Hi,
Please refer to this scenario
CASE 1- HEAD (publication)-> HEAD (Subscription)
CASE 2 - PG 14 (Publication) ->HEAD (Subscription)
Test-case -
Publication = create table t(n int); create publication p for table t;
Subscription = create table t(n int);
create subscription s connection 'dbname
On 9/25/21 12:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
two_phase is new in v15, something you could also find out by checking
the documentation. Now if the patch changes the way two_phase
interacts with older versions, that's a bug in the patch and we should
fix it. But if the same issue exists without the patc
On 9/27/21 9:29 AM, Ajin Cherian wrote:
And in case you do see a problem, I request you create a seperate
thread for this. I didn't want to derail this patch.
It would be great if we throw an error rather than silently ignoring
this parameter , I opened a separate email for this
https://www
Hi, all.
Thank you for your comment.
> Probably I understood your point. But isn't it more confusing to users?
As you say, I think the last patch was rather confusing. For this reason, I
simply reconsidered it.
The attached patch just outputs a log like your advice on acquiring Huge Page.
It is p
Thaks for looking this, Robert and Tom.
At Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:22:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think the basic idea is about right, but I'm not happy with the
> >> three-way delayChkpt business; that seems too cute
Thank you for the comments! (Sorry for the late resopnse.)
At Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:14:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:01 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > The patch assumed that CHKPT_START/COMPLETE barrier are exclusively
> > used each other, but MarkBufferDirtyHint
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:53:07AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > So, it seems on your machine it has passed the following condition in
> > secure_write:
> > if (n < 0 && !port->noblock && (errno == EWOULDBLOCK || errno == EAGAIN))
>
> Ye
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Attached v33 patch has the preprocess_pubobj_list review comment fix
> suggested by Alvaro at [1].
A minor point I noticed in the v33-0002 patch, in the code added to
the listSchemas() function of src/bin/psql/describe.c, shouldn't it
"return f
Le dim. 26 sept. 2021 à 22:41, Jean-Christophe Arnu a
écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 26 sept. 2021 à 15:55, Artur Zakirov a écrit :
>
>> Nice catch! The patch looks good to me.
>> Can you also add a more general test case:
>>
>> =# SELECT $$'' '1' '2'$$::tsvector;
>> ERROR: syntax error in tsvector: "''
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 1:15 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:55 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Sep-23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > Alvaro, do you have any thoughts on these proposed grammar changes?
> >
> > Yeah, I think pubobj_name remains a problem in that you do
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Attached v33 patch has the preprocess_pubobj_list review comment fix
> suggested by Alvaro at [1].
In the v33-0003 patch, there's a couple of error-case tests that have
comments copied from success-case tests:
+-- should be able to add table t
> I really don't know what to say about this. You say that the time is
> measured in milliseconds, and then immediately turn around and say
> "For example, if you set it to 10s". Now we do expect that most people
> will set it to intervals that are measured in seconds rather than
> milliseconds, bu
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 1:15 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:55 PM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-Sep-23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alvaro, do you have any thoughts on these proposed grammar chang
> On 27 Sep 2021, at 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't think that we should remove the entries that track
> files we could expect based on the state of the build code, though,
> like config.pl or buildenv.pl in src/tools/msvc/ as committing those
> could silently break builds.
Agreed, thos
Hi hackers,
> As a matter of fact, I think the patch I suggested is the right approach:
> let me elaborate on why.
> [...]
> It is straightforward to replace it by implementing the Table AM methods
> above, but we are missing a callback on dropping the table. If we have that,
> we can record the t
On 05.04.2021 22:57, Mats Kindahl wrote:
Now, suppose that we want to replace the storage layer with a
different one. It is straightforward to replace it by implementing the
Table AM methods above, but we are missing a callback on dropping the
table. If we have that, we can record the table-to-
> On 1 Mar 2021, at 19:22, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 2021, at 11:51 PM, Craig Ringer
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> In src/backend/postmaster/interrupt.c:
>
> + * These handlers are NOT used by normal user backends as they do not support
>
> vs.
>
> + * Most backends use this handler.
>
> Th
On 2021-Sep-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I am not sure what makes you say that we can't distinguish the above
> cases when there is already a separate rule for CURRENT_SCHEMA? I
> think you can distinguish by tracking the previous objects as we are
> already doing in the patch. But one thing that is n
Hi,
>
> I don't think there is one. I think the latest is what I posted in
> https://postgr.es/m/202109061751.3qz5xpugwx6w@alvherre.pgsql (At least I
> don't see any reply from Rahila with attachments after that), but that
> wasn't addressing a bunch of review comments that had been made; and I
On 2021-Sep-27, A Z wrote:
> I have been trying to find active interest in a free for all use
> PostgreSQL extension, complete and available, on the public internet,
> that will support the following:
You have posted this question ten times already to the PostgreSQL
mailing lists. I think it's t
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 04:57:20PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> > It is also not logical to define 0 as meaning that "all messages for
> > such operations are logged". What does that even mean? It makes sense
> > for something like log_autovacuum_min_duration, because there we are
> > talking about
Hi,
I see no one responded to this important part of my review so far:
On 9/23/21 2:33 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
3) create_subscription.sgml
WHERE clauses, rows must satisfy all expressions
to be copied. If the subscriber is a
I'm rather skeptical about the principle that all expressi
> On 21 Sep 2021, at 02:06, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-07-26 at 15:26 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 19 Jul 2021, at 21:33, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> ..client connections will crash if
>>> hostaddr is provided rather than host, because SSL_SetURL can't handle
>>> a NULL argum
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see no one responded to this important part of my review so far:
I'm still preparing a new patch and a summary.
> Am I the only one finding the current behavior strange? What's the
> reasoning supporting the current approach?
I t
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:44 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:24 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 9:50 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>
>
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:26 AM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
> > I really don't know what to say about this. You say that the time is
> > measured in milliseconds, and then immediately turn around and say
> > "For example, if you set it to 10s". Now we do expect that most people
> > will set it to interval
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >>It also looks pretty silly to say that if you set the value to 10s,
> >>something
> >>will happen every 10s. What else would anyone expect to happen?
>
> @Robert: that's consistent with existing documentation, even though it might
> seem ob
On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 15:44 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 21 Sep 2021, at 02:06, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > but I'm not sure that would be
> > correct either. If the user has the default sslsni="1" and supplies an
> > IP address for the host parameter, I don't think we should fail the
> >
> +/*
> + * Decides whether to log the startup progress or not based on whether the
> + * timer is expired or not. Returns FALSE if the timer is not expired,
> otherwise
> + * calculates the elapsed time and sets the respective out parameters secs
> and
> + * usecs. Enables the timer for the next
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:22 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have done testing with different batch sizes, 16k (which is the same
> as 1/4 of the queue size with 64k queue size) , 8k, 4k, 2k.
>
> In the attached sheet I have done a comparison of
> 1. head vs patch (1/4 queue size) = execution time reduc
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 4:09 AM, tushar wrote:
> so are we silently ignoring this parameter as it is not supported on v14 ?
Yes. Because two_phase is a supported parameter for v15 (your current
subscriber). The issue is that this parameter are not forwarded to publisher
because its version (v14)
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> This patch set is failing to apply for me - it fails on patch 2.
Thanks for looking! I have pulled together a new patch set which applies
cleanly against current master.
> I haven't dug terribly deeply into it yet, but I notice that t
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 5:58 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:05 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> The only remaining TODOs are described in the commit message.
> most critical one is that the reset message doesn't work.
v10 is attached with updated comments and some limited
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> I recently observed a failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists().
Hmm, interesting. If I take out the "update bdt2" step, so that the
exception clause is just COMMIT, then I get something different:
ERROR: portal snapshots (1) did not account for all active
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 11:04 AM, Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>
> I took Tom's response to be, "yeah, go ahead", and am mostly waiting for the
> weekend to be over to see if anybody else has anything to say about it.
Here is a patch set, one patch per test. The third patch enables its test in
the M
Mark Dilger writes:
> Here is a patch set, one patch per test. The third patch enables its test in
> the Makefile, which is commented as having been disabled due to the test
> being unstable in the build farm. Re-enabling the test might be wrong, since
> the instability might not have been du
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm a little inclined to re-enable the test without your other
> changes, just to see what happens.
That sounds like a good idea. Even if it passes at first, I'd prefer to leave
it for a week or more to have a better sense of how stable it
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 10:51:42PM +0800, Sasasu wrote:
> Hi, community,
>
> It looks like we are still considering AES-CBC, AES-XTS, and AES-GCM(-SIV).
> I want to say something that we don't think about.
>
> For AES-CBC, the IV should be not predictable. I think LSN or HASH(LSN,
> block number
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a postgres server with version 11 in targeted
> recovery mode (for the first time after my journey started with
> postgres) and I came across the explanation at [1] in PG 12 and newer
> versions that we have a clear d
On 2021-Sep-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The use
> of "statistic", "statistics" and "statistics object" in 0008 and 0012
> is indeed inconsistent. The latter term is the most used, but it
> sounds a bit weird to me even if it refers to the DDL object
> manipulated. Simply using "statistics" woul
Currently enum_in() is marked as stable, on the reasonable grounds
that it depends on system catalog contents. However, after the
discussion at [1] I'm wondering why it wouldn't be perfectly safe,
and useful, to mark it as immutable.
Here's my reasoning: "immutable" promises that the function wil
Mark Dilger writes:
>> On Sep 27, 2021, at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm a little inclined to re-enable the test without your other
>> changes, just to see what happens.
> That sounds like a good idea. Even if it passes at first, I'd prefer to
> leave it for a week or more to have a better s
Hello,
While developing I got this error and it was difficult to figure out what
was going on.
Thanks to Jacob, I was able to learn the context of the failure, so we
created this small patch.
The text of the error message, of course, is up for debate, but hopefully
this will make it more clear
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 2:38 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> Rebased on top of HEAD with off-list comment fixes by Kevin Burke.
>
Hello Daniel,
I've been playing with your patch on Mac (OS 11.6 Big Sur) and have
run into a couple of issues so far.
1. I get 7 warnings while running make (truncat
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I tried the same thing (i.e., re-enable bloom's TAP test) on my laptop
> just now, and it passed fine. The laptop is not exactly the same
> as longfin was in 2018, but it ought to be close enough. Not sure
> what to make of that --- mayb
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:04:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Initially we just used "statistic" as a noun, which IIRC was already
> grammatically wrong (but I didn't know that and I think Tomas didn't
> either); later at some point when discussing how to use that noun in
> plural we realized t
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:04:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Sep-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > The use
> > of "statistic", "statistics" and "statistics object" in 0008 and 0012
> > is indeed inconsistent. The latter term is the most used, but it
> > sounds a bit weird to me even i
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 9:13 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:58 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
>> One small detail I'd like to draw attention to is this bit, which
>> differs slightly from the [non-working] previous attempts by mapping
>> to two different errors:
>>
>> +
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:58:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that would mostly fix the usability concern. I guess what it
> comes down to is whether you think that public or private certs are
> likely to be the majority use-case in the long run. The shortage of
> previous requests for this f
On Monday, September 27, 2021 1:42 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:10 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Just conducted some cosmetic changes
> > and rebased my patch, using v14 patch-set in [1].
> >
>
> IIUC, this proposal will allow new xact stats for subscript
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 07:50:02PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch fixing more of the same.
Does this include everything you have spotted, as well as everything
from the previous patches 0008 and 0012 posted?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 07:49:49PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 5:57 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 8:09 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:23 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 04:19:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried the same thing (i.e., re-enable bloom's TAP test) on my laptop
>> just now, and it passed fine. The laptop is not exactly the same
>> as longfin was in 2018, but it ought to be close enough. Not sure
>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:15:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 07:50:02PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Attached is an updated patch fixing more of the same.
>
> Does this include everything you have spotted, as well as everything
> from the previous patches 0008 and
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I can live with the proposed patch, and I understand why ++ was
> introduced. But I am still not sure it is really user friendly. I prefer to
> extend \dA and \dn with some columns (\dA has only two columns and \dn has
> two columns
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:40 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 4:09 AM, tushar wrote:
>
> so are we silently ignoring this parameter as it is not supported on v14 ?
>
> Yes. Because two_phase is a supported parameter for v15 (your current
> subscriber). The issue is that this
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the feedback.
> On 26/09/2021, at 12:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> But 2b and 2a hashes aren't equal, although very similar. 2a should have the
> many-buggy to one-correct collision safety and 2b hashes shouldn't. The fact
> that your hashes work isn't conclusive e
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:53 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what makes you say that we can't distinguish the above
> > cases when there is already a separate rule for CURRENT_SCHEMA? I
> > think you can distinguish by tracking the previous objec
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 04:36:57PM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> It was helpful to split them out while working on the patch but I see your
> point upon re-reading through the result.
>
> Attached version (renamed to 002) adds only three static functions for
> checking rotation size, performing
Hi all,
While reviewing a patch that refactors syslogger.c, we use the
following code to pass down a HANDLE to a forked syslogger as of
syslogger_forkexec():
if (syslogFile != NULL)
snprintf(filenobuf, sizeof(filenobuf), "%ld",
(long) _get_osfhandle(_fileno(sys
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:41 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I don't think there is one. I think the latest is what I posted in
>> https://postgr.es/m/202109061751.3qz5xpugwx6w@alvherre.pgsql (At least I
>> don't see any reply from Rahila with attachments after that), but that
>> wasn't addressi
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:19 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I see no one responded to this important part of my review so far:
>
> I'm still preparing a new patch and a summary.
>
> Am I the only one finding the current behavior stran
út 28. 9. 2021 v 4:46 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
napsal:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I can live with the proposed patch, and I understand why ++ was
> > introduced. But I am still not sure it is really user friendly. I prefer
> to
> > extend \dA and \dn wit
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:43 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Although the postgres core probably does not raise FATAL errors too often (OOM
> conditions seem to be the typical cause), I'm still not enthusiastic about
> idea that the undo feature turns such errors into PANIC.
>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 7:25 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 1:42 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:10 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Just conducted some cosmetic changes
> > > and rebased my patch, using v14 pa
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:41:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Am I missing something obvious? One thing that we could do here is
> to do the parsing with pg_lltoa() while printing the argument with
> INT64_FORMAT, no?
I wrote that a bit too quickly. After looking at it, what we could
use to
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 7:25 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 27, 2021 1:42 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:10 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:52 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> And most of the time, that's probably a good bet. But, if you do
> somehow hit the losing case repeatedly, then you could see a
> significant regression. And that might explain Tomas's results.
> Perhaps for some reason they just happen to h
68 matches
Mail list logo
