On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:14 AM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have revised the patch w.r.t the way 'create_storage' is interpreted
> > in heap_create() along with some minor changes to
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 11:44 PM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
> > 3.
> > @@ -504,11 +525,15 @@ createdb(ParseState *pstate, const CreatedbStmt *stmt)
> > */
> > pg_database_rel = table_open(DatabaseRelationId, RowExclusiveLock);
> >
> > - do
>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 2:35 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:40 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > I am reviewing another patch
> > > "v5-0001-Preserve-relfilenode-and-tablespace-OID-in-pg_upg" as well
> > > and will provide the commen
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 8:43 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 11:44 PM Sadhuprasad Patro wrote:
> > > 3.
> > > @@ -504,11 +525,15 @@ createdb(ParseState *pst
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:24 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Every other
> > caller/flow passes false for 'create_storage' and we still need to
> > create storage in heap_create() if relkind has storage.
>
>
Hi,
I was experimenting with the v42 patches, and I tried testing without
providing the path explicitly. There is one difference between the two test
cases that I have highlighted in blue.
The full_name column is empty in the second test case result. Let me know
if this is an issue or expected beh
Thanka Alvaro. It works fine when quotes are used around the column name.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:04 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2024-Mar-11, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
>
> > *CASE 2:*
> > --
> > SELECT * FROM JSON_TABLE(jsonb '{
> >
Hi,
While I was running some isolation tests for MERGE, I noticed one issue
when MERGE tries to UPDATE rows that are concurrently updated by another
session.
Below is the test case for the same.
TEST CASE START =
DROP TABLE target;
DROP TAB
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:17 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 01:03:06PM +0530, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> >
> > I have updated the DBOID preserve patch to handle this case and
> > generated the latest patch on top of your v7-001-preserve-
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:35 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:21 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Thanks, Robert for the updated version. I reviewed the changes and it
> > looks fine.
> > I also tested the patch. The patch works as expected.
>
> Th
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:57 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > I have rebased and generated the patches on top of PostgreSQL commit
> > ID cf925936ecc031355cd56fbd392ec3180517a110.
> > Kindly apply v8-0001-pg_upgrade-P
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:57 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:09 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > Here's an updated version in which I've reverted the changes to gram.y
> > > and tried to improve the comments and documentation. Could you ha
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:08 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:03 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > It is not required for PostgresObjectId. The unused_oids script
> > provides a list of unused oids in the manually-assignable OIDs range
> > (1-).
>
&g
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > It seems to me that what this comment is saying is that OIDs in the
> > second and third categories are doled out by counters. Therefore, we
> > can't know which of those OIDs will get used, or how many of them will
> >
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:40 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > From what I see in the code, template0 and postgres are the last
> > things that get created in initdb phase. The system OIDs that get
> > assigned to these
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 1:14 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:20 AM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Agree. In the latest patch, the template0 and postgres OIDs are fixed
> > to unused manually assigned OIDs 4 and 5 respectively. These OIDs are
> > no mo
I was able to reproduce the issue. Also, the issue does not occur with code
before to preserve relfilenode commit.
I tested your patch and it fixes the problem.
I am currently analyzing a few things related to the issue. I will come
back once my analysis is completed.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 9:19 P
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> It's pretty clear from the discussion, I think, that the database OID
> one is going to need rework to be considered.
>
> Regarding the other one:
>
> - The comment in binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids() is still not
> accurate. You removed the s
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:44 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > - The comment in binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids() is still not
> > > accurate. You removed the sentence which says "Indexes cannot have
> >
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 2:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:44 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > Thanks for the inputs, Robert. In the v4 patch, an unused OID (i.e, 4)
> > is fixed for the template0 and the same is removed from unused oid
> > list.
> >
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:39 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:09:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The above article, at least, suggested encrypting the sector number
> > > using the second key and then multipl
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Actually though ... I've not read the patch, but what does it do about
> > the fact that the postgres and template0 DBs do not have stable OIDs?
> > I cannot imagine any way to force those
> The rest of this email will be detailed review comments on the patch
> as presented, and thus probably only interesting to someone actually
> working on the patch. Feel free to skip if that's not you.
>
> - I suggest splitting the patch into one portion that deals with
> database OID and another
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:59 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 04:57:31PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 1:36 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> > > Thanks Robert for your comments.
> > > I have split the patch into two portion
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 5:46 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:56 PM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:38:05AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +09
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:26:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:35:17AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> Or do we actually need to update all the tuple header information as
> >> well in RelationReloadIndexInfo
26 matches
Mail list logo
