On 03.04.21 14:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:45:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
As a whole, this is a consolidation of its own, so let's apply this
part first.
Slight rebase for this one to take care of the updates with the SSL
error messages.
I noticed this patch
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:56 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-09-21 20:26:36 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Em ter., 21 de set. de 2021 às 16:30, Andres Freund
> > escreveu:
> > > But that's too much work for my taste. As it turns out there's a
> partial
> > > solution to windows.h being just
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 09:38:29AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Sep-20, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The test gets the right PIDs, as the logs showed:
>> ok 17 - have walsender pid 12663
>> ok 18 - have walreceiver pid 12662
>
> As I understood, Horiguchi-san's point isn't that the PIDs mig
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:59:38AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I noticed this patch eliminated one $Test::Builder::Level assignment. Was
> there a reason for this?
>
> I think we should add it back, and also add a few missing ones in similar
> places. See attached patch.
>
> [...]
>
> {
> +
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 02:04:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2021, at 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> These have now been committed, when OpenSSL 3.0.0 ships and there is coverage
>> in the buildfarm I’ll revisit this for the backbranches.
>
> As an update to this, I’ve te
> On 22 Sep 2021, at 09:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 02:04:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2021, at 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> These have now been committed, when OpenSSL 3.0.0 ships and there is
>>> coverage
>>> in the buildfarm I’ll rev
On 22.09.21 09:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:59:38AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I noticed this patch eliminated one $Test::Builder::Level assignment. Was
there a reason for this?
I think we should add it back, and also add a few missing ones in similar
places. See a
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:14 AM Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:30:35PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > solution to windows.h being just so damn big, the delightfully named
> > WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN.
> >
> > This reduces the non-incremental buildtime in my 8 core windows VM from
>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:12 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> > IIUC, these are called after processing each WAL record so not
> sure how is it possible in your case that these are not reached?
>
> I don't know, as you say, to highlight the problem we would have to debug the
> WalSndKeepaliveIfNeces
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Thanks, your patches look good to me. I'll push them sometime next
> week after Tuesday unless there are any comments.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Hello Zhihong Yu,
Thank you for your suggestion!
I am sorry for late replay. I'll fix them and submit the
updated patch soon.
On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 00:52:24 -0700
Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > For v23-0007-Add-Incremental-View-Maintenance-support.patch :
> >
> > bq. In this implementation, AFTER
On 30.08.21 20:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Aug-28, Tom Lane wrote:
I think what we are doing there is following the message style
guideline that says to put double quotes around inserted strings.
In this case schema.object (as a whole) is the inserted string.
People often confuse this wit
Hello Takahashi-san,
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:53:47 +
"r.takahash...@fujitsu.com" wrote:
> Hi Nagata-san,
>
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> > I'll investigate this more, but we may have to prohibit views on partitioned
> > table and partitions.
>
> I think this restriction is strict.
> Th
Hello Takahashi-san,
On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:06:37 +
"r.takahash...@fujitsu.com" wrote:
> Hi Nagata-san,
>
>
> I'm still reading the patch.
> I have additional comments.
Thank you for your comments!
>
> (1)
> In v23-0001-Add-a-syntax-to-create-Incrementally-Maintainabl.patch, ivm
> membe
Hi hackers,
I attached the updated patch including fixes reported by
Zhihong Yu and Ryohei Takahashi.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:12:27 +0900
Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> Hello Takahashi-san,
>
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:06:37 +
> "r.takahash...@fujitsu.com" wrote:
>
> > Hi Nagata
Good day.
I found BufferAlloc unnecessary goes through dynahash's freelist when it
reuses valid buffer.
If it is avoided and dynahash's entry directly moved, 1-2% is gained in
select only pgbench (with scale factor 100 in 50 connections/50 threads
on 4 core 8ht notebook cpu 185krps=>190krps).
I'
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:55 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 8:33 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > > The problem of the temporary undo log is that it's loaded into local
> > > buffers
> > > and that backend can exit w/o flushing local buffers to disk,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 1:29 PMAmit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:02 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:02 AM vignesh C
> wrote:
> > > Attached v30 patch has the fixes for the same.
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patches.
> >
> > I have one co
Hello Rachel,
On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 17:13, Rachel Heaton wrote:
>
> > On 4/23/20 8:04 PM, Gareth Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the review, attached is v7 of the patch which should
> > > apply correcly to HEAD.
> > >
>
> Hello Gareth,
>
> This patch no longer applies to HEAD, can you p
>
> oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid
> data loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user
> has by mistake truncated the table (or deleted some required data) on the
> publisher, we can always it from the subscriber if we have such a
Hello
Thanks, I missed this thread.
> +CHECKPOINT { 'fast' | 'spread'
> }
Unpaired tag in docs.
That was all I noticed in 0001. Still not sure where is the difference between
"change NOWAIT to WAIT" and "change NOWAIT to something else descriptive". But
fine, I can live with WAIT. (
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:34 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 2020, at 6:55 AM, amul sul wrote:
> >
> > (2) if the session is idle, we also need the top-level abort
> > record to be written immediately, but can't send an error to the client
> > until the next
> > command is issued with
> On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
>> Attached patch v34-0010 adds a test of cursors opened FOR UPDATE interacting
>> with a system that is set read-only by a different session. The expected
>> output is worth reviewing to see how this plays out. I don't see anything
>> in t
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >> Attached patch v34-0010 adds a test of cursors opened FOR UPDATE
> >> interacting with a system that is set read-only by a different session.
> >> The expected output is worth rev
> On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Yes, that is a bit longer, here is the snip from v35-0010 patch
Right, that's longer, and only tests one interaction. The isolation spec I
posted upthread tests multiple interactions between the session which uses
cursors and the system go
On 9/21/21 12:09 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:19:32PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
>> PostgreSQL 14 provides a significant throughput boost on workloads that use
>> many
>> connections, with some benchmarks showing a 2x speedup. This release
>> continues
>> on the re
On 9/22/21 10:17 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Updated draft attached. As a reminder, please provide any feedback on
> the press release no later than **Thu, Sep 23, 2021 @ 18:00 UTC**.
I'm sure it helps if I actually attach the draft.
Jonathan
The PostgreSQL Global Development Group today annou
> Michael is right. You updated some of the units based on Robert's suggestion
> to use MS, but didn't update all of the corresponding parts of the patch.
> guc.c says that the units are in MS, which means that unqualified values are
> interpretted as such. But postgresql.conf.sample still says "
On 2021/09/22 0:16, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for the review! Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On 9/19/21 12:32 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We don't yet have a list-of-major-features for the v14 release notes.
>>> Anybody care to propose one?
> I can try proposing some wording on this in a bit; I'm w
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> > On 9/19/21 12:32 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> We don't yet have a list-of-major-features for the v14 release notes.
> >>> Anybody care to propose one
On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 10:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This should be added to each level of a function call that represents a
> test. This ensures that when a test fails, the line number points to
> the top-level location of the test_role() call. Otherwise it would
> point to the connec
Hello,
Stored procedures can now return data via OUT parameters.
The SQL-standard SEARCH and CYCLE options for common table expressions
have been implemented.
I think that from the application developer point of view very important
feature:
* Allow SQL-language functions and procedures to us
On 9/22/21 11:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
>>> On 9/19/21 12:32 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We don't yet have a list-of-major-features for the v14
"Joe Wildish" writes:
> The main change is a switch to using SPI for expression evaluation. The
> plans are also cached along the same lines as the RI trigger plans.
I really dislike this implementation technique. Aside from the likely
performance hit for existing triggers, I think it opens se
If you would like I can test the patch you send to me.
Regards
Fabrice
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:02 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:12 PM Fabrice Chapuis
> wrote:
> >
> > > IIUC, these are called after processing each WAL record so not
> > sure how is it possible in your ca
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On 9/22/21 11:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Numerous performance improvements have been made for parallel queries,
>>> heavily-concurrent workloads, partitioned tables, logical replication, and
>>> vacuuming. Not
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:27 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Yes, you are right here, and I could verify this fact with an experiment.
> > When autoflush is 1, the file gets less compressed i.e. the compressed
> file
> > is of more size than the
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:50 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> + if (opt->compression == BACKUP_COMPRESSION_LZ4)
>
> else if
>
> + /* First of all write the frame header to destination buffer. */
> + Assert(CHUNK_SIZE >= LZ4F_HEADER_SIZE_MAX);
> + headerSize = LZ4F_compressBegin(mysink->ctx,
> + mysink-
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>> No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby servers
>> recovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'
>>
>
> oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to a
Some super quick nitpicks; feel free to ignore/apply/laugh off.
...
administrators to deploy their data-backed applications. PostgreSQL
continues to
add innovations on complex data types, including more conveniences for
accessing
JSON and support for noncontiguous ranges of data. This latest relea
>
> No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby servers
> recovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'
>
>
> oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid
> data loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user
> has by mistake truncated the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 12:00:07PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 9/22/21 11:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> >>> On 9/19/21 12:32 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 01:37:19PM -0400, Tom
On Sat, 2021-09-18 at 14:20 +0200, Cameron Murdoch wrote:
> Having sslrootcert use the system trust store if
> ~/.postgresql/root.crt doesn’t exist would seem like a good change.
Fallback behavior can almost always be exploited given the right
circumstances. IMO, if I've told psql to use a root ce
On 9/22/21 2:36 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-09-18 at 14:20 +0200, Cameron Murdoch wrote:
>> Having sslrootcert use the system trust store if
>> ~/.postgresql/root.crt doesn’t exist would seem like a good change.
> Fallback behavior can almost always be exploited given the right
> cir
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> It's pretty clear from the discussion, I think, that the database OID
> one is going to need rework to be considered.
>
> Regarding the other one:
>
> - The comment in binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids() is still not
> accurate. You removed the s
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > +CHECKPOINT { 'fast' | 'spread'
> > }
>
> Unpaired tag in docs.
>
> That was all I noticed in 0001. Still not sure where is the difference
> between "change NOWAIT to WAIT" and "change NOWAIT to something else
> descriptive". B
On 9/22/21 12:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
>> On 9/22/21 11:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I have a feeling emergency mode vacuum fits on that list. Not in the
>>> press release, but in the major features list of the release notes.
>
>> Given some recent news I saw floa
> On 22 Sep 2021, at 20:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think we need to be consistent on this. NSS builds and OpenSSL builds
> should act the same, mutatis mutandis.
I 100% agree. Different TLS backends should be able use different truststores
etc but once the server is running they must be iden
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> > On 9/22/21 11:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Numerous performance improvements have been made for parallel queries,
> >>> heavily-concurrent workloads, par
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought the point about FDWs was important because actual work (by
>> FDW authors) is needed to make anything happen. The extra parallelism
>> inside plpgsql functions doesn't require user effort, so I don't see
>> th
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Certainly. But my sentence about "Numerous performance improvements"
> already mashes down dozens of other it-just-works-better-now
> performance improvements. Wny call out that one in particular?
RC 1 is supposed to be released in less than 24
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Certainly. But my sentence about "Numerous performance improvements"
>> already mashes down dozens of other it-just-works-better-now
>> performance improvements. Wny call out that one in particular?
> RC 1 is supposed
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ummm ... RC1 was wrapped on Monday. It will go out with the "TO BE ADDED"
> placeholder for this list. I'm not panicked about time --- we just need
> to finalize this text by Sunday-ish.
I assumed that the web team had the discretion to keep the
On 9/22/21 10:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ummm ... RC1 was wrapped on Monday. It will go out with the "TO BE ADDED"
>> placeholder for this list. I'm not panicked about time --- we just need
>> to finalize this text by Sunday-ish.
>
> I ass
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:04 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > 07.09.2021 09:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:00:01AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > >> The new approach looks very promising. Knowing that the file is
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:33 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you suggest changing it?
>
> Personally, I think we'd better move the code about changing publication's
> tablelist into AlterPublicationTables and the code about changing
> publication's
> schemalist into AlterPublica
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
> On 9/21/21 20:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21 22:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Attached please find the patch which just modifies the current error
> message as proposed by you. I am planning to commit it in a day or two
> unless there
Hi,
Currently the following messages are shown in server log if bail_out
errors occur in guc_file.l. This leaves the (naive) users with no clue
as to where to look for the exact errors:
errmsg("configuration file \"%s\" contains errors",
errmsg("configuration file \"%s\" contains errors; unaffecte
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:33 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that is a bit longer, here is the snip from v35-0010 patch
>
> Right, that's longer, and only tests one interaction. The isolation spec I
> posted upthread tests multiple inter
2021年7月14日 10:56，Ming Li 写道：
Hi Wenjing,
Some suggestions may help:
1) It seems that no test case covers the below scenario: 2 sessions attach
the same gtt, and insert/update/select concurrently. It is better to use
the test framework in src/test/isolation like the code changes in
https://commi
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Personally, I think we'd better move the code about changing publication's
> tablelist into AlterPublicationTables and the code about changing
> publication's
> schemalist into AlterPublicationSchemas. It's similar to what the v29-
> > One more thing to consider is that it seems that the planner requires
> > a condition for the first column of an index before considering an
> > indexscan plan. See Tom's email [1] in this regard. I think it would
> > be better to see what kind of work is involved there if you want to
> > explo
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:52 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:02 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> ---
> This patch introduces some new static functions to publicationcmds.c
> but some have function prototypes but some don't. As far as I checked,
>
> ObjectsInPublicationToOids()
>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:43 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21, 10:07 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:44 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> On 9/19/21, 11:07 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> >> > I have one additional concern about the way we update the control
> >> > file, at eve
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:04 AM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
>
> > > One more thing to consider is that it seems that the planner requires
> > > a condition for the first column of an index before considering an
> > > indexscan plan. See Tom's email [1] in this regard. I think it would
> > > be bette
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby servers
> recovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'
>
>
> oh okay, I
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 5:57 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> - lots of progress on posix AIO backend (Thomas)
A quick note on this piece: Though it's still a work in progress with
a few things that need to be improved, I've tested this on a whole lot
of different OSes now. I originally tried to use re
On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 05:33, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Would any of that be a reasonable approach?
The way I summarize all of the above is that
1) nobody is fundamentally opposed to the idea
2) we just need to find real-world example(s) and show that any
associated in-core patch provides all tha
On 9/23/21 1:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
postgres=# create subscription test CONNECTION 'host=127.0.0.1 user=postgres'
PUBLICATION test with (create_slot = true);
ERROR: could not create replication slot "test": ERROR: syntax error
Thanks. I have attempted to fix these problems in the attached
Dear Thomas,
Is there anyone more specifically that you know,
certainly on pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
that you might recommd me to?
Z.M.
From: Thomas Munro
Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2021 1:14 PM
To: A Z
Subject: Re: High Precision Mathematics Postgre
71 matches
Mail list logo
