On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:58 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > The problematic case is attaching the partition *after* the subscriber
> > has already marked the root parent as synced and/or ready for
> > replication. Refreshing the subscriptio
On 11/19/21 19:17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 11/19/21, 7:56 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> That leads me to wonder about server-side solutions. It's easy
>> enough for the server to see that it's used a password with an
>> expiration N days away, but how could that be reported to the
>> client? Th
On 11/18/21 15:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> If we change the name, and I support the idea that we do, I think a
>> good name would be "wal replay". I think "recovery" is not great
>> precisely because in a standby there is likely no crash that we're
>> recovering from.
> Fair
On 11/15/21 12:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So, discounting prairiedog's intentionally trailing-edge installation,
> the oldest stuff in the buildfarm is 0.98, of which there are five
> instances belonging to four different owners.
>
> Based on this, I'm inclined to think we should select 0.98 as the
Hi,
It seems like the same macro names for
SnapBuildOnDiskNotChecksummedSize and SnapBuildOnDiskChecksummedSize
are being used in slot.c and snapbuild.c. I think, in slot.c, we can
rename them to ReplicationSlotOnDiskNotChecksummedSize and
ReplicationSlotOnDiskChecksummedSize
similar to the other
On 11/19/21 12:57, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> I get the idea of letting the server centralize logic like this -
> but frankly if the application is choosing to send all that data
> across the wire just to have the server throw it away the
> application is wasting network I/O. If
>
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger was created precisely because it's
> not always easy to create application code in such a way that it
> generates no redundant updates. However, there is a cost to using it,
> and the break even point can be surprisingly high. It should therefore
> be used wit
On 11/20/21 10:03, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger was created precisely because it's
> not always easy to create application code in such a way that it
> generates no redundant updates. However, there is a cost to using it,
> and the break even point
Hi,
I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a
proposal. I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a
Problem and Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront
exploration of the code.
See:
- Google Document with Commenting turned on
htt
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Yeah, so I think at this stage we're just waiting for you to update
> prairiedog and we can make this change.
Oh! I was intentionally waiting to do that, with the idea of verifying
that the version-detection test works ;-). I'm prepared to do it as
soon as you push an u
Andres Freund writes:
> On November 19, 2021 12:31:00 PM PST, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might be feasible to drop the visibility map for toast tables, though.
> I think it be a bad idea - the VM is used by vacuum to avoid rereading
> already vacuumed ranges. Loosing that for large toast tables woul
Hi Todd!
> I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a proposal.
> I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a Problem and
> Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront exploration of the
> code.
>
> See:
>
> * Google Document with Comment
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for looking into it.
My skills with git are minmal yet and I am working on a correct development
platform, so sorry for any inconveniances from my side .
When upgraded Microsoft jumped directly from Preview 7 to Preview 7.1 of VS2022
by skipping the release version of 7
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:11:03AM +1100, Todd Hubers wrote:
> I have just joined to start a community consultation process for a
> proposal. I just finished the proposal document, I spent time writing a
> Problem and Solution section, and I have done quite a bit of upfront
> exploration of the cod
On 17/11/2021 00:04, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2021-11-16 16:30:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm still not entirely clear on whether you prefer v1-0002, v2-0002,
or something else.
I think it basically doesn't matter much. It's such a small piece of the cost
compared to either the cost of a sing
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:11:03AM +1100, Todd Hubers wrote:
>> - Google Document with Commenting turned on
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u6mVKEHfKtR80UrMLNYrp5D6cCSW1_arcTaZ9HcAKlw/edit?usp=sharing.
> You proposed a PQ protocol version of SET ROLE/SET SESSION aut
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 11/19/21, 9:17 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> Hmm, initdb's prompt-for-superuser-password might need it.
> I'm able to cancel the superuser password prompt in initdb already.
> It looks like the signal handlers aren't set up until after
> get_su_pwd().
Right; I misread
On 11/20/21 11:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Yeah, so I think at this stage we're just waiting for you to update
>> prairiedog and we can make this change.
> Oh! I was intentionally waiting to do that, with the idea of verifying
> that the version-detection test works ;-). I'
On 11/20/21, 1:58 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" writes:
>> I did find some missing control-C handling in
>> pg_receivewal/pg_recvlogical, though. Attached is a patch for those.
>
> Meh ... I'm inclined to fix those programs by just moving their pqsignal
> calls down to after their in
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:29:51AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 11/17/21, 11:39 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
>> Please review the attached v2.
>
> LGTM. I've marked this one as ready-for-committer.
One issue that I have with this patch is that there are zero
regression tests. Could
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 05:54:30PM +, Hans Buschmann wrote:
> My skills with git are minmal yet and I am working on a correct
> development platform, so sorry for any inconveniances from my side.
No need to worry here. We all learn all the time. I have been able
to apply your patch with a "p
Hi Tom, Justin, and Andrey,
Thanks everybody for your feedback so far! I agree, there are a few
unknowns for the design and impact and there are many details to iron out.
*Benchmarking* - Overall I think it's best to explore improvements with
benchmarking. The key goal of this proposal pertains t
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:29:51AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > On 11/17/21, 11:39 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> > wrote:
> >> Please review the attached v2.
> >
> > LGTM. I've marked this one as ready-for-committer.
>
> One issue that
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:45:06PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 11:04 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > > Rebased patches attached. I will change status back to "Ready for
> > > Committer"
> >
> > The CI showed a crash on freebsd, which I reproduced.
> > https://cirrus-ci
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:11:16PM +0300, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> There was some interest in implementing ASOF joins in Postgres, see
> e.g. this prototype patch by Konstantin Knizhnik:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/bc494762-26bd-b100-e1f9-a97901ddad57%40postgre
>But anyways this looks like just a syntactic sugar. LATERAL
>JOINS should logically work just fine. Any optimisation should
>deal with the LATERAL syntax style anyway.
Agreed.
However, if a rewrite is implemented, it then becomes encoded into
PostgreSQL code what ASOF maps to. Anyone who
26 matches
Mail list logo
