Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:31:01AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
>> I applied the v5* patches and ran make check-world. All passed OK.
>>
>> Your fat comma changes have greatly improved readability, particularly
>> in 040_createsubscriber (the file that caused me to start t
On 2025-Jan-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> There's a few recent SQL/JSON error messages in which we say something
> "should" be something else. We avoid this, so I think we shouldn't use
> it here either.
Pushed.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> However, a partial-aggregation path does not generate the same data
> as an unaggregated path, no matter how fuzzy you are willing to be
> about the concept. So I'm having a very hard time accepting that
> it ought to be part of the same RelOptInf
Marcos Pegoraro writes:
> Today Amit Langote committed execScan.h and put on its header years from
> 1996 to 2025. Those years are what exactly ?
1996 is when the open-source Postgres effort started.
There's a bigger philosophical issue here, which is whether a new file
shouldn't just list the c
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:28 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:53 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> > If, at last, the conclusion of this discussion is that we should not
> > apply this change until we fix those problems in aggregate estimates,
> > I'd be very sad. This conclusion is absol
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 08:59, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> IIUC, patch v53-0004 is primarily a bug fix for a docs omission of the
> master implementation.
>
> So,
>
> 1. IMO think this patch in its current form must come *before* the
> 0003 patch where you changed the PUBLICATION option from bool to enu
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I've not tracked down the exact cause of that, but I think it
> has to do with the fact that NUM_numpart_from_char() is willing
> to eat a single leading space per call, even if it's not the
> first call. The original author's reasoning for
On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Patch looks good to me, but I am not sure about this part of the comment:
>
> "Only the topmost one is to be considered here; the child constraints
> must be left alone,"
>
> In this case, none of the pg_constraint entries are actually considered.
> right?
Hi @Andres Freund
> I'm not sure I understand the specifics here - did the high WAL generation
> rate result in the recycling taking too long? Or did checkpointer take
too
> long to write out data, and because of that recycling didn't happen
frequently
> enough?
If the WAL generation rate highl
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 6:34 PM Maiquel Grassi
wrote:
> >That leads me to also wonder why don't we change \conninfo to have this
> >tabular behavior instead of creating a separate command for it. Why do
> >we need to keep the existing form of \conninfo? To me it seems strictly
> >less usef
Hi!
On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 3:59 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > /*
> > * Lock a tuple in the specified mode.
> > *
> > * Input parameters:
> > *relation: relation containing tuple (caller must hold suitable lock)
> > *tid: TID of tuple to lock
> > *snapshot: snapshot to use
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:03 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 3:59 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > > /*
> > > * Lock a tuple in the specified mode.
> > > *
> > > * Input parameters:
> > > *relation: relation containing tuple (caller must hold suitable lock)
> >
Hi All,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 11:01 AM Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Starting from PG16, it seems that orphaned users can only be managed
> by superusers. For example, if userA creates userB, and userB creates
> userC, then both userB (the parent of userC) and userA (the
> grandparent o
// Mutex should be last field, as this field isn't copied to dump file
Updated.
2) You didn't take into account the upgrade. Saved in Postgres with
this byte and try to load in version without this byte.
The PGSS_DUMP_FILE format is defined by PGSS_FILE_HEADER magic number
(the first four byte
Hi
út 21. 1. 2025 v 11:45 odesílatel Umar Hayat
napsal:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 04:04, Jim Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Umar
> >
> > On 20.01.25 17:19, Umar Hayat wrote:
> > > Hi Jim & Pavel,
> > > Sorry for getting back a bit late on this. Few more case you might
> > > need consider:
> > >
> > > A
Hi Tomas,
I've tried the pgbench test
> again, to see if it gets stuck somewhere, and I'm observing this on a
> new / idle cluster:
>
> $ pgbench -n -f test.sql -P 1 test -T 60
> pgbench (18devel)
> progress: 1.0 s, 1647.9 tps, lat 0.604 ms stddev 0.438, 0 failed
> progress: 2.0 s, 1374.3 tps, la
> On 20 Jan 2025, at 01:26, Koshi Shibagaki (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for moving this discussion forward.
>
>> Maybe we could document that the test should fail if fips is enabled?
>>
>> FWIW I have not tested at all on a fips enabled machine. I will see about
>> doing
>> that...
> I t
Hi Andrey,
Thank you for your feedback!
I think here you can just specify target timeline for the standby instance_1
and it will continue recovery from instance_2.
Most likely yes, but nevertheless it looks more like a W/A.
Persisting recovery signal file for some _timeout_ seems super dan
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:43 PM Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:59 PM Corey Huinker
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you saying that there is a path for a partitioned index to have
>>> stats today? If so, we can just follow that locking protocol. If not,
>>> I'm concerned about tryin
What does this patch give on aglobal scale? Does it save much memory or
increase performance? How many times?
On 1/21/25 13:51, m.litsa...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
// Mutex should be last field, as this field isn't copied to dump file
Updated.
2) You didn't take into account the upgrade. Saved i
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:19 AM Maciek Sakrejda
wrote:
> V7 passes check-world here. But, just for kicks, I generated all
> possible 7-character sequences of Roman digits [1] to confirm whether
> everything either parsed cleanly or errored cleanly. Reviewing the
> output, I noticed that to_n
> On 21 Jan 2025, at 22:13, Joe Conway wrote:
> I think this is a non-issue. Every implementation I have seen, the OS-level
> enabling of FIPS mode is just a way to ensure openssl is automatically put
> into FIPS mode when the library is loaded, just as if (and not depending on)
> the applicat
Hi,
I like the clarification but I think that:
A higher leaf_fragmentation indicates that the
physical order of the index leaf
pages increasingly deviates from their logical order.
Would be cleaner than:
The higher leaf_fragmentation is, the less the
physical order
of the index leaf pages c
I am working on a project which requires me to create a background worker. This
worker checks some array(shared memory) every second and then connects to the
database mentioned within the array. That is I want to connect to different
databases using the same background worker without killing it.
Hi Tom,
Our customers prefer "in product" solution instead of trigger-based solution
due to the overheads and risks associated with triggers on their Production
systems.
Oracle already provides the user session information in the redo/transaction
logs.
We have created a feature request, and M
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
> Come from [0] and thanks for working on this. Here are some design
> review/question after my first going through the patch.
Thanks for taking a look.
> 1. walwriter vs checkpointer? I prefer to walwriter for now because..
>
> a. chec
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:52:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
>> 3. Why is the purpose of preallocated_segments directory? what in my
>> mind is we just prellocate the normal filename so that XLogWrite could
>> open it directly. This is
Hi,
On 2025-01-21 10:13:14 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:52:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
> >> 3. Why is the purpose of preallocated_segments directory? what in my
> >> mind is we just prellocate the norm
Michel Pelletier writes:
> Thanks Tom! These applied cleanly to my test env and actually increased my
> livejournal graph benchmark by a million edges per second, so I guess I
> didn't have all the previous changes in my last build as you noted.
Nice! I hope somebody will review this, because I
> On 21 Jan 2025, at 18:51, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 1/21/25 06:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> If we add such an alternative output we also need the other case where FIPS
>> is
>> disabled and the functions work, which means we add no test coverage at all
>> as
>> both options are allowed to pas
On 2024-Nov-04, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Someone emailed me privately saying they were confused because [...]
> I think this is someone with limited English ability, which could
> explain the confusion.
I just realized you added "Reported-by: Tom Lane" to the commit message
of this change (f722dd3
Em ter., 21 de jan. de 2025 às 14:50, Álvaro Herrera <
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> escreveu:
> I have to ask, why do you think this is important?
>
I'm just reading sources, navigating on files history and learning, so
don't be furious with me.
Why is this important ? Well, if that file has a 2014-2
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 17:43, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>
> I attach a prototype patch.
Here's v2, now it passes all the tests with wal_debug.
Some stats. On this test
create table a as select random() from generate_series(1,1e7);
select pg_stat_reset_shared('wal'); create index on a(random );
On 01/19/25 12:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> You can build that yourself, typically by adding a trigger that stores
> the value of "current_user" into inserted/updated rows. (If you want
> to also track deletions, a separate audit log table would work
> better.) The event-trigger feature might also be us
>
>
>
>
> /*
> * For indexes, we follow what do_analyze_rel() does so as to avoid any
> * deadlocks with analyze/vacuum, which is to take out a
> * ShareUpdateExclusive on table/matview first and only after that take
> * a a AccessShareLock on the index itself.
> */
> t
Marcos Pegoraro writes:
> Why is this important ? Well, if that file has a 2014-2025, I can know how
> old it is, more or less which version was included, etc
> Additionally, I see all of you adding or removing a single letter to
> sources, why not adjust those years on header files ?
Our git his
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > My thoughts are that any consistency improvement is a step in the
> > > right direction so even "don't increase
Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
parent
|
child
/\
/ \
/grandchild2
/
grandchild1
and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
constraint on child. What happens if I add a constraint on parent? In
my understanding, it sho
> On 21 Jan 2025, at 21:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> (If we end up inventing a FIPS-mode flag, I would fully expect
> interested vendors to patch our code to force it on when the
> OS-level flag is set, which is exactly what they will have done
> to OpenSSL. We should design our behavior with that in m
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> It could indeed be useful, but I doubt we can make it portable to check for
> anything but the state of OpenSSL. If the operating system has a FIPS mode
> then we won't capture that. That might not be a problem since if the OS is in
> FIPS mode then OpenSSL most likel
On 1/21/25 15:59, Tom Lane wrote:
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
It could indeed be useful, but I doubt we can make it portable to check for
anything but the state of OpenSSL. If the operating system has a FIPS mode
then we won't capture that. That might not be a problem since if the OS is in
FIPS
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:21 AM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> It needs lots of work including modifying CREATE FUNCTION
> command. Instead you could add an API to WinObject access functions to
> export ignore_nulls value. Then let each window function check it. If
> the window function should not take IGN
Em ter., 21 de jan. de 2025 às 12:36, Tom Lane escreveu:
> so we prefer to use the same copyright dates as related older files even
> in less
> clear-cut cases.
>
Thank you Tom for your time.
But these numbers seem inaccurate, because there are 1644 copyright strings
but 1521 are 1996-2025. So,
"ISHAN CHHANGANI ." writes:
> I am working on a project which requires me to create a background worker.
> This worker checks some array(shared memory) every second and then connects
> to the database mentioned within the array. That is I want to connect to
> different databases using the same
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I did write a patch in Novemer 2023 to pass the dimension to the layers
> that needed it, but it was considered too much code compared to its
> value:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/zvwi_ozt8z9mc...@momjian.us
Ah, I'd forgotten that discussion. It looks lik
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 12:31 AM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Starting from PG16, it seems that orphaned users can only be managed
> by superusers. For example, if userA creates userB, and userB creates
> userC, then both userB (the parent of userC) and userA (the
> grandparent of userC) would typicall
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed explanations, I've definitely misinterpreted
how interrupts and errors were handled.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 7:03 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Might be worth using it it in src/test/postmaster/t/002_start_stop.pl? That
> has e.g. code to send a startup message.
I've c
>
>
>>
>>
> Sorry about that, my nvim config is auto-including stuff and it's annoying.
>
>
Now with less includes and fewer typos:
From 93e67e5304132e680b628b3e92f9fd242d998abd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Corey Huinker
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:52:58 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v42] Lock table firs
> You might be interested by this thread "Thinking about EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE":
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM-w4HNm1M5J-ow8UjTcqRe3JPxkVCrGe56tRpPUSePSdGcZ_w%40mail.gmail.com
I reviewed this thread, and the primary issue with the EXPLAIN command lies
in the inability to predict all t
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 12:46:04PM -0800, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> Inspired by a prior proposal by Sami Imseih for tracking Plan IDs [0], as
> well as extensions like pg_stat_plans [1] (unmaintained), pg_store_plans
> [2] (not usable on production, see notes later) and aurora_stat_plans [3]
> (enabled
Hunaid Sohail writes:
> The leading spaces are consumed in the RN (from the main loop
> in Num_processor), and this behavior seems consistent with how
> simple numbers are handled. The Roman numeral parsing
> appears to start from where "RN" is in the format after
> leading spaces are consumed.
Y
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:33 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> I've been thinking about this proposal, and it's quite appealing. It
> would significantly reduce both the planning effort and implementation
> complexity, while still yielding reasonable planning results.
>
> One concern I have with this propo
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:09 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I noticed that v2 of this patch series failed to apply after
> 7b27f5fd3, so here's v3. No non-trivial changes.
>
Thanks Tom! These applied cleanly to my test env and actually increased my
livejournal graph benchmark by a million edges per sec
On 2025/01/21 20:27, Rahila Syed wrote:
Hi Tomas,
I've tried the pgbench test
again, to see if it gets stuck somewhere, and I'm observing this on a
new / idle cluster:
$ pgbench -n -f test.sql -P 1 test -T 60
pgbench (18devel)
progress: 1.0 s, 1647.9 tps, lat 0.604
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:50 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the new patches. I've repeated my benchmarking on v8, and I
> agree this looks fine - the speedups are reasonable and match what I'd
> expect on this hardware. I don't see any suspicious results like with
> the earlier patc
Marcos Pegoraro writes:
> But these numbers seem inaccurate, because there are 1644 copyright strings
> but 1521 are 1996-2025.
[ shrug... ] I did not claim that this idea has been adhered to 100%.
In a code base as old and large as ours, very few things are adhered
to 100%.
> Hello! I'm Matthew Sterrett and I'm a coworker of Raghuveer; he asked me to
> look into the Windows build failures related to pg_comp_crc32c.
>
> It seems that the only thing that was required to fix that is to mark
> pg_comp_crc32c as PGDLLIMPORT, so I added a patch that does just that.
> I'm n
On 2025-Jan-21, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> But these numbers seem inaccurate, because there are 1644 copyright strings
> but 1521 are 1996-2025. So, JSONB, BRIN, FDW, Logical Replication and lots
> of others, all of them were started in 1996 or have any related code ?
I have to ask, why do you thin
On 1/21/25 06:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025, at 01:26, Koshi Shibagaki (Fujitsu)
wrote:
Thank you for moving this discussion forward.
Maybe we could document that the test should fail if fips is enabled?
FWIW I have not tested at all on a fips enabled machine. I will see about
Chapman Flack writes:
> I wonder how close one could get to the customer request (better
> forensics without having to build extra columns and triggers at the
> SQL level) with an extension and existing hooks.
An extension would be a great solution if we can make it work.
> I haven't used it, bu
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 10:47 PM Lukas Fittl wrote:
>
> The first patch allows use of node jumbling by other unit files /
> extensions, which would help an out-of-core extension avoid duplicating all
> the node jumbling code.
>
> The second patch adds a function for the extensible cumulative stati
Hi,
On 2025-01-21 13:28:43 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 01/19/25 12:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> > You can build that yourself, typically by adding a trigger that stores
> > the value of "current_user" into inserted/updated rows. (If you want
> > to also track deletions, a separate audit log table w
On 12.01.25 00:19, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
On 1/4/25 13:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
These updates fix a problem in the unaccent contrib module. When I
added a new parameter to get_func_namespace, I changed a call there.
Then I when took out that parameter, I didn't update the extension
again. Othe
Thanks Jian for the detailed review and testing.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 21:32, jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> some minor issues come to my mind when I look at it again.
>
> looking at set_null_conf,
> i think "if (archDumpFormat != archNull)" can be:
>
> if (archDumpFormat != archNull)
> {
> OPF = fope
On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 10:00 -0800, James Hunter wrote:
> How should “query_work_mem” work? Let’s start with an example:
> suppose
> we have an OLAP query that has 2 Hash Joins, and no other operators
> that use work_mem.
So we plan first, and then assign available memory afterward? If we do
it tha
I wrote:
> I wonder if we should try to fix the GIN AM to avoid that.
> The column being indexed is of an array type in these cases, but the
> index entries aren't. It seems inconsistent that it sets up the index
> column's attndims and atttypid this way.
Ah, I see the problem: it's not GIN's fau
This will only reduce the size of the
$PGDATA/pg_stat/pg_stat_statements.txt file. Even with
100k entries, the most I have seen pg_stat_statements.max
set to, that will be less than 1 MB of disk saving. The default
config of 5k entries will be much less.
Regards,
Sami
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:35 PM Hunaid Sohail wrote:
> Agreed. Your changes in v7 consumes leading spaces if leading space
> is present in format (' RN'). But we need it to work on cases like:
> SELECT to_number(' XIV', 'RN');
> So, I can add this logic in my next patch.
>
So, I was playing wi
On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 7:48 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
[..]
> >> I have previously encountered situations where the non-garbage-collected
> >> memory of wal_sender was approximately hundreds of megabytes or even
> >> exceeded 1GB, but I was unable to reproduce this situation using simple
> >> SQL. The
On 20.01.25 23:21, Chapman Flack wrote:
> Therefore I'm thinking that, given the specifics of our XML support,
> a fully conformant and efficient XMLDOCUMENT could be implemented
> just by returning its XML argument.
After your explanation, I tend to agree.
v3, attached, incorporates these chan
Today Amit Langote committed execScan.h and put on its header years from
1996 to 2025. Those years are what exactly ?
This file has 1996, but sometimes is the first commit year of that file,
sometimes is completely unrelated. What is right for it ? Need that to be
adjusted ?
/*
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:33 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear hackers,
>
> Recently the 'd' option of pgbench is unified with other applications like
> psql and pg_dump,
> but I found further difference. pgbebch uses an OS user as the dbanme even
> when the '-U' is
> specified. Please
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 04:04, Jim Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Umar
>
> On 20.01.25 17:19, Umar Hayat wrote:
> > Hi Jim & Pavel,
> > Sorry for getting back a bit late on this. Few more case you might
> > need consider:
> >
> > As I mentioned in my first static review about XMLTable existing
> > behaviour m
hi.
+ printfPQExpBuffer(query,
+ "SELECT substring ( "
+ " '%s' , "
+ " '%s' ) ", str, ptrn);
+ result = executeQuery(conn, query->data);
+ if (PQresultStatus(result) == PGRES_TUPLES_OK)
+ {
+ if (PQntuples(result) == 1)
+ {
+ const char *outstr;
+
+ outstr = PQgetvalue(result, 0, 0);
i think he
> On 21 Jan 2025, at 01:40, Jacob Champion
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:10 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> + /* Done. Tear down the async implementation. */
>> + conn->cleanup_async_auth(conn);
>> + conn->cleanup_async_auth = NULL;
>> + Assert(conn->altsock == PGINVALID_SOCKET);
On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Patch looks good to me,
Thanks, pushed.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:37 PM jian he wrote:
> hi.
> now stats_lock_check_privileges comments need to change?
>
> * Lock relation in ShareUpdateExclusive mode, check privileges, and close
> the
> * relation (but retain the lock).
>
> since the above comments will not be true for RELKIND_INDEX
On Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:31 AM vignesh C wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 17:31, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached patch has the fix for this issue which includes the
> > > partition tables also for the publication now
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts are that any consistency
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 2:05 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Here's v5 with a few commit message tweaks.
>
> Barring objections, I would like to push this early next week.
Pushed yesterday. Thank you all.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
Dear Ashutosh,
> I see the same behaviour. The code in pgbench which decided the
> database to connect to, looks similar to the relevant code in
> createdb. But createdb documentation is in agreement with the code.
> [1]
> ```
> dbname
>
> Specifies the name of the database to be created. The nam
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I have committed the fix for foreign key NO ACTION (patch 0002, this did
> not require patch 0001).
That commit seems to be causing occasional buildfarm failures:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=indri&dt=2025-01-22%2001%3A29%3A35
https://buildf
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:25 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> > Patch looks good to me,
>
> Thanks, pushed.
>
A big thanks to Álvaro and Sami for getting it fixed!
Regards,
Amul
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:17:03PM +, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Thanks again for reviewing this monster patch.
+$node->command_checks_all(
+ [ 'pg_amcheck', '--exclude-user' => 'no_such_user', 'postgres' ],
Extra error spotted here with s/--exclude-user/--username/.
The double --ve
Andres Freund writes:
Hi,
> FWIW, I've seen the fsyncs around recycling being a rather substantial
> bottleneck. To the point of the main benefit of larger segments being the
> reduction in number of fsyncs at the end of a checkpoint. I think we should
> be able to make the fsyncs a lot more ef
I wrote:
> If this is not in fact completely broken, the reason must be that
> ats_modifiedcols will always be the same for the same values of
> ats_tgoid/ats_relid/ats_event/ats_table (within a given transaction).
> That seems unlikely,
Indeed, it's false. I was able to make a test case demonstr
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <
kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> IIUC createdb has the good description [1] and it can be re-used
> everywhere.
>
As none of those programs "create" a database the wording "The default is
to create a database" seems quite a poor choic
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:26 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v61-0002
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> 1.
> * Whether a slot needs to be invalidated depends on the cause. A slot is
> - * removed if it:
> + * invalidated if it:
> * - RS_INVAL_WAL_REMOVED:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:22 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v61-0001.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
>
> 1.
> /*
> * Check if the slot needs to be invalidated. If it needs to be
> - * invalidated, and is not currently a
hi.
now stats_lock_check_privileges comments need to change?
* Lock relation in ShareUpdateExclusive mode, check privileges, and close the
* relation (but retain the lock).
since the above comments will not be true for RELKIND_INDEX.
Yes, there are comments within the function explaining the ex
Dear David,
> As none of those programs "create" a database the wording "The default is to
> create a database" seems quite a poor choice to standardize on.
Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. I wanted to suggest like below:
```
The default is to connect to a database with the same name as the current s
22.01.2025 09:09, Japin Li пишет:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 at 17:56, Yura Sokolov wrote:
17.01.2025 17:00, Zhou, Zhiguo пишет:
On 1/16/2025 10:00 PM, Yura Sokolov wrote:
Good day, Zhiguo.
Excuse me, I feel sneaky a bit, but I've started another thread
just about increase of NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCK,
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 10:25, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> 22.01.2025 09:09, Japin Li пишет:
>> Hi, Yura Sokolov
>> Thanks for updating the patch.
>> I test the v2 patch using BenchmarkSQL 1000 warehouse, and here is the tpmC
>> result:
>> case | min| avg| max
>> -
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:58 AM Jim Jones wrote:
> On 20.01.25 23:21, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > Therefore I'm thinking that, given the specifics of our XML support,
> > a fully conformant and efficient XMLDOCUMENT could be implemented
> > just by returning its XML argument.
>
>
> After your explana
Hi Jian,
Thanks for the patch.
jian he , 19 Ara 2024 Per, 15:03 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
> attached copy_par_regress_test.sql is a simple benchmark sql file,
> a partitioned table with 10 partitions, 2 levels of indirection.
> The simple benchmark shows around 7.7% improvement in my local environme
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2020-03-05 13:53, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> +1 on the patchset, marking this entry as Ready For Committer.
> and done
While looking at a pending patch, I happened to notice that commit
71d60e2aa added a field ats_modifiedcols to AfterTriggerSharedData,
but did not
On 21.01.25 23:45, Robert Treat wrote:
> Is there some concrete use case you have seen that this would help
> with? Not objecting to adding it, but you've mentioned this migration
> idea twice but it seems to me this doesn't conform with existing
> implementations, and I don't see much benefit in
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 11:40:51AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I encountered another problem while rebasing the patch. The problem is
> basically we do not expect any pending stats while restoring the stats
> at the initdb. However, WAL IOs (WAL read and WAL init IOs for now)
> may happen bef
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:36 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
>
> parent
> |
> child
>/\
> / \
> /grandchild2
> /
> grandchild1
>
> and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
> constraint on c
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 06:14, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh,
> >
> > Review comments for patch v53-0001:
> >
> >
> > Maybe I have some fundamental misunderstanding here, but I don't see
> > why "this approach cannot be used with psql be
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
