On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 2:04 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > Rebase and update patch.
Thanks for working on this. I took a quick look at v11 patch. Here are
some comments:
1.
+#include "utils/timestamp.h"
+#include "executor/spi.h"
+#include "utils/fmgrprotos.h"
Please place executor/spi.h i
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:45 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > BTW, is XID the based parameter 'max_slot_xid_age' not have similarity
> > with 'max_slot_wal_keep_size'? I think it will impact the rows we
> > removed based on xid horizons.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> I went through this patch another time, and made some minor
> adjustments. Now it looks good, I'm going to push it if no
> objections.
>
I have a question related to usability, if the regular reads (say a
Select statement or reads via
To build on NixOS/nixpkgs I came up with a few small patches to
meson.build. All of this works fine with Autoconf/Make already.From 24ae72b9b0adc578c6729eff59c9038e6b4ac517 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wolfgang Walther
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 17:18:38 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Fallback to uuid f
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 10:33, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Vignesh,
>
> Thanks for updating the patch, but cfbot still got angry [1].
> Note that two containers (autoconf and meson) failed at different place,
> so I think it is intentional one. It seems that there may be a bug related
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> > I went through this patch another time, and made some minor
> > adjustments. Now it looks good, I'm going to push it if no
> > objections.
> >
>
> I have a question related
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024, at 3:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Did you consider adding options for publication/subscription/slot
> names as mentioned in my previous email? As discussed in a few emails
> above, it would be quite confusing for users to identify the logical
> replication objects once the stan
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024, at 10:31 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> I was able to reproduce this random failure and found the following reason:
> The Minimum recovery ending location 0/500 was more than the
> recovery_target_lsn specified is "0/4001198". In few random cases the
> standby applies a few more W
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 at 21:16, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024, at 10:31 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> I was able to reproduce this random failure and found the following reason:
> The Minimum recovery ending location 0/500 was more than the
> recovery_target_lsn specified is "0/400119
I wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> One thing that concerns me about making even greater use of "$n" is
>> the potential for confusion with generic plan parameters.
> True.
After looking at your draft some more, it occurred to me that we're
not that far from getting rid of showing "$n" entirely i
Hi,
> In my opinion the order of options in pg_dump.sgml and the --help
> output is fine. Keeping this new option together with -e/--extension
> makes it easier to see, while otherwise it would get lost much further
> down.
I agree with your suggestion, so I'll maintain the original order as
p
> On 15 Mar 2024, at 14:47, Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
>
> +1 to the idea. I doubt that anyone will miss it.
PFA v22.
Changes:
1. Squashed all editorialisation by Jelte
2. Fixed my erroneous comments on using Method 2 (we are using method 1 instead)
3. Remove all traces of uuid_extract_var
Hackers,
The jsonpath doc[1] has an excellent description of the format of strings, but
for unquoted path keys, it simply says:
> Member accessor that returns an object member with the specified key. If the
> key name matches some named variable starting with $ or does not meet the
> JavaScrip
Hi,
On 2024-03-16 12:27:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I canvassed Andres off-list since smgrzeroextend() is his invention,
> and he wondered if it was a good idea to blur the distinction between
> the different zero-extension strategies like that. Good question. My
> take is that it's fine:
>
Hi,
On 2024-03-15 18:42:29 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 5:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-03-14 17:39:30 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I spent a good amount of time looking into this with Melanie. After a bunch
> > of
> > wrong paths I think I found the is
Hi David,
Thanks for your answer.
> The choice of warning is made because after the command ends the
> grantmin question does not exist. The revoke was a no-op and the
> final state is as the user intended.
Sorry, can you explain me what's the grantmin question is ?
Regards,
Étienne
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 1:00 PM Étienne BERSAC
wrote:
>
> > The choice of warning is made because after the command ends the
> > grantmin question does not exist. The revoke was a no-op and the
> > final state is as the user intended.
>
>
> Sorry, can you explain me what's the grantmin question
On 3/16/24 20:12, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-03-15 18:42:29 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 5:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-14 17:39:30 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>> I spent a good amount of time looking into this with Melanie. After a bun
Hi David,
> That should have read: the granted permission does not exist
Thanks, its clear.
However, I'm hitting the warning when removing a role from a group. But
the membership remains after the warning. In this case, I expect an
error.
I'll try to patch the behaviour to ensure an error if t
On Mar 16, 2024, at 14:39, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I went looking for the JavaScript rules for an identifier and found this in
> the MDN docs[2]:
>
>> In JavaScript, identifiers can contain Unicode letters, $, _, and digits
>> (0-9), but may not start with a digit. An identifier differs from
On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 19:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This patch seems to have stalled out again. In hopes of getting it
> over the finish line, I've done a bit more work to address the two
> loose ends I felt were probably essential to deal with:
Applies and builds fine.
I didn't scrutinize the
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 19:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This patch seems to have stalled out again. In hopes of getting it
>> over the finish line, I've done a bit more work to address the two
>> loose ends I felt were probably essential to deal with:
> Applies and builds fi
> On 16 Mar 2024, at 00:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 8:53 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 15 Mar 2024, at 21:56, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> I'd like to get this done ASAP so I can rebase my incremental parse
>>> patchset. Daniel, do you want to commit it? If not, I can.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9tienne?= BERSAC writes:
> I'll try to patch the behaviour to ensure an error if the REVOKE is
> ineffective.
I think we're unlikely to accept such a patch. By my reading, the way
we do it now is required by the SQL standard. The standard doesn't
seem to say that in so many wor
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:36 PM John Naylor wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:04 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > Given TidStoreSetBlockOffsets() is designed to always set (i.e.
> > > overwrite) the value, I think we should n
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 2:40 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:41:49PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > I've also attached the results of running this benchmark on my machine at
> > HEAD, after applying 0001, and after applying both 0001 and 0002. 0001
> > appears to work pr
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:49 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> > I played with that idea and it came out very nice. Please see the
> > attached v22 patch. Note that personally I didn't like "FORCE" being
> > there in the names, so I've simplified them a bit.
>
> Thanks. I'd like to spend some time test
On 13.03.24 19:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I looked at this patch today. I went through all the calls switched to
equalRowTypes, and AFAIK all of them are correct - all the places
switched to equalRowTypes() only need the weaker checks.
There's only two places still calling equalTupleDescs() - relca
Hi,
While working on [1], I noticed that the backtrace_functions GUC code
does its own string parsing and uses another extra variable
backtrace_function_list to store the processed form of
backtrace_functions GUC.
I think the code can be simplified a bit by using
SplitIdentifierString like in the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:03 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> I've rebased the attached v10 over top of the changes to
> lazy_scan_heap() Heikki just committed and over the v6 streaming read
> patch set. I started testing them and see that you are right, we no
> longer pin too many buffers. However,
30 matches
Mail list logo
