On 2/22/22 01:36, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/02/18 22:28, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here's a slightly updated version of the patch series.
>
> Thanks for updating the patches!
>
>
>> The 0001 part
>> adds tracking of serv
On 2/19/22 06:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:48 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Do we need to handle both FOR ALL TABLES and FOR ALL SEQUENCES at the
>> same time? That seems like a reasonable thing people might want.
>>
>
> +1. That see
On 2/22/22 21:12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2/22/22 01:36, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/02/18 22:28, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here's a slightly updated version of the patch series.
>>
>> Thanks for u
On 2/23/22 12:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:54 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> 7) This updates psql to do roughly the same thing as for tables, so \dRp
>> now list sequences added either directly or through schema, so you might
>> get
On 2/23/22 18:33, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 1:07 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Maybe, but I don't think it's very common to have that many
>> schemas added to the same publication. And it probably does not
>> make much difference whether you
the situation, and recompact. Create a new context, copy
> all the tuples over, delete the old context. That could be a win even in less
> adversarial situations than "a single tuple per generation block".
>
What about pointers to the chunks in the old memory context?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
bit smaller, thanks to saving 20B.
regards
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17406-71e02820ae79bb40%40postgresql.org
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL CompanyFrom c6c5471aebf49da96e47deb5286a6f7065068bd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Fro
On 2/24/22 23:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-02-24 22:15:20 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> After thinking about this I only see two options:
>>
>> 1) Don't apply the patch and tell everyone using ltree_gist they need to
>> rebuild the inde
On 2/24/22 23:13, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/22 23:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-02-24 22:15:20 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> After thinking about this I only see two options:
>>>
>>> 1) Don't apply the patch
Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL CompanyFrom e781f840e38701c63d8b57ff36bd520f2cced6ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tomas Vondra
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 17:33:09 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Verify changing WHERE condition for a publication
Commit
On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 25.02.2022 00:15, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Victor Yegorov reported a crash related to a GiST index on ltree [1],
>> following a pg_upgrade from 12.x to 14.x, with a data set reproducing
>> this. I spent
On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tomas Vondra writes:
>>> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>>>> So, we probably have corrupted indexes that were updated since such
>>>> "incomplete" u
On 3/6/22 08:09, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for this terrible oversight by me.
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:13 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>&g
On 3/3/22 21:07, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless Tomas or Euler feels otherwise.
> Sounds good to me.
>
+1
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/1/22 12:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>> I've polished & pushed the
On 2/28/22 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> I've polished & pushed the first part adding sequence decoding
>>> infrastructure etc. Attached are the two rem
On 3/7/22 17:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/1/22 12:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/22 19:1
On 3/7/22 17:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2/28/22 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>> I've polished & pushed the first part adding sequence
ink about committing this soon.
+1. I don't have the capacity/hardware to do more testing at the moment,
but all of this looks reasonable.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/7/22 22:25, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/22 17:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 2/28/22 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
&g
On 3/7/22 22:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/22 17:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/1/22 12:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vo
On 3/9/22 12:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:14 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/7/22 22:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>> I've pushed this simple fix. Not sure it'll fix the assert failures on
>>> skink/locust, though.
havior of row filter is okay
> whereas for column filter it uses the wrong column list. We will share
> the tests and results with you in a later email. We are trying to
> unify the column filter queries with row filter to make their behavior
> the same and will share the findings once it is done. I hope if we are
> able to achieve this that we will reduce the chances of bugs in this
> area.
>
OK, I'll take a look at that email.
> Note: I think the first two patches for tests are not required after
> commit ceb57afd3c.
>
Right. Will remove.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
LTREE_GET_ASIGLEN() macros.
>
> No feedback yet. I'm going to push this if no objections.
>
WFM. I certainly don't have a better idea how to fix this.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/9/22 10:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 07.03.22 16:18, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> AFAICS these issues should be resolved by the adoption of the row-filter
>> approach (i.e. it should fail the same way as for row filter).
>
> The first two patches (additional t
On 3/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 3/9/22 11:12, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here are some tests and results about the table sync query of
>> column filter patch and row filter.
>>
>> 1) multiple publications which publish schema of
On 3/10/22 04:09, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 3:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:48 PM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I reworked this to do the same thing as the row filtering patch.
>>>
>>
>>
On 3/11/22 03:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:44 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/10/22 04:09, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 3:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:48 PM Tomas Vondr
On 3/11/22 08:05, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:57 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
> Hi Tomas,
> Thanks for your patches.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:53 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On 3/11/22 10:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:26 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/10/22 20:10, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I think the reason is pretty simple - pgoutput_row_filter_init is
>>> b
On 3/11/22 12:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/7/22 22:25, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I can think of one reason that might cause this - we log
>>>> the first seq
On 3/14/22 10:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:37 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/22 05:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Okay, please find attached. I have done basic testing of this, if we
>>> agree wi
On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/22 05:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Okay, please find attached. I have done basic testing of this, if we
>>
On 3/14/22 13:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the fix does not
On 3/15/22 05:43, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:42 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/12/22 05:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>&g
On 3/15/22 09:30, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/15/22 05:43, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:42 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>&
arly next week. Unless someone thinks it's definitely not
ready for that ...
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1nUsch-0008rQ-FW%40gemulon.postgresql.org
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/18/22 06:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:47 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> I pushed the second fix. Interestingly enough, wrasse failed in the
>> 013_partition test. I don't see how that could be caused by this
>> particular commit
On 3/18/22 15:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/18/22 06:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:47 AM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I pushed the second fix. Interestingly enough, wrasse failed in the
>>> 013_partition te
On 3/20/22 07:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:41 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:42 PM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So the question is why those two sync workers never complete - I guess
>>> there's s
On 3/21/22 14:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 20.03.22 23:55, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Attached is a rebased patch, addressing most of the remaining issues.
>
> This looks okay to me, if the two FIXMEs are addressed. Remember to
> also update protocol.sgml if you change LOGICA
On 3/22/22 00:35, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-01-21 01:06:37 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Yeah, I haven't updated some of the test output because some of those
>> changes are a bit wrong (and I think that's fine for a PoC patch). I
>> shou
On 3/22/22 01:18, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-01-14 01:39:30 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Are you interested / willing to do some of this work?
>
> This patch hasn't moved in the last two months. I think it may be time to
> mark it as returned with fee
ctions is the right
term, considering those functions are not "serializing" anything. If
anything, it's the remote node that is serializing the agg state and the
local not is deserializing it. Or maybe I just misunderstand where are
the converter functions executed?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/21/22 12:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:56 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> However, while looking at how pgoutput, I realized one thing - for row
>> filters we track them "per operation", depending on which ope
On 3/21/22 12:28, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:13 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, thanks for reminding me - it's hard to keep track of all the issues
>> in threads as long as this one.
>>
>> BTW do you have any opinion on the SET C
On 12/1/20 9:15 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 21:02, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Those are fairly minor issues. I don't have any deeper objections, and
>> it seems committable. Do you plan to do that sometime soon?
>>
>
> OK, I've
On 12/2/20 4:51 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 21:02, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how much of the comment before clauselist_selectivity should
>> move to clauselist_selectivity_ext - it does talk about range clauses
>> and so on, but c
On 12/7/20 10:56 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:23, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Attached is a patch series rebased on top of 25a9e54d2d.
>
> After reading this thread and [1], I think I prefer the name
> "standard" rather than
On 12/7/20 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:15, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/7/20 10:56 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> it might actually be
>>> neater to have separate documented syntaxes for single- and
>>> multi-column
hes seem fine to me.
> These are both quite small patches, that hopefully won't interfere
> with any of the other extended stats patches.
>
I haven't tried, but it should not interfere with it too much.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pendencies).
regards
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMcsB%3Dy%3D3G_%2Bs_zFYPu2-O6OMWOvOkb3t1MU%3D907yk5RC_RaYw%40mail.gmail.com
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
we
can get around that. We could assume require_parallel_safe=true, but we
still need to pass the PlannerInfo pointer.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>From 857e653607656d10586e2a0f1b936576513d4277 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: j
On 12/16/20 1:51 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:08 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.12.2020 03:08, James Coleman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:39 PM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
>>>> I've pushed the 0
Hi,
I've pushed (and backpatched) all the fixes posted to this thread. I
believe that covers all the incremental sort fixes, so I've marked [1]
as committed.
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2754/
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The
, or so. Why would zstd need so much memory? It seems like a
pretty serious disadvantage, so how could it become so popular?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
er Merge paths,
but generate_useful_gather_paths also generates paths with sorts (which
are clearly not order-preserving).
So I think this comment will need a bit more work to update ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 12/22/20 7:31 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
22 дек. 2020 г., в 23:15, Tomas Vondra
написал(а):
On 12/22/20 6:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:24 AM Daniil Zakhlystov
wrote:
When using bidirectional compression, Postgres resource usage correlates with
the selected
On 12/22/20 8:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
I don't see aby benchmark results in this thread, allowing me to make
that conclusion, and I find it hard to believe that 200MB/client is a
sensible trade-off.
It assumes you have that much memory, and it may allow easy DoS a
On 11/11/20 8:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I took a look at this today, doing a bit of stress-testing, and I can
> get it to crash because of segfaults in pagetable_create (not sure if
> the issue is there, it might be just a symptom of an issue elsewhere).
>
> Attac
_entry ended up
calling LoadPublications - did we just create the entry?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
dback. I don't see why it couldn't land in PG14.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi,
On 1/2/21 7:42 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 1:16 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version of the patch series, rebased on current
>> master, and results for benchmark comparing the various bloom variants.
>
> Perhaps src/inclu
of header files. In particular, it removed these functions
- ShutdownCLOG();
- ShutdownCommitTs();
- ShutdownSUBTRANS();
- ShutdownMultiXact();
but we still have
$ git grep ShutdownCLOG
src/include/access/clog.h:extern void ShutdownCLOG(void);
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.
t; and "processed".
I'd just say "number of bytes processed so far" instead.
Other than that, it seems fine. I'm sure we could add more features, but
it seems like a good start - I plan to get this committed once I get a
patch fixing the docs issues.
regards
--
quot;()" for the kinds
list.
Will fix. Again, this suggests there are TAP tests missing.
That's it for now. I'll look at the optimiser changes next, and try to
post more comments later this week.
Thanks!
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 1/5/21 3:10 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 00:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/4/21 4:34 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
* In src/bin/psql/describe.c, I think the \d output should also
exclude the "expressions" stats kind and just list the other kinds (or
have no kinds l
right thing to do? Imagine you know the number of lines in a file. You
can't really use (lines_processed / total_lines) to measure progress,
because that may ignore many "skipped" rows. So maybe this should be
changed to count all rows. OTOH we still have bytes_pr
t won't work on 10 and
11, which does not support the "mcv" stats.
I don't recall what exactly is our policy regarding new psql with older
server versions, but it seems strange to check for 10.0 and then fail
anyway for "supported" versions.
regards
--
Tomas Von
quot;Dependencies_size". It looks like long names,
but acceptable?
Seems acceptable - I don't have a better idea.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 1/7/21 12:06 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
st 6. 1. 2021 v 22:44 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
napsal:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental on CI.
Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached fo
On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
because I created the patch as a new feature on PG14.
I'm not sure whether we should do back patch o
On 1/7/21 2:17 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:44:49PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental on CI.
Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached fo
On 1/7/21 7:56 PM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
čt 7. 1. 2021 v 19:51 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 22:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
last incremental
On 1/8/21 12:52 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/01/08 0:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query
because I created the
On 1/8/21 1:14 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 1/8/21 12:52 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021/01/08 0:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>>
On 1/8/21 3:35 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 01:57:29AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Attached is a patch fixing most of the issues. There are a couple
>> exceptions:
>
> In the docs:
>
> ...
>
Thanks! Checking the docs and comments is a tediou
er branches depending on this. The 0002
patch fixes that by simply setting it to OK before the call, which makes
the valgrind error go away. But maybe it should be fixed in a different
way (e.g. by setting it at the beginning of table_tuple_delete).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://
needs fixing to make ths patch RFC.
Attached is the test script I'm using, and a v5 of the patch - rebased
on current master, with some minor tweaks to comments etc.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>From 6ccaa4f526b
?
The question is whether this is due to the VM getting killed in some
strange way (what VM system is this, how is the storage mounted?) or
whether the recovery is borked and failed to do the right thing.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2/12/21 5:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-02-12 00:42:04 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. I think it'd make sense to keep track of recent
FPIs and skip prefetching such blocks. But how exactly should we implement
that, how many blocks do we need to
On 2/13/21 10:39 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
On 2021-02-12 00:42:04 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. I think it'd make sense to keep track of recent
FPIs and skip prefetching such blocks. But how exactly
the COPY progress patch. It's a bit buried, maybe it should be posted
separately. OTOH it's pretty small.
3) 0003
- Some whitespace noise, triggering "git am" warnings.
- Might be good to briefly explain what the regression test does with
the triggers, e
t to mention the relevant doc link:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/fdw-callbacks.html#FDW-CALLBACKS-UPDATE
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/fdw-callbacks.html#FDW-CALLBACKS-UPDATE>
>
Thanks, I'll get this fixed.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
be doing is simply initializing the info
only for CMD_INSERT operations. Which does the trick, but it affects
everything, i.e. all updates, no? Not just cross-partition updates.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2/16/21 10:25 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:36 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 2/5/21 3:52 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Tsunakwa-san,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:21 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
From: Amit Langote
Yes, it can be simplified by using a local join to
On 1/27/21 12:02 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 03:49, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> Whooops. A fixed version attached.
>>
>
> The change to pg_stats_ext_exprs isn't quite right, because now it
> cross joins expressions and their stats, wh
On 2/17/21 9:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/16/21 10:25 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:36 AM Tomas Vondra
>>>
On 2/17/21 8:36 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Thanks. The patch seems reasonable, but it's a bit too large for a fix,
> so I'll go ahead and push one of the previous fixes restricting batching
> to plain INSERT commands. But this seems useful, so I suggest adding
oint of writing the initial patchset. Would
> "io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be
> better?
>
No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
even if we can live
> without WAL, it is still not clear whether we really want to live
> without it.
>
> One more idea: using multiword CAS approach requires us to make changes
> as editing sequences.
> Such editing sequence is actually ready WAL records. So implementors of
>
plugin might indicate
whether it's interested in empty transactions or not. If not, we can do
what we do now. Otherwise the empty transactions would be passed to the
output plugin.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/1/21 8:58 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
On Nov 12, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
<0001-Support-estimation-of-clauses-of-the-form-V-20201113.patch>
Your patch no longer applies. Can we get a new version please?
I do not plan to work on this patch in the 2021-03 comm
supported by Google Cloud, maybe
they haven't upgraded their PostgreSQL version yet.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/3/21 12:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Mar-03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> 1) The 0001 patch allows passing of all scan keys to BRIN opclasses,
>> which is needed for the minmax-multi to work. But it also modifies the
>> existing opclasses (minmax and inclusi
On 3/3/21 1:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Mar-03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> That's kinda my point - I agree the size of the patch is not the
>> primary concern, but it makes the minmax/inclusion code a bit more
>> complicated (because they now have to loop
everyone.
Switching to small negative values is a much better idea, but it's going
to be more invasive - we'll have to offset the values in the bitmapsets,
or we'll have to invent a new bitmapset variant that can store negative
values directly (e.g. by keeping two separate bitmaps
On 3/4/21 4:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> IMO just bumping up the constants from ~65k to 1M is a net loss, for
>> most users. We add this to bitmapsets, which means we're using ~8kB with
>> the current values, but this jumps to 128kB with this higher
On 3/4/21 5:30 PM, John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 7:32 PM Tomas Vondra
> mailto:tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com>>
> wrote:
>> Ummm, in brin_minmax_multi_distance_timetz()? I don't think timetz can
>> be infinite, no? I think brin_minmax_mul
antage of using a pglist is that we can free it by calling
> list_free_deep(Typ), rather than looping to free each of its elements.
> But maybe for bootstrap.c it doesn't matter, and we can just write:
> | Typ = NULL; /* Leak the old Typ array */
>
Thanks. I'll switch this in the next version of the patch series.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
1 - 100 of 3943 matches
Mail list logo
