On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that 0001 is good for a committer lookup, that will get
>> rid of all existing bugs. For 0002, what you are proposing is still
>> not a good
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Did you really test WAL replay?
Is there a way to test this other than installcheck-world? The only
failure we've run into at the moment is in the snapshot-too-old tests.
Maybe we're not configuring with all the tests enabled?
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> In short, it seems to me that this patch should be rejected in its
>> current shape.
>
> Is the half of the patch that switches PageGetLSN to
> Buf
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alexey Chernyshov
wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Alexey, I took a look at your patch. Builds fine here, and passes
the new tests.
I'm new to this code, so take my review with a grain of salt.
> The attached patch introduces citext_pattern_ops for citext extension type
> li
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> +#if defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING) && !defined(FRONTEND)
>>> +voi
Hi Michael, thanks for the review!
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> While working on checksum support for GPDB, we noticed that several
>> callers of PageGetLSN() didn't follow the correct locking procedure.
>
> Well, PageGetLSN can be used in some hot code paths, xlogin
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It's a good idea to add patches to commitfest.postgresql.org
Hi Robert, I added it yesterday as
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1279/ . Let me know if I need to
touch anything up there.
Thanks!
--Jacob
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Hello all,
While working on checksum support for GPDB, we noticed that several
callers of PageGetLSN() didn't follow the correct locking procedure.
To try to help ferret out present and future mistakes, we added an
assertion to PageGetLSN() that checks whether those locks were being
held correctly
