On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 02:54:27PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> > --- a/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> >> > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
> >> > @@ -691,11 +691,9 @@ test ! -f
> >> > /mnt/server/archivedir/000100A900
On 2022/09/14 14:27, bt22kawamotok wrote:
I update patch to reflect master update.
Thanks for updating the patch!
+
+Shows whether the current user is a superuser or not.
+
How about adding the note about when this parameter can change,
like we do for in_hot_standby do
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 7:38 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2022/09/17 16:18, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Good idea. It makes a lot more sense to me, because xlog.c is already
> > a file of 9000 LOC. I've created xlogbackup.c/.h files and added the
> > new code there. Once this patch gets in, I can
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:23 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
cfbot fails [1] with v6 patch. I made a silly mistake by not checking
the output of "make check-world -j 16" fully, I just saw the end
message "All tests successful." before posting the v6 patch.
The failure is due to perform_base_backup(
On Sun, 18 Sept 2022 at 07:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > After a bit of trawling through the archives, I found it here:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180124162006.pmapfiznhgngwtjf%40alvherre.pgsql
> > I think there was insufficient discussion and you're probably
I wrote:
> Attached is an incomplete POC patch that suppresses these warnings
> in nodeFuncs.c itself and in costsize.c, which I selected at random
> as a typical caller. I'll push forward with converting the other
> call sites if this way seems good to people.
Here's a fleshed-out patch that get
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we ought to seriously consider the alternative of changing
> nodeFuncs.c about like I have here, but not touching the walkers/mutators,
> and silencing the resulting complaints about function type casting by
> doing the equivalent of
>
> -
Hello!
Thank you very much for your feedback and essential remarks.
On 07.09.2022 10:39, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
It lets XLogPageRead run the same check with what CreateRestartPoint
does, so it basically works (it is forgetting a lock, though. The
reason for omitting the lock in CreateRestart
On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 10:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > A user asked me whether we prune never visible changes, such as
> > BEGIN;
> > INSERT...
> > UPDATE.. (same row)
> > COMMIT;
>
> Didn't we just have this discussion in another thread?
Well. not "just" :)
commit 44e4
On Sun, 18 Sept 2022 at 07:59, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached revision adds a new, third patch. This fixes all the warnings
> from clang-tidy's "readability-named-parameter" check. The extent of
> the code churn seems acceptable to me.
+1 to the idea of aligning the parameter names between fun
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 4:38 PM David Rowley wrote:
> 1. In getJsonPathVariable you seem to have mistakenly removed a
> parameter from the declaration.
That was left behind following a recent rebase. Will fix.
Every other issue you've raised is some variant of:
"I see that you've made a subject
On 15.09.22 04:26, Andres Freund wrote:
Attached is v13 of the meson patchset. The biggest changes are:
Did something about warning flags change from the previous patch set? I
see it's building with -Wextra now, which combined with -Werror causes
the build to fail for me. I have never encou
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 5:08 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Again, I was looking at this at the level of the .h file (in this case
> nodeIncrementalSort.h). It never occurred to me to consider other
> *InitializeWorker() functions.
>
> Offhand I think that we should change all of the other
> *Initial
Hi,
On September 18, 2022 5:24:06 PM PDT, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>On 15.09.22 04:26, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Attached is v13 of the meson patchset. The biggest changes are:
>
>Did something about warning flags change from the previous patch set? I see
>it's building with -Wextra now, which c
Hi.
There are already multiple places that are building the subscription
origin name, and there are more coming with some new patches [1] doing
the same:
e.g.
snprintf(originname, sizeof(originname), "pg_%u", subid);
~~
IMO it is better to encapsulate this name formatting in common code
instead
Hi,
While working on some other patches, I found serval typos(duplicate words and
incorrect function name reference) in the code comments. Here is a small patch
to fix them.
Best regards,
Hou zhijie
0001-fix-typos.patch
Description: 0001-fix-typos.patch
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:14 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> While working on some other patches, I found serval typos(duplicate words and
> incorrect function name reference) in the code comments. Here is a small patch
> to fix them.
>
Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I'll push this.
--
Hi
On Sep 19, 2022, 10:57 +0800, Amit Kapila , wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:14 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > While working on some other patches, I found serval typos(duplicate words
> > and
> > incorrect function name reference) in the code comments. Here is a small
> > patch
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... This is fairly annoying, in that it gives up the function
>> type safety the C committee wants to impose on us; but I really think
>> the data type safety that we're giving up in this version of the patch
>> is a worse
On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 15:04, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The general structure of the patchset is now a little more worked out.
> Although it's still not close to being commitable, it should give you
> a better idea of the kind of structure that I'm aiming for. I think
> that this should be broken
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:07 PM David Rowley wrote:
> I'm slightly confused about "still not close to being commitable"
> along with "this is now the sixth and final patch.". That seems to
> imply that you're not planning to send any more patches but you don't
> think this is commitable. I'm assu
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... This is fairly annoying, in that it gives up the function
> >> type safety the C committee wants to impose on us; but I really think
> >> the data type safety that
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:51 AM John Naylor
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC.
>
> +1 since this hinders grep-ability.
Pushed this.
> > I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I also note that our existing code in this area would break pretty
>> thoroughly on such a machine, so this isn't making it worse.
> Yeah, I don't expect it to be a practical problem on any real system
> (that is, I don't
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:29 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Lev Kokotov writes:
> > I took a small part of Postgres to get started, so just as a PoC; it
> > compiles and runs though. Larger parts will take more work (deleting
code,
> > not just swapping object files), and more fancy things like PG_TRY()
Hi,
On 9/16/22 5:47 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 9/16/22 2:53 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Attached v5 to normalize 2PC commands too, so that we get things like:
+ case T_VariableSetStmt:
+ {
+ VariableSetStmt *stmt = (VariableSetStmt *) node;
+
+
FYI, I'm not sure why the cfbot hasn't reported this, but the apply v9
patch failed for me on HEAD as below:
[postgres@CentOS7-x64 oss_postgres_misc]$ git apply
../patches_misc/HEAD_v9-0001-Fix-data-replicated-twice-when-specifying-publish.patch
--verbose
Checking patch src/backend/catalog/pg_publ
27 matches
Mail list logo
