jian he 于2024年5月9日周四 18:00写道：
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 12:04 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have committed the first draft of the PG 17 release notes; you can
> > see the results here:
> >
> > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-17.html
> >
>
> another potential incompatibilities i
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 01:27:25PM +0800, Andy Fan wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bruce,
>>
>> > I have committed the first draft of the PG 17 release notes; you can
>> > see the results here:
>> >
>> >https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-17.html
>>
>> Thank you for working
I noticed that we (kind of) accept underscores in positional parameters.
For example, this works:
=> PREPARE p1 AS SELECT $1_2;
PREPARE
=> EXECUTE p1 (123);
?column?
--
123
(1 row)
Parameter $1_2 is taken as $1 because in rule {param} in scan.l we get
the par
Antonin Houska writes:
>> Could you make the reason clearer for adding 'List *opfamily_lists;'
>> into UniqueKey? You said "This is needed to create ECs in the parent
>> query if the upper relation represents a subquery." but I didn't get the
>> it. Since we need to maintain the UniqueKey in t
>> Consider join of tables "a", "b" and "c". My understanding is that
>> make_join_rel() is called once with rel1={a} and rel2={b join c}, then with
>> rel1={a join b} and rel2={c}, etc. I wanted to say that each call should
>> produce the same set of unique keys.
>>
>> I need to check this part
Hi Kuroda-san,
I'm having second thoughts about how these patches mention the option
values "on|off". These are used in the ALTER SUBSCRIPTION document
page for 'two_phase' and 'failover' parameters, and then those
"on|off" get propagated to the code comments, error messages, and
tests...
Now I s
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 10:13, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> To clarify, I think the patch is a step in the right direction, and a
> meaningful improvement. It may not be the perfect solution we imagine
> (but who knows how far we are from that), but AFAIK moving these
> decisions to the node level is some
Hi Kuroda-san, Here are some review comments for all patches v9*
//
Patch v9-0001
//
There were no changes since v8-0001, so no comments.
//
Patch v9-0002
//
==
Commit Message
2.1.
Regarding the off->on case, the logical replication already has a
mechanism f
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:01:21PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> Any objections to fixing this in 17 by removing it? (cc:ing Michael from the
>> RMT)
>
> +1 Something that is not documented or used by anyone (apparently) and
> is broken should just be removed.
8a02339e9ba3 sounds like an
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 7:30 AM Paul Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On 5/13/24 03:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > It looks like we missed some of these fundamental design questions early
> > on, and it might be too
> > late now to fix them for PG17.
> >
> > For example, the discussion on unique constraints
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:22:08AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Since json (and yaml/xml) is intended to be machine-readable I think we use a
> single unit for all values, and document this fact.
Agreed with the documentation gap. Another thing that could be worth
considering is to add the u
hi.
while reading this[1],
<< More information about partial indexes can be found in [ston89b],
[olson93], and [seshadri95].
I googled around, still cannot find [olson93] related pdf or html link.
in [2],
I found out
[ong90] “A Unified Framework for Version Modeling Using Production
Rules in a D
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 08:06:57PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Any chance we'll have these fixes in v17?
>
> Nice timing, I was actually rebasing them today to get them committed.
Looks sensible seen from here, as these paths could use a LOG or rely
on a memory context permanent to the bac
On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 17:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:22:08AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > Since json (and yaml/xml) is intended to be machine-readable I think we use
> > a
> > single unit for all values, and document this fact.
>
> Agreed with the documentati
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Remove the assert and reset the field on which it previously asserted to
> avoid incorrectly emitting NULL-filled tuples from a previous scan on
> rescan.
> - Assert(scan->rs_empty_tuples_pending == 0);
> + scan->rs_empty_
On 13/05/2024 16:01, Juan Hernández wrote:
Hi team!
First, i want to thank you for having your hands in this. You are doing
a fantastic and blessing job. Bless to you all!
I have a special need i want to comment to you. This is not a bug, is a
need i have and i write here for been redirected
On 10.05.24 11:53, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/05/2024 12:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In [0] I had noticed that we have no automated verification that global
variables are declared in header files. (For global functions, we have
this through -Wmissing-prototypes.) As I mentioned there, I d
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:18:24AM +0200, Erik Wienhold wrote:
> Parameter $1_2 is taken as $1 because in rule {param} in scan.l we get
> the parameter number with atol which stops at the underscore. That's a
> regression in faff8f8e47f. Before that commit, $1_2 resulted in
> "ERROR: trailing jun
> On 14 May 2024, at 07:40, jian he wrote:
> I googled around, still cannot find [olson93] related pdf or html link.
Judging by the bibliography reference it's a technical report from UCB, and
searching for the T7 identifier in the UCB library reveals that it's a M.Sc
thesis only available in ph
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
