Hi,
Temporary tables usually gets a unique schema name, see this:
postgres=# create temp table foo(i int);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# explain verbose select * from foo;
QUERY PLAN
-
Seq Scan on pg_temp_3.foo
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:07 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:51 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Temporary tables usually gets a unique schema name, see this:
> >
> > postgres=# create temp table foo(i int);
> > CR
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:23 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about using an explain filter to replace the unstable t
*/
+ if (strcmp(schemabuf.data, "^(pg_temp)$") == 0 ||
+strcmp(schemabuf.data, "^(pg_toast_temp)$") == 0)
+schemabuf.data[schemabuf.len-1] = '\0';
appendStringLiteralConn(buf, schemabuf.data, conn);
if (PQserverVersion(conn) >= 12)
appendPQExpBuf
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:49 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:07 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:39:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > > > I'd do it like this. Note I r
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 1:23 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:04 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Rebased again.
>
> I started to look at this today, and didn't get very far, but I have a
> few comments. The main one is that I don't think this patch impl
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:21 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 1:26 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The state in the control file also gets cleared. Though, after
> > clearing in memory the state patch doesn't really do the immediate
> > change to the contro
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:33 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:25 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we don't want any write slip in before UpdateFullPageWrites().
> > Recently[1], we have decided to let the Checkpointed process call
> >
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:26 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I get why you think that, I wasn't very precise in briefing the problem.
> >
> > Any new backend that gets connected right after the sh
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:13 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:38 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:26 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:48 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:50 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:13 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > I might be missing something, but assume the behavior should be like this
> > >
> >
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 7:50 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:56 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:48 PM Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:50 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > >
> > &g
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> parse_subscription_options function has some similar code when
> throwing errors [with the only difference in the option]. I feel we
> could just use a variable for the option and use it in the error.
> While this has no benefit
Hi,
The attached patch removes the comment line noting the same as the
previous paragraph of the ExecUpdateAct() prolog comment.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index f419c47065a
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:00 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 16.05.22 10:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Inspired by [0], I looked to convert more macros to inline functions.
>
> Here is another one from the same batch of work that I somehow didn't
> send in last time.
>
I think assertion can be
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In standby mode, the state machine in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable()
> reads WAL from pg_wal after failing to read from the archive. This is
> currently implemented in XLogFileReadAnyTLI() by calling
> XLogFileRead() with source
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 6:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Nishant Sharma writes:
> > We would like to share a proposal of a patch, where we have added order by
> > clause in two select statements in src/test/regress/sql/insert.sql file and
> > respective changes in src/test/regress/expected/insert.out
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:28 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 16:51, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 6:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Please be specific about the circumstances in which the output is
> > > unstable for you.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 16:51, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> If we
> >> are too sure that the output usually comes in the same order then the
> >> ORDER BY clause that exists i
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to
> Daniel Gustafsson and John Naylor, who have accepted invitations
> to become our newest Postgres committers.
>
Many congratulations to Daniel & John !
Regards,
Amul
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
> autocomp
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> >> I don't mind RelationGetSmgr(index)->smgr_rnode alone or
> >> &variable->member alone and there's
Few comments for v4 patch:
@@ -7351,6 +7363,8 @@ StartupXLOG(void)
(errmsg("redo starts at %X/%X",
LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(ReadRecPtr;
+ InitStartupProgress();
+
/*
* main redo apply loop
*/
@@ -7358,6 +73
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:44 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amul Sul writes:
> > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > >> I don't mind RelationGetSmgr(index)-&g
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:30 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jul-09, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > > The point of the static-inline function idea was to be cheap enough
> > > > that it
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 8:23 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 22.04.22 14:26, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Yes, I think we can do cleanup to some extent. Attaching the
> > following patches that first intend to remove DirectFunctionCall as
> > much as possible:
>
> Do y
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:04 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 03.05.22 08:50, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> Do you have any data that supports removing DirectionFunctionCall()
> >> invocations? I suppose some performance benefit could be expected, or
> >> what do you
Hi Dilip,
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:07 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:21 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:43 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > 2) GetNewRelFileNode() will not loop for checking the file existence
> > > and retry with other relfilenode.
> >
Hi,
PFA, attached patch to $SUBJECT.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Sorry, hit the send button too early :|
Attached here !!
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> PFA, attached patch to $SUBJECT.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Amul Sul
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
code_comment.patch
Description: Binary data
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:58 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
>
> Inspired by [0], I looked to convert more macros to inline functions.
> The attached patches are organized "bottom up" in terms of their API
> layering; some of the later ones depend on some of the earlier ones.
>
All the patches look
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:46 PM Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I hit "ERROR: target lists can have at most 1664 entries", and I was
> surprised the limit was not documented.
>
> I suggest that the limit of "1664 columns per tuple" (or whatever is the
> right term) should be added
>
eplayTLI;
Thoughts?
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Thanks Aleksander and Álvaro for your inputs.
I understand this change is not making any improvement to the current
code. I was a bit concerned regarding the design and consistency of
the function that exists for the server in recovery and for the server
that is not in recovery. I was trying to w
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:21 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:57 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:51 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I was doing some more testing by setting the FirstNormalRelFileNumber
> > > to a high value(more than 32 bits) I have not
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:05 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:27 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is rebase version for the latest maste head(#891624f0ec).
>
> Hi Amul,
>
> I'm going through past CF triage emails today; I noticed that th
evel)
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * If there were any errors in subtransactions, and we made prepared
+ * statements, do a DEALLOCATE ALL to make sure we get rid of all prepared
+ * statements. This is annoying and not terribly bulletproof, but it's
+ * probably not worth trying harder.
+ *
+
Few tap test files have the "tempdir_short" variable which isn't in
use. The attached patch removes the same
Regards,
Amul
From 0751895df64bcd6bc719933013edf1d76e31b784 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 01:19:29 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Remove unused var
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:23 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:30:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
> in
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 3:00 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I decided to try writing a patch to use an end-of-recovery record
> > > rather than a checkpoint record in all cases
Thank you !
Regards,
Amul
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 04:03:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Indeed. Let's clean up that. Thanks!
>
> And done.
> --
> Michael
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 at 8:43 PM, Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2021, at 5:15 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the rebased version for the latest master head.
>
> Hi Amul!
>
> Could you please rebase again?
>
Ok will do that tomorrow, thanks.
Regards,
Amul
Hi,
The attached patch adds a small test for recovery_end_command execution.
Currently, patch tests execution of recovery_end_command by creating
dummy file, I am not wedded only to this approach, other suggestions
also welcome.
Also, we don't have a good test for archive_cleanup_command as well
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:12 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
Thank you, for looking at the patch. Please see my reply inline below:
>
> > On Sep 8, 2021, at 6:44 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Here is the rebased version.
>
> v33-0004
>
> This patch moves the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:25:32PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, at 8:18 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >> Also, we don't have a good test for archive_cleanup_command as well, I
> >> am no
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:56 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, at 8:18 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> The attached patch adds a small test for recovery_end_command execution.
>
> Additional coverage is always a good thing.
>
Thanks for the confirmation.
>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Yeah, added that test too. I triggered the restartpoint via a
> CHECKPOINT command in the attached version.
>
> +# archive_cleanup_command executed with every rest
that. AFAICU,
I don't see any problem there, since until the startup process exists
other backends could not connect and write a WAL record.
Regards,
Amul Sul.
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From 4728be13bc17183f9869b1c040d5c72d2969e736 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Tue, 1
, On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 1:33 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:23 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is rebase for the latest master head. Also, I added one more
> > refactoring code that deduplicates the code setting database state in the
> > control
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:52 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/13/21, 11:06 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> > The patch is straightforward but the only concern is that in
> > StartupXLOG(), SharedRecoveryState now gets updated only with spin
> > lock; earlier it also
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:17 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:49:39PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > Ah, I was missing this context. Perhaps this should be included in
> > the patch set for the other thread, especially if it will need to be
> > exported.
>
> This part o
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/15/21, 4:47 AM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:52 AM Bossart, Nathan
> > wrote:
> >> It looks like ebdf5bf intentionally made sure that we hold
> >> ControlFileLoc
n't need them.
*/
RemoveNonParentXlogFiles(EndOfLog, ThisTimeLineID);
"
> So I think you've covered most of the necessary things here, with
> probably some more discussion needed on whether you've done the right
> things...
>
Thanks, Robert, for your time.
Re
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:44 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/19/21, 11:07 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> > +1, since skipping ControlFileLock for the DBState update is not the
> > right thing, let's have two different functions as per your suggestion
> >
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:34 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 2020, at 6:55 AM, amul sul wrote:
> >
> > (2) if the session is idle, we also need the top-level abort
> > record to be written immediately, but can't send an error to the client
&g
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >> Attached patch v34-0010 adds a test of cursors opened FOR UPDATE
> >> interacting with a system that is set read-only by a different sessi
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:33 PM Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that is a bit longer, here is the snip from v35-0010 patch
>
> Right, that's longer, and only tests one interaction. The isolation sp
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:43 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21, 10:07 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:44 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> On 9/19/21, 11:07 PM, "Amul Sul" wrote:
> >> > I have one additional concer
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Ok, understood, I have separated my changes into 0001 and 0002 patch,
> > and the refactoring patches start from 0003.
>
> I think it would be better in t
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 5:07 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:20 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > Ok, understood, I have separated my changes into 0001 and 0002 patch,
> > > and the
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 2:29 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:59 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>> > To find the value of InRecovery after we clear it, patch still uses
>> >
I was trying to understand the v1 patch and found that at the end
RequestCheckpoint() is called unconditionally, I think that should
have been called if REDO had performed, here is the snip from the v1
patch:
/*
- * If this was a promotion, request an (online) checkpoint now. This isn't
- * requ
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 9:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 7:44 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I was trying to understand the v1 patch and found that at the end
> > RequestCheckpoint() is called unconditionally, I think that should
> > have been called if REDO had
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-09-14 10:34:09 +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > +# recovery_end_command_file executed only on recovery end which can happen
> > on
> > +# promotion.
> > +$standby3->promote;
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
> > lastReplayedEndRecPtr what you have suggested in other thread.
>
> Hmm, right, that makes
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:14 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Here's the set for all branches, which I think are really final, in case
> > somebody wants to play and reproduce their respective problem scenarios.
> > Nathan already confirmed that his rep
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:
> > >
> > > I tried to apply the patch on the master branch head a
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 6:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2021-Oct-07, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > While reading this commit (ff9f111bce24), wondered can't we skip
> > missingContrecPtr global variable declaration and calculate that from
> > abortedRecPtr v
Thanks a lot Tom.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 2:37 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amul Sul writes:
> > [ v5_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch ]
>
> Pushed with minor cosmetic adjustments.
>
> RelationCopyStorage() kind of gives me the willies.
> It's not really an
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > My 0003 is where I see some lingering problems. It creates
> > XLogAcceptWrites(), moves the appropriate stuff there, and doesn't
> > need the xlogreader. But it doesn't really solve the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 4:37 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > My 0003 is where I see some lingering problems. It creates
> > > XLogAcceptWrites(), mo
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> StartupXLOG() has code beginning around line 7900 of xlog.c that
> decides, at the end of recovery, between four possible courses of
> action. It either writes an end-of-recovery record, or requests a
> checkpoint, or creates a checkpoint, or
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:03 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > I was too worried about how I could miss that & after thinking more
> > about that, I realized that the operation for ArchiveRecoveryRequested
> > i
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:47 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 1:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I pushed 0001.
>
> That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
> not to further simplify as in th
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> [...]
> A new catalog table, pg_subscription_seq, has been introduced for
> mapping subscriptions to sequences. Additionally, the sequence LSN
> (Log Sequence Number) is stored, facilitating deter
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 5:00 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 12:24, Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 6:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 14:11, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> [...
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 8:59 PM Christoph Berg wrote:
> The PostgreSQL contributors team has been looking over the community
> activity and, over the first half of this year, has been recognizing
> new contributors to be listed on
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/
>
> New Pos
ELECT * FROM t1;
x | y
---+
1 | 4
2 | 8
3 | 12
(3 rows)
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From ef1448f7852000d5b701f9e3c7fe88737670740a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:43:51 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v1 2/2] Allow to change gene
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 9:16 PM jian he wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:36 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we have an option to drop the expression of stored generated
> columns
> > as:
> >
> > ALTER [ COLUMN ] column_name DROP
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 9:36 AM Vaibhav Dalvi <
vaibhav.da...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Amul,
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:06 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently, we have an option to drop the expression of stored generated
>> columns
&
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 5:35 AM Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 8/2/23 12:35, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we have an option to drop the expression of stored generated
> > columns
> > as:
> >
> > ALTER [ COLUMN ] column_name DROP EXPRESSION [
Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to the
README.
Regards,
Amul
0001-Add-BumpContext-description-to-mmgr-README.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 17:13, Amul Sul wrote:
> > Attached is a small patch adding the missing BumpContext description to
> the
> > README.
>
> Thanks for noticing and working on the patch.
>
> There were a
ease join us in wishing them much success and few reverts!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:16 PM wrote:
>
> I still wonder, if assert doesn't catch why that place is marked as
> covered here?
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c.gcov.html
>
Probably other tests cover that.
Regards,
Amul
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 3:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 4:10 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On a separate note, while reviewing the latest patch I see there is some
> > risk of using the unflushed relfilenumber in GetNewRelFileNumber()
> > function. Basically, in the current
u try to drop this policy, get dropped without any warning/error
unlike tables or other objects which are not allowed to drop at all.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 3:56 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 1:34 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:53 PM Robert Haas wrote:
[...]
> > There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for
> > tod
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 2:02 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:08 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> []
> Then the result verifies. But I feel like we should have some test
> cases that do this kind of stuff so that there is automated
> verification. In fact, the curr
ndle unpacking and
repacking tar files and the required path formats for these tests but
the "Cirrus CI / Windows - Server 2019, VS 2019" workflow doesn’t have
any issues with them. I’ve removed the flag.
> + my @files = glob("*");
> + system_or_bail($tar,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> In [1], it is suggested that it might be a good idea to support
> specifying the tablespace for each merged/split partition.
>
> We can do the following after this feature is supported:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE tblspc LOCATION '/tmp/tblspc';
>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:43 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Please consider the attached version for the review.
>
> Thanks. I committed 0001-0003. The only thing that I changed was that
> in 0001, you forgot to pgindent, wh
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:05 PM Junwang Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi Amul,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 8:38 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > >
> >[...]
> > static Relat
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> [...]
> Here is a rebased version of the patch. No other changes since v1.
>
Here are two minor comments on this:
$ pg_combinebackup /tmp/backup_full/ /tmp/backup_incr2/
/tmp/backup_
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:39 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:19 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > > I think I would have made this pass context->show_progress to
> > > progress_report() instead of the whole verifier_context, but that's an
> > > ar
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> [ I committed 0001, then noticed I had a type in the subject line of
> the commit message. Argh. ]
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:41 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > With the patch, I am concerned that we won't be able to giv
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 1:05 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> > The main issue I have is computing the total_size of valid files that
> > will be checksummed and that exist in both the manifests and the
> > backup, in the ca
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:49 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:13 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > I tried this in the attached version and made a few additional changes
> > based on Sravan's off-list comments regarding function names and
> > descriptio
Hi,
The Assert(buffer != NULL) is placed after the buffer is accessed,
which could lead to a segmentation fault before the check is executed.
Attached a small patch to correct that.
--
Regards,
Amul Sul
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/copyfrom.c b/src/backend
acb44cfb526bdabcd3a3d9c06443f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:44:56 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary #include statements.
---
src/bin/pg_verifybackup/pg_verifybackup.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_verify
etical: you added .tgz elsewhere
> but not here.
>
Did this way.
> There's probably more to look at here but I'm running out of energy for today.
>
Thank you for the review and committing 0004 and 0006 patches.
Regards,
Amul
From dfaeebdc09fd689b7e45a705e32111cb226a0
201 - 300 of 405 matches
Mail list logo
