On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > So yeah, documenting the ATTACH issue as a limitation sounds like the
> > best course for now. I might word it as follows and add it under
> > Notes at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/cu
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > So yeah, documenting the ATTACH issue as a limitation sounds like the
> > > best course for now. I might word it as foll
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:43 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > > Looking at the proposed API from the initial email, I like that there's
> > > both stats functionality and WAL record inspection functionality
> > > (similar to pg_waldum
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Right. I've fixed this issue and attached an updated patch.
One very minor comment:
conflict can be move
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:07 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 7:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Patch details:
> > 0001 to 0006 implements an approach1
> > 0007 removes the code of pg_class scanning and adds the directory scan.
> >
>
> I had a scan through the patches, though
A publication for all tables was running fine, Master is a PostgreSQL
11.11. Replica was running version 13 (don´t remember minor version).
Then we tried to update only subscriber server, nothing was done on master
side.
Then we did ...
- installed postgresql-14.
- configured postgresql.conf to b
> On 22 Nov 2021, at 16:06, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> .. but see
>> https://postgr.es/m/cah2-wznwwu+9on9nzcnztk7ua238mctgpxyr1ty7u_msn5z...@mail.gmail.com
>> where this was already discussed. I think if we're going to workaround
>> PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY not actually worki
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached an updated version patch. Unless I miss something, all
> comments I got so far have been incorporated into this patch. Please
> review it.
>
Only a couple of minor points:
src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c
(1) pgstat_get_sub
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > master, though it also appears to apply to 13 and 14 branches.
>
> I think we can for publish_via_partition_root,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 3:49 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all. Here's the v1 patch set for the new extension pg_walinspect.
> > Note that I didn't include the documentation part now, I will be doing it a
> > bit later.
> >
> > Please feel free to review and provide your thoughts.
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Changed. I've removed first_error_time as per discussion on the thread
> > for adding xact stats.
> >
>
> We also agreed to change the column names to start with last_error_*
> [1
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right. I've fixed this issue and atta
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:08 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated version patch. Unless I miss something, all
> > comments I got so far have been incorporated into this patch. Please
> > review it.
> >
>
> Only a
On Thur, Nov 25, 2021 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Changed. I've removed first_error_time as per discussion on the
> > > thread for adding xact stats.
> > >
> >
> >
On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
trailing identifier parts without whitespace in between, as discussed.
Maybe I should split that into incremental p
> 17 нояб. 2021 г., в 16:33, Daniel Gustafsson написал(а):
>
>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 08:27, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I couldn't understand patch number 2 "Remove DEBUG1 verification". It
>> seems like something rather useful.
Emre, thanks for the review! And sorry for this delay.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:49 AM Joshua Brindle
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:46 AM Joshua Brindle
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 6:59 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23 Nov 2021, at 23:39, Joshua Brindle
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It no longer happens with v49,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 1:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 6:51 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tues, Nov 23, 2021 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:29 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tues, Nov 23, 2021 2:27 PM vign
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:13 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>
> A publication for all tables was running fine, Master is a PostgreSQL 11.11.
> Replica was running version 13 (don´t remember minor version).
>
> Then we tried to update only subscriber server, nothing was done on master
> side.
>
> Then
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first.
>
> It's possible the table is published in two publications A and B, publication
> A
> only publish "insert" , pu
>
> The reason is after an upgrade, there won't be any data in
> pg_subscription_rel, and only when you tried to refresh it is trying
> to sync again which leads to the "duplicate key value ..." problem you
> are seeing.
>
> So, is pg_upgrade populating pg_subscription and not pg_subscription_rel ?
"Given the size of toasted data, the overhead is unlikely to be a
significant overhead. It's much more an issue for the main table, where
narrow rows are common."
Completely agree, row size should not be a big concern for toast tables.
However write amplification will happen with vacuum freeze wh
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:18 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
> > bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
> > trailing id
On 11/24/21 22:57, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Which things does it break exactly?
> -Bsymbolic causes symbols that are defined and referenced within one shared
> library to use that definition. E.g. if a shared lib has a function
> "do_something()" and some of its code calls do_something(), you ca
> On Nov 24, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> Another option we might consider is only checking for the
> HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY bit instead of everything in
> HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY. IIUC everything else is only expected to
> happen for upgrades from v9.2 or earlier, so it might
Hi Peter,
0001
-/* we no longer allow unary minus in numbers.
- * instead we pass it separately to parser. there it gets
- * coerced via doNegate() -- Leon aug 20 1999
+/*
+ * Numbers
+ *
+ * Unary minus is not part of a number here. Instead we pass it
separately to
+ * parser, and there it gets
On 2021-Nov-25, Amul Sul wrote:
> In XLogReadRecord(), both the variables being compared have
> inconsistency in the assignment -- one gets assigned from
> state->currRecPtr where other is from RecPtr.
>
> .
> state->overwrittenRecPtr = state->currRecPtr;
> .
> state->abortedRecPtr = RecP
Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Entristecido, Wutra
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
> system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
> if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
Uh, why? The fix should remove the problem, and if it doesn't, we're
still looki
On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Oh, but also I think I should push a mitigation in case a production
> > system hits this problem: maybe reduce the message from FATAL to WARNING
> > if the registered LSN is at a page boundary.
>
> Uh, why? The fix should remove the
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, why? The fix should remove the problem, and if it doesn't, we're
>> still looking at inconsistent WAL aren't we?
> The problem is that the bug occurs while writing the WAL record. Fixed
> servers won't produce such records, but if
On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>
> > The problem is that the bug occurs while writing the WAL record. Fixed
> > servers won't produce such records, but if you run an unpatched server
> > and it happens to write one, without a mitigation you cannot get away
> > from FAT
On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 09:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't it be better to just check if the current user is superuser
> before applying each change as a matter of this first patch? Sorry, I
> was under impression that first, we want to close the current gap
> where we allow to proceed with repl
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
>> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
> I don't know what is the correct value for a record that comes exactly
> after the page he
I wrote:
> However, this seems too forgiving:
... also, I don't know if you intended this already, but the
VerifyOverwriteContrecord change should only be applied in
back branches. There's no need for it in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
It's great you posted a new version of this patch, so I took a look a
brief look at it. The code seems in pretty good shape, I haven't found
any real issues - just two minor comments:
This seems a bit strange:
#define DEFAULT_DECODE_BUFFER_SIZE 0x1
Why not to define this as a simple
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:06 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thur, Nov 25, 2021 8:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Changed. I've removed first_error
On Thursday, November 25, 2021 4:57 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote
> >
> > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > master, though it also appears to apply to 13 and 14 branches.
> >
>
> I think we can for publish_via_partit
On Friday, November 26, 2021 9:30 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Indeed. Attached an updated patch. Thanks!
Thanks for your patch. A small comment:
+ OID of the relation that the worker is synchronizing; null for the
+ main apply worker
Should we modify it to "OID of the relation t
Thanks Michael!
This is a known issue with exclusive backups, which is a reason why
> non-exclusive backups have been implemented. pg_basebackup does that,
> and using "false" as the third argument of pg_start_backup() would
> have the same effect. So I would recommend to switch to that.
>
Is t
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 8:00 PM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the way you are doing I think it is bound to happen. There is
>> some discussion about why this is happening in email [2]. AFAIK, it is
>> not documented and if so, I think it will be a good idea to document
>>
> And my problem rema
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 7:10 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 4:57 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Amit Langote
> > >
> > > I agree with backpatching the doc fix. I've attached a diff against
> > > master, though it also appears to
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first.
>
> It's possible the table is published in two publicat
On 2021-11-17 22:44, Ekaterina Sokolova wrote:
Hi!
You forgot my last fix to build correctly on Mac. I have added it.
Thanks for the notification!
Since the patch could not be applied to the HEAD anymore, I also updated
it.
About our discussion of pg_query_state:
torikoshia писал 2021-11
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:16 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Based on this direction, I tried to write a top up POC patch(0005) which I'd
> like to share.
>
I noticed a minor issue.
In the top-up patch, the following error message detail:
+ errdetail("Not all row filter columns are not par
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:42 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
> >> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
>
> > I don't know what is the cor
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> To silence the warnings in the meantime (if the rework at all happens) we
> should either apply the patch from Greg or add C4101 to disablewarnings in
> src/tools/msvc/Project.pm as mentioned above. On top of that, we should apply
> th
Greg Nancarrow writes:
> AFAICS, the fundamental difference here seems to be that the GCC
> compiler still regards a variable as "unused" if it is never read,
> whereas if the variable is set (but not necessarily read) that's
> enough for the Windows C compiler to regard it as "used".
It depends.
Hi hackers,
I noticed that there are some tab completions missing for the following
commands:
-ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES: missing FOR USER
-ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER: missing NO HANDLER, NO VALIDATOR
-ALTER SEQUENCE: missing AS
-ALTER VIEW: no completion after ALTER COLUMN column_name
-ALTER TR
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >
> > When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> > I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm f
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > >
> > > When researching and writing a top-
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 06:19:03PM -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
> Is there a plan in place to remove the exclusive backup option from the
> core in PG 15/16?
This was discussed, but removing it could also harm users relying on
it. Perhaps it could be revisited, but I am not sure if this
Here is how it can be reproduced.
create table point_tbl (f1 point);
insert into point_tbl(f1) values ('(5.1, 34.5)');
insert into point_tbl(f1) values (' ( Nan , NaN ) ');
analyze;
create index gpointind on point_tbl using gist (f1);
set enable_seqscan to on;
set enable_indexscan to off;
# sel
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:46:35AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Thanks. Here's the v3 patch, a much simpler one. Please review it.
+ pqsignal(SIGINT, SignalHandlerForTermination);
+ pqsignal(SIGTERM, SignalHandlerForTermination);
+ pqsignal(SIGQUIT, SignalHandlerForTermination);
FWIW, I
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f..
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 01:55:46PM +0900, Ken Kato wrote:
> I noticed that there are some tab completions missing for the following
> commands:
> -ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES: missing FOR USER
FOR ROLE is an equivalent. That does not seem mandatory to me.
> -ALTER FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER: missing NO H
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:01 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > Do you mean to say that we should give an error on Update/Delete if any
> > > > of the
> > > > publications contain table rowfilter that has columns that are not part
> > > > o
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:04:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have not check the performance implication of that with a micro
> benchmark or the like, but I can get behind 0001 on consistency
> grounds between the backend and the frontend.
/* Now create pg_control */
InitControlFile
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:22:11AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> I think for parsing we use getopt_long(), as per that if you use the
>> prefix of the string and that is not conflicting with any other option
>> then that is allowed. So --
59 matches
Mail list logo
