On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
> wrote:
>> I don't have an opinion on the urgency of back-porting a fix, but if
>> pg_stop_backup(boolean) allows for inconsistent backups, it does sound
>> like a problem on 9.6 too.
>
> It doe
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:20 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> I ended up writing the attached (which I'd not intended to post until
>> some time closer to when the doors open for PG11). At the moment it's
>> basically just a test patch to see ho
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
> I don't have an opinion on the urgency of back-porting a fix, but if
> pg_stop_backup(boolean) allows for inconsistent backups, it does sound
> like a problem on 9.6 too.
It doesn't. The talk about inconsistent backups is, I think, not a
Adding -hackers.
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:55:13PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:42:25AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Daniel Verite
> > wrote:
> > > With query #2 it ends up crashing after ~5hours and produces
> > > the log in log-va
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:09:43PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/1/17 00:17, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item. If some other commit is mo
Andres Freund writes:
> I just pushed a 9.4 specific bugfix. Do you want me to fix up the
> release notes after you backpatch the minor release to 9.4, or what's
> the best process?
No sweat, I'll incorporate it when I do the further-back-branch
notes tomorrow.
regards, t
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:20 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I ended up writing the attached (which I'd not intended to post until
> some time closer to when the doors open for PG11). At the moment it's
> basically just a test patch to see how it affects things when we give
> workers a bit more to do bef
Hi Tom,
On 2017-08-04 18:41:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've committed the first-draft release notes for 9.6.4 at
> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/03378c4da598840b0520a53580dd7713c95f21c8
I just pushed a 9.4 specific bugfix. Do you want me to fix up the
release notes after you backpatch
Jonathan Katz writes:
> I see this one
> > Fix potential data corruption when freezing a tuple whose XMAX is a
> multixact with exactly one still-interesting member
> But I’m unsure how prevalent it is and if it should be highlighted.
I'm not sure about that either. I do not think anyone
Hi Tom,
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I've committed the first-draft release notes for 9.6.4 at
> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/03378c4da598840b0520a53580dd7713c95f21c8
>
> (If you prefer to read nicely-marked-up copy, they should be up at
> https://www.postgresql
This is the query fired upon any UPDATE/DELETE for RI checks:
SELECT 1 FROM ONLY x WHERE pkatt1 = $1 [AND ...] FOR KEY SHARE OF
x
in the case of foreign key arrays, it's wrapped in this query:
SELECT 1 WHERE
(SELECT count(DISTINCT y) FROM unnest($1) y)
= (SELECT count(*) FROM () z)
Th
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> After refreshing my memory further, I take it back. pg_stop_backup()
>> doesn't even have a second argument on v9.6, so back-porting this fix
>> to 9.6 is a meaningless thing; there's
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> After refreshing my memory further, I take it back. pg_stop_backup()
> doesn't even have a second argument on v9.6, so back-porting this fix
> to 9.6 is a meaningless thing; there's nothing to fix.
According to the docs at
https://www.postgres
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Yura Sokolov of Postgres Pro performed this benchmark at my request.
> He took the 9.5 commit immediately proceeding 2ed5b87f9 as a baseline.
I attach a simple patch that comments out the release of the buffer
pin for logged tables where an
On 08/05/2017 08:36 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> One of the datacenters that provides two pg.org VM hosts has become
> inaccessible. Services that may be affected are:
>
> git.postgresql.org
> search.postgresql.org
> Mailinglist archives backend
> PostgreSQL Community Association of Canada
> Download s
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Because default values should be safe in the backup and restore area,
> and wait_for_archive = false is not the default.
Neither is archive_mode = always, without which wait_for_archive =
true doesn't actually wait.
> I would like to poin
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If we apply these patches to 9.6, then pg_stop_backup() on a standby
>> will start writing backup history files and removing no-longer-needed
>> backup history files. That's a clear behavio
One of the datacenters that provides two pg.org VM hosts has become
inaccessible. Services that may be affected are:
git.postgresql.org
search.postgresql.org
Mailinglist archives backend
PostgreSQL Community Association of Canada
Download stats analytics database server
ftpmaster.postgresql.org
ns
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for committing the code changes.
>
> About the documentation changes, it seems that the only places where any
> description of NOT VALID appears is ALTER TABLE, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, and
> ALTER DOMAIN references pages. Even if the CREAT
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we apply these patches to 9.6, then pg_stop_backup() on a standby
> will start writing backup history files and removing no-longer-needed
> backup history files. That's a clear behavior change, and it isn't a
> bug fix. Making the waitforar
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> If no other committer wants to take a shot at those patches, it may be
>> better to push them after the next minor release happens? I don't like
>> delaying bug fixes, but the release is close by and time flies.
>
On 8/1/17 11:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/1/17 08:28, Victor Wagner wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 08:16:54 -0400
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/1/17 02:12, Victor Wagner wrote:
> We are only calling uloc_toLanguageTag() with keyword/value
> combinations that ICU itself previou
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Unfortunately the day got away from me due to some personal... adventures
>> (having to do with lack of air conditioning first and then lack of gas,
>> amongst a lot of other things go
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I have not done anything for this comment as it doesn't sound wrong to
>> me. I think it is not making much sense in the current code and we
>> can remove it or change it as part of the sep
Hello Rod,
Patch applies cleanly, make html ok, new table looks good to me.
I've turned it "Ready for Committer".
Thanks!
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hello Alik,
So I would be in favor of expanding the documentation but not
restricting the parameter beyond avoiding value 1.0.
I have removed restriction and expanded documentation in attaching patch v5.
I've done some math investigations, which consisted in spending one hour
with Christia
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Unfortunately the day got away from me due to some personal... adventures
> (having to do with lack of air conditioning first and then lack of gas,
> amongst a lot of other things going on right now...). I just got things back
> online but, we
Hello Peter,
I think that it would also be nice if there was an option to make
functions like random_zipfian() actually return a value that has
undergone perfect hashing. When this option is used, any given value
that the function returns would actually be taken from a random mapping
to some
28 matches
Mail list logo
