On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 2:24 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Dec-12, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I started feeling like putting all the new logic being added
> > by this patch into plancache.c at the heart of GetCachedPlan() and
> > tweaking its API in kind of unintuitive ways may not have been suc
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 2:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:53 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > In logical decoding, when logical_decoding_work_mem is exceeded, the
> changes are
> > sent to output plugin in streaming mode. But there is a restrictio
After a fresh install, including the patch for \dpS [1],
I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table
to be vacuumed.
postgres@postgres(16.0)=# GRANT MAINTAIN ON pg_type TO alice;
GRANT
postgres@postgres(16.0)=# \c - alice
You are now connected to database "postgres"
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:20 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:25 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 8:45 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, December 9, 2022 3:14 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On
This patch exposes the ICU facility to add custom collation rules to a
standard collation. This would allow users to customize any ICU
collation to whatever they want. A very simple example from the
documentation/tests:
CREATE COLLATION en_custom
(provider = icu, locale = 'en', rules = '
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 08:04, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 07.12.22 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think if we want to make this configurable on the fly, and environment
>> variable would be much easier, like
>> my $mode = $ENV{PG_TEST_PG_UPGRADE_MODE} || '--copy';
>
> Here is an up
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Updated patch attached.
>
> I will review the patch a bit more, but I think
> it would be committable.
One thing I noticed is this bit:
-- Clean up
-DROP TABLE batch_table, batch_cp_upd
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:50 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing the patch.
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 20:14, John Naylor
wrote:
> > While allocation is markedly improved, freeing looks worse here. The
proportion is surprising because only about 2% of nodes are freed during
the load, b
Dear Horiguchi-san, Amit,
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:35 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Mon, 12 Dec 2022 18:10:00 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > Yeah, I think ideally it will timeout but if we have a solution like
> > during delay, we keep sending ping messages time-to-time,
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 10:49 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> > In the case of physical replication by setting
> > recovery_min_apply_delay, I noticed that both primary and standby
> > nodes were getting stopped successfully immediately after the stop
> > server command. In ca
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Horiguchi-san, Amit,
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:35 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At Mon, 12 Dec 2022 18:10:00 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > Yeah, I think ideally it will timeout but if we h
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:02 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on checkpoint related stuff, I have encountered that
> there is some inconsistency while reporting checkpointer stats. When a
> checkpoint gets completed, a checkpoint complete message gets logged.
> This message has a l
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:17:58PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> It does raise an interesting point though, if we in the future add suppprt
>> for
>> SCRAM-SHA-512 (which seems reasonable to do) it's not good enough to have a
>> single
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:02 PM David Christensen
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:30 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > 1.
> > -if (config.filter_by_fpw && !XLogRecordHasFPW(xlogreader_state))
> > +if (config.filter_by_fpw && !XLogRecordHasFPI(xlogreader_state))
> > These cha
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:15 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Please see the attached patch. I also fix Peter's comments[1]. The GUC name
> and
> design are still under discussion, so I didn't modify them.
>
Let me summarize the discussion on name and design till now. As per my
understanding,
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022, Andrey Borodin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 1:29 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
I was wrong. GIN check does similar gin_refind_parent() to lock pages
in bottom-up manner and truly verify downlink-child_page invariant.
Does this mean that we need the adjustment in docs?
Hi,
On 12/13/22 5:37 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/22 2:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 5:49 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
It seems kind of unfortunate to have to add payload to a whole bevy of
record types for this feature. I think it's worth it, both because the
featu
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 6:45 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:01 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > Updated patch attached.
> >
> > I will review the patch a bit more, but I think
> > it would be committable.
>
> One thing I not
On 14.12.22 03:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
This patch passes check-world and the CI is green. I have tested as
well the patch with SCRAM verifiers coming from a server initially on
HEAD, so it looks pretty solid seen from here, being careful of memory
leaks in the frontend, mainly.
The changes
On 11.12.22 23:18, Peter Smith wrote:
+StaticAssertDecl(SysCacheSize == (int) lengthof(cacheinfo),
+ "SysCacheSize does not match syscache.c's array");
+
static CatCache *SysCache[SysCacheSize];
In almost every example I found of StaticAssertXXX, the lengthof(arr)
part came first in the condit
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 8:06 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
> Please find attached v31 with the changes mentioned above (except that I put
> your wording into the commit message instead of a README: I think it helps to
> make
> clear what the "design" for the patch series is).
Thanks, I think tha
Amul Sul writes:
> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is already on it.
regards, t
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:31 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> There are a number of places where a shell command is constructed with
> percent-placeholders (like %x). First, it's obviously cumbersome to
> have to open-code this several times. Second, each of those pieces of
> code silently encodes s
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:31:02AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> + return replace_percent_placeholders(base_command, "df", (const char
> *[]){target_detail, filename});
This is a "compound literal", which I gather is required by C99.
But I don't think that's currently being exercised, so
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:41:05PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 07:20:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I certainly don't think that "wake the apply launcher every 1ms"
>> is a sane configuration. Unless I'm missing something basic about
>> its responsibilities, it should se
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
> be vacuumed.
Hm. My first thought is that this is the appropriate behavior. WDYT?
> So, the patch for \dpS works as expected and can be committed.
Thank
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 06:59:48PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I can't think of any reason for this behavior, and I didn't find an
> obvious answer in the last commits to touch that (2ad36c4e44,
> fa2642438f).
I can't think of a reason, either.
> Patch attached to simplify it. It uses the philosop
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 7:19 AM Jose Arthur Benetasso Villanova
wrote:
> I'm a bit lost here. I tried your patch again and indeed the
> heapallindexed inside gin_check_parent_keys_consistency has a TODO
> comment, but it's unclear to me if you are going to implement it or if the
> patch "needs rev
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:08:40PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 1:13 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> Currently, CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX (minus REINDEX
>> SCHEMA|DATABASE|SYSTEM) require ownership of the relation or superuser. In
>> fact, all three use
Hi,
On 2022-12-14 10:55:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I read through 0001 again and I noticed this:
>
> typedef struct xl_heap_prune
> {
> TransactionId snapshotConflictHorizon;
> uint16 nredirected;
> uint16 ndead;
> +boolonCatalogAccessibleInLogicalDecodi
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:31:02AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> +return replace_percent_placeholders(base_command, "df", (const char
>> *[]){target_detail, filename});
> This is a "compound literal", which I gather is required by C99.
> But I don't think that's
Nathan Bossart writes:
> My first thought is that the latter two uses should be moved to a new
> parameter, and the apply launcher should store the last start time for each
> apply worker like the apply workers do for the table-sync workers. In any
> case, it probably makes sense to lower this pa
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:42:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> My first thought is that the latter two uses should be moved to a new
>> parameter, and the apply launcher should store the last start time for each
>> apply worker like the apply workers do for the table-sync wo
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:35 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > typedef struct xl_heap_prune
> >
> > I think this is unsafe on alignment-picky machines. I think it will
> > cause the offset numbers to be aligned at an odd address.
> > heap_xlog_prune() doesn't copy the data into aligned memory, so I
>
On 2022-Dec-14, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> > I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
> > be vacuumed.
>
> Hm. My first thought is that this is the appropriate behavior. WDYT?
It seems wrong to me.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 07:05:34PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Dec-14, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:07:13PM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
>> > I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST table to
>> > be vacuumed.
>>
>> Hm. My first thought is
On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 at 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Greg Stark writes:
> > Simple Rebase
>
> I took a little bit of a look through these.
>
> * I find 0001 a bit scary, specifically that it's decided it's
> okay to apply extract_autovac_opts, pgstat_fetch_stat_tabentry_ext,
> and especially relation
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I'm reasonably certain the launcher is already signaled like you describe.
> It'll just wait to start new workers if it's been less than
> wal_retrieve_retry_interval milliseconds since the last time it started
> workers.
Oh. What in the world is the rationale for that?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:23:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> I'm reasonably certain the launcher is already signaled like you describe.
>> It'll just wait to start new workers if it's been less than
>> wal_retrieve_retry_interval milliseconds since the last time it started
Hi hackers!
Just to bump this thread, because the problem seems to be still actual:
Please correct me if I am wrong. I've checked another discussion related to
pg_visibility [1].
According to discussion: if using latest completed xid is not right for
checking visibility, than
it should be the lea
On 12/14/22 6:25 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 14 Dec 2022, at 02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:17:58PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It does raise an interesting point though, if we in the future add suppprt for
SCRAM-SHA-512 (which seems reasonable to do) it's not
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:23:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh. What in the world is the rationale for that?
> My assumption is that this is meant to avoid starting workers as fast as
> possible if they repeatedly crash.
I can see the point of rate-limiting if the work
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
> relation's
> TOAST table as well?
Yes, I agree.
--
Jeff Davis
PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 12:07 +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> After a fresh install, including the patch for \dpS [1],
> I found that granting MAINTAIN privilege does not allow the TOAST
> table
> to be vacuumed.
I wanted to also mention partitioning. The behavior is that MAINTAIN
privileges on the p
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 02:39:43PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 14.12.22 03:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> While investigating on what it would take to extend SCRAM to use new
>> hash methods (say like the RFC draft for SCRAM-SHA-512), I have been
>> quickly reminded of the limitations create
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 14:47, Jeff Davis wrote:
Furthermore, MAINTAIN privileges on the partitioned table do not grant
> the ability to create new partitions. There's a comment in tablecmds.c
> alluding to a possible "UNDER" privilege:
>
> /*
>* We should have an UNDER permission flag for t
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 15:32 -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Is there a firm decision on the issue of changing the cluster index
> of a table? Re-clustering a table on the same index is clearly
> something that should be granted by MAINTAIN as I imagine it, but
> changing the cluster index, strictly
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:18 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> So I don't see any evidence we skip any locking on pg_class when doing
> updates on rows for temporary tables.
I don't know what this means. You don't have to lock pg_class to
update rows in any table, whether temporary or otherwise.
You do hav
> You do have to lock a table in order to update its pg_class row,
> though, whether the table is temporary or not. Otherwise, another
> session could drop it while you're doing something with it, after
> which bad things would happen.
I was responding to this from Andres:
> Is that actually true
On 2022-12-14 We 11:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amul Sul writes:
>> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
>> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
>> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
> I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is al
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:54:53PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Indeed PendingCheckpointerStats.buf_written_checkpoints needs to count
> buffer writes in SlruInternalWritePage(). However, does it need to be
> done immediately there? The stats will not be visible to the users
> until the next p
On 14.12.2022 22:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
The behavior is that MAINTAIN
privileges on the partitioned table does not imply MAINTAIN privileges
on the partitions. I believe that's fine and it's consistent with other
privileges on partitioned tables, such as SELECT and INSERT.
Sorry, I may have miss
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:02:39AM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> On 14.12.2022 22:46, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > The behavior is that MAINTAIN
> > privileges on the partitioned table does not imply MAINTAIN privileges
> > on the partitions. I believe that's fine and it's consistent with other
> > privil
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Thanks, I have been looking at jsonpath, but I'm not quite sure how to
> get the escontext argument to the yyerror calls in jsonath_scan.l. Maybe
> I need to specify a lex-param setting?
You want a parse-param option in jsonpath_gram.y, I think; adding that
will persuade
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 15:57, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 15:32 -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> > Is there a firm decision on the issue of changing the cluster index
> > of a table? Re-clustering a table on the same index is clearly
> > something that should be granted by MAINTAIN a
Hi Bharath,
I can get one sent in tomorrow.
Thanks,
David
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:08 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 23:13, Alex Fan wrote:
> > I am new to the postgres community and apologise for resending this as the
> > previous one didn't include patch properly and didn't cc reviewers (maybe
> > the reason it has been buried in
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 02:02:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe we could have workers that are exiting for that reason set a
> flag saying "please restart me without delay"?
That helps a bit, but there are still delays when starting workers for new
subscriptions. I think we'd need to create a n
I wrote:
> Amul Sul writes:
>> Attaching a complete set of the patches changing function till this
>> except bpcharin, byteain jsonpath_in that Andrew is planning to look
>> in. I have skipped reg* functions.
> I'll take a look at these shortly, unless Andrew is already on it.
I've gone through
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
>> relation's
>> TOAST table as well?
>
> Yes, I agree.
This might be tricky, because AFAICT you have to scan
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:59:04PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 12/14/22 6:25 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I was thinking about it but opted for the simpler approach of a GUC name with
>> the algorithm baked into it: scram_sha256_iterations. It doesn't seem all
>> that
>> likely that we
On 12/14/22 6:52 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:59:04PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
HA-256 that we will just need to pick up?
The attached v2 has the GUC rename and a change to GUC_REPORT such that the
frontend can use the real value rather than the default. I kept
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:29:39PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> Okay. Should all the privileges governed by MAINTAIN apply to a
>>> relation's
>>> TOAST table as well?
>>
On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 16:11 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Yeah, but:
>
> regression=> insert into p1 values (1);
> ERROR: permission denied for table p1
> regression=> select * from p1;
> ERROR: permission denied for table p1
Right, that's what I had in mind: a user is only granted operations o
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:12:26AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:29:39PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:05:13AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2022-12-14 at 10:16 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Okay. Should all the privileges govern
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:40:45 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote
in
> > On 14 Dec 2022, at 08:04, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 07.12.22 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I think if we want to make this configurable on the fly, and environment
> >> variable would be much easier, like
>
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:46:17 +, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
wrote in
> I have implemented and tested that workers wake up per wal_receiver_timeout/2
> and send keepalive. Basically it works well, but I found two problems.
> Do you have any good suggestions about them?
>
> 1)
>
> With this Po
At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > One idea to avoid that is to send the min_apply_delay subscriber option to
> > publisher
> > and compare them, but it may be not sufficient. Because XXX_timout GUC
>
Hi
While studying Jeff's new crop of collation patches I noticed in
passing that check_strxfrm_bug() must surely by now be unnecessary.
The buffer overrun bugs were fixed a decade ago, and the relevant
systems are way out of support. If you're worried that the bugs might
come back, then the test
Here are some proposed patches for converting range_in and multirange_in.
0001 tackles the straightforward part, which is trapping syntax errors
and called-input-function errors. The only thing that I think might
be controversial here is that I chose to change the signatures of
the exposed functi
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > > One idea to avoid that is to send the min_apply_delay subscriber option
> > > to publisher
> > >
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:46:17 +, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
> wrote in
> > I have implemented and tested that workers wake up per
> > wal_receiver_timeout/2
> > and send keepalive. Basically it works well, but I found two problems.
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:23:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > Allowing walsender to finish ignoring replication status
> > wouldn't be great.
> >
>
> Yes, that would be ideal. But do you know why that is a must?
I believe a graceful
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 4:16 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > > One idea to avoid that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:28 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 03:51:11PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Clearing up one CI failure.
+-- normal values converge on stddev == 2.0
+SELECT round(stddev(random_normal(2, 2)))
+ FROM generate_series(1, 1);
I am not sure that it is a good idea to make a test based on a random
behavior that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:03 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Here are some proposed patches for converting range_in and multirange_in.
>
> 0001 tackles the straightforward part, which is trapping syntax errors
> and called-input-function errors. The only thing that I think might
> be controversial here is
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 9:50 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:25 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are comments on v59 0001, 0002 patches:
> >
> > Thanks for the comments!
> >
> > > +v
I'm in the middle of working on making some adjustments to the costs
of Incremental Sorts and I see the patch I wrote changes the plan in
the drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test.
The particular plan changed currently expects:
---
Sort
Sort Key: i
Amul Sul writes:
> There are other a bunch of hard errors from get_multirange_io_data(),
> get_range_io_data() and its subroutine can hit, shouldn't we care
> about those?
I think those are all "internal" errors, ie not reachable as a
consequence of bad input data. Do you see a reason to think
d
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:29:17 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:18:55 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > wrote in
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > subscriber was busy enough th
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:14:59AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> AFAICS, most of these functions have no direct source code callers,
> they're user-facing functions and not in a hot code path. I measured
> the test times of these functions and I don't see much difference [1].
Thanks for the su
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > There are other a bunch of hard errors from get_multirange_io_data(),
> > get_range_io_data() and its subroutine can hit, shouldn't we care
> > about those?
>
> I think those are all "internal" errors, ie not reachable as a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:44:34PM -0600, David Christensen wrote:
> I can get one sent in tomorrow.
-XLogRecordHasFPW(XLogReaderState *record)
+XLogRecordHasFPI(XLogReaderState *record)
This still refers to a FPW, so let's leave that out as well as any
renamings of this kind..
+ if (config.sav
Hi,
While investigating the issue reported on pg_hint_plan[1], I realized
that stmt_end() callback is not called if an error raised during the
statement execution is caught. I've attached the patch to check when
stmt_beg() and stmt_end() are called. Here is an example:
postgres(1:3220232)=# creat
čt 15. 12. 2022 v 8:25 odesílatel Masahiko Sawada
napsal:
> Hi,
>
> While investigating the issue reported on pg_hint_plan[1], I realized
> that stmt_end() callback is not called if an error raised during the
> statement execution is caught. I've attached the patch to check when
> stmt_beg() and
At Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:41:21 +0100, Pavel Stehule
wrote in
> čt 15. 12. 2022 v 8:25 odesílatel Masahiko Sawada
> napsal:
> > Is this a bug in plpgsql?
> >
>
> I think it is by design. There is not any callback that is called after an
> exception.
>
> It is true, so some callbacks on statemen
87 matches
Mail list logo
