On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:04 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-12-09 16:13:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > That's not good. On a typical busy system, a system is going to be in
> > the middle of a checkpoint most of the time, and the checkpoint will
> > take a long time to finish - mayb
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:28 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:04 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-12-09 16:13:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > That's not good. On a typical busy system, a system is going to be in
Hi ALL,
Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
--
/*
* Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
* (This is just pro forma, since in the present system structure there is
* only one process that is allowed to issue checkpoints at any given
* time.)
*/
LWLockAcquire(Checkp
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
> > --
> > /*
> > * Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
> > * (This is just pr
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:43 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > In the attached version I have made the changes accordingly what Robert has
> > summarised in his previous mail[1].
> >
> > In addition to that, I
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:01 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > >
> > > We don't want that to happen in cases where previous
> > > recovery-end-checkpoint is
> > > skipped in startup. We want Checkpointer first to convey the barrier to
> > > all
>
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:56 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:50 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > Yes, it is possible to allow wal temporarily for itself by setting
> > Loca
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:58 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Assertion added in commits 6b2c4e59d016 is failing with following test:
>
> CREATE TABLE sales
> (
> prod_id int,
> prod_quantity int,
> sold_monthdate
> ) PARTITION BY RA
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 9:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:23 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > On a quick look at the latest 0001 patch, the following hunk to reset
> leftover
> > flags seems to be unnecessary:
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If some barrier
Hi,
SharedRecoveryState member of XLogCtl is no longer a boolean flag, got changes
in 4e87c4836ab9 to enum but, comment referring to it still referred as the
boolean flag which is pretty confusing and incorrect.
Also, the last part of the same comment is as:
" .. although the boolean flag to all
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:48 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > SharedRecoveryState member of XLogCtl is no longer a boolean flag, got
> > changes
> > in 4e87c4836ab9 to enum but, comment referri
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:18 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:36:13 +0530, Amul Sul wrote in
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:48 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:58:29PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Rather than using the term "recovery state", I would just use
> SharedRecoveryState. This leads me to the attached.
Alright, that too looks good. Tha
Hi,
Few comments for v7 patch, note that I haven't been through the
previous discussion, if any of the review comments that has been
already discussed & overridden, then please ignore here too:
partbounds.c: In function ‘get_qual_for_list.isra.18’:
partbounds.c:4284:29: warning: ‘boundinfo’ may
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:27 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> > partbounds.c: In function ‘get_qual_for_list.isra.18’:
> > partbounds.c:4284:29: warning: ‘boundinfo’ may be used uninitialized
> > in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > datumCopy(bound_i
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
[]
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:57 PM Nitin Jadhav
> wrote:
> > > Looks difficult to understand at first glance, how about the following:
> > >
> > > if (b1->isnulls != b2->isnulls)
> > >return false;
>
> I don't think having this block
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:12 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > []
> > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:57 PM Nitin Jadhav
> > > wrot
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:43 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:12 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:34 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> ---
>
> > + if (isnulls && isnulls[i])
> > + cmpval = 0; /* NULL "=" NULL */
> > + else
> > + cmpval = 1; /* NULL ">" not-NULL */
> > + }
> > + else if (isnulls && isnulls[i]
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:04 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:03 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> [...]
Thought patch is WIP, here are a few comments that I found while
reading the patch and thought might help:
+ {
+ if (meta->cbm_oldest_index_segment ==
+
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 7:26 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
>
> > -* For range partitioning, we must only perform pruning with values
> > -* for either all partition keys or a prefix thereof.
> > +* For range partitioning and list partitioning, we must only
> > perform
> > +
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 2:56 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-12-14 20:23:57 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > As promised, here is v2. This patch set includes handling for all
> > four tasks noted upthread. I'd still consider this a work-in-
> > progress, as I've done minimal testing.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 7:56 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 22:12 Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 9:06 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>> >
>> > Executing generic plans involving partitions is known to become slower
>> > as partition count grows due to a number
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 8:25 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-11-23 11:43:21 +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached patch covers a case where TLI in the filename for a
> > record being read is different from where it belongs to. In other
> > words, it
In heapam_relation_copy_for_cluster(), begin_heap_rewrite() sets
rwstate->rs_new_rel->rd_smgr correctly but next line tuplesort_begin_cluster()
get called which cause the system cache invalidation and due to CCA setting,
wipe out rwstate->rs_new_rel->rd_smgr which wasn't restored for the subsequent
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:26 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > In heapam_relation_copy_for_cluster(), begin_heap_rewrite() sets
> > rwstate->rs_new_rel->rd_smgr correctly but next line
> > tuplesort_begin_cluster()
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> >> One bisect later, the winner is:
> >> commit: 3d351d916b20534f973eda760cde17d96545d4c4
> >> author: Tom Lane
> >> date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 12:21:51 -0400
> >> Redefine pg_class.reltuples to be -1 before t
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 8:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On closer inspection, I believe the true culprit is c6b92041d,
> >> which did this:
> >> - heap_sync(state->rs_ne
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:10 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> Sorry for the bug.
>
> At Thu, 25 Mar 2021 01:50:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> > Amul Sul writes:
> > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 8:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> static inline struct SMgrRelatio
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:52 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:04 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > At best CREATE SEQUENCE START ... RESTART ... can be a shorthand
> > for CREATE SEQUENCE ... START; ALTER SEQUENCE ... RESTART run back to
> > back. So it looks useful but i
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:51 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While checking the ExecuteTruncate code for the FOREIGN TRUNCATE
> feature, I saw that we filter out the duplicate relations specified in
> the TRUNCATE command. But before skipping the duplicates, we are just
> opening the relati
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:23 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/04/10 0:39, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:51 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> While checking the ExecuteTruncate code for the
Hi Mark,
I think new structures should be listed in src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list,
otherwise, pgindent might disturb its indentation.
Regards,
Amul
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:32 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 2
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I think new structures should be listed in src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list,
> otherwise, pgindent might disturb its indentation.
>
> Regards,
> Amul
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:32 AM Mark Dilg
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:33 AM Soumyadeep Chakraborty
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think we should really term this feature, as it stands, as a means to
> solely stop WAL writes from happening.
>
True.
> The feature doesn't truly make the system read-only (e.g. dirty buffer
> flushes may succeed the
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:34 AM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
wrote:
>
> +1 to this feature and I have been thinking about it for sometime. There are
> several use cases with marking database read only (no transaction log
> generation). Some of the examples in a hosted service scenario are 1/ when
>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 6:08 AM Soumyadeep Chakraborty
wrote:
>
> Hi Amul,
>
Thanks, Soumyadeep for looking and putting your thoughts on the patch.
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:56 AM amul sul wrote:
> > The proposed feature is built atop of super barrier mechanism commit[1]
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:28 AM Soumyadeep Chakraborty <
soumyadeep2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think we'd want the FIRST write operation to be the end-of-recovery
> > checkpoint, before the system is fully read-write. And then after that
> >
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:34 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
Thanks for looking at the patch.
>
> > From f0188a48723b1ae7372bcc6a344ed7868fdc40fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Amul Sul
> > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:05:38 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/6]
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:32 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> []
> >
> > + StaticAssertStmt(InvalidOffsetNumber + 1 ==
> > FirstOffsetNumber,
> > +"InvalidOffsetNumber
> > increments to FirstOffsetNumber");
> >
> > If you are going to rely
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:40 PM Soumyadeep Chakraborty <
soumyadeep2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:14 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:28 AM Soumyadeep Chakraborty <
> soumyadeep2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In case
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:02 PM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> > Not at all! I appreciate all the reviews.
>
> Reviewing 0002, reading through verify_heapam.c:
>
> +typedef enum SkipPages
> +{
> + SKIP_ALL_FROZEN_PAGES,
> + SKIP_ALL_VISIBLE_PAGES,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 8:00 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2020, at 9:37 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > In addition to this, I found a few more things while reading v13 patch are
> > as
> > below:
> >
> > Patch v13-0001:
> >
>
ffer(querybuf,
+ "SELECT public.bt_index_parent_check('%s'::regclass, %s, %s)",
+ idxoid,
+ settings.heapallindexed ? "true" : "false",
+ settings.rootdescend ? "true" : "false");
The assumption that the amcheck extension will be a
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>
> 2019年8月24日(土) 7:02 Thomas Munro :
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:05 AM Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > > We can consider the table join ptable X t1 above is equivalent to:
> > > (ptable_p0 + ptable_p1 + ptable_p2) X t1
> > > = (ptable_p0 X t1)
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:21 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:56 AM Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 04:11:58PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > >On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rushabh Lathia
> > > wrote:
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:57 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-07, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Make sense, thanks for the explanation.
>
> You're welcome. Also, I forgot: thank you for taking the time to review
> the code. Much appreciated.
:)
>
>
I ha
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nitin Jadhav
> wrote:
> > Sorry. There was a misunderstanding about this and for the patch
> > shared on September 27th, I had tested for the value '0' and observed
> > that no progress messages were getting
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:58 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-13, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I have one more question, regarding the need for other global
> > variables i.e. abortedRecPtr. (Sorry for coming back after so long.)
> >
> > Instead of abortedRe
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:24 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:42 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:41 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > No, InRecovery flag get cleared before this point. I think, we can use
> > > lastReplayed
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:10 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:18 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > In the attached version I have fixed this issue by restoring
> > missingContrecPtr.
> >
> > To handle abortedRecPtr and missingContrecPtr newly added gl
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:14 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:58 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Oct-13, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > > I have one more question, regarding the need for other global
> > > variables i.e. aborted
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:02 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Fri, 22 Oct 2021 18:43:52 +0530, Amul Sul wrote in
> > Any thoughts about the patch posted previously?
>
> Honestly, xlogreader looks fine with the current shape. The reason is
> that it seems cleaner as an int
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:50 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:54 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I tried this in the attached version, but I'm a bit skeptical with
> > changes that are needed for CreateCheckPoint(), those don't seem to be
> > clean.
&g
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:09 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:49:10PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion, added the same in the attached version.
>
> Hmm. The run-time of 020_archive_status.p bumps from 4.7s to 5.8s on
> my lap
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:05 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Ok, did the same in the attached 0001 patch.
> >
> > There is no harm in calling LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed() calling
> > multiple times, but the problem I c
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:37 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 02:42:28PM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Understood, moved tests to 002_archiving.pl in the attached version.
>
> Thanks for the new patch. I have reviewed its contents, and there
> were a
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:24 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:20:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > ok(!-f $recovery_end_command_file,
> > - 'recovery_end_command executed after promotion');
> > + 'recovery_end_command not executed yet');
> > Indeed :p
>
> While lo
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I've seen a few cases now for v13 where the startup process on a
> standby appears to be stuck on StandbyReleaseLockList(). It looks
> like most of the time is spent on list_delete_first(). I believe this
> is related to
Hi,
In xlog_redo, for end-of-recovery case error message describes the
record as a checkpoint record which seems to be incorrect; the
attached patch corrects that.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 2:36 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 3:52 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > When I apply the patch, it changes the PANIC message in the
> > XLOG_CHECKPOINT_ONLINE section, not the XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY one.
>
> Well that's a good point. *facepalm*
>
Oops... :
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 12:46 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> [...]
> I would like to clean this up. Attached is a series of patches which
> try to do that. For ease of review, this is separated out into quite a
> few separate patches, but most likely we'd combine some of them for
> commit. Patches 0001
Hi,
The attached patch moves the "LastRec" variable declaration inside
StartupXLOG() where it is supposed to be.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
remove_global_declaration.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:36 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 02:08:54AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think LastRec was originally referenced by multiple functions
> > in xlog.c. But it does look like it could be a local now.
>
> Thanks for double-checking, applied this one a
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is the rebased version of refactoring as well as the
> > pg_prohibit_wal feature patches for the latest master head (commit #
> > 39a3105678a).
>
&g
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > Attached is the rebased version of refactoring as well as the
> > > pg_prohibit_wal featur
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:07 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > > Attached is t
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:31 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why xlog.c has global
> variables ReadRecPtr and EndRecPtr instead of just relying on the
> eponymous structure members inside the XLogReaderState. I concluded
> that the values are the same at most p
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:06 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
>
>
> > 15 нояб. 2021 г., в 19:32, Rushabh Lathia
> > написал(а):
> >
> > Open for suggestions and thoughts.
>
>
> How about walapplier ?
> Similar to walsender, walreciver..
>
Or maybe walreplayer ?
Regards,
Amul
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:43 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:30 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Somehow with and without patch I am getting the same log.
>
> Try applying the attached 0001-dubious-test-cast.patch for you and see
> if that fails. It does fo
s a case where recovery_target_lsn and
recovery_target_inclusive=off which doesn't exist as of now and that
is the reason I have added this test to 003_recovery_targets.pl file.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 4e2bbb37d4874c910494ba221c7be7e02a2
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:20 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:07 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > >
> &
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:30 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 10/1/21, 10:40 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 05:47:45PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to agree that anything that calls update_controlfile()
> >> should update the timestamp.
> >
> > pg_cont
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 2:10 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > We're *still* not out of the woods with 026_overwrite_contrecord.pl,
> > as we are continuing to see occasional "mismatching overwritten LSN"
> > failures, further down in the test where it tries to sta
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:42 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
> >> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
>
> > I don't know what is the cor
ControlFile() is fine, on the contrary.
My bad, sorry for the sloppy change, corrected it in the attached version.
Regards,
Amul
From a2c385f6a6152dbba1e33149f1d7f102243ed0cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:47:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH v6] Do the Control
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:28:23AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > In that case, why can't we inline UpdateControlFile to avoid the
> > function call cost? Do you see any issues with it?
>
> This routine is IMO not something worth bot
Hi,
Attached patch is doing small changes to brin, gin & gist index tests
to use an unlogged table without changing the original intention of
those tests and that is able to hit ambuildempty() routing which is
otherwise not reachable by the current tests.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB:
Hi,
The attached patch updates the code comment which is no longer true
after commit # 4a92a1c3d1c361ffb031ed05bf65b801241d7cdd
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/checkpointer.c b/src/backend/postmaster/checkpointer.c
index be7366379d0
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:09 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 30 Nov 2021, at 08:00, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > The attached patch updates the code comment which is no longer true
> > after commit # 4a92a1c3d1c361ffb031ed05bf65b801241d7cdd
>
> Agreed, but looking a
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
[...]
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> - I'm not perfectly happy with
>> "tuple to be locked was already moved to another partition due to
>> concurrent update"
>> as the error message. If som
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, amul sul wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
> [...]
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>> - I'm not perfectly happy with
&g
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-04-02 11:26:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
[]
> I've attached a noticeably editorialized patch:
>
> - I'm uncomfortable with the "moved" information not being crash-sa
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:50 PM, amul sul wrote:
>>
>> Updated patch attached.
>>
>
> + if (ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQU
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Tom, All,
>
> On 2018-04-06 14:19:02 +0530, amul sul wrote:
>> Thanks for the reminder -- fixed in the attached version.
>
> Tom, this seems to be the best approach for fixing the visibility issues
> around this. I&
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-07 20:13:36 +0530, amul sul wrote:
>> Attached is the patch does the renaming of this tests -- need to apply
>> to the top of v10 patch[1].
>
> These indeed are a bit too long, so I went with the numbers. I&
Will look into this, thanks.
Regards,
Amul
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse brevity and tpyos.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:06 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-13 12:29:21 +0900, Amit Lan
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-13 12:29:21 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/04/13 7:36, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> >> In short, it looks like the tests added to update.sql by commit
>> >> 2f17844
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:40 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fujita-san, amul,
>
> CFbot complains that Fujita-san submitted a patch that doesn't apply,
> which makes sense since the necessary previous patch was only referred
> to without being resubmitted. I suggest to always post all patches
> toget
he join,
s/inner side/outer side
--
Regards,
Amul
1]
https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK145V8DNCNQ2gQBgNE3QqoJGjsmK5WMwaA3FMirNM723KQ%40mail.gmail.com
From c7f165b575fd984ca3053ce7162bdd8e4bf56be8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:38:11 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] delta
Changes :
1. Call process_outer_partition & proc
Thanks Rajkumar,
I am looking into this.
Regards,
Amul
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:54 AM Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <
rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:45 PM amul sul wrote:
>
>> Attached is the rebased atop of the latest master head(
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:29 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:20 PM amul sul wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:02 PM amul sul wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Rajkumar,
>>>
>>> I am looking into this.
>&g
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi Amul,
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:15 PM amul sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In RelationBuildPartitionDesc(), a memory space that use to gather
> partitioning
> > bound info wasn't free at
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:16 AM David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 05:42:21PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:33 PM amul sul wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Thanks for the
Thank you Fujita San for the enhancement, will have a look.
Regards,
Amul
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:52 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25 PM Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> > It seems that I performed the above tests on an assertion-enabled
> > build. :( So I executed the tests
Hi Fujita San,
Please find my comments inline below:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:52 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25 PM Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> >
[... skipped ..]
>
> About the attached:
>
> * The attached patch modified try_partitionwise_join() so that we call
> parti
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amul,
>
> * amul sul (sula...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Agree, updated in the attached patch. Patch 0001 also includes your
>> previous review comment[1] and typo correction suggested by Alvaro[2].
>
> Looks like this
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:43 AM, amul sul wrote:
[]
> I have asked to change the message "tuple to be updated .." after
> heap_lock_tuple call not in nodeModifyTable.c, so please revert the
> message in nodeModify
Hi Amit,
Sorry for the delayed response.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:44 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:43 AM, amul sul wrote:
[]
> I t
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:11 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> []
>>> I think you can manually (via debugger) hit this by using
>>> PUBLICATION/SUBS
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
