On Thurs, Oct 20, 2022 at 13:47 PM Fabrice Chapuis
wrote:
> Yes the refresh of MV is on the Publisher Side.
> Thanks for your draft patch, I'll try it
> I'll back to you as soonas possible
Thanks a lot.
> One question: why the refresh of the MV is a DDL not a DML?
Since in the source, the type
Hi,
On 10/19/22 8:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Here's a largely unordered list of ideas. I'm not planning to work on them
myself, but thought it'd nevertheless be useful to have them memorialized
somewhere.
Thanks for sharing this list of ideas!
2) Split index and table statistics i
On Monday, July 4, 2022 9:27 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hi,
>
> Pushed now, to master only.
Thanks for introducing these APIs!
While trying to use the newly introduced list_member_xid(), I noticed that it
internally use lfirst_oid instead of lfirst_xid. It works ok for now. Just in
case we chan
Hello
On 2022-Oct-20, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> While trying to use the newly introduced list_member_xid(), I noticed that it
> internally use lfirst_oid instead of lfirst_xid. It works ok for now. Just in
> case we change xid to 64 bits in the future, I think we’d better use
> lfirst_xid
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:16 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:56:58AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > Patch 0002 adds a sanity-check function called by
> > InitializeGUCOptions, as suggested by Tom [2]. This is to ensure that
> > the GUC C variable initial values are sensible a
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:10 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing
> https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBe2o2D%3Dxyycsxw2bQOD%3DzPj7ETuJ5VYGN%3DdpoTiCMRJQ%40mail.gmail.com
> I noticed that pg_recvlogical prints
> "pg_recvlogical: error: unexpected termination of replication stream: "
>
> whe
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:57 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> > The archive module must be responsible for cleaning up the temp file
> > that it creates. One way to do it is in the archive module's shutdown
> > callback, this covers most of the cases, but not all.
>
> True. But I agree to Robert th
At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:50:09 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote in
> When standby is recovering to a timeline that doesn't have any segments
> archived yet it will just blindly blow past the timeline switch point and
> keeps on recovering on the old timeline. Typically that will eventually
> result in an er
Sorry, a correction needed..
At Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:29:57 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:50:09 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote in
> > When standby is recovering to a timeline that doesn't have any segments
> > archived yet it will just blindly blow past the timeline
Hi, here are my review comments for the patch v39-0001
==
src/backend/libpq/pqmq.c
1. mq_putmessage
+ if (IsParallelWorker())
+ SendProcSignal(pq_mq_parallel_leader_pid,
+PROCSIG_PARALLEL_MESSAGE,
+pq_mq_parallel_leader_backend_id);
+ else
+ {
+ Assert(IsLogicalParallelApplyWorker()
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:51 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-10-17 17:14:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I have to admit that I worried about the same thing that Matthias
> > raises, more or less. But I don't know whether I'm right to be
> > worried. A variable-length representation
Forgot a caveat.
At Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:34:13 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:50:09 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote in
> > When standby is recovering to a timeline that doesn't have any segments
> > archived yet it will just blindly blow past the timeline switch point
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 20:18, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:18 AM Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > Overall, I'm quite happy with these results. The question is, should
> > this be back-patched?
> >
> > In the past, I think I've only back-patched numeric bug-fixes where
> > the digits ou
On 13.10.22 23:00, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:33:01AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
+ if (their_version != conn->pversion)
Shouldn't this be 'their_version < conn->pversion'? If the server supports
a later protocol than what is requested but not all the requested
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 8:50 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
> 03. applyparallelwprker.c - LogicalParallelApplyLoop
>
> ```
> case SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK:
> {
> int
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 2:08 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> 7. get_transaction_apply_action
>
> > 12. get_transaction_apply_action
> >
> > I still felt like there should be some tablesync checks/comments in
> > this function, just for sanity, even if it works as-is now.
> >
> > For example, are you say
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as
> well.
>
The patch looks mostly good to me apart from few minor comments which
are as follows:
1.
+# The last decoding restarts from the first checkpoint, and ad
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:23 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > One option is to just have do_pg_start_backup() blow
> > away any old memory context before it allocates any new memory, and
> > forget about releasing anything in PostgresMain().
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've attached two patches that need to be back-patched to all branches
> > > and includes Change-1,
Having a sup_user and a normal_user, login with sup_user
select session_user, current_user
sup_user, sup_user
set role normal_user;
select session_user, current_user
sup_user, normal_user
But then, when sup_user was running with normal_user grants an exception
occurs
select * from Some_Schema.Som
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 11:30, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> primary_restored did a time-travel to past a bit because of the
> recovery_target=immediate. In other words, the primary_restored and
> the replica diverge. I don't think it is legit to connect a diverged
> standby to a primary.
primary_r
Hi,
I noticed that
select date_part('millennium', now()); --> 3
will execute also, unperturbed, in this form:
select date_part('millennium x', now()); --> 3
By the same token
select extract(millennium from now()) --> 3
select extract(millenniumx from now()) --> 3
This laxn
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Pushed.
> >
> > I think this was a good change, but there's at least one other problem
> > here: within ReorderBufferRestoreChanges, the while (restored <
> > max_changes_in_memory && *se
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 20:45, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that
> select date_part('millennium', now()); --> 3
>
> will execute also, unperturbed, in this form:
> select date_part('millennium x', now()); --> 3
>
> By the same token
>
> select extract(millennium from now()) -
Japin Li writes:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 20:45, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> I noticed that
>> select date_part('millennium', now()); --> 3
>>
>> will execute also, unperturbed, in this form:
>> select date_part('millennium x', now()); --> 3
> Maybe we should document this. I'd be inclined to c
Note that ccache 4.7 was released (and also uploaded to chocolatey).
That supports depend mode with MSVC.
PCH made cache misses a lot less slow. However, I still haven't found
anyt way to improve compilation speed much on cirrusci...
--
Justin
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 22:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Japin Li writes:
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 20:45, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>> I noticed that
>>> select date_part('millennium', now()); --> 3
>>>
>>> will execute also, unperturbed, in this form:
>>> select date_part('millennium x', now()); -->
Suppose that, for some reason, you want to use pg_basebackup on a
Linux machine to back up a database cluster on a Windows machine.
Suppose further that you attempt to use the -T option. Then you might
run afoul of this check:
/*
* This check isn't absolutely necessary. But all tablespac
Robert Haas writes:
> However, I think we could relax the check a little bit, something
> along the lines of !is_nonwindows_absolute_path(cell->old_dir) &&
> !is_windows_absolute_path(dir). We can't actually know whether the
> remote side is Windows or non-Windows, but if the string we're given
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:47 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> I tried implementing this, please see the attached v7 patch.
I haven't checked this in detail but it looks much more reasonable in
terms of code footprint. However, we should, I think, set backup_state
= NULL and tablespace_map = NULL bef
> Yeah, you can't return or goto out of the PG_TRY part.
So this is a problem if the check would ever work.
(Sorry for such a delayed answer.)
Then we need to fix it. Attached is a minimal patch, which changes nothing
except for correct PG_TRY exiting.
Isn't it better this way?
CCing to Peter Ei
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:59 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:06:08 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <
> bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:39 PM sirisha chamarthi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The current code comment says that the replication s
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > However, I think we could relax the check a little bit, something
> > along the lines of !is_nonwindows_absolute_path(cell->old_dir) &&
> > !is_windows_absolute_path(dir). We can't actually know whether the
> > remote side
Robert Haas writes:
> Cool. Here's a patch.
LGTM, except I'd be inclined to ensure that all the macros
are function-style, ie
+#define IS_DIR_SEP(ch) IS_NONWINDOWS_DIR_SEP(ch)
not just
+#define IS_DIR_SEP IS_NONWINDOWS_DIR_SEP
I don't recall the exact rules, but I know that the second style
c
Hi,
- we shouldn't do pgstat_count_io_op() while the buffer header lock is held,
if possible.
I wonder if we should add a "source" output argument to
StrategyGetBuffer(). Then nearly all the counting can happen in
BufferAlloc().
- "repossession" is a very unintuitive name for me. If we w
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:48 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:47 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > I tried implementing this, please see the attached v7 patch.
>
> I haven't checked this in detail but it looks much more reasonable in
> terms of code footprint. However, we shoul
On 2022-Oct-20, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
> before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
> before would give us extra safety in case memory context
> deletion/reset fails. Not sure what's the best way. H
On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 14:58 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Why should the PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND behavior happen on
> *exactly*
> the same timeline as the one used to launch an antiwraparound
> autovacuum, though?
The terminology is getting slightly confusing here: by
"antiwraparound", you me
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 9:40 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 10/5/22 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I think it would be good to put some provisions in place here, even if
> > they are elementary. Otherwise, there will be a significant burden on
> > the person who implements the next SASL method
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Cool. Here's a patch.
>
> LGTM, except I'd be inclined to ensure that all the macros
> are function-style, ie
>
> +#define IS_DIR_SEP(ch) IS_NONWINDOWS_DIR_SEP(ch)
>
> not just
>
> +#define IS_DIR_SEP IS_NONWINDOWS_DIR_SEP
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:35 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
> before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
> before would give us extra safety in case memory context
> deletion/reset fails. Not sure what's
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:09 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> The terminology is getting slightly confusing here: by
> "antiwraparound", you mean that it's not skipping unfrozen pages, and
> therefore is able to advance relfrozenxid. Whereas the
> PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND is the same thing, except done w
On 2022-10-20 Th 14:47, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Cool. Here's a patch.
>> LGTM, except I'd be inclined to ensure that all the macros
>> are function-style, ie
>>
>> +#define IS_DIR_SEP(ch) IS_NONWINDOWS_DIR_SEP(ch)
>>
>> not
On 19.10.22 05:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looks fine as a whole, except for one nit.
src/test/ssl/t/001_ssltests.pl: warn 'couldn\'t run `openssl x509` to get
client cert serialno';
Perhaps this warning should mentioned $ENV{OPENSSL} instead?
Committed with that change.
On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> One could take the view that the issue here is that
> pg_read_all_settings shouldn't have the right to create objects in
> the
> first place, and that this INHERIT vs. SET ROLE distinction is just a
> distraction. However, that would require a
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 13:34, David Rowley wrote:
> So it looks like the same can be done for rank() and dense_rank() too.
> I've added support for those in the attached.
The attached adds support for percent_rank(), cume_dist() and ntile().
David
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.
On Mon, 2022-09-26 at 15:40 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Predefined roles are special in that they should GRANT just the
> privileges that the role is described to GRANT and that users really
> shouldn't be able to SET ROLE to them nor should they be allowed to
> own
> objects, or at least that's
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 19:33, David Rowley wrote:
> I'll push this soon if nobody has any other wording suggestions.
Pushed.
Thanks for the report.
David
Hello:
Many thanks for providing feedbacks and sorry for late reply. I
updated the testing harness, please apply patches in [1] before apply
the attached patch.
>Not clear on what this means. Are you talking about ALTER TABLE
>subcommands? If so, then what you have to do (ISTM) is construct a
>si
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 2:32 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> Here is a rebased patch for cfbot.
>
>
>
Applies, passes make check world.
Patch is straightforward, but the previous code is less so. It purported to
set XMAX_COMMITTED _or_ XMAX_INVALID, but never seemed to un-set
XMAX_COMMITTED, was that
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:45:44AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Please find attached v1-0001-regex-handling-for-db-and-roles-in-hba.patch to
> implement regexes for databases and roles in hba.
>
> It does also contain new regexes related TAP tests and doc updates.
Thanks for the updated vers
Hi, I was hoping to use this patch in my other thread [1], but your
latest attachment is reported broken in cfbot [2]. Please rebase it.
--
[1] GUC C var sanity check -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs91wgaE9P7JORnK_dGq7zPB56WLDJwLNCLgGXxqrh9%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
[2] cfbot fai
Thanks for the nice list.
At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:37:30 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote in
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > We e.g. currently can't track the number of blocks written out in a
> > relation,
> > because we don't have a Relation at that point. Nor can't we
Rebased.
BTW, I think it may be that the GUC should be marked PGDLLIMPORT ?
>From 12a605ca84bf21439e4ae51cc3f3a891b3cb4989 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 21:17:10 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Add GUC: explain_regress
This changes the defaults for explain to: co
At Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:28:45 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:10 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While reviewing
> > https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBe2o2D%3Dxyycsxw2bQOD%3DzPj7ETuJ5VYGN%3DdpoTiCMRJQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > I noticed that pg_recvlogical prints
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've attached two patc
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as
> > well.
> >
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me apart from few minor comments which
> are as follow
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:45:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> With this in mind, would somebody complain if I commit that? That's a
> nice reduction in code, while completing the work done in 40c24bf:
> 25 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 477 deletions(-)
On second look, there is something
Michael Paquier writes:
> But the patch enforces the attribute name to be the underlying
> function name, switching the previous "current_catalog" to
> "current_database".
The entire point of SQLValueFunction IMO was to hide the underlying
implementation(s). Replacing it with something that leak
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:10:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The entire point of SQLValueFunction IMO was to hide the underlying
> implementation(s). Replacing it with something that leaks
> implementation details does not seem like a step forward.
Hmm.. Okay, thanks. So this just comes down tha
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 04:16:06PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 3:38 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > [train wreck]
>
> Oh my, so I'm getting the impression we might actually be totally
> unstable on Cygwin. Which surprises me because ... wait a minute ...
> lorikeet isn't even
Hi.
Anyway, on second thought, lager picture than just adding the
post-process-end callback would out of the scope of this patch. So I
write some comments on the patch first, then discussion the rest.
Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:29:12 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> > No. I didn't mean that, If s
Sorry, the previous mail are sent inadvertently..
At Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:13:46 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> + expectation that a value will soon be provided. Care must be taken when
> + multiple servers are archiving to the same
> + basic_archive.archive_library dire
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:34:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> A sticky point is that this would need the creation of a pg_proc entry
> for "user" which is a generic word, or a shortcut around
> FigureColnameInternal(). The code gain overall still looks appealing
> in the executor, even if we
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 8:01 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comment! I agreed with all comments and I've updated
> patches accordingly.
>
Pushed after removing the test case from v11-13 branches as it is not
relevant to those branches and the test-1 in
catalog_change_snapshot.spe
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:23:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmmm ... I'd tend to do SELECT COUNT(*) FROM. But can't we provide
> any actual checks on the sanity of the output? I realize that the
> output's far from static, but still ...
Honestly, checking all the fields is not that exciting, but
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:17 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Oct-20, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> > I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
> > before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
> > before would give us extra safety in case mem
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:51:21PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:35 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
>> before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
>> before would give us extra s
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:34:27AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:21 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:35 PM Bharath Rupireddy
>> wrote:
>>> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
>>> before or after deleting/resettin
At Thu, 20 Oct 2022 19:47:07 +0200, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in
> I agree that's a good idea, and the patch looks good to me, but I don't
> think asserting that they are null afterwards is useful.
+1 for this direction. And the patch is fine to me.
> oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(backu
70 matches
Mail list logo
