Hi,
Only halfway related: I wonder if we should remove the automatic
permutation stuff - it's practically never useful. Probably not worth
changing...
On 2021-06-15 17:09:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +The general form of a permutation entry is
> +
> + "step_name" [ ( marker [ , marker ... ] )
Andres Freund writes:
> Only halfway related: I wonder if we should remove the automatic
> permutation stuff - it's practically never useful. Probably not worth
> changing...
Where it is useful, it saves a lot of error-prone typing ...
> Minor suggestion: I think the folliwing would be a bit eas
Hi,
On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
> patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
> issues of that sort. (Unless, dare I
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Progress has been pretty limited, but not altogether nonexistent.
> 55b7e2f4d78d8aa7b4a5eae9a0a810601d03c563 fixed, or at least seemed to
> fix, the time->XID mapping, which is one of the main things that
> Andres said was broken originally. Als
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
>> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
>> patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
>> issues of that
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:15 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 12:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Whether or not we throw the plan back at the planner or "really change
> > our minds at execution time" seems like a distinction without a
> > difference.
>
> What is "really change our
>I had not really looked at the patch, but if there's a cleanup portion to the
>same
>patch as you're adding the YB too, then maybe it's worth separating those out
>into another patch so that the two can be considered independently.
I agree with this opinion. It seems to me that we should think a
>> I had not really looked at the patch, but if there's a cleanup portion to
>> the same
>> patch as you're adding the YB too, then maybe it's worth separating those out
>> into another patch so that the two can be considered independently.
>
> I agree with this opinion. It seems to me that we
Greetings,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 21:11 Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:28:04PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > * Julien Rouhaud (rjuju...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:33:10AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that this is such a compl
Thanks for the opinions.
At Tue, 15 Jun 2021 11:33:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote in
> Greetings,
>
> * Kyotaro Horiguchi (horikyota@gmail.com) wrote:
> > At Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier
> > wrote in
> > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 03:32:28PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wro
At Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:04:03 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Ok, if we follow the direction that we are responsible for ensuring
> that every user has reliable backups, I don't come up with proper
> description about that.
>
> We could list several "requirement" like "do sync after co
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 5:00 PM David Rowley wrote:
> Most of the time when I see that happen it's down to either the
> selectivity of some correlated base-quals being multiplied down to a
> number low enough that we clamp the estimate to be 1 row. The other
> case is similar, but with join qual
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:00:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> As I suggested previously- this is similar to the hooks that we provide. We
> don’t extensively document them because if you’re writing an extension
> which uses a hook, you’re going to be (or should be..) reading the code too.
I
On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:01 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Yeah, dealing with partitioned tables is tricky. I think if we don't
> > want to check upfront the parallel safety of all the partitions then
> > the other option as discussed could be t
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 09:43:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
> >> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
> >> patch to improve i
At Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:20:55 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:00:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > As I suggested previously- this is similar to the hooks that we provide. We
> > don’t extensively document them because if you’re writing an extension
> > which u
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:10:16PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> I agree to Julien, however, I want to discuss (also) on what to do for
> 14 now. If we decide not to touch the document for the version. that
> discussion would end. What do you think about that? I think it's
> impossible to
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:32:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> What I had in mind was this: a committer adopting the feature
> themselves. The committer would be morally obligated to maintain the
> feature on an ongoing basis, just as if they were the original
> committer. This seems like the o
Greetings,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 23:21 Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:00:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > As I suggested previously- this is similar to the hooks that we provide.
> We
> > don’t extensively document them because if you’re writing an extension
> > whi
At Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:54:49 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote
in
>
> On 6/15/21 2:16 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:46:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> >> I think jacana uses msys[2?], so this likely indicates a problem
> >> in path sanitization for the archive command. Andr
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:31 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Okay, but I think if we go with your suggested model where whenever
> > there is a change in parallel-safety of any function, we need to send
> > the new invalidation then I think it won'
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:08 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, this could be one idea but I think even if we use pg_proc OID,
> > > we still need to check all the rel cache entri
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:17:11AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> The archive command is technically invoked using the shell, but the
> interpretation of the exit code, for example, is only discussed in the C
> code, but it’s far from the only consideration that someone developing an
> archive co
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:59 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> Hackers are rather wise, but the variety of PostgreSQL use is enormous. We
> see that, among other ways, when regression fixes spike in each vN.1. The
> $SUBJECT feature was born in response to a user experience; a lack of hacker
> interest doe
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:09 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 5:03 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > + * Remove duplicates from an array. Return the new size.
> > + */
> > +ST_SCOPE size_t
> > +ST_UNIQUE(ST_ELEMENT_TYPE *array,
> >
> > The array is supposed to be sorted, right ?
> > The c
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 3:21 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 13:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I'm happy to hear other opinions, but I think I would be inclined to
> > vote in favor of #1 and/or #2 but against #3.
>
> What about upgrading it to, say, LOG? It seems like it would ha
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:47:45PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:59 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > Hackers are rather wise, but the variety of PostgreSQL use is enormous. We
> > see that, among other ways, when regression fixes spike in each vN.1. The
> > $SUBJECT feature w
No change yet, just posting a rebase to keep cfbot happy.
One thing I'm wondering about is whether it'd be possible, and if so,
a good idea, to make a kind of tiny reusable cache replacement
algorithm, something modern, that can be used to kill several birds
with one stone (SLRUs, this object pool
At Tue, 15 Jun 2021 22:07:32 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:31 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > Rather than use size, I'd be inclined to say use this if the source
> > database is marked as a template, and use the copydir approach for
> > anything that isn't.
>
> Lo
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:27:21PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> If we are willing to maintain the two methods.
> Couldn't we just skip the checkpoints if the database is known to
> "clean", which means no page has been loaded for the database since
> startup? We can use the "template" mark
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:24 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> When I say "some hackers", I don't mean that specific people think such
> thoughts right now. I'm saying that the expected cost of future cooperation
> with the feature is nonzero, and bugs in the feature raise that cost.
I see.
> > > A hacke
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 6:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 9:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > So far as I can find, just about everyplace that deals with replication
> > connections has slipshod error reporting. An example from worker.c is
> >
> > LogRepWorkerWalRcvConn
Michaël-san, Yugo-san,
I am fine with this version, but I think it would be better if we have
a comment explaining what "tx" is for.
Yes. Done.
Also, how about adding Assert(tx) instead of using "else if (tx)" because
we are assuming that tx is always true when agg_interval is not used, rig
101 - 133 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
