On 12/2/2025 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:14 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
I support the idea in general, but I believe it should be expanded to
cover all cases of parameterised plan nodes. Each rescan iteration may
produce a different number of tuples, an
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:15 PM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:29 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM Shubham Khanna
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > #13. Unanswered question "How are tests expecting this even passing?".
> > > > Was a reason identified? IOW
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:36 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> Recently, while writing some new TAP tests my colleague inadvertently
> called the command_fails() subroutine instead of command_fails_like()
> subroutine. Their parameters are almost the same but
> command_fails_like() also t
On 2/12/25 06:02, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Tomas and ALL,
>
>>I wonder what Yamada-san thinks about these suggestions ... He's the one
>>actually developing the patch, so I'd like to know his opinions.
>
> I will state my thoughts on the two points of discussion.
>
> I often use SQL Server
On 2025-Feb-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I have been asking a different question: What's the use of
> not-enforced constraints if we don't allow VALID, NOT ENFORCED state
> for them?
That's a question for the SQL standards committee. They may serve
schema documentation purposes, for example.
http
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:35 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> Per cfbot-ci, the new test case output in 0002 needed to be updated.
>
> I plan to push 0001 tomorrow, barring any objections.
I pushed that last Friday. With bb3ec16e, d47cbf47, and cbc12791 now in:
* Pruning information is now stored separa
On 11.02.25 14:36, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Feb-10, Isaac Morland wrote:
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the operational distinction
between your 'u' and 'U'. If it's not enforced, it cannot be assumed to be
valid, regardless of whether it was valid in the past. I'm not sure what
On 2025-Feb-12, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > FWIW, I think options to tweak queryId computation is something that
> > should be in core. It was discussed earlier in the context of IN
> > list merging; the patch for this currently has the guc for the
> > feature in pg_stat_statements, but there was a
Em qua., 12 de fev. de 2025 às 00:54, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:32:32PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > There is no bug. They are the same behind the scenes. I'm fine changing
> it. It
> > is a new code and it wouldn't cause a lot of pain to backpatch patches
> in the
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:36 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>>
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>> Recently, while writing some new TAP tests my colleague inadvertently
>> called the command_fails() subroutine instead of command_fails_like()
>> subroutine. Their parameters are almost the same
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Feb-12, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I think options to tweak queryId computation is something that
> > > should be in core. It was discussed earlier in the context of IN
> > > list merging; the patch for this currentl
On 12.02.25 12:13, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Feb-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I have been asking a different question: What's the use of
not-enforced constraints if we don't allow VALID, NOT ENFORCED state
for them?
That's a question for the SQL standards committee. They may serve
schema do
On 08.02.25 02:56, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Is it really enough to do this at build time? A very small percentage of users
running this will also be building their own libpq so the warning is lost on
them. That being said, I'm not entirely
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 12:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 1/6/25 20:13, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Thanks. Attached is a rebased patch series fixing those issues, and one
>>> issue I found in an AssertCheckGinBuffer, which was calling the other
>>> assert (AssertCheckItemPointers) e
On 08.02.25 02:56, Jacob Champion wrote:
+ oauth_json_set_error(ctx, /* don't bother translating */
With the project style format for translator comments this should be:
+ /* translator: xxx */
+ oauth_json_set_error(ctx,
This comment was just meant to draw attention
Hi,
I finally pushed this. The meson fix backpatched to 16.
I did some very minor polishing, reordering the OS lists to stay alphabetical,
instead of adding netbsd/openbsd somewhere to the front of lists.
Thanks for the patches!
Obviously not your fault, but I do think it's pretty crazy that w
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:34 AM Devulapalli, Raghuveer
wrote:
> > On my machine that still regresses compared to master in that range
> > (although by
> > not as much) so I still think 128 bytes is the right threshold.
>
> On my TGL, buffer sizes as small as 64 bytes see performance benefits.
Y
On 2025/02/08 8:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about the comment of UpdateFullPageWrites() called
at the end of recovery (in StartupXLOG()):
/*
* Update full_page_writes in shared memory and write an XLOG_FPW_CHANGE
* record before resource manager writes c
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:30 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > True but it sounds like there is
Hi,
On 2025-02-11 13:32:32 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025, at 1:31 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Coverity has some reports about pg_createsubcriber.
> >
> > CID 1591322: (#1 of 1): Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> > 10. leaked_storage: Variable dbname going out of scope leaks th
On 05.02.25 19:31, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
On 2/5/25 05:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 29.01.25 07:34, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
Is it possible to commit an RI_PLAN_NO_ACTION addition and see if
that makes the buildfarm failures go away? Here is a proposed patch
for that (v48.1). I would understand
> Removing the wakeup makes the test
> complete, but it should wait in its lookup loop.
Thank you for confirming. Besides fixing the if condition as done in
the patch, do you think any other changes are necessary?
Best Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
Azure Database for PostgreSQL
Microsoft
On Wed, Feb 12,
On 12.02.2025 11:54, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
May we agree on a more general formula to print at least two
meaningful digits if we have a fractional part?
Examples:
- actual rows = 2, nloops = 2 -> rows = 1
- actual rows = 9, nloops = 5 -> rows = 1.8
- actual rows = 101, nloops = 100 -> rows =
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:25:38PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading some code in fmgr.c I noticed that the save_nestlevel variable
> is
> declared as volatile. I'm assuming that's because a long time ago it was
> modified in the PG_TRY / PG_CATCH block but it doesn't loo
> > Removing the wakeup makes the test
> > complete, but it should wait in its lookup loop.
>
> Thank you for confirming. Besides fixing the if condition as done in
> the patch, do you think any other changes are necessary?
I see that it's already been committed and understand that no other
change
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:48 PM Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> I have incorporated the suggested changes, and here is the latest version
> of the patch:
>
>- Added more test cases to the regression suite.
>- Included tests in the pg_dump test.
>- Left objects with *INVALID NO
On 2025/02/03 21:30, Yuki Seino wrote:
Thank you for your comment. Sorry for being late.
SELECT FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED might skip a large number of rows, leading to
a high volume of log messages from log_lock_failure in your current patch.
Could this be considered unintended behavior? Would
Matthias,
Thanks for the in-depth review, you are correct and I appreciate you uncovering
that oversight with summarizing indexes. I’ll add a test case and modify the
logic to prevent updates to unchanged summarizing indexes by testing their
attributes against the modified set while keeping th
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:41:34AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:25:38PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> While reading some code in fmgr.c I noticed that the save_nestlevel variable
>> is
>> declared as volatile. I'm assuming that's because a long time ago it was
>>
On 2025-02-12 We 8:58 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Another question is whether command_fails and command_fails_like is
the only pair or there are more which need stricter checks?
If we do this, we should do it across the board for
PostgreSQL::Test::Utils and ::Cluster at least. Once
Hi,
On 2025-02-09 12:41:58 -0800, Jacob Brazeal wrote:
> > Halfing the size of LWLock and laying
> > the ground work for making the wait-list lock-free imo would be very well
> > worth the reduction in an unrealistic limit...
>
> BTW, I spent a week or two researching the lock-free queue idea,
> s
On 2025-Feb-12, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Anyway, I think that's different. We do support compute_query_id=off as
> > a way for a custom module to compute completely different query IDs
> > using their own algorithm, which I think
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2025-02-11 13:32:32 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> There is no bug. They are the same behind the scenes.
> That *is* a bug. On windows the allocator that a shared library (i.e. libpq)
> uses, may *not* be the same as the one that an executable
> (i.e. pg_createsubscribe
Hi, John!
On 13.02.2025 04:49, John Naylor wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:42 AM Anton A. Melnikov
wrote:
On 29.01.2025 10:02, John Naylor wrote:
This is done -- thanks for the report, and for testing.
It's good that this is done! But i still see the problem.
Hi, my understanding was y
On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 14:02 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>
> The previous 0001 is now committed (thanks!) so only one remains.
>
Summary of the decisions made in this thread:
* pg_dump --data-only does not include stats[1]. This behavior was
not fully resolved, but I didn't see a reaso
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:40 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 9:27 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > For the nvme RAID (device: raid-nvme), it's looks almost exactly the
> > same, except that with parallel query (page 27) there's a clear area of
> > regression with eic=1 (look for "co
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:02:10PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> > I am OK with moving away from "jumble" in-lieu of something else, but my
>> > thoughts are we should actually call this process "fingerprint"
>
>
> I agree fingerprint is the right final word. But "jumble" conveys the
> *process
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:13:13AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 06:19:12AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Thanks! Regarding 0003 I think it's ok to keep it in this thread (and not
> > create a dedicated one), as it still fits well with $SUBJECT (and the folks
> >
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:58 AM Anton A. Melnikov
wrote:
> > Hi, my understanding was you previously tested with the revert. Did
> > you not actually test, or are you building differently for these
> > cases?
>
> My first test [1] was made at b7493e1
> while the second [2] at ecb8226a after revert
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:47:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm.. Agreed, it seems that you are right in the way of taking care
> of this inconsistency. That's interesting. I would need to look at
> that more closely with a couple of hours head down. It's a bit late
> in the week here so
Hi!
On 13.02.2025 09:03, John Naylor wrote:
Three weeks ago, you said "Agreed that reverting seems as a preferable
way, and here's why." I assumed that meant you tested it, so my
mistake. I'll take a look.
Sorry! I was wrong not to express my thoughts clearly here.
I meant revert in a common
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 05:44:20PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Meanwhile, existing extensions like pg_stat_monitor [3] compute a planId and
> store the plan text, but they lack a way to expose planId in pg_stat_activity.
> This limits their usefulness, as identifying top or long-running plans
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:41:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have done a total of 10 runs in the CI with the attached, without
> getting a failure. HEAD was failing a bit more easily than that, with
> at least one failure every 5 runs in my branches. Will go adjust that
> in a bit as per
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:08:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I spent a little time earlier today seeing what I could do with the
> use-dmalloc patch I posted earlier. It turns out you can get through
> initdb after s/free/PQfreemem/ in just two places, and then the
> backend works fine. But psql i
Hi,
I noticed the pg_sequences system-view DOCS page [1] has a note about
the 'last_value' field. But the note is not within the row for that
field. Indeed, it is not even within the table.
Is it deliberate? Apparently, this changed in commit 3cb2f13 [2], so
CC-ing author Nathan.
My attached pat
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> > In pathnodes.h
> > typedef struct EquivalenceClass
> > {
> > pg_node_attr(custom_read_write, no_copy_equal, no_read, no_query_jumble)
>
> > Because of custom_read_write attribute, I expect _outEquivalenceClass
> > to
Hello hackers!
The functions, bootstrapping SLRU pages, such as BootStrapMultiXact,
BootStrapCLOG, ActivateCommitTs, multixact_redo and others, have a lot
of repetitive code.
A new proposed function BootStrapSlruPage moves a duplicating code into
the single place. Additionally, a new member
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 4:48 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for v7-0001
>
> ==
> src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_createsubscriber.c
>
> 1.
> + /* Error if no databases were found on the source server */
> + if (num_rows == 0)
> + {
> + pg_log_error("no convertable databases found on t
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 8:15 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 12.02.25 12:13, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2025-Feb-12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >
> >> I have been asking a different question: What's the use of
> >> not-enforced constraints if we don't allow VALID, NOT ENFORCED state
> >> for them
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:08 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Anyway, how did you find that? Did you see a pattern when running the
> test on a very slow machine or just from a read? That was a good
> catch.
+1. I was wondering the same.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> I have handled the above cases and added tests for the same.
There is a concurrency issue with the patch:
+check_partrel_has_foreign_table(Form_pg_class relform)
+{
+ boolhas_foreign_tbl = false;
+
+ if (relform->relkind ==
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> Particularly for something like libpq it's not quitetrivial to add
>> attributes like this, of course. We can't even depend on pg_config.h.
>> One way would be to define them in libpq-fe.h, guarded by an #ifdef, that's
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:18 PM Ilia Evdokimov
wrote:
> With such example, it's hard to disagree with it. This would really add
> valuable information. Taking all opinions into account, I have updated
> the patch v8. I have also included a check for the case where there are
> only zeros after the
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:00:27PM GMT, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > Hmm, what about doing something much simpler, such as testing whether
> > there's just a CoerceViaIO/RelabelType around a Const or a one-parameter
> > function call of an immutable boostrap-OID function that has a Const as
> > argum
08.02.2025 13:07, Alexander Korotkov пишет:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:39 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>> Good, thank you. I think 0001 patch is generally good, but needs some
>> further polishing, e.g. more comments explaining how does it work.
I tried to add more comments. I'm not good at,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:10 AM Ilia Evdokimov
wrote:
> I think the idea of keeping two significant digits after the decimal
> point is quite reasonable. The thing is, rows=0.01 or something
> similar can only occur when loops is quite large. If we show the order
> of magnitude in rows, it wil
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:07 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> AFAICS the "1" value is simply one of the many "defensive" defaults in
> our sample config. It's much more likely to help than cause harm, even
> on smaller/older systems, but for many systems a higher value would be
> more appropriate. There's
Hi,
> 2. Unfortunately, there is another wrinkle that I failed to consider: If you
> search
> the web for "VirtualBox pclmulqdq" you can see a few reports from not very
> long
> ago that some hypervisors don't enable the CPUID for pclmul. I don't know how
> big a problem that is in practice tod
Here is what I have staged for commit, which I intend to do within the next
couple of days unless there is additional feedback. In v4, I've added a
commit message, removed the changes to the ssl_crl_* parameters, and fixed
a couple of very small mistakes.
--
nathan
>From 3205f1172ac6ec2a82171bba
Ranier Vilela writes:
> Coverity has some reports about pg_createsubcriber.
> CID 1591322: (#1 of 1): Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> 10. leaked_storage: Variable dbname going out of scope leaks the storage it
> points to.
FTR, the security team's Coverity instance also complained about that.
I
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:02:27PM +, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote:
> Also, do we really need to have both USE_SSE42_CRC32C and
> USE_SSE42_CRC32C_WITH_RUNTIME_CHECK
> features support? The former macro is used to enable running the SSE42
> version without a runtime check
> when someone buil
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Is there any reason we can't move to 5.20? Are there any buildfarm
>> animals using such an old version? 5.20 is now almost 10 years old.
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 has Perl 5.16 and is on Extended Lifecycle
> Suppor
Andres Freund writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-02-12 11:02:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wish we had some way to detect misuses automatically ...
>>
>> This seems like the sort of bug that Coverity could detect if only it
>> knew to look, but I have no idea if it could be configured that way.
>> Maybe
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:39:39PM GMT, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> The nastiness level of this seems quite low, compared to what happens to
> this other example if we didn't handle these easy cases:
>
> create table t (a float);
> select i from t where i in (1, 2);
> select i from t where i in (1, '
Hi,
On 2025-02-12 15:24:21 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:22 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-02-12 13:59:21 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > How about just maintaining it in a new variable
> > > effective_io_combine_limit, whenever either of them is assigned?
> >
> > Y
Some more review:
+Use hard links instead of copying files to the synthetic backup.
+Reconstruction of the synthetic backup might be faster (no file copying
)
+and use less disk space.
I think it would be good to add a caveat at the end of this sentence:
and use less disk
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:55 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 13/2/2025 01:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was idly speculating yesterday about letting the Ryu code print
> > the division result, so that we get a variable number of digits.
> > Realistically, that'd probably result in many cases in more di
On 13/2/2025 01:40, Tom Lane wrote:
I was idly speculating yesterday about letting the Ryu code print
the division result, so that we get a variable number of digits.
Realistically, that'd probably result in many cases in more digits
than anybody wants, so it's not a serious proposal. I'm cool w
Oh, one more thing:
+If a backup manifest is not available or does not contain checksum of
+the right type, file cloning will be used to copy the file, but the
+file will be also read block-by-block for the checksum calculation.
s/file cloning will be used to copy the file
Hi, thanks for reviewing this patch!
Em seg., 10 de fev. de 2025 às 20:19, Jacob Champion
escreveu:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:10 AM Matheus Alcantara
> wrote:
> > The attached patch enables SCRAM authentication for dblink connections when
> > using dblink_fdw without requiring a plain-text p
On 2/12/25 20:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:41 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>> I had taken to thinking of it as "queue depth". But I think that's not
>> really accurate. Do you know why we set it to 1 as the default? I
>> thought it was because the default should be just pr
We've run into multiple situations recently where clients were effectively
unable to run CREATE INDEX or REINDEX (CONCURRENTLY or otherwise) due to the
load that they imposed on the system, mostly in I/O. I'd like to propose a
cost-based delay system for maintenance operations such as these, pa
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 12:32, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > What do you think if we simply don't log anything for SKIP LOCKED?
>
> Implementing both NOWAIT and SKIP LOCKED could take time and make the patch
> more complex. I'm fine with focusing on the NOWAIT case first as an initial
> patch.
I think t
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:43 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Alternatively we could make pgaio_batch_begin() basically start a critical
> section, but that doesn't seem like a good idea, because too much that needs
> to happen around buffered IO isn't compatible with critical sections.
A critical secti
I experimented with the other approach: hack libpq.so to depend on
dmalloc, leaving the rest of the system alone, so that libpq's
allocations could not be freed elsewhere nor vice versa.
It could not even get through initdb, crashing here:
replace_guc_value(char **lines, const char *guc_name, con
Robert Haas writes:
> I agree that showing 2 digits after the decimal point in all cases is
> not ideal, but I suggest that we take a practical approach. Figuring
> out dynamically what number of decimal digits to display in each case
> sounds complicated and we may spend a bunch of time arguing a
On 2025-Feb-12, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> I've been experimenting with this today, and while it's easy to
> implement,
Great.
> there is one annoying thing for which I don't have a solution
> yet. When generating a normalized version for such merged queries in
> pgss we rely on expression location,
Hi!
On 29.01.2025 10:02, John Naylor wrote:
This is done -- thanks for the report, and for testing.
It's good that this is done! But i still see the problem.
At ecb8226a in master with the same configure as in [1]
(with asserts) valgrind gives:
==00:00:00:23.937 285792== Conditional jump or m
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> libpq-fe.h has to be compilable by application code that has never
>> heard of pg_config.h let alone c.h, so we'd have to tread carefully
>> about not breaking that property. But it seems like this would be
>> worth looking
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2025-02-12 We 8:58 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>>
>>> Another question is whether command_fails and command_fails_like is
>>> the only pair or there are more which need stricter checks?
>> If we do this, we should do it across the board for
>> PostgreSQL::Test:
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker writes:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>
>> On 2025-02-12 We 8:58 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>>>
Another question is whether command_fails and command_fails_like is
the only pair or there are more which need stricter checks?
>>> If we do this, we should do i
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 06:19:12AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Thanks! Regarding 0003 I think it's ok to keep it in this thread (and not
> create a dedicated one), as it still fits well with $SUBJECT (and the folks
> interested in are probably already part of this thread). Sounds good to you?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:44 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
...
> Alternatively we could make pgaio_batch_begin() basically start a critical
> section, but that doesn't seem like a good idea, because too much that needs
> to happen around buffered IO isn't compatible with critical sections.
>
>
> Does
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> 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
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:02:30AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> One last thing...
>
> - gettext_noop("Zero logs all files. The default is -1 (turning this
> feature off)."),
> + gettext_noop("-1 disables temporary file logs. 0 means log all
> temporary files."),
>
> The first sentence could be amb
> > Sounds good to me. Although, users building with just -msse4.2 will
> > now encounter an an additional pclmul runtime check. That would be a
> > regression unless they update to building with both -msse4.2 and -mpclmul.
>
> My thinking was that building with just -msse4.2 would cause the exi
Hi,
While reading some code in fmgr.c I noticed that the save_nestlevel variable is
declared as volatile. I'm assuming that's because a long time ago it was
modified in the PG_TRY / PG_CATCH block but it doesn't look needed anymore.
Trivial patch attached.
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/fmgr/fmg
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> The code is intended to wait for the restart point to complete before
> proceeding. However, it doesn't actually wait. Regardless of whether
> the restart point completes, the loop exits after the first iteration
> because the if condi
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:47 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> Good catch. I've fixed that in v5.
>
>
I presume it doesn't affect the actual output which just concatenates the
fragments together but the source placement probably should be made
consistent; the line containing the initial default value s
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:00:03PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Particularly for something like libpq it's not quitetrivial to add
> attributes like this, of course. We can't even depend on pg_config.h.
>
> One way would be to define them in libpq-fe.h, guarded by an #ifdef, that's
> "armed" by a
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> For amusement's sake, totally dirty hack-and-slash patch attached.
> (I tested this on macOS, with dmalloc from MacPorts; adjust SHLIB_LINK
> to suit on other platforms.)
Ugh. Fun one.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatur
Michael Paquier writes:
> I have looked at bit at the uses of PQescapeLiteral() and
> PQescapeIdentifier() in the tree. On top of the one in pg_amcheck you
> are just pointing to, there is an inconsistency in pg_upgrade.c for
> set_locale_and_encoding() where datlocale_literal may be allocated
>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:42 AM Anton A. Melnikov
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 29.01.2025 10:02, John Naylor wrote:
> > This is done -- thanks for the report, and for testing.
>
> It's good that this is done! But i still see the problem.
Hi, my understanding was you previously tested with the revert. Di
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:43 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi. Here are some minor comments for the v18* patch set.
>
> //
>
> Patch v18-0001
>
> 1.1. Commit message
>
> A previously reported typo still exists:
>
> /noticeble/noticeable/
>
> //
>
> Patch v18-0002
>
> 2.1
> +#define RBT
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:27 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
Some review comments for v7-0001
==
src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_createsubscriber.c
1.
+ /* Error if no databases were found on the source server */
+ if (num_rows == 0)
+ {
+ pg_log_error("no convertable databases found on the source server");
+ pg_log_error_hint("Ensure that there are non-templ
Hi,
A patch by Lukas Fittl [1] introduces the pg_stat_plans extension, which
exposes execution plans along with execution statistics. As part of this work,
a new infrastructure is being proposed to compute a plan identifier (planId),
which is exposed in both pg_stat_plans and pg_stat_activity.
Ex
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:50:34PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> I see that it's already been committed and understand that no other
> changes are needed. Thank you!
My apologies for the lack of updates here. I've looked at the whole
test again yesterday and the issue that you have reported was th
Hi.
Em qua., 12 de fev. de 2025 às 13:02, Tom Lane escreveu:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2025-02-11 13:32:32 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> >> There is no bug. They are the same behind the scenes.
>
> > That *is* a bug. On windows the allocator that a shared library (i.e.
> libpq)
> > uses, m
Tom Lane writes:
> =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> Particularly for something like libpq it's not quitetrivial to add
>>> attributes like this, of course. We can't even depend on pg_config.h.
>>> One way would be to define them in libpq-fe.h, guard
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
