On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 16:50, Jim Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh
>
> On 05.03.25 10:22, vignesh C wrote:
> > The following "Ready for committer" patches needs rebase
> > ---
> > Truncate logs by max_log_size - Kirill Gavrilov
> >
> > Patch owners, please provide a r
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:43 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 10:24 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > On 17/2/2025 01:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > Hi, Andrei!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 8:00 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > > Thank you for your work on this subject.
Hi!
No objections. Alexander, thank you!
--
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
The Russian Postgres Company
https://postgrespro.ru/
On 09/03/2025 10:09, Jacob Brazeal wrote:
The libpqrcv_connect function asserts 'Assert(i < sizeof(keys))', where
keys is declared as const char *keys[6];.
However, sizeof(keys) is not the correct way to check the array length
(on my system, for example, it's 48 = 6 * 8 at this callsite, not 6
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> Would it be possible and make sense to use notation of explicit WINDOW
> clauses, for cases where multiple window functions invoke identical
> window definitions?
There's something to be said for that. We would have to assign
made-up names to windows tha
Tomas Vondra writes:
> I pushed the two smaller parts today.
Coverity is a little unhappy about this business in
_gin_begin_parallel:
boolleaderparticipates = true;
...
#ifdef DISABLE_LEADER_PARTICIPATION
leaderparticipates = false;
#endif
...
On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 10:56 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> In the UX world, the general pattern is people start to get
> overwhelmed once you get over a 1/2 dozen options (I think that's
> based on Miller's law, but might be mis-remembering); we are already
> at 9 for this use case. So really it is q
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 21:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/11/30 15:23, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 06:53, Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> However, this issue already exists without the proposed patch.
> >> Since file_fdw already reports progress partially, querying multiple
Hi,
A few days ago I came up with an idea to implement multi insert
optimization wherever possible. I prepared a raw patch
and it showed a great performance gain (up to 4 times during INSERT
... INTO ... in the best case).
Then I was very happy to find this thread. You did a great job and I
want to
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:32 AM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > On 5/3/2025 03:27, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:04 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > >>> 2. As usage of root->tuple_fraction RelOptInfo it has been critici
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 00:08, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:20 PM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:47 PM David G. Johnston
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Motivated by a recent complaint [1] I found the hostssl related material in
>>>
hi.
patch rebased, also did some minor comments tweak.
From c9398dfe889f23dce147db1719aa9fe4dfaa3adc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jian he
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:45:20 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v16 1/2] general purpose array_sort
Introduce the SQL-callable function array_sort(anyarray). The param
Hello
Would it be possible and make sense to use notation of explicit WINDOW
clauses, for cases where multiple window functions invoke identical
window definitions? I'm thinking of something like
explain verbose SELECT
empno,
depname,
row_number() OVER testwin rn,
rank() OVER tes
On 3/9/25 03:16, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 11:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Shortly after restarting this I got three more reports - all of them are
>> related to strcoll_l. This is on c472a18296e4, i.e. with the asserts
>> added in this thread etc. But none of those s
On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 12:47:34PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-02-16 17:52:36 -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 08:42:50PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On February 16, 2025 7:50:18 PM EST, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >Noah Misch writes:
> > > >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 12:22 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think that's the way to think about old buildfarm members.
> Sure, nobody is very likely to be putting PG 18 on a Debian 7 box,
> but the odds are much higher that they might have PG 13 on it and
> wish to update to 13.latest. So what you
Hello hackers,
The libpqrcv_connect function asserts 'Assert(i < sizeof(keys))', where
keys is declared as const char *keys[6];.
However, sizeof(keys) is not the correct way to check the array length (on
my system, for example, it's 48 = 6 * 8 at this callsite, not 6.)
I attached a patch to fix
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 21:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> vignesh C writes:
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 16:50, Jim Jones wrote:
> >> Is there something wrong with the commitfest app? This patch applies
> >> cleanly and passes all tests
>
> > I verified that it applies neatly and passes the tests for me too
Hello, Mathias!
> though I suspect the SP-GIST tests to have
> bugs, as an intermediate version of my 0003 patch didn't trigger the
> tests to fail
It all fails on master - could you please detail what is "intermediate" in
that case? Also, I think it is a good idea to add the same type of test t
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 at 03:21, vignesh C wrote:
> Couple of suggestions: a) No need to show CI status as "Needs rebase,"
> "Not processed," etc., for committed patches.
Do you mean specifically for committed ones? Or just for any patch
with a "closed" status.
> b) Can we add a filter
> for "Needs
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 6:40 AM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Attached version removes the non-nulls array. That seems to speed
> > everything up. Running the above query with 1 million rows averages
> 450ms,
> > similar when using lead/lag.
>
> Great. However, CFbot complains about the patch:
>
> http
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 3:16 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Jacob at some point had asked about this, and I didn't
> have a satisfactory answer. I'm not really sure what would be more
> useful to end users.
For the record, I'm not really sure either. I don't have a strong
opinion either way.
--Ja
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 07:46, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> A simple fix is to bump the minimum maintenance_work_mem to 256kB. We
> would break the compatibility for backbranch (i.e. v17) but I guess
> it's unlikely that existing v17 users are using less than 1MB
> maintenance_work_mem (the release not
I wrote:
> I'll go try to code this up.
OK, here's v2 done like that. I do like this output better.
I backed off the idea of putting the WindowClause as such
into the plan, partly because I didn't feel like debugging
the setrefs.c problem that David discovered upthread.
This way does require a bi
Hi Sawada-San.
Here are some review comments for patch v11-0002
==
Commit message.
1.
Heap table AM disables the parallel heap vacuuming for now, but an
upcoming patch uses it.
This function implementation was moved into patch 0001, so probably
this part of the commit message comment also b
Hi Sawada-San,
Here are some review comments for patch v11-0001.
==
src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c
1.
+/*
+ * Compute the number of workers for parallel heap vacuum.
+ *
+ * Return 0 to disable parallel vacuum so far.
+ */
+int
+heap_parallel_vacuum_compute_workers(Relation rel, int nw
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 6:23 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah. Most likely somebody dismissed it years ago. Given that
> precedent, I'm content to dismiss this one too.
It is dead code, unless somebody decides to #define
DISABLE_LEADER_PARTICIPATION to debug a problem.
--
Peter Geoghegan
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On 3/9/25 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Coverity is a little unhappy about this business in
>> _gin_begin_parallel:
> I don't mind doing it differently, but this code is just a copy from
> _bt_begin_parallel. So how come coverity does not complain about that?
> Or is that white
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:27 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I think you misunderstood my drift. I'm okay with setting a project
> policy that we won't support OSes that are more than N years EOL,
> as long as it's phrased to account for older PG branches properly.
Yep, I misunderstood. That sounds awesome.
On 3/9/25 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> I pushed the two smaller parts today.
>
> Coverity is a little unhappy about this business in
> _gin_begin_parallel:
>
> boolleaderparticipates = true;
> ...
> #ifdef DISABLE_LEADER_PARTICIPATION
> leader
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 4:53 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:49 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 8:20 PM Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024-Mar-25, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > >
> > > > reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with mu
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:24 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 1:46 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Commit bbf668d66fbf6 (back-patched to v17) lowered the minimum
> > maintenance_work_mem to 64kB, but it doesn't work for parallel vacuum
>
> That was done in the first place to mak
Hi,
Commit bbf668d66fbf6 (back-patched to v17) lowered the minimum
maintenance_work_mem to 64kB, but it doesn't work for parallel vacuum
cases since the minimum dsa segment size (DSA_MIN_SEGMENT_SIZE) is
256kB. As soon as the radix tree allocates its control object and the
root node, the memory us
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 09:19:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 07:34:16AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> What about adding some extra paranoia like?
>>
>> SELECT backend_type, object, context FROM pg_stat_io ORDER BY
>> backend_type, object, context COLLATE "C";
>
>
I found cfbot got angry due to a variable-shadowing. PSA fixed version.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
v7-0001-Introduce-a-new-invalidation-message-to-invalidat.patch
Description: v7-0001-Introduce-a-new-invalidation-message-to-invalidat.patch
v7-0002-Invalidate-Relcaches-while-
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:54 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On further thinking, I felt the use of publications_updated variable
> > is not required we can use publications_valid itself which will be set
> > if the publication system table is inva
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:18 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> + Subscription names, publication names, and replication slot names are
> + automatically generated. Cannot be used together with
> + --database, --publication,
> + --replication-slot or
> --subscription.
>
> Don't star
On 2025-03-09 00:42, Akshat Jaimini wrote:
Hi,
I think there is still some problem with the patch. I am not able to
apply it to the master branch.
Can you please take another look at it?
Thanks for pointing it out!
Modified it.
BTW the patch adds about 400 lines to explain.c and it may be bet
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:54 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On further thinking, I felt the use of publications_updated variable
> is not required we can use publications_valid itself which will be set
> if the publication system table is invalidated. Here is a patch for
> the same.
>
The patch relies on
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:25 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 3:24 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> >
> > Another performance regression I can see in the results is that heap
> > vacuum phase (phase III) got slower with the patch. It's weired to me
> > since I don't touch the co
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Discussing with Amit offlist, I've run another benchmark test where no
> data is loaded on the shared buffer. In the previous test, I loaded
> all table blocks before running vacuum, so it was the best case. The
> attached test results sho
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:55 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:05 PM Shubham Khanna
> wrote:
> >
> > The attached Patch contains the suggested changes.
> >
>
> Hi Shubham,
>
> Here are few comments for 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl
>
> 1)
> +# Run pg_createsubscriber on node S using
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 10:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, I am fairly certain that I looked at this at an earlier state of the
> patch, and at least for me the issue wasn't that it was inherently slower to
> use the bitmask, but that it was hard to convince the compiler not generate
> worse code.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 08:56, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 5:10 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:52 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:47 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:33 PM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:27 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shubham.
>
> Some review comments for patch v13-0001.
>
> ==
> GENERAL
>
> 1.
> --cleanup-existing-publications
>
> I've never liked this proposed switch name much.
>
> e.g. why say "cleanup" instead of "drop"? What is the difference?
>
Hi
čt 6. 3. 2025 v 9:57 odesílatel Alexander Pyhalov
napsal:
> Hi.
>
> Tom Lane писал(а) 2025-02-27 23:40:
> > Alexander Pyhalov writes:
> >> Now sql functions plans are actually saved. The most of it is a
> >> simplified version of plpgsql plan cache. Perhaps, I've missed
> >> something.
> >
>
On 2025/03/09 20:38, vignesh C wrote:
I've updated the status to "withdrawn." Feel free to add it again
anytime if you change your mind.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 06:44:27PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Regarding the issue itself, query jumbling behavior is often subjective,
> making it difficult to classify as a bug. I'm not entirely sure this
> qualifies as a bug either, but I do believe it should be addressed.
I would call that a b
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 12:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 06:44:27PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > Regarding the issue itself, query jumbling behavior is often subjective,
> > making it difficult to classify as a bug. I'm not entirely sure this
> > qualifies as a bug either,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 3:58 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:18 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > + Subscription names, publication names, and replication slot names
> > are
> > + automatically generated. Cannot be used together with
> > + --database, --publica
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 7:03 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 10:30, David Rowley wrote:
> > Could you do something similar to what's in hash_agg_check_limits()
> > where we check we've got at least 1 item before bailing before we've
> > used up the all the prescribed memory? Tha
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 10:55 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> I noticed that much of this code is lifted from DropRole(), and the new
> check_drop_role_dependency() function is only used by DropRole() right
> before it does the exact same scans. Couldn't we put the new dependency
> detection in
On 2025-Mar-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > What are your thoughts on being a bit more brief with the naming and
> > just prefix with "w" instead of "window"? Looking at window.out, I see
> > that the EXPLAIN output does become quite a bit wider than before. I
> > favour the idea o
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:54:39AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> So it does not look like what we're adding here can be seen as a primary
> bottleneck
> but that is probably worth implementing the "have_iostats" optimization
> attached.
>
> Also, while I did not measure any noticeable extra l
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 14:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, OK. Do you think it could be sensible to put Run Condition
> before Filter, then? On the same grounds of "keeping related
> things together", it could be argued that Run Condition is
> related to the Window property. Also, the Run Condition a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 02:14:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I know you reviewed this, Michael, so you're aware; 2d3389c28 did
> recently document that we'd only break this in minor versions as a
> last resort. So, I agree that it sounds like a master-only fix is in
> order.
Yes, this thread's
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:00 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 9:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >
> > I see the point of adding such an option to avoid breaking the current
> > applications (if there are any) that are relying on current behaviour.
> > But OTOH, I am not sure if us
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 11:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> OK, here's v2 done like that. I do like this output better.
> I backed off the idea of putting the WindowClause as such
> into the plan, partly because I didn't feel like debugging
> the setrefs.c problem that David discovered upthread.
> This way d
The attached v6 fixes the build. Somehow I missed testing with
--with-cassert the whole time and it turned that out I forgot to pass
queryString to ExecRefreshMatView.
--
Erik Wienhold
>From 6ec126d8da5ca80f93ea8a58e07d654f5e21ef6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Erik Wienhold
Date: Tue, 21 May
59 matches
Mail list logo
