On 2024-09-27 Fr 5:49 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 26, 2024, at 16:45, Alexandra Wang wrote:
I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
correct indentation. Hope this helps!
Oh, nice! I don’t suppose the standard also has defined an operator equivalent to
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:57 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 08:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Focusing on the first patch seems odd to me, though
>
> Indeed the first few patches will often be small, and the big patch
> will appear later. When I split patches up, those small pa
Re: Tom Lane
> So the first part of that is great, but if your script file is
> large you probably won't be happy about having the whole thing
> repeated in the "QUERY" field. So this needs some work on
> user-friendliness.
Does this really have to be addressed? It would be way better than it
is
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:44 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > > Here is the v14 patch-set fixing review comments in [1] and [2].
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I am reviewing patch001, it is WIP, but please
> > find initial set of comments:
> >
>
Please find
On Mon, 23 Sept 2024 at 09:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:27 AM David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 17:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 5:13 AM David Rowley wrote:
> > > > In general, it's a bit annoying to have to code around thi
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Tom Lane
>> (It might be worth some effort to trim away comments appearing
>> just before a command, but I didn't tackle that here.)
> The "error when psql" comments do look confusing, but I guess in other
> places the comment just before the query adds valuable conte
Jacob Champion wrote:
> Peter asked me if there were plans to provide a "standard" validator
> module, say as part of contrib. The tricky thing is that Bearer
> validation is issuer-specific, and many providers give you an opaque
> token that you're not supposed to introspect at all.
>
> We coul
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 01:27:38PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks, committed.
--
nathan
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:16 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:01 PM Alena Rybakina
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi! Thank you for your review!
> >
> > On 05.09.2024 15:47, jian he wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 1:23 AM Alena Rybakina
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all!
> >
> >
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:21 PM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> >> If we want to make it possible to use no tools and only manually grep
> >> for struct members, that means we can never reuse struct member names.
> >> Acr
Hi,
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 11:15 -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'm concerned that a pg_stat_vacuum_tables view has some duplicated
> statistics that we already collect in different ways. For instance,
> total_blks_{read,hit,dirtied,written} are already tracked at
> system-level by pg_stat_io,
pg
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 02:48:01PM +, Max Johnson wrote:
> I think that it would be a good idea to include these fixes in the next
> minor release. After working for a couple months on getting our embedded
> systems 2038 compliant, it has become very apparent that 2038 will be a
> substantial o
On Sep 27, 2024, at 12:07, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That would defeat being able to chain these.
Not if it’s a different operator. But I’m fine to just keep using ->> at the
end of a chain.
D
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:13 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:38 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>
> > > + * XXX I don't understand why we should have this special node if we
> > > + * don't have special nodes for other scan types.
> > >
> > > In this case, up until the final co
Here are some review comments for v14-0001.
This is a WIP, but here are my comments for all the SGML parts.
(There will be some overlap here with comments already posted by Shveta)
==
1. file modes after applying the patch
mode change 100644 => 100755 doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sg
tl;dr let's assume SSDs are popular and HDDs are the exception and flip our
default
As I write this email, it's the year 2024. I think it is time we lower our
"default" setting of random_page_cost (as set in postgresql.conf.sample and
the docs). Even a decade ago, the current default of 4 was cons
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:58 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> Have you considered sending the token for validation to the server, like this
>
> curl -X GET "https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v3/userinfo"; -H
> "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
In short, no, but I'm glad you asked. I think it's going to
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:39 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Sept 2024 at 09:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:27 AM David Rowley wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 17:46, Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 5:13 AM David Rowley
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:01 PM Alena Rybakina wrote:
>
> Hi! Thank you for your review!
>
> On 05.09.2024 15:47, jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 1:23 AM Alena Rybakina
> wrote:
>
> Hi, all!
>
> I have attached the new version of the code and the diff files
> (minor-vacuum.no-cbot)
Re: Tom Lane
> Perhaps. I spent a little more effort on this and added code to
> report errors that don't come with an error location. On those,
> we don't have any constraints about what to report in the QUERY
> field, so I made it trim the string to just the current query
> within the script, w
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 12:32:20AM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> I´ve found some dead code: BufMappingPartitionLockByIndex() is unused,
> and unused for a long time. See patch 1.
I don't see a reason to also get rid of BufTableHashPartition(), but
otherwise this looks reasonable to me. It wou
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I suggest that we add the wording to the
> query portion of the doc, near "security-
> restricted operation".
How does this look?
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 15:04 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > I suggest that we add the wording to the
> > query portion of the doc, near
> > "security-
> > restricted operation".
>
> How does this look?
Looks good to me.
Regards,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:19 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:16 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:01 PM Alena Rybakina
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi! Thank you for your review!
> > >
> > > On 05.09.2024 15:47, jian he wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:00 PM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Attached are the v22 patches. Just rebased.
Thanks!
With some bigger partitions, I hit an `ERROR: wrong pos: 1024`. A
test that reproduces it is attached.
While playing with the feature, I've been trying to identify runs of
matched rows
On Sep 26, 2024, at 13:59, Florents Tselai wrote:
> Speaking of extensible: the jsonpath standard does mention function
> extensions [1] ,
> so it looks like we're covered by the standard, and the mutability aspect is
> an implementation detail. No?
That’s not the standard used for Postgres js
Hi hackers,
per David's suggestion, this patch implements general
purpose array sort.
We can do the following with this patch:
SELECT array_sort('{1.1,3.3,5.5,2.2,4.4,6.6}'::float8[], 'asc');
SELECT array_sort('{abc DEF 123abc,ábc sßs ßss DÉF,DŽxxDŽ džxxDž
Džxxdž,ȺȺȺ,ⱥⱥⱥ,ⱥȺ}'::text[]);
SELECT array_so
> On 27 Sep 2024, at 12:45 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2024, at 13:59, Florents Tselai wrote:
>
>> Speaking of extensible: the jsonpath standard does mention function
>> extensions [1] ,
>> so it looks like we're covered by the standard, and the mutability aspect is
>> an im
> On 27 Sep 2024, at 03:30, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> Let's say you arbitrarily provide max_log_size = 100
Consider max_log_size = 10Mb. The perspective might look very different. It’s
not about WHERE anymore. It's a guard against heavy abuse.
The feature looks very important for me.
Best
Hi,
I've spent a bit of time looking at this patch. It seems there's a clear
consensus that having "owned schemas" for extensions would be good for
security. To me it also seems as a convenient way to organize stuff. It
was possible to create extensions in a separate schema before, ofc, but
that's
Michael Paquier writes:
> - New functions introduced during a development cycle should use OIDs in
> the range 8000-. See 98eab30b93d5, consisting of running
> ./unused_oids to get a random range.
There's been seen several fixups of this kind recently. Should we add a
note about this to th
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:07 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> Thank you, Robert. The code changes look much better now.
Cool.
> A few minor comments:
>
> +each tablespace, named after the tablespace's OID. If the backup
> +is compressed, the relevant compression extension is added to
On Fri, 27 Sept 2024 at 20:42, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> 2. The "disabled nodes" are not only shown at the nodes where nodes
>were actually disabled, but also at every nodes above these nodes.
I'm also not a fan either and I'd like to see this output improved.
It seems like it's easy enough to i
Greg Sabino Mullane writes:
> So I'll be brave and throw a number out there: 1.2. And change our
> docs to say wordage like "if you are using an older hard disk drive
> technology, you may want to try raising rpc" to replace our
> fairly-hidden note about SSDs buried in the last sentence - of the
On Sep 26, 2024, at 16:45, Alexandra Wang wrote:
> I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
> correct indentation. Hope this helps!
Oh, nice! I don’t suppose the standard also has defined an operator equivalent
to ->>, though, has it? I tend to want the text output
Hi all! Congrats on releasing v17!
I'm adding support for Index Only Scans to a custom IAM impl and I've got a
little dilemma.
My IAM implementation is essentially a composite index that might have up to 32
columns and while it can return any column in the index definition it's quite
expens
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 5:16 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi. Here are my review comments for v32-0001
>
> You wrote: "I have addressed all the comments in the v32-0001 Patch.",
> however, I found multiple old review comments not addressed. Please
> give a reason if a comment is deliberately left out
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:08 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi. Here are my v32-0002 review comments:
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/logical/tablesync.c
>
> 1. fetch_remote_table_info
>
> /*
> - * Get column lists for each relation.
> + * Get column lists for each relation, and check if any of
I think that it would be a good idea to include these fixes in the next minor
release. After working for a couple months on getting our embedded systems 2038
compliant, it has become very apparent that 2038 will be a substantial ordeal.
Maximizing the number of systems that include this fix woul
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 17:15, Shubham Khanna
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:55 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > I have fixed all the comments. The attached patches contain the desired
> > changes.
> > Also the merging of 0001 and 00
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 8:07 AM Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
> tl;dr let's assume SSDs are popular and HDDs are the exception and flip
> our default
>
> Granted, there are other factors involved, and yes, perhaps we should
> tweak some of the similar settings as well, but ranom_page_cost is the
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 10:07 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> So I'll be brave and throw a number out there: 1.2.
+1
Laurenz Albe
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:42:34PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> I agree with you. I overlooked WITH NO DATA.
> I attached a updated patch.
Thanks. Unless someone objects, I plan to commit this shortly.
--
nathan
I've marked this one as Withdrawn. Apologies for the noise.
--
nathan
Hi Kuroda-san,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> > Solution:
> > 1. When we alter a publication using commands like ‘ALTER PUBLICATION
> > pub_name DROP TABLE table_name’, first all tables in the publications
> > are invalidated using the function ‘rel_sync_cache_relation_cb’. Then
> > again ‘rel
On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 10:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I went ahead and committed these patches. I know there's some debate
> over whether we want to show the # of disabled nodes and if so whether
> it should be controlled by COSTS, and I suspect I haven't completely
> allayed David's concerns abo
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 10:34 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:42:34PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > I agree with you. I overlooked WITH NO DATA.
> > I attached a updated patch.
>
> Thanks. Unless someone objects, I plan to commit this shortly.
The command is run effective
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Tom Lane
>> So the first part of that is great, but if your script file is
>> large you probably won't be happy about having the whole thing
>> repeated in the "QUERY" field. So this needs some work on
>> user-friendliness.
> Does this really have to be addressed? It
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 3:20 PM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I re-ran the benchmark(*) with the v19 patch set and the
> following CPUs:
>
> 1. AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor
> 2. Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
>
> (*)
> * Use tables that have {5,10,15,20,25,30} integer columns
+/*
+ * Extract REJECT_LIMIT value from a DefElem.
+ */
+static int64
+defGetCopyRejectLimitOptions(DefElem *def)
+{
+ int64 reject_limit;
+
+ if (def->arg == NULL)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+ errmsg("REJECT_LIMIT requires a positive integer")));
+
+ if (nodeTag(def->arg) =
50 matches
Mail list logo
