On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 2:57 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 11:38 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 2:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 02:05:56PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > > > I noticed there are some places calling t
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 4:43 AM John Morris wrote:
>
> Based on your feedback, I’ve updated the patch with additional comments.
>
> Explain the two cases when writing to the control file, and
> a bit more emphasis on unloggedLSNs not being valid after a crash.
Given that the callers already have
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:27 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> > Needed a rebase. I'm attaching the v11 patch for further review.
>
> Needed a rebase, so attaching the v12 patch. I word-smithed comments
> and docs a bit.
Needed a rebase. I'm attaching the v13 patch for further consideration.
--
B
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 7:30 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > ~~~
> > >
> > > 2. StartLogRepWorker
> > >
> > > /* Common function to start the leader apply or tablesync worker. */
Dear hackers,
> Based on the above, we are considering that we delay the timing of shutdown
> for
> logical walsenders. The preliminary workflow is:
>
> 1. When logical walsenders receives siginal from checkpointer, it consumes all
>of WAL records, change its state into WALSNDSTATE_STOPPING,
Amit Kapila , 21 Tem 2023 Cum, 08:39 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 7:30 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> How about SetupLogRepWorker? The other thing I noticed is that we
> don't seem to be consistent in naming functions in these files. For
> example, shall we make all exposed functions
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > The other thing I noticed is that we
> > > don't seem to be consistent in naming functions in these files. For
> > >
Peter Smith , 21 Tem 2023 Cum, 12:48 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:24 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > > The other thing I noticed is that we
This Assert failure can be reproduced with the query below.
create table part_tbl (a integer) partition by range (a);
create table part_tbl1 partition of part_tbl for values from (0) to (100);
set enable_partitionwise_join to on;
explain (costs off)
select * from part_tbl t1
left join part_tb
Hi,
On 2023-07-20 18:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 2:59 PM Michael Paquier
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:54:55PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> Yes, you're right. When I tried using worker_spi to test wait event,
> I found the behavior. And thanks a lot for your pat
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:36 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:05 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:37 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > 3. As mentioned in the initia
On 7/21/23 05:32, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 4:35 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> I think the SAOP patch may need to be much more careful about this, but
>> for this patch it's simpler because it doesn't really change any of the
>> index internals, or the indexscan in general.
>
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:46 AM Ranier Vilela wrote:
> As there is consensus to keep the no-op assignment,
> I will go ahead and reject the patch.
>
In your patch you suggest removing two assignments, and we only have
consensus to keep one of them. The other one is an obvious no-op.
I attached
Hi Richard,
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 3:05 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 2:49 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:19 PM Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>> > To avoid this issue, I am wondering if we should modify
>> > add_paths_to_joinrel() in back branches so that it
Richard Guo writes:
> This should be an oversight in 9df8f903. It seems that the new added
> function add_outer_joins_to_relids() does not cope well with child
> joins. The 'input_relids' for a child join is the relid sets of child
> rels while 'othersj->min_xxxhand' refers to relids of parent r
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 4:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>
> > In SQL tests, I ensured worker_spi doesn't start static bg workers by
> > setting worker_spi.total_workers = 0. Again, all of this is not
> > necessary, but it will be a very good example for someone writing
> > extensions and play around
On Thu Jul 20, 2023 at 9:14 PM CDT, Michael Paquier wrote:
Attached is a v7, with these tests (should be a patch on its own but
I'm lazy to split this morning) and some more adjustments that I have
done while going through the patch. What do you think?
v7 looks good from my perspective. Thanks
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> Please see attached the patch that does this. Let me know if this patch helps.
I don't like this patch one bit, because it adds a lot of overhead
(i.e., an extra index_open/close cycle for every btree index in every
query) to support a tiny minority use-case. How come we
On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 23:19 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Plus, if we were able to make it work as SQL syntax, it's very likely
> we can use the same technique to implement BEFORE and AFTER behaviour
> in UPDATE ... RETURNING that the old thread could not accomplish a
> decade ago.
To clarify, I d
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 4:52 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> > (Actually, I'm glossing over a lot. The MDAM paper describes
> > techniques that'd make even the really challenging cases safe, through
> > a process of converting quals from conjunctive normal form into
> > disjunctive normal form. This is m
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 6:09 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> This is a WIP patch to add WAL write and fsync stats to pg_stat_io
> view.
Thanks for working on this! I have some feedback on the content of the
patch as well as some items that I feel are missing.
I think it would be good to count WAL
On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 12:16 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Based on feedback, I plan to commit soon.
Attached is a new version.
Changes:
* Also switch the search_path during CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW, so that
it's consistent with REFRESH. As a part of this change, I slightly
reordered things in ExecC
On 7/20/23 17:07, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 7/21/23 01:36, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> (I've attached two failing tests against v2, to hopefully better
>> illustrate, along with what I_think_ should be the correct results.)
>
> Almost. You are matching 07-01-2023 but the condition is "price > 100".
On 7/20/23 23:16, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I don't know at this point. I think context-free is not enough to be
> repsented in Bison. The grammer also needs to be LALR(1). Moreover,
> adding the grammer to existing parser may generate shift/reduce
> errors.
Ah. It's been too long since my compilers
On 7/22/23 01:14, Jacob Champion wrote:
On 7/20/23 17:07, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 7/21/23 01:36, Jacob Champion wrote:
(I've attached two failing tests against v2, to hopefully better
illustrate, along with what I_think_ should be the correct results.)
Almost. You are matching 07-01-2023 but
This is a frustrating thread, because despite the last patch solving
most of the problems we discussed, it doesn't address the
low-level-backup procedure in a nice way. We'd have to tell users
they have to flock that file, or add a new step "pg_controldata --raw
> pg_control", which seems weird wh
>> One small concern is how to convert pattern variables to regex
>> expression which our regex enginer understands. Suppose,
>>
>> PATTERN UP+
>>
>> Currently I convert "UP+" to "U+" so that it can be fed to the regexp
>> engine. In order to do that, we need to know which part of the pattern
>>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 20:43, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > > Maybe instead of a function it could be a special table reference
> > > like:
> > >
> > > MERGE ... RETURNING MERGE.action, MERGE.action_number, id, val?
> > >
> The benefits are:
>
> 1. It is naturally constrained to the right context. It
On 7/22/23 03:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Maybe
that can help clarify the design? It feels like it'll need to eventually
be a "real" function that operates on the window state, even if it
doesn't support all of the possible complexities in v1.
Unfortunately an window function can not call other wind
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 6:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 1:39 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, changed it accordingly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > oops, forgot to attach the patch.
> > >
> >
> > WFM
> >
> On 7/22/23 03:11, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Maybe
> that can help clarify the design? It feels like it'll need to
> eventually
> be a "real" function that operates on the window state, even if it
> doesn't support all of the possible complexities in v1.
Unfortunately an windo
31 matches
Mail list logo
