> While backwards compatibility is important, there’s definitely precedent for
> changing
> what shows up in the catalog. IMHO it’s better to bite the bullet and move
> those fields
> instead of having vacuum stats spread across two different views.
Correct, the most recent one that I could thin
On 01/02/2025 3:42 pm, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 10:16 AM Larry Rosenman wrote:
What about doing what Rick suggests?
do {
dir = opendir("X");
dp = readdir(dir);
if (dp != NULL)
unlink(dp->d_name);
close(dir);
} while (dp != NULL);
?
Hi,
On 2024-12-27 12:32:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While brainstorming on the contents of the thread I have posted a
> couple of days ago, I have been looking at what could be done so as
> pgstats and WAL-logging could work together. This was point 2) from
> this message:
> https://www.po
Hi Shubham,
Here are some review comments for patch v5-0001.
==
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_createsubscriber.sgml
1.
+
+The source server must have to
+be set to -1 to prevent the automatic removal of WAL
+replication slots. Setting this parameter to files needed by a
specific size
+
I wrote:
> I forgot to report back, but yesterday I spent time unsuccessfully
> trying to reproduce the problem with macOS client and NFS server
> using btrfs (a Synology NAS running some no-name version of Linux).
Also, I *can* reproduce it using the same NFS server and a FreeBSD
14.2 client. At
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 4:41 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> A join between partitions is pushed down if only partitionwise join is
> chosen and a join between partitions won't be pushed down if
> partitionwise join is not chosen. Hence this bug affects pushdown as
> well.
>
> The CF entry shows as wait
> On Dec 31, 2024, at 5:41 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 12/31/24 21:46, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 2024, at 7:05 PM, James Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 11:24 PM Jim Nasby wrote:
IMHO none of this will be very sane until we actually have cluster-level
li
Hi Vignesh.
Here are some review comments for patch v20241230-0002
==
1. SYNTAX
The proposed syntax is currently:
CREATE PUBLICATION name
[ FOR ALL object_type [, ...]
| FOR publication_object [, ... ] ]
[ WITH ( publication_parameter [= value] [, ... ] ) ]
where object_type
On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 8:13 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the new version patch set which addressed all other comments.
>
Some more miscellaneous comments:
=
1.
@@ -1431,9 +1431,9 @@ RecordTransactionCommit(void)
* modifying it. This makes checkpoint's
Thomas Munro writes:
> For what little it's worth, I'm not quite convinced yet that FreeBSD's
> client isn't more broken than it needs to be.
I'm suspicious of that too. The wireshark trace you described is hard
to read any other way than that FreeBSD went out of its way to deliver
incorrect inf
I wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> For what little it's worth, I'm not quite convinced yet that FreeBSD's
>> client isn't more broken than it needs to be.
> I'm suspicious of that too.
I poked at this a little further. I made the attached stand-alone
test case (you don't need any more than "cc
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 6:43 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 23, 2024 2:15 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hou,
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch. Few comments:
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> > 02. ErrorOnReservedSlotName()
> >
> > Currently the functi
Larry Rosenman writes:
> @Tom Lane: This is what Rick Macklem (NFS dev on FreeBSD) has to say on
> my issue.
Thanks for reaching out to him. So if I'm reading this correctly,
there's little point in filing a FreeBSD bug because it'll be
dismissed as unfixable.
This leaves us in rather a nasty
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm obviously missing something here, because I'm sure Jakub is quite
> right when he says that this actually happened and actually hosed an
> EDB customer. But I don't understand HOW it happened, and I think if
> we're going to change the code we really ought to understand t
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 3:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm still of the opinion that the best thing to do is disclaim
> safety of storing a database on NFS.
If we're going to disclaim support for NFS, it would certainly be
better to do that clearly and with reasons than otherwise. However, I
suspect a
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 3:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I am wondering if the problem is not that the plan is slower, it's
> that for some reason the planner took a lot longer to create it.
> It's very plausible that partitionwise planning takes longer, and
> maybe we have some corner cases where the tim
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 3:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm still of the opinion that the best thing to do is disclaim
>> safety of storing a database on NFS.
> If we're going to disclaim support for NFS, it would certainly be
> better to do that clearly and with reasons than oth
On 01/02/2025 4:56 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
Would it make sense for ONLY drop database to have the above loop?
Not really. We'd just be papering over the most-easily-observable
consequence of readdir's malfeasance. There'd still be problems
like basebackups omitting files,
Larry Rosenman writes:
> Would it make sense for ONLY drop database to have the above loop?
Not really. We'd just be papering over the most-easily-observable
consequence of readdir's malfeasance. There'd still be problems
like basebackups omitting files, missed fsyncs potentially leading
to dat
Larry Rosenman writes:
> On 01/02/2025 4:56 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I am sort of wondering though why we've not heard reports of this
>> many times before. Did FreeBSD recently change something in this
>> area? Also, if as they argue it's a fundamental problem in the NFS
>> protocol, why are we f
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 10:53 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> (To be clear: if this is how FreeBSD acts, then I'm afraid we already
> do have such bugs. The rmtree case is just easier to observe than a
> missed fsync.)
For what little it's worth, I'm not quite convinced yet that FreeBSD's
client isn't more
hi.
all the newly added GUC
progressive_explain;
progressive_explain_verbose;
progressive_explain_settings;
progressive_explain_interval;
progressive_explain_output_size;
progressive_explain_format;
progressive_explain_sample_rate;
also need to add to postgresql.conf.sample?
in doc/src/sgml/mon
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:30:19AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 03:35:14PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:31:06AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > > So, to sum up:
> > >
> > > A. Locking is now done exclusively
On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM we used to disclaim responsibility for data integrity if you
> try to put PGDATA on NFS. I looked at the current wording about
> NFS in runtime.sgml and was frankly shocked at how optimistic it is.
> Shouldn't we be saying something closer to
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 5:40 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> Regarding the back-patch, this patch is a bug fix, which suggests it
> should be back-patched. However, it also changes some plans by fixing
> the cost estimation. Does anyone know what our usual approach is in
> this situation?
Although this
Il giorno mar 31 dic 2024 alle ore 16:31 Andres Freund
ha scritto:
2024-12-19 04:47:04 CET [2646363]: ERROR: could not extend file
> "pg_tblspc/107724/PG_16_202307071/465960/3232056651.2" by 11 blocks, from
> 29850 to 29861, using FileFallocate(): No space left on device
Dunno it it helps, bu
Hi all,
I am reaching out to solicit your insights and comments on a recent proposal
regarding the "Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL." We have identified some
challenges with the current WAL insertions, which require space reservations in
the WAL buffer which involve updating two shared-memo
Hi all,
I am reaching out to solicit your insights and comments on a recent proposal
regarding the "Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL." We have identified some
challenges with the current WAL insertions, which require space reservations in
the WAL buffer which involve updating two shared-memo
Hi all,
I am reaching out to solicit your insights and comments on a recent proposal
regarding the "Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL." We have identified some
challenges with the current WAL insertions, which require space reservations in
the WAL buffer which involve updating two shared-memo
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.01.2025 um 15:57 +0100 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson:
> > I adapted the code from the publicly available reference
> > implementation
> > at [1]. It's based on our existing OpenSSL infrastructure in
> > pgcrypto
> > and produces compatible password hashes with crypt() and "openssl
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 8:06 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shubham,
>
> Here are some review comments for patch v5-0001.
>
> ==
> doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_createsubscriber.sgml
>
> 1.
> +
> +The source server must have
> to
> +be set to -1 to prevent the automatic removal of WAL
> +r
hi.
in the function svariableStartupReceiver all these "ereport(ERROR"
cannot happen,
since transformLetStmt already did all the heavy work.
base on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/error-message-reporting.html
all these "ereport(ERROR," in the svariableStartupReceiver can be
simplified as
Robert Haas writes:
> Oh, I agree, but I don't see why anyone would care whether rel names
> are unique across different queries. When I mentioned global
> uniqueness, I meant unique within a query, like what
> set_rtable_names() does after the fact.
Okay, but then we still have the problem of ho
Hi,
Thanks for the work you have done here. Exposing cumulative
metrics at this level of detail for vacuum is surely useful to find
vacuum bottlenecks and to determine the effectiveness of
vacuum tuning.
I am yet to look very closely, but I think some additional columns that
will be useful is the
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 03:48:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman writes:
> > @Tom Lane: This is what Rick Macklem (NFS dev on FreeBSD) has to say on
> > my issue.
>
> Thanks for reaching out to him. So if I'm reading this correctly,
> there's little point in filing a FreeBSD bug becau
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems sufficient to avoid alias pushdown when there's an ORDER BY
>> inside the VALUES subquery. We disallow a locking clause, and
>> while there can be LIMIT/OFFSET, those aren't allowed to reference the
>> VALUES output
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:22 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>
> On 24/7/2024 15:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 9:42 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> >> Is there a specific query that demonstrates benefits from this change?
> >> I'm curious about scenarios where a partitionwise join runs s
On 20.12.24 02:00, Jacob Champion wrote:
v40 also contains:
- explicit testing for connect_timeout compatibility
- support for require_auth=oauth, including compatibility with
require_auth=!scram-sha-256
- the ability for a validator to set authn_id even if the token is not
authorized, for audita
Hi,
While reviewing some other patches implementing stream API for core subsystems,
I noticed that the amcheck extension could also benefit from that.
Notice the refactor when handling the "skip" parameter; The logic was moved to
the heapam_read_stream_next_block callback so that verify_heapam do
> On 2 Jan 2025, at 16:17, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.01.2025 um 15:57 +0100 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson:
>>> I adapted the code from the publicly available reference
>>> implementation
>>> at [1]. It's based on our existing OpenSSL infrastructure in
>>> pgcrypto
>>> and produces
Thomas Munro writes:
> I now suspect this specific readdir() problem is in FreeBSD's NFS
> client. See below. There have also been reports of missed files from
> (IIRC) Linux clients without much analysis, but that doesn't seem too
> actionable from here unless someone can come up with a repro o
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 3:27 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Global uniqueness across the database (not single queries) would be
> needed to prevent cases where different views use the same generated
> names. The only way I can see to do that without nasty performance
> costs is to use something like an OID
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> In particular, in a situation where we're trying to show a plan for
>> a query with inlined views, EXPLAIN would probably have to have code
>> to unique-ify the names anyway --- there's no way we're going to make
>> these n
@Tom Lane: This is what Rick Macklem (NFS dev on FreeBSD) has to say on
my issue.
Original Message
Subject: Re: A new look at old NFS readdir() problems?
Date: 01/02/2025 10:08 am
From: Rick Macklem
To: Thomas Munro
Cc: Rick Macklem , Larry Rosenman
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at
On Sat, Nov 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> regression=# create view vv as SELECT * FROM (VALUES (4),(2),(3),(1) ORDER BY
> t1.x LIMIT 2) AS t1(x);
> CREATE VIEW
> regression=# \d+ vv
> View "public.vv"
> Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Stora
> On Jan 2, 2025, at 2:12 PM, Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> Alternatively, we can remove the vacuum related stats from pg_stat_all_tables,
> but that will break monitoring tools and will leave us with the (auto)analyze
> metrics alone in pg_stat_all_tables. This sounds very ugly.
While backwards compa
On 01/02/2025 2:50 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 03:48:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
> @Tom Lane: This is what Rick Macklem (NFS dev on FreeBSD) has to say on
> my issue.
Thanks for reaching out to him. So if I'm reading this correctly,
there's little p
On 1/2/25 22:09, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31, 2024, at 5:41 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> On 12/31/24 21:46, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 2024, at 7:05 PM, James Hunter
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 11:24 PM Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> IMHO none of this will be very sane
Hi Vignesh,
Some minor review comments for the patch v20241230-0003.
==
src/backend/replication/logical/syncutils.c
1.
+ * syncutils.c
+ * PostgreSQL logical replication: common synchronization code
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2024, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Happy New Year.
s/2024/20
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 4:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shubham.
>
> Here are some review comments for the patch v4-0001.
>
> ==
> Commit message.
>
> 1.
> The 'pg_createsubscriber' utility is updated to fetch and validate the
> 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' setting from the publisher. A warning i
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 at 08:13, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 23, 2024 2:15 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hou,
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch. Few comments:
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> > 02. ErrorOnReservedSlotName()
> >
> > Currently the function
> On 31 Dec 2024, at 17:06, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> I adapted the code from the publicly available reference implementation
> at [1]. It's based on our existing OpenSSL infrastructure in pgcrypto
> and produces compatible password hashes with crypt() and "openssl
> passwd" with "-5" and "-6" switch
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 5:44 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> My review comments for patch v58-0001.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
>
> 1.
> /*
> - * If the slot can be acquired, do so and mark it invalidated
> - * immediately. Otherwise we
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 8:16 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha,
>
> Here are some minor review comments for patch v58-0002.
>
Thank you for your feedback! Please find the v59 patch set addressing
all the comments.
Note: There are no new changes in patch-0001.
--
Thanks,
Nisha
From 8154e2baee6fcf
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 at 08:13, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 23, 2024 2:15 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hou,
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch. Few comments:
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> > 02. ErrorOnReservedSlotName()
> >
> > Currently the function
Hi,
On 2025-01-02 11:41:56 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> Il giorno mar 31 dic 2024 alle ore 16:31 Andres Freund
> ha scritto:
>
> 2024-12-19 04:47:04 CET [2646363]: ERROR: could not extend file
> > "pg_tblspc/107724/PG_16_202307071/465960/3232056651.2" by 11 blocks, from
> > 29850 to 29861, u
Hi,
On 2024-12-20 11:39:42 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-12-19 17:47:13 +1100, Michael Harris wrote:
> > This is a different system to those I previously provided logs from.
> > It is also running RHEL8 with a similar configuration to the other
> > system.
>
> Given it's a RHEL system, hav
Hi,
After a recent question regarding tracking vacuum start_time in
pg_stat_all_tables [1], it dawned on me that this view is missing
an important cumulative metric, which is how much time is spent
performing vacuum per table.
Currently, the only way a user can get this
information is if they ena
On 09.12.24 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
I have done a pass over much of the source code with
include-what-you-use (IWYU) to remove superfluous includes (commits
dbbca2cf299, 9be4e5d293b, ecb5af77987). Along the way I have collected
some pragma annotations to deal with excep
This message is a duplicate of
ph7pr11mb5796659f654f9be983f3ad97ef...@ph7pr11mb5796.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
Please consider dropping this thread and review the original one instead.
Sorry for your inconvenience.
-Original Message-
From: Zhou, Zhiguo
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025
This message is a duplicate of
ph7pr11mb5796659f654f9be983f3ad97ef...@ph7pr11mb5796.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
Please consider dropping this thread and review the original one instead.
Sorry for your inconvenience.
-Original Message-
From: Zhou, Zhiguo
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025
Thanks for reviewing!
Em qui., 2 de jan. de 2025 às 13:16, Kirill Reshke
escreveu:
>
> However, this:
>
> >- if (skip_option == SKIP_PAGES_ALL_FROZEN)
> >- {
> >- if ((mapbits & VISIBILITYMAP_ALL_FROZEN) != 0)
> >- continue;
> >- }
> >-
> >- if (skip_option == SKIP_PAGES_ALL_VISIBLE)
> >- {
> >-
> On 23 Mar 2024, at 14:22, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>
> IMHO, it makes sense to have something like replay_source_order if
> there's any use case that arises in future requiring the standby to
> intentionally switch to pg_wal or archive. But not as part of this
> feature.
IMO, it's vital
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 09.12.24 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In particular, this patchset introduces what seem like very
>> error-prone setups, such as in rmgrdesc.c where there's now one
>> group of #include's with "pragma: begin_keep/pragma: end_keep"
>> around it and another group without.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 20:29, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing some other patches implementing stream API for core
> subsystems,
> I noticed that the amcheck extension could also benefit from that.
>
> Notice the refactor when handling the "skip" parameter; The logic was moved
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The documentation seems to overlook the rewrite condition
> when executing ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN.
>
> The current document states that a volatile DEFAULT will
> trigger a rewrite of the table and its indexes. However, the
> table an
Attached patch goes a bit further with simplifying _bt_first's
handling of seizing the parallel scan. This continues recent work from
commits 4e6e375b and b5ee4e52.
Aside from requiring less code, the new structure relieves _bt_first
from having separate calls to _bt_start_array_keys for the seria
Hi,
While working on NOT ENFORCED constraints[1], which are by default marked as NOT
VALID, I encountered an error when adding a NOT ENFORCED foreign key (FK)
constraint to a partitioned table [2]. Alvaro also confirmed off-list that NOT
VALID FK constraints have not yet been implemented. This pat
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
> When adding a new FK constraint or attaching a partitioned table, where
> matching FK constraints are merged, we allow the parent constraint to be NOT
> VALID while the child constraint remains VALID, which is harmless. However,
> the
> reverse
On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hmm, OK, that's useful. But I guess I'm still puzzled about the theory
> > here. A name like *VALUES* doesn't seem like it was created with the
> > idea of referring to it from some other part of your query. I do take
> > your point that it work
70 matches
Mail list logo
