On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As Amit pointed out earlier, the behaviour when schema dropped, I
> think we should also consider when schema is altered, say altered to a
> different name, maybe we should change that in the pub
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:26 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:10 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021, at 09:34, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > &g
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:52 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's got security hazards as well. If we restricted the
> >> feature to cause a trace of only one process at a time, and required
> >> that process to be log
From 2e7a6e41f789f7f1717058e9c78441ae8d5faf9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:38:54 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1] Identify missing publications from publisher while
create/alter subscription.
Creating/altering subscription is successful when we specify a publication
Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
>>
>> I have handled the above scenario(drop schema should automatically
>> remove the schema entry from publication schema relation) & addition
>> of tests in the
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:14 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM japin wrote:
> > > 2) Can't we know whether the publications exist on the publisher with
> > > the existing (or modifying it a bit if required) query in
> > > fetch_table_list(), so that we can avoid ma
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM japin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 00:51, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Creating/altering subscription is successful when we
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:21 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Creating/altering subscription is successful when we specify a
> > publication which does not exist in the publisher. I felt
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:18 PM japin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 17:18, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:42 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >> >
> >
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:07 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:48 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:42 PM Dilip Kumar
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > &g
has
fixes based on the suggestions. It includes the following fixes: 1)
Removal of support to get callstack of all postgres process, user can
get only one process callstack. 2) Update the documentation. 3) Added
necessary checks for pg_print_callstack similar to
pg_terminate_backend. 4) Changed
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-01-27 19:05:16 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > /*
> > + * LogBackTrace
> > + *
> > + * Get the backtrace and log the backtrace to log file.
> > + */
> >
Thanks Bharath for your review comments. Please find my comments inline below.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:40 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, I have fixed and attached an updated patch
> > with the
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:01 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh,
> >
> >>
> >> I have handled the above scenario(drop sc
Thanks Bharath for your comments.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > 4) How about following
> > > + errmsg("must be a superuser to print backtrace
> > > of
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:04 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > > 4) How about following
> > > > + errmsg("must
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> vignesh C writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:04 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >> Are these superuser and permission checks enough from a security
> >> standpoint that we don't expose so
I have made a patch for the above with the changes suggested and
rebased it with the head code.
Attached v21 patch which has the changes for the same.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
From 9d85abfe1e4b43d67ee746891830abe53077c0e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:23:31 +0530
Subject: [PAT
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:47 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think what we want to do is mark default_transaction_read_only as
> > > GUC_REPORT, instead. That will give a reliable report of what
Thanks for the comments Greg, please find my comments inline below.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:27 PM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:17 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think what we want to do is mark default_transaction_read_only as
> &g
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:29 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thur, Dec 2, 2021 5:21 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > PSA the v44* set of patches.
> >
> > The following review comments are addressed:
> >
> > v44-0001 main patch
> > - Renamed the TAP test 026->027 due to clash caused by recent comm
,
Vignesh
From d0d0d2d8944a66f28b239da5fb80c15415a016e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 19:44:15 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1] Fix for new owner of ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA publication
should be superuser.
Currently while changing the owner of ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA publication
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:58 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 12/2/21, 7:07 PM, "vignesh C" wrote:
> > Currently while changing the owner of ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA
> > publication, it is not checked if the new owner has superuser
> > permission or not. Added a
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:53 AM Greg Nancarrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:06 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Currently while changing the owner of ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA
> > publication, it is not checked if the new owner has superuser
> > permission or not. Adde
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:04 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 11:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Besides that, I’m not sure how useful commit_bytes, abort_bytes, and
> > error_bytes are. I originally thought these statistics track the size of
> > received
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:45 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-16, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > I noticed that the latest v5 no longer includes the TAP test which was
> > in the v4 patch.
> >
> > (src/test/subscription/t/021_column_filter.pl)
> >
> > Was that omission deliberate?
>
> Somehow I
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 09:00:39PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > The previous patch was failing because of the recent test changes made
> > by commit 201a76183e2 which unified new and get_new_node, attached
> >
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:32 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 3:12 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the updated patch.
> > Currently we are storing the commit count, error_count and abort_count for
> > each table of the table sy
code. The attached v3 patch has the changes
for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
From cc4226ced0e535a324dde5b1ff0e48d6e0035e17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 19:44:15 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v3] Fix for new owner of ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA publication
should be superuser.
Cu
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:07 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While updating the patch I recently posted[1] to make pg_waldump
> report replication origin ID, LSN, and timestamp, I found a bug that
> replication origin timestamp is not set in ROLLBACK PREPARED case.
> Commit 8bdb1332eb5 (C
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 4:54 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 12:50 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:41 AM Greg Nancarrow
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec
On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:26 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 6:34 PM, vignesh C wrote
> >Thanks for the updated patch, your changes look good to me. You might
> >want to include the commit message in the patch, that will be useful.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:53 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:24 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 2) Any particular reason why the code and tests are
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 6:24 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I just noticed that this (commit 5a2832465fd8) added a separate catalog
> to store schemas which are part of a publication, side-by-side with the
> catalog to store relations which are part of a publication. This seems
> a strange way to r
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:22 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 1:16 PM Greg Nancarrow
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 12:20 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I've made a new patch v11 that incorporated suggestions described
> > abov
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:12 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 11:27 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the updated patch, few comments:
> Thank you for your review !
>
> > 1) We can keep the documentation similar to mention the count
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:07 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 1:49 PM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > The patch no longer applies, could you post a rebased patch.
>
> Thanks for your kindly reminder. Attached a rebased patch.
> Some changes in
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking that we can start
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking that we can start
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 7:58 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:48 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 6:19 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:12 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Few question
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 6:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:11 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > PSA the v47* patch set.
> Thanks for the comments, I agree with all the comments.
> Attach the V49 patch set, which
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:29 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here is the v51* patch set:
>
> Main changes from Euler's v50* are
> 1. Most of Euler's "fixes" patches are now merged back in
> 2. Patches are then merged per Amit's suggestion [Amit 20/12]
> 3. Some other review comments are addressed
>
> ~~
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:29 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here is the v51* patch set:
>
I tweaked the query slightly based on Euler's changes, the explain
analyze of the updated query based on Euler's suggestions, existing
query and Euler's query is given below:
1) updated query based on Euler's sug
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:58 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here is the v58* patch set:
>
> Main changes from v57* are
> 1. Couple of review comments fixed
>
> ~~
>
> Review comments (details)
> =
>
> v58-0001 (main)
> - PG docs updated as suggested [Alvaro, Euler 26/12]
>
> v58-
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:23 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 10:04 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 9:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:42 PM
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 7:52 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:57 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > 2) Can we have an option to specify last_error_xid of
> > pg_stat_subscription_workers. Something like:
> > alter subscription sub1 skip (
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:32 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 5:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 7:08 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:51
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:49 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:10 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:32 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:21 PM Amit Kapila
> > >
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 3:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> While reviewing/testing subscriber-side work for $SUBJECT [1], I
> noticed a problem that seems to need a broader discussion, so started
> this thread. We can get prepare for the same GID more than once for
> the cases where we have defined mu
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:09 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 1:35 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:03 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Missed the patch - 0001, resending.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:30 PM Markus Wanner <
markus.wan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 11:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Okay, but just in the previous sentence ("However, reuse of the same
> > gid for example by a downstream node using
> > multiple subscriptions may lead to it not bein
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:22 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 12:18, vignesh C wrote:
> > But in prepare_filter_cb callback, by stating "other systems ..." it is
> > not very clear who will change the GID. Are we referring to
> > publisher/subscriber deco
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:46 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 13:04, vignesh C wrote:
> > The above content looks sufficient to me.
>
> Good, thanks. Based on that, I'm adding v7 of the patch.
>
Thanks for the updated patch.
@@ -440,7 +441,8 @@ pg_de
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:40 PM Markus Wanner
wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 14:00, vignesh C wrote:
> > Have you intentionally not
> > written any tests as it will be difficult to predict the xid. I just
> > wanted to confirm my understanding.
>
> Yeah, that's the reas
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-26 07:58:58 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I suggest we wait doing anything about this until we know if the shared
> > > stats patch gets in or not (I'd give it 50
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:34 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v68*
>
> Differences from v67* are:
>
> * Rebased to HEAD @ today.
>
> * v68 fixes an issue reported by Vignesh [1] where a scenario was
> found which still was able to cause a generated GID clash. Usi
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:21 PM Suraj Kharage
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Noticed that an extra semicolon in a couple of test cases related to
> postgres_fdw. Removed that in the attached patch. It can be backported till
> v11 where we added those test cases.
>
Thanks for identifying this, the changes l
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-30 10:13:29 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Any chance you could write a tap test exercising a few of these cases?
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:35 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> The patch applies fine on HEAD and "make check" passes fine. No major
> comments on the patch, just a minor comment:
>
> If you could change the error from, " cannot PREPARE a transaction that has a
> lock on user catalog/system table(s)"
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:59 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:34 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached the latest patch set v68*
> >
>
> I think this patch is in much better shape than it was few versions
> earlier but I feel still some more work and testing is requ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:32 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-03-30 10:13:29 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
Hi,
While I was reviewing replication slot statistics code, I found one
issue in the data type used for pgstat_report_replslot function
parameters. We pass int64 variables to the function but the function
prototype uses int type. I I felt the function parameters should be
int64. Attached patch fix
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:32 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:18 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/04/02 2:18, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:20 PM vignesh C > <mailto:vignes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > W
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:59 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/04/02 11:20, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 11:18 PM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021/04/02 2:18, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> >>>
&
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:16 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are memset-ting the special space page that's already set to zeros
> by PageInit in BloomInitPage, GinInitPage and SpGistInitPage. We have
> already removed the memset after PageInit in gistinitpage (see the
> comment there).
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:57 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, I will fix the comments and provide a patch
> > for this soon.
>
Thanks for the comments.
> Here are some comments:
> 1) How
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 11:12 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > Here pg_stat_replication_slots will not have enought slots. I changed
> > it to below:
> > errmsg("skipping \"%s\" replication slot statistic
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 11:07 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > &
Hi,
While reviewing replication statistics I found a small typo. Attached
patch for a typo in:
src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c
/*
-* Check if the slot exits with the given name. It is
possible that by
+* Check if the slot exists with
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:41 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/04/06 13:57, vignesh C wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While reviewing replication statistics I found a small typo. Attached
> > patch for a typo in:
> > src/backend/postmaster/pgstat.c
&
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
>
> Few comments on the latest patches:
> Comments on 0001
>
> 1.
> @@ -659,6 +661,8 @@ ReorderBufferTXNByXid(ReorderBuffer
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
>
> Few comments on the latest patches:
> Comments on 0001
>
> 1.
> @@ -659,6 +661,8 @@ ReorderBufferTXNByXid(ReorderBuffer
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:18 PM Himanshu Upadhyaya
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on one of the issue, I have noticed below unexpected behavior
> with "PREPARE TRANSACTION".
>
> We are getting this unexpected behavior with PREPARE TRANSACTION when it is
> mixed with Temporary Objects. Please co
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:04 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:59 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, at 2:13 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> >
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
>
> @@ -4069,6 +4069,24 @@ pgstat_read_statsfiles(Oid onlydb, bool
> permanent, bool deep)
> * slot follows.
> */
> case 'R':
> + /*
> +
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 4:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > 2.
> > @@ -2051,6 +2054,17 @@ ReorderBufferProcessTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb,
> > ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> > rb->begin(rb, txn);
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Update total transaction coun
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 6:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:06 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Amit for your Patch. I have merged your changes into my
> > patchset. I did not find any issues in my testing.
> > Thoughts?
> >
Thanks for the comments.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 4:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > That is not required, I have modified it.
> > Attached v4 patch has the fixes for the same.
> >
>
> Few comments:
&g
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 9:26 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:22 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > And then more generally about the feature:
> > - If a slot was used to stream out a large amount of changes (say an
> > initial data load), but then replication is interrupted be
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:34 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems Vignesh has c
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 6:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks, 0001 and 0002 look good to me. I have a minor comment for 0002.
>
>
> +total_bytesbigint
> +
> +
> +Amount
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:34 PM
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:34 PM
Hi,
Few of the statistics description in monitoring_stats.sgml doc is not
consistent. Made all the descriptions consistent by including
punctuation marks at the end of each description.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Vignesh
From b74179aec11eb1f2439ef43e1830531c2cde78a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: vignesh
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:13 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > I think, we can also have validate_publication option allowed for
> > > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION and REFRESH PUBLICATION commands
> > > w
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:46 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:16 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:46 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 6:51 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> >
Thanks for reviewing and providing the comments Ashutosh.
Please find my thoughts below:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:18 PM Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
>
> Some review comments (mostly) from the leader side code changes:
>
> 1) Do we need a DSM key for the FORCE_QUOTE option? I think FORCE_QUOTE
option i
gworker.c as we require the parallel worker to receive this signal
and continue processing. I have not included the changes for other
processes as I'm not sure if this scenario is applicable for other
processes.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From b283bdd47e3bc132
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:35 PM Georgios wrote:
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, July 11, 2020 3:16 PM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:24 PM Georgios gkokola...@protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Messag
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:41 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:54 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing and adding your thoughts, My comments are inline.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:21 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:35 PM Wang, Shenhao
wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> The source looks like:
>
> case ECPGt_bytea:
> {
> struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *variable =
> (struct ECPGgeneric_varchar *) (var->value);
>
> ..
> }
>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:03 PM Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I meant can this:
>> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAMEread object name filter
>> expressions from file\n"));
>> be changed to:
>> printf(_(" --filter=FILENAMEdump objects and data based
>> on the filter expressions from
worker.sgml as well.
Included the documentation.
Attached the updated patch for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From f06a5966d754d6622a3425c6cac1ad72314832ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vignesh C
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:48:17 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v4]
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 7:30 PM Georgios wrote:
>
>
> I'm having issues understanding where you are going with the reviews, can you
> fully describe
> what is it that you wish to be done?
>
I'm happy with the patch, that was the last of the comments that I had
from my side. Only idea here is to
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:51 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:33:48PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> The patches were not applying because of the recent commits.
> >> I have
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:35 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > The v4 patch looks good to me. Hang is not seen, make check and make
> > check-world passes. I moved this to the committer for further review
> > in https://commitfest.postgresql.o
101 - 200 of 1854 matches
Mail list logo
