On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 at 11:30, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> With those updates, I think this is ready for commit, which I'll do in
> a day or two, if there are no further comments.
>
Committed.
Regards,
Dean
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:41:03AM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> I still need to do some more manual testing and validation.
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:56 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > + /* If an empty string was passed, we're done. */
> > + if (list_length(elemlist
Dear Amit,
Thanks for the comment! PSA new version.
>
> Few comments:
> 1. Why do we need to invalidate relsync entries when owner of its
> publication changes?
>
> I think the owner change will impact the future Alter Publication ...
> Add/Drop/Set/Rename operations as that will be allowed onl
Sorry ,A wrong version of debug pcnt_visibletuples ，kindly please check the
v3 attachment
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:37 PM wenhui qiu wrote:
> Hi
>The more accurate data I've found is tabentry->live_tuples; provides
> the second version
>
> #Here's a simple test I did
>
> test=# select count(*
On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 19:16 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> New version 3 attached.
I am fine with v3, and I'll mark it "ready for committer".
I have been wondering about regression tests.
We cannot have them in the core tests, because we cannot rely on any
extension being available.
We could shove
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:03:47AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> while running check-world on 64-bit arm (rpi5 with Debian 12.9), I got a
> couple reports like this:
>
> ==64550== Use of uninitialised value of size 8
> ==64550==at 0xA62FE0: wrapper_handler (pqsignal.c:107)
> ==64550==by 0x5
On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 3:41 PM Shayon Mukherjee wrote:
> I have rebased the patch on top of master (resolving some merge
> conflicts), along with the meson changes (thank you for that).
>
Rebased against the latest master and attaching the v13 patch.
Thank you
Shayon
v13-0001-Introduce-the-a
On 06.03.25 22:58, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 12:33 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
AFAICT, in pgfdw_security_check(), if SCRAM has been used for the
outgoing server connection, then PQconnectionUsedPassword() is true, and
then this check should fail if no "password" parameter was
Hi,
On 2025-03-06 17:42:30 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> At minimum, we would need to at least add the option "--with-
> statistics", because right now the only way to explicitly request stats
> is to say "--statistics-only".
+1, this has been annoying me while testing.
I did get confused for a whi
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:27 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:38 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:26 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Smith writes:
>> > > During some recent reviews, I came across some comments mentioning
>> > > "toast" ...
>> >
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> The reason why I walked back my comment was that cloud providers can
> simply choose which extensions they actually add to the image. If an
> extension is marked as not trusted by the author, then with this role
> they can still choose to add it without having to make c
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:11 AM Srirama Kucherlapati
wrote:
> Our team has identified couple of issues with the meson build on AIX,
> primarily focusing on the following areas:
>
> Symbol extraction and resolution in object files during binary creation.
> Dynamic runtime library path resolution in
hi.
It seems we don't have much info about "Patch Triage" in 2025.
but 2023, 2024 we do have.
like:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2024_Developer_Meeting#v17_Patch_Triage
and
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2023_Developer_Meeting#v16_Patch_Triage
Hello!
Last time, I forgot to attach the patches.
The problem still persists in the 17.3 release.
Solution One
The simplest way to fix the problem is to place the scalar field used in the
query ID calculation
between similar subnodes.
A patch for this solution is attached below
(00
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:37 AM Michael Banck wrote:
>> Also, I think there is case to be made that a cloud provider (or site
>> admin) would like to delegate the decision whether users with CREATE
>> rights on a particular database are allowed to install some extensions
>> o
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 5:28 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Another option that I think would also work is to just cut down the
> details
> >> to just "The --jobs o
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:33:04AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> But when it's time to flush, then pgstat_backend_have_pending_cb() checks
> for zeros in PendingBackendStats *without* any check on the backend type.
>
> I think the issue is "masked" on HEAD because PendingBackendStats is
> proba
Hi,
On 2025-03-07 00:03:47 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> while running check-world on 64-bit arm (rpi5 with Debian 12.9), I got a
> couple reports like this:
>
> ==64550== Use of uninitialised value of size 8
> ==64550==at 0xA62FE0: wrapper_handler (pqsignal.c:107)
> ==64550==by 0x580BB9E7
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 2:42 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:26:23AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 3:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:05 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> >
Hello
I find that this is still quite broken -- both the original, and your
patch. I have already complained about a fundamental bug in the
original in [1]. In addition to what I reported there, in the unpatched
code I noticed that we're wasting memory and CPU by comparing the
qualified table na
jian he writes:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:05 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do others agree Erik's version improves readability?
> i think so.
Pushed v4, then.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 12:41 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> Ugh... this feels like a bit of the combinatorial explosion,
> especially if we ever need to add another option.
Not quite that bad, because ideally the yes/no/only would not be
expanding as well. But I agree that it feels like a lot of opt
On 2025-Mar-07, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Anyway, my version of this is attached. It fixes the problems with your
> patch, but not Orlov's fundamental bug.
And of course I forgot to actually attach the patch. Good grief.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseD
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 7:07 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-07 18:39:42 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 6:02 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2025-03-07 17:47:08 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > While investigating a bug in the patch to get rid of WA
To improve the performance of pg_dump can we add a new sql function that
can operate more efficiently than the pg_stats view? It could also take in
an optional list of oids to filter on.
This will help speed up the dump and restore within pg18 and future
upgrades to higher pg versions.
Thanks
Hari
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 5:33 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some minor review comments for patch v10-0001.
>
> ==
> src/include/access/tableam.h
>
> 1.
> struct IndexInfo;
> +struct ParallelVacuumState;
> +struct ParallelContext;
> +struct ParallelWorkerContext;
> struct SampleScanState;
>
> Use a
Dear Amit,
> Don't we need to call this invalidation function from
> InvalidateSystemCachesExtended()?
Hmm. I did not call relsync callback functions in
InvalidateSystemCachesExtended()
intentionally, but added now. Please see my analysis below and let me know how
you think.
In the first place,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:33:52AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Indeed, there is no reason for pgstat_backend_have_pending_cb() to return
> true if
> pgstat_tracks_backend_bktype() is not satisfied.
>
> So it deserves a dedicated patch to fix this already existing issue:
> 0001 attached.
p
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> While I'm all for chipping away at what superuser privilege is
> needed for, we have to tread VERY carefully about chipping away
> at things that allow any outside-the-database access.
I agree, but I also don't want the security decisions that the
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, don't you *want* a failure if the patch is already applied?
> It's pretty common that in a larger patchset the first 1-2
> small/trivial patches get committed before the rest. Having to then
> send an additional emai
Em sex., 7 de mar. de 2025 às 15:54, Álvaro Herrera
escreveu:
> Hello
>
> I find that this is still quite broken -- both the original, and your
> patch. I have already complained about a fundamental bug in the
> original in [1]. In addition to what I reported there, in the unpatched
> code I no
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025, at 03:32, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 3/4/25 10:24 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> Rebased the patch to add support for OLD.* and NEW.*.
>
> Apparently the CI did not like that version.
>
> Andreas
>
> Attachments:
> * v6-0001-Add-support-for-ON-CONFLICT-DO-SELECT-FOR.patch
+1
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:13 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I don't see that behaviour on my Mac with a simple program, and that
> seems like it couldn't possibly be intended.
What version of macOS?
Just to make sure I'm not chasing ghosts, I've attached my test
program. Here are my CI results for runn
Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> As an example you can copy paste this tiny script:
>
> \startpipeline
> select pg_sleep(5) \bind \g
> \endpipeline
>
> And then it will show these "extra argument ... ignored" warnings
>
> \startpipeline: extra argument "select" ignored
> \startpipeline: extra
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 2:17 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> Yea, "auth_id" is too ambiguous for a GUC option. I went with
> "authorization" because it sounds a bit less like a stage while also
> being a recognizable word. It achieves symmetry -- though it doesn't
> match the prefix used in the logs.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 13:40, Burd, Greg wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 2025, at 6:39 PM, Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 18:21, Burd, Greg wrote:
> >> * augments IndexInfo only when needed for testing expressions and only once
> >
> > ExecExpressionIndexesUpdated seems to
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 10:09 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Given that conn_timing.ready_for_use is only used here:
>
> + if (!reported_first_ready_for_query &&
> + (log_connections &
> LOG_CONNECTION_READY_FOR_USE) &&
> +
Dear Amit, hackers,
> Yeah, this is a good improvement and the patch looks safe to me, so I
> pushed with minor changes in the comments.
Thanks! PSA rebased patch. While considering more about 0002, I found a
conceptual bug - when relsync cache could not be re-built when SQL interfaces
are
used.
On 2025-03-06 Th 9:17 AM, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (SXD Japan FSI) wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for developing the good feature.
I've attached a small patch for the documentation of the json_strip_nulls
function. The data type of the 'target' parameter is different between the
implementation and the documenta
>
> I tried to generalize that requirement to all of
> {schema|data|statistics} for consistency, but that resulted in 9
> options.
>
9 options that resolve to 3 boolean variables. It's not that hard.
And if we add a fourth option set, then we have 12 options. So it's O(3N),
not O(N^2).
People ha
>
>
> if you want everything --include=schema,data,statistics (presumably
> redundant with the default behavior)
> if you want schema only --include=schema
> if you want "everything except schema" --include=data,statistics
>
Until we add a fourth option, and then it becomes completely ambiguous as
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 12:05 PM Kirill Reshke wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 11:35, Steven Niu wrote:
> >
> > Junwang, Kirill,
> >
> > The split work has been done. I created a new patch for removing redundant
> > smgrclose() function as attached.
> > Please help review it.
> >
> > Than
Hi,
jian he 于2025年3月6日周四 21:44写道：
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 3:01 PM ego alter wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I’ve had a chance to review the patch. As I am still getting
> familiar with executor part, questions and feedbacks could be relatively
> trivial.
> >
> > There are two minor issues i want to discu
Hi,
forget to add hackers to cc.
Xuneng Zhou 于2025年3月8日周六 12:10写道：
>
>
> Navneet Kumar 于2025年3月8日周六 02:09写道：
>
>>
>>
>>> This scenario fails
>>> 1. CREATE TABLE person (
>>> id INT GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY,
>>> first_name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
>>> last_name VARCHAR(50) NOT
On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:52 AM Hari Krishna Sunder
wrote:
> To improve the performance of pg_dump can we add a new sql function that
> can operate more efficiently than the pg_stats view? It could also take in
> an optional list of oids to filter on.
> This will help speed up the dump and restor
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 10:57:38AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:33:04AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > But when it's time to flush, then pgstat_backend_have_pending_cb() checks
> > for zeros in PendingBackendStats *without* any check on the backend type.
> >
Updated and rebase patches.
0001 is the same as v6-0002, but with proper ACL checks on schemas after
cache lookup
0002 attempts to replace all possible ERRORs in the restore/clear functions
with WARNINGs. This is done with an eye towards reducing the set of things
that could potentially cause an
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:09:35PM -0800, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch. It looks mostly good to me. I've
> made some cosmetic changes and attached the updated version.
LGTM, thanks!
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Datab
Hi
On 27.02.25 15:37, vignesh C wrote:
> Here is a rebased version along with the test failure fixes, please
> accept the change if you are ok with it.
Patch LGTM. +1
It applies cleanly and works as described:
== pg_dump ==
$ /usr/local/postgres-dev/bin/pg_dump db > dump.out
$ grep "POLICY"
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-01-20 15:01:38 +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > /* If start_time is in the future or now, no time has elapsed */
> > if (start_time >= stop_time)
> > return 0;
> > "
> >
> > I think that it can happen d
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is that maximum active for the whole system, or maximum active per
> session, or maximum active per created origin, or some combination of these?
>
It is a cluster-wide setting. Similar to max_replication_slots. I will make
sure the GUC
On 3/7/25 15:53, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-03-06 22:49:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> In short, all the 4 patches look good to me. Thanks for picking this up!
>>
>> On 06/03/2025 22:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-05 20:49:33 -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> This behavio
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:38 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Also, benign typedef redefinitions are a C11 feature. In practice, all
>> compilers currently in play support it, and the only problem you'll get
>> is from the buildfarm members that are explicitly set up to warn ab
Hi,
On 2025-03-07 17:47:08 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> While investigating a bug in the patch to get rid of WALBufMappingLock, I
> found that the surrounding pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() fixes the
> problem for me.
That sounds more likely to be due to slowing down things enough to make
On 2/3/2025 20:35, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 17/2/2025 04:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
No documentation provided.
Ok, I haven't been sure this idea has a chance to be committed. I will
introduce the docs in the next version.
This is a new version with bug fixes. Also, use TAP tests instead of
re
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:37 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> Also, I think there is case to be made that a cloud provider (or site
> admin) would like to delegate the decision whether users with CREATE
> rights on a particular database are allowed to install some extensions
> or not. Or rather, assign so
Re: To PostgreSQL Hackers
> ... and the file is just fine. The blame is now on the kernel side for
> any machine-level problems. (The kernel on the porter box where I
> tried to reproduce the problem is much older than on the actual
> buildds. A new version that hopefully fixes the problem is being
Hi
The more accurate data I've found is tabentry->live_tuples; provides the
second version
#Here's a simple test I did
test=# select count(*) from join1;
count
-
2289001
(1 row)
test=# update join1 set name=md5(now()::text) where id<100;
UPDATE 1938700
test=# select 1938700/22
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:20 AM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jakub Wartak
> wrote:
> >Hi,
>
> > > Yeah, that's why I was mentioning to use a "shared"
> > > populate_buffercache_entry()
> > > or such function: to put the "duplicated" code in it and then use this
>
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:26:23AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 3:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:05 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:42:15PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 11:26, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Out of curiosity: do you track which method works? I would expect
> everything to be applied with either git am or patch which can be
> applied with git apply making git apply technically unnecessary.
I think we need all of them...
- git appl
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>Hi,
> > Yeah, that's why I was mentioning to use a "shared"
> > populate_buffercache_entry()
> > or such function: to put the "duplicated" code in it and then use this
> > shared function in pg_buffercache_pages() and in the new numa relat
Here is a rebase, v14.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
From ee4b3b3c3ad3293460eb1f0418d87a065b9a589b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Maxim Orlov
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 15:53:36 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v14 5/7] TEST: initdb option to initialize cluster with
non-standard xid/mxid/mxoff
To date testing
hi.
rebased and polished patch attached, test case added.
However there is a case (the following) where
``COPY(partitioned_table)`` is much slower
(around 25% in some cases) than ``COPY (select * from partitioned_table)``.
If the partition attribute order is not the same as the partitioned table,
Matheus Alcantara писал(а) 2025-03-07 05:02:
Hi!
Thank for interest to the patch.
1. Changes in jit-code generation.
a) the load of the absolute address (as const) changed to the load of
this
address from a struct member:
If I understood correctly, this change is required to avoid making
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:28 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Amit,
>
> Thanks for the comment! PSA new version.
>
Don't we need to call this invalidation function from
InvalidateSystemCachesExtended()?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:32:28AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Is it possible that the signal number we're getting called for is above
> PG_NSIG? That'd explain why the source value is something fairly random?
>
> ISTM that we should add an Assert() to wrapper_handler() that ensures that the
> s
Hi,
On 2025-03-06 15:39:44 -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I've reattached the wait event patches, to get the cfbot back to where it was.
FWIW, I continue to think that this is a misuse of wait events. We shouldn't
use them as a poor man's general purpose tracing framework.
Greetings,
Andres Fre
Hi, Andres.
Thank you for reply.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 6:02 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2025-03-07 17:47:08 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > While investigating a bug in the patch to get rid of WALBufMappingLock, I
> > found that the surrounding pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() fixes the
Hi,
On 2025-03-07 10:36:35 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:32:28AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Is it possible that the signal number we're getting called for is above
> > PG_NSIG? That'd explain why the source value is something fairly random?
> >
> > ISTM that we sh
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 11:26, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> Out of curiosity: do you track which method works? I would expect
>> everything to be applied with either git am or patch which can be
>> applied with git apply making git apply technically unnecessary.
> I think
Hi
I encountered an issue when trying to add a virtual column to an existing
table using the ALTER command. The operation fails even though the existing
data ensures that the virtual column's value will never be NULL. However,
if I define the same virtual column while creating the table and then
i
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:41:38AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-07 10:36:35 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:32:28AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Is it possible that the signal number we're getting called for is above
>> > PG_NSIG? That'd explain why the so
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:05 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Erik Wienhold writes:
> > But I don't see the point in keeping variables atttypid and atttypmod
> > around when those values are now available via outatt. Removing these
> > two variables makes the code easier to read IMO. Done so in the
> > a
Hi,
On 2025-03-06 22:49:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In short, all the 4 patches look good to me. Thanks for picking this up!
>
> On 06/03/2025 22:16, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-03-05 20:49:33 -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > This behaviour makes it really hard to debug problems. I
Hi,
While running some tests with logical replication, I've run in a
situation where a walsender process was stuck in an infinite loop with
the following backtrace:
#0 in MemoryContextDelete (...) at ../src/backend/utils/mmgr/mcxt.c:474
#1 in exec_replication_command (cmd_string=... "BEGIN") at
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:24 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I find a good deal of attraction in getting rid of the IDs and
> > just using names. Nor do I believe we need a hash table.
> > (1) Surely there will not be so many extensions using this within
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 1:58 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 3:13 PM Álvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > On 2025-Feb-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > > Saying that, I have also done similar tests with your v12 for a couple
> > > of hours and this looks stable under installcheck
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 06:16:07PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Attached v12 does this (uses timestamps instead of instr_time).
Thanks for the new version!
> I've done some assorted cleanup. Most notably:
>
> I removed LOG_CONNECTION_NONE because it could lead to wrong results
> to have
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:38 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Just to clarify this: Nobody has gone through and used IWYU to clean up
> indirect includes, as you appear to imagine here. My recent IWYU work
> was, besides putting some infrastructure in place, to clean up includes
> that are completely
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:08 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Honestly, I don't see a reason not to introduce that, like in the
> attached.
This new code races against the session timeout. I see this on timer expiration:
[14:19:55.224](0.000s) # issuing query 34 via background psql:
SELECT state F
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 8:52 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> There is no "what we'd like them to do" -- we have no policy or preference
> or anything as a group. Everybody's just guessing what other people want
> and care about, and then sometimes we're all grumpy at each other.
>
This is a great point.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 15:37, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 09:17:46AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Why wouldn't the cloud provider just change add 'trusted = true' to
> > the relevant control files instead of doing this?
>
> That would be possible, but maybe the cloud provider i
Hi Robert,
> I think that solving the problems around using a dictionary is going
> to be really hard. Can we see some evidence that the results will be
> worth it?
Compression dictionaries give a good compression ratio (~50%) and also
increase TPS a bit (5-10%) due to better buffer cache utiliza
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:26:23AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Your proposed change in the test sounds better than what we have now
> > but I think we should also avoid autovacuum to perform analyze as that
> > may add additional count
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 19:16 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> New version 3 attached.
>
> I am fine with v3, and I'll mark it "ready for committer".
>
> I have been wondering about regression tests.
> We cannot have them in the core tests, because we cannot rely on any
> exten
Hi all,
While investigating a bug in the patch to get rid of WALBufMappingLock, I
found that the surrounding pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() fixes the
problem for me. That doesn't feel right because, according to the
comments, both pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32() and
pg_atomic_compare_exchange_
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 6:19 AM wenhui qiu wrote:
>
> Sorry ,A wrong version of debug pcnt_visibletuples ，kindly please check the
> v3 attachment
I looked at v3. I think I need more than the logging message to
understand your goal here. Could you explain the algorithm and why you
think it makes s
Hi,
On 2025-03-07 16:25:09 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> FWIW I keep running into this (and skink seems unhappy too). I ended up
> just adding a sleep(1), right before
>
> push(@sessions, background_psql_as_user('regress_superuser'));
>
> and that makes it work on all my machines (including rpi5)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 14:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> I see that Jelte walked this comment back, but I think this issue
> needs more discussion. I'm not intrinsically against having a role
> like pg_execute_server_programs that allows escalation to superuser,
> but I don't see how it would help a clou
Hi Team,
Our team has identified couple of issues with the meson build on AIX, primarily
focusing on the following areas:
1. Symbol extraction and resolution in object files during binary creation.
2. Dynamic runtime library path resolution in shared libraries.
We have resolved them and we
Hi Daniil,
Thanks for the patch.
> main idea of this patch (for REL_17_STABLE)
Your patch should target the `master` branch. Also please add a
corresponding entry to the nearest open commitfest [1].
> In my opinion, this will be useful primarily to simplify testing, since at
> the moment you h
On Fri, 2025-03-07 at 09:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:02 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > The reason why I walked back my comment was that cloud providers can
> > simply choose which extensions they actually add to the image. If an
> > extension is marked as not trusted b
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:52:26AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:03 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Honestly, it's been years of people complaining on one thing or another
> > about
> > lapwing without ever asking for a change. Was it really hard to ask "can
> > you
> > remo
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 09:17:46AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Why wouldn't the cloud provider just change add 'trusted = true' to
> the relevant control files instead of doing this?
That would be possible, but maybe the cloud provider is using
distribution packages and does not want to muck
Hi,
> > Sometimes support for base64url from RFC 4648 would be useful.
> > Does anyone else need a patch like this?
>
> While not a frequent ask, it has been mentioned in the past. I think it would
> make sense to add so please do submit a patch for it for consideration.
IMO it would be nice to
On 06.03.25 21:23, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM Tom Lane wrote:
v4 has addressed most of my nitpicks, but you still have typedefs
for ExplainState in both header files. My bet is that at least
one buildfarm animal will complain about that. I could be wrong
though, maybe a
On 07.03.25 04:51, Amit Kapila wrote:
I agree that the originally proposed name max_replication_origins is not
good, because you can "create" (using pg_replication_origin_create())
more than the configured maximum. What is the term for what the setting
actually controls? How many are "active"?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:13 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-06 12:36:43 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:00 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > - My current thinking is that we'd set io_method = worker initially - so
> > > we
> > > actually get som
On 3/7/25 12:48 AM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
Okay, I went for the approach of just trying everything until one
works. Starting with "git am", then patch(1), and as a final attempt
"git apply". Patch 5272 applies correctly now. I've removed any
backoff caused by repeated failures for all existing
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
