Hi,
On 2025-02-19 14:10:44 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm planning to push the first two commits soon, I think they're ok on their
> own, even if nothing else were to go in.
I did that for the lwlock patch.
But I think I might not do the same for the "Ensure a resowner exists for all
paths th
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 04:41:36AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-02-20 14:37:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > a051e71e28a added this information into pg_stat_io (with more details and
> > granularity), so there is no need to keep it in pg_stat_wal. This also
> > allows to
Hi, Andrei!
Thank you for your feedback.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 23/2/2025 22:15, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > There is my attempt to implement this approach. Getting rid of local
> > variable (and computation of the same value other way) required to
> > ch
On Mon Feb 24, 2025 at 10:56 AM CET, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
Great! Attached are the updated other patches, I think I addressed all
feedback.
Ughh, a compiler warning snuck on windows during some of my final
refactoring. Fixed now.
From ec72e05e87c73dee3de73f9a6586e8e8db2d919e Mon Sep 17 00:00
On Monday, February 24, 2025 10:46 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
(The previous email was blocked, here is another attempt)
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:26 AM Shlok Kyal
> wrote:
> >
> > Adding Amit to the thread.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looking at the original complaint:
>
> > It says
> >
On Mon Feb 24, 2025 at 11:58 AM CET, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
Ughh, a compiler warning snuck on windows during some of my final
refactoring. Fixed now.
Right after pressing send I realized I could remove two more useless
lines...
From ec72e05e87c73dee3de73f9a6586e8e8db2d919e Mon Sep 17 00:00:0
On 22.02.2025 00:20, Robert Haas wrote:
So, I've committed v11-0001. I'm not altogether convinced that
v11-0002 is necessary -- no portion of the documentation that it
modifies is falsified by the committed patch. Maybe we can just call
this one done for now and move on?
Not quite. If no one
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 at 04:49, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 4:30 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 01:14, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:46 AM Shlok Kyal
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 15:26, Zhijie Hou (
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 at 06:46, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v2-0001.
>
> ==
> Commit message
>
> 1.
> Currently we can copy an invalidated logical and physical replication slot
> using functions 'pg_copy_logical_replication_slot' and
> 'pg_copy_physical_replication_slot
Hi,
On 2025-02-24 10:54:54 +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> a051e71e28a added the "timing tracking" in the WAL code path with "only"
> track_io_timing enabled (and track_wal_io_timing still false). Here, in this
> thread,
> we remove unnecessary INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT()/INSTR_TIME_ACCUM_DIFF() ca
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 09:13, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 11:11, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kuroda-san,
> >
> > > > I have also modified the tests in 0001 patch. These changes are only
> > > > related to syntax of writing tests.
> > >
> > > LGTM. I found small improvements, plea
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> >
> > Agreed, I'm fine with leaving InRecovery in this condition. I think
> > the point is whether we should add StandbyMode to the condition or
> > not. I think if we do that, we w
Hi,
On 2025-02-23 10:39:36 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:16 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > We do count the number of lwlock share lockers and the number of buffer
> > refcounts within those bits. And obviously 0 lockers/refcounts has to be
> > valid. So I think the limit is
On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 17:12 +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Do we have plans for NOT IN subquery pull up?
As mentioned before, that is not possible.
Best practice is to avoid NOT IN with subqueries altogether.
The result is usually not what people expect it to be.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
*E-Mail D
Hi Bertrand,
TL;DR; the main problem seems choosing which way to page-fault the
shared memory before the backend is going to use numa_move_pages() as
the memory mappings (fresh after fork()/CoW) seem to be not ready for
numa_move_pages() inquiry.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:32 AM Bertrand Drouvot
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 09:21, Richard Guo wrote:
>
> Here are the updated patches with revised comments and some tweaks to
> the commit messages. I plan to push them in one or two days.
>
LGTM.
Regards,
Dean
On 24/2/2025 11:57, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi, Andrei!
Thank you for your feedback.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 23/2/2025 22:15, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
There is my attempt to implement this approach. Getting rid of local
variable (and computation of the
Hi,
Regarding the patch push, I am not a committer, but perhaps my
perspective might be interesting. When I noticed late on Friday evening
that the tests had failed, I was quite anxious about the situation,
thinking I would need to fix it right away. However, Robert committed
the fix before t
> I think something is not quite right, because if I try running a simple
> pgbench script that does pg_get_process_memory_contexts() on PIDs of
> random postgres process (just like in the past), I immediately get this:
>
> Thank you for testing. This issue occurs when a process that previously
att
Hi Laurenz
Actually ,Many fork postgresql databases have already implemented ,For
example, if the relevant field has a non-null constraint ，Many databases
can do the same thing as not exist （ MySQL ，SQL Server，Oracle）
Thanks
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:55 PM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Mon, 202
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 06:15:53AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-02-24 10:54:54 +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > a051e71e28a added the "timing tracking" in the WAL code path with "only"
> > track_io_timing enabled (and track_wal_io_timing still false). Here, in
> > this thr
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 8:07 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> This patch is now complete enough for testing, I think. As I mentioned
> earlier, I haven't updated pg_available_extensions() etc. to support the
> path, but that shouldn't prevent some testing.
To help with this patch I'm attaching
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 3:07 AM Sadeq Dousti wrote:
> * While capitalization of N might seem arbitrary, it can be acceptable as
> it's "negating" some concept
> ...
>
> If there are no hard objections, I'll proceed with adding the N letter to
> \d commands.
>
Not strongly opposed, but "N" is a
Hi,
On 2025-02-24 12:57:16 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:32 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> > OTOH, one of the main issue that I see with 3. is that the monitoring could
> > probably influence the kernel's decision to start pages migration (I'm not
> > 100%
> > sure but I
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 5:07 AM Aleksander Alekseev <
aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote:
> If the problem is that the password might be logged, wouldn't a proper
> solution be not to log such queries?
>
Yes, this has been discussed before. The short answer is that it is
extremely difficult to imple
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
I'm obviously +1 on this patch since I sent kinda the same patch two weeks
> ago
Ha ha, my brain forgot about that one (even though I commented on it!) -
apologies for that.
> set password_encryption to 'md5';
> create user u4 password 'md5u1';
> ...
It complains tha
On 2025-02-20 Th 11:29 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025, at 15:13, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Unless something shows up I plan to commit this sometime tomorrow to allow it
ample time in the tree before the freeze.
I spent a few more hours staring at this, and ran it through a number of
> On 24 Feb 2025, at 15:41, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I notice that 001_server.pl contains this:
>
> if ($ENV{with_python} ne 'yes')
> {
> plan skip_all => 'OAuth tests require --with-python to run';
> }
>
> and various other things that insist on this. But I think all we should need
> is fo
Hi,
On 2025-02-24 05:11:48 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Incorporating most of the feedback (I kept a few of
> the appendNamedArgument() calls) presented over the weekend.
>
> * removeVersionNumStr is gone
> * relpages/reltuples/relallvisible are now char[32] buffers in RelStatsInfo
> and nowher
Hi,
On 2025-02-24 15:48:13 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 24 Feb 2025, at 15:41, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > I notice that 001_server.pl contains this:
> >
> > if ($ENV{with_python} ne 'yes')
> > {
> > plan skip_all => 'OAuth tests require --with-python to run';
> > }
> >
> > and v
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:01:30PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed, I'm fine with leaving InRecovery in this condition. I think
> > > the point is wheth
Hi,
Thank you for the review!
Review Response
- Made a first pass at a real commit message
- Fixed the condition on the if statement to use strcmp
- Added a test suite in the files `src/interfaces/libpq/t/
006_target_session_attr_dns.pl` and `src/interfaces/libpq/t/
007_load_balance_dns_check_al
Hi,
On 2025-02-20 15:28:39 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-02-20 14:11:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > As a matter of style, I wonder if it'd be better to have these
> > functions write into a caller-supplied variable.
>
> I wondered about that too, it does however make some code more awkward
On 21.02.25 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I don't think this is such a terrible kluge. I think it's different from
the server log case, which after all requires access to the server file
system to exploit.
To me, the mechanism by which this patch works is completely nonobvious
and coincidental
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:06:20AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Does the issue with "new" backends seeing pages as not present exist both with
> and without huge pages?
That's a good point and from what I can see it's correct with huge pages being
used (it means all processes see the same NU
On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 09:54 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> ISTM that we ought to expose the relation oid in pg_stats. This query
> would be
> simpler and faster if we could just use the oid as the predicate.
> Will take a
> while till we can rely on that, but still.
+1. Maybe an internal view that
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 5:00 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> I thought about doing this, but in the end I decided against this
> approach. If we wanted to make it easy to palloc arrays of different
> sizes and have tbm_extract_page_tuple extract that many tuples into
> the array, we'd have to chang
On 2/24/25 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that you have the right idea here, avoiding the duplication
of the errdetail() which feels itchy when looking at the patch.
Done this way in the attached patch.
This should have a note for translators that this field refers to a file
name.
Looks like this needed another rebase to account for the oauth commit.
Rebase attached.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:38 AM Andrew Jackson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> Review Response
>
> - Made a first pass at a real commit message
> - Fixed the condition on the if statement to us
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:08 AM wenhui qiu wrote:
> Actually ,Many fork postgresql databases have already implemented ,For
> example, if the relevant field has a non-null constraint ，Many databases can
> do the same thing as not exist （ MySQL ，SQL Server，Oracle）
I'm not surprised to hear it
Hi Team,
Created patch as per recommendation in postgres wiki.
--
Sagar Dilip Shedge,
SDE AWS
v1-0001-Extend-postgres_fdw_get_connections-to-return-rem.patch
Description: Binary data
On 24.02.2025 19:20, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:00 PM Robert Haas wrote:
I guess we could do that, but how about just always displaying two
decimal places? I feel like you're really worried that people will be
confused if the row count is not an integer, but I'm not sure any
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 9:58 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> My patchset in the other protocol thread needed a rebase. So I took
> that as an opportunity to rebase this patchset on top of it, because
> this seems to be the protocol change that we can most easily push over
> the finish line.
I'm sti
On 2/24/25 10:21, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
On 2/24/25 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that you have the right idea here, avoiding the duplication
of the errdetail() which feels itchy when looking at the patch.
Done this way in the attached patch.
This looks good to me.
This should ha
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 9:19 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think we can generally rely on all blocking system calls to be
> interruptible by signals on all platforms?
Probably not; I wasn't sure how much detail to put in here after "must
remain interruptible."
> And, probably worse, isn't re
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 8:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO, the set of cases where it's legitimate to mark individual struct
> fields as const is negligibly small, and this doesn't seem to be one
> of them. It's not obvious to me where/how PGoauthBearerRequest
> structs are supposed to be constructed,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:00 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Dave reported (on Discord) that the OPTIONAL macro collided with windef.h,
Ugh.
> so
> attached is a small fix for that as well (even though we don't support Windows
> here right now there is little point in clashing since we don't need
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2025-02-24 05:11:48 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> * relpages/reltuples/relallvisible are now char[32] buffers in RelStatsInfo
>> and nowhere else (existing relpages conversion remains, however)
> I don't see the point. This will use more memory and if we can't get
> co
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:54 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-02-24 05:11:48 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > Incorporating most of the feedback (I kept a few of
> > the appendNamedArgument() calls) presented over the weekend.
> >
> > * removeVersionNumStr is gone
> > * relpages/reltuple
101 - 149 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
