On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> Seeing no further discussion, I have committed my version of this
> patch, with your test case.
This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
backward (double negatives are tricky):
* Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we ac
another rebase for cfbot
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 0ccdbb0a010830380e6ff4b7a052198d50f0680f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:28:53 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v20 1/5] introduce routine for checking mutually exclusive
st
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:23 AM David Rowley wrote:
> Because this field is set, it plans the CTE thinking it's a UNION
> child and breaks when it can't find a SortGroupClause for the CTE's
> target list item.
Right. The problem here is that we mistakenly think that the CTE query
is a subquery
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:59 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:35 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > If we just sync inactive_since value for synced slots while in
> > recovery from the primary, so be it. Why do we need to update it to
> > the current time when the slot
Alvaro Herrera 于2024年3月26日周二 23:25写道：
> On 2024-Mar-26, Tender Wang wrote:
>
> > postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1(c0 int, c1 int);
> > postgres=# ALTER TABLE t1 ADD CONSTRAINT Q PRIMARY KEY(c0, c1);
> > postgres=# ALTER TABLE t1 DROP c1;
> >
> > postgres=# ALTER TABLE t1 ALTER c0 DROP NOT NULL;
> >
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:16 PM jian he wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:08 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:53 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > I'll push 0001 tomorrow.
> >
> > Pushed that one. Here's the remaining JSON_TABLE() patch.
> >
hi.
I don't fully unders
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:42 PM jian he wrote:
> hi.
> I don't fully understand all the code in json_table patch.
> maybe we can split it into several patches,
I'm working on exactly that atm.
> like:
> * no nested json_table_column.
> * nested json_table_column, with PLAN DEFAULT
> * nested js
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> > I'm attaching v24 patches. It implements the above idea proposed
> > upthread for synced slots.
>
> v24-0002
>
> 1 ===
>
> This commit does two things:
> 1) Updates inactive_since for sync slots with the value
> receiv
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:10 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2024-Mar-26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> > FWIW I'd really prefer to have something like max_slot_xid_age for this. A
> > time-based parameter would likely help with most cases, but transaction ID
> > usage will vary widely from server to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > 3)
> > update_synced_slots_inactive_time():
> >
> > This assert is removed, is it intentional?
> > Assert(s->active_pid == 0);
>
> Yes, the slot can get acquired in the c
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 3)
> > > update_synced_slots_inactive_time():
> > >
> > > This assert is removed, is it intentional?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:24 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > update_synced_sl
Rebased, fixed a couple typos, and reordered the isolation tests to
put the most elaborate pair last.
v11-0001-Refactor-GetLockConflicts-into-more-general-GetL.patch
Description: Binary data
v11-0002-Allow-specifying-single-lockmode-in-WaitForLocke.patch
Description: Binary data
v11-0003-Add-
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:05 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
>
> > We can think on that later if we really need another
> > field which give us sync time.
>
> I think that calling GetCurrentTimestamp() so frequently could be too costly,
> so
> I'm not sure we should.
Agreed.
> > In my second appro
David Rowley writes:
> Unfortunately, REL_16_STABLE does not have the additional debugging,
> so don't get to know what reltuples was set to.
Let's wait a bit to see if it fails in HEAD ... but if not, would
it be reasonable to back-patch the additional debugging output?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Please find the attached v25-0001 (made this 0001 patch now as
> inactive_since patch is committed) patch with the above changes.
Fixed an issue in synchronize_slots where DatumGetLSN is being used in
place of DatumGetTimestampTz. Foun
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08:33AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > - if (!(RecoveryInProgress() && slot->data.synced))
> > + if (!(InRecovery && slot->data.synced))
> > slo
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:05 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Fixed an issue in synchronize_slots where DatumGetLSN is being used in
> place of DatumGetTimestampTz. Found this via CF bot member [1], not on
> my dev system.
>
> Please find the attached v6 patch.
Thanks for the patch. Few trivial t
>
>
>
> +\gexec
>
> Why do we need to construct the command and execute? Can we instead
> execute the function directly? That would also avoid ECHO magic.
>
We don't strictly need it, but I've found the set-difference operation to
be incredibly useful in diagnosing problems. Additionally, the valu
>
> 1) The docs say this:
>
>
>The purpose of this function is to apply statistics values in an
>upgrade situation that are "good enough" for system operation until
>they are replaced by the next ANALYZE, usually via
>autovacuum This function is used by
>pg_upgrade and pg_res
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 12:38, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:54 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing! PSA new version.
> >
>
> Pushed this after making minor changes in the comments.
Recently there was a failure in 004_subscription tap test at [1].
I
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:01 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > I found that adding __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) to
> > fasthash_accum_cstring_aligned() passes CI. While this kind of
> > exception is warned against (for good reason), I think it's fine here
> > given that glibc and NetBSD, and pro
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:20 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > I agree with your points. Previously I was thinking that CTEs were the
> > only scenario where we needed to remember the best path and only
> > required the best path's pathkeys. However, considering potential
> > future
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:10 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-Mar-26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW I'd really prefer to have something like max_slot_xid_age for this.
> > > A
> > > time-based parameter would likely help
101 - 124 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
