't appear to me that we leak much at all, at least not if you
> >> are willing to take "still reachable" blocks as not-leaked.
>
> > Well, I think for any so
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:31:18AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Thank you very much
I am not much a fan of the implementation done here. Based on my
understanding of the PL code, the namespace lookup is organized as a
list of items, with the namespace associated to the routine name being
the fir
"Andres Freund" writes:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, at 20:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems both unnecessary and impractical. We have to consider that
>> everything-still-reachable is an OK final state.
> I don't consider "still reachable" a leak. Just definitely unreachable.
OK, we're in violent a
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:24 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> However, since commit 862ef372d6b, there *is* one test that fails if
> >> you run make installcheck against a cluster running with -c
> >> default_transaction_isola
st 17. 3. 2021 v 4:52 odesÃlatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:31:18AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Thank you very much
>
> I am not much a fan of the implementation done here. Based on my
> understanding of the PL code, the namespace lookup is organized as a
> list of
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Usually, if we issue a SET in the regression tests, we explicitly RESET
>> as soon thereafter as practical, so as to have a well-defined scope
>> where the script is running under unusual conditions.
> Oh, of course. Than
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 9:56 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> While working on Melanie's Parallel Hash Full Join patch I remembered
> that this (apparently extremely rare) race still needs fixing. Here
> is a slightly tidied version, which I'm adding to the next CF for CI
> coverage.
Pushed and back-patc
At Wed, 17 Mar 2021 02:09:32 +, "tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> Alvaro-san,
>
>
> Thank you for taking your time to take a look at an incomplete patch. I
> thought I would ask you for final check for commit after Iwata-san has
> reflected my review comments.
>
> I discussed wi
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:10:59PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Anyway, as mentioned by other people upthread, I am not really
> convinced either that we should have more flavors of size functions,
> particularly depending on the relkind as this would be confusing for
> the end-user. pg_relatio
Hi,
On 2021-03-16 20:50:17 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> What I meant was that I didn't understand how there's not a leak
> danger when compilation fails halfway through, given that the context
> in question is below TopMemoryContext and that I didn't see a relevant
> TRY block. But that probably
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > Here's a new patch-set that implements this new solution proposed by Amit.
> > Patchset-v60 implements:
> >
>
> I have reviewed the latest patch and below are my comments, some of
>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:17 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 9:56 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > While working on Melanie's Parallel Hash Full Join patch I remembered
> > that this (apparently extremely rare) race still needs fixing. Here
> > is a slightly tidied version, which I'm a
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 05:30:30AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 17. 3. 2021 v 4:52 odesÃlatel Michael Paquier
>
> > I am wondering whether it would be better to allow multiple aliases
> > though, and if it would bring more readability to the routines written
> > if these are treated equal to
At Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:42:27 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
>
> On 2021/03/16 11:59, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:12:54 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> >> The wait event WalReceiverWaitStart has been categorized in the type
> >> Client.
> >> But why? Walreceiver is wai
At Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:31:37 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> WAIT_EVENT_WAL_RECEIVER_MAIN(WalReceiverMain) is waiting for new data
> to arrive. This looks like an activity to me.
>
> WAIT_EVENT_WAL_RECEIVER_WAIT_START is waiting for waiting for starup
> process to kick me. So it may
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:38 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
...
> 1) I felt twophase_given can be a local variable, it need not be added
> as a function parameter as it is not used outside the function.
> --- a/src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c
> +++ b/src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c
> @@ -67
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
