On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:52:19PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-24 19:20:37 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 09:58:37PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > +static pg_attribute_always_inline PgAioResult
> > > +buffer_readv_complete_one(uint8 buf_off, Buffer buffer, uin
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:30:27PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-24 17:45:37 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > (We may be due for a test mode that does smgrreleaseall() at every
> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?)
>
> I suspect we are. I'm a bit afraid of even trying...
>
> ...
>
> It's extremely
> On 20 Mar 2025, at 08:39, Rahila Syed wrote:
Thanks for the new version, I believe this will be a welcome tool in the
debugging toolbox.
I took a cleanup pass over the docs with among others the below changes:
* You had broken the text in paragraphs, but without tags they are
rendered a
Hi,
On 2025-03-25 07:11:20 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:52:19PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Is it actually sane to use WARNING here? At least for ZERO_ON_ERROR that
> > could
> > trigger a rather massive flood of messages to the client in a *normal*
> > situation. I'm
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-25 06:33:21 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:30:27PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2025-03-24 17:45:37 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > (We may be due for a test mode that does smgrreleaseall()
With commit f4e53e10b6ce we introduced a way to flip the NO INHERIT bit
on not-null constraints. However, because of the way the grammar
dealt with ALTER CONSTRAINT, we were too blind to see a way to implement
it using the existing production. It turns out that we can remove it,
so the commands w
On 2025-Mar-25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> With commit f4e53e10b6ce we introduced a way to flip the NO INHERIT bit
> on not-null constraints. However, because of the way the grammar
> dealt with ALTER CONSTRAINT, we were too blind to see a way to implement
> it using the existing production.
Patch
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 6:36 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 12:58 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > Btw, about ec_clear_derived_clauses():
> > >
> > > @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ remove_rel_from_eclass(EquivalenceClass *ec,
25.03.2025 13:52, Yura Sokolov пишет:
> Good day, Andres
>
> 24.03.2025 16:08, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2025-03-24 13:41:17 +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote:
>>> 21.03.2025 19:33, Andres Freund wrote:
I'd also like to know a bit more about the motivation here - I can easily
believe that you h
On 25.03.25 12:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hello
On 2025-Mar-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A patch in the NOT ENFORCED constraints patch series proposes to refactor
some of the code added by this patch series ([0] patch v18-0001). I noticed
that the code paths from this patch series do not call
I
> In my experience these often not work well with pg_stat_statements today
> because
> of their own bloat problem, just like with temp tables. You quickly have way
> too many
> unique entries, and your query text file accumulates a lot of duplicative
> entries
> (since the same query text gets r
Comments on 0001
@@ -87,6 +87,21 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
command-line arguments:
+
+ -a
+ --all
+
+
+ Create one subscription per all non-template databases on the target
+ server. Automatically generated names for subscriptions, publications,
Already provided comment on this part.
+/*
+
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 06:47:59PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I know it was mentioned above by both Michael and Andrei that
> AppendJumble should not be exposed. I am not sure I agree with
> that. I think it should be exposed, along with
> JUMBLE_FIELD, JUMBLE_FIELD_SINGLE and JUMBLE_STRING
> and
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:09:06PM -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> For what its worth, +1 on the current proposal in this thread (and doing it
> without a GUC), i.e. merging a query that references the same table alias,
> ignoring different schemas.
Thanks for the feedback. I have looked again at the
Hi Alexander Korotkov,
I saw the Bug: #18852 fix had been pushed. While I debug the sem- join
pushed down codes,
I wrote a patch to remove an unnecessary check on semijoin_target_ok() in
[1]. The patch
has been reviewed by Alexander Pyhalov. I think it's ready to commit.
Any thoughts?
[1]
https:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:00 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I agree with your patch 0001-Deprecate-pg_int64.patch. I don't see a
> reason to keep the current arrangement around pg_int64.
Thanks for looking! Pushed.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Shubham,
>
> > The attached patches contain the suggested changes.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. I reviewed only 0001 because they would be
> committed separately.
> Few comments:
>
> 01.
> ```
> + For every non-te
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Shubham,
>
> > The attached patches contain the suggested changes.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. I reviewed only 0001 because they would be
> committed separately.
> Few comments:
>
> 01.
> ```
> + For every non-te
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
