Fabien COELHO writes:
> I did yet another rebase of your patch after Tom alphabetically ordered
> backslash commands. Here is the result.
Pushed with some massaging.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make change
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 9/4/17, 8:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>> So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times
>> should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times
>> on a relation if it is specified this much. Th
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> If I tell pg_basebackup to use a non-existent slot, it immediately reports
> an error. And then it exits with an error, but only after streaming the
> entire database contents.
>
> If you are doing this interactively and are on the ball, of c
Hello,
Currently, DROP SUBSCRIPTION on REL_10_STABLE would block forever in the
following setup:
node 1:
create table t (i int);
create publication p for table t;
node 2:
create table t (i int);
create subscription s CONNECTION 'port=5432' publication p;
begin;
alter subscription s disable ;
alt
Arseny Sher writes:
> Attached patch fixes this by stopping workers before RO drop, as
> already done in case when we drop replication slot.
Sorry, here is the patch.
>From 008d54dfe2e8ba610bb7c897cfbb4ee7a700aa2e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arseny Sher
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:55:08 +0300
S
Hi,
On 05/25/2017 11:12 AM, Sokolov Yura wrote:
I agree that lonely semicolon looks bad.
Applied your suggestion for empty loop body (/* skip */).
Patch in first letter had while(true), but I removed it cause
I think it is uglier:
- `while(true)` was necessary for grouping read with `if`,
- but
On 2017/09/05 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> Here is the copyright in partition.h:
>>>
>>> * Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>>>
>>> I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
Hi,
I was looking to commit this, but the changes I made ended up being
pretty large. Here's what I changed in the attached:
- split GUC_UNIT_BYTE into a separate commit, squashed rest
- renamed GUC_UNIT_BYT to GUC_UNIT_BYTE, don't see why we'd have such a
weird abbreviation?
- bumped control fi
I spent some time trying to devise a suitable performance microbenchmark
for the atomic ops, in pursuit of whether the proposal at
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1154/
is worth doing. I came up with the attached very simple-minded test
case, which you run with something like
create
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/17 22:10, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Updated patch to use shared counter instead of adding pg_stat_ calls to
> send
> > the statistics from each background process/worker.
>
> Your patch needs to
2017-09-06 0:18 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Fabien COELHO writes:
> > I did yet another rebase of your patch after Tom alphabetically ordered
> > backslash commands. Here is the result.
>
> Pushed with some massaging.
>
Thank you very much
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Jeff Janes writes:
> What scale factor and client count? How many cores per socket? It looks
> like Sokolov was just starting to see gains at 200 clients on 72 cores,
> using -N transaction.
I spent some time poking at this with the test scaffolding I showed at
https://www.postgresql.org/message
During my recent work on costing of parallel paths [1], I noticed that
we are missing to push target list below GatherMerge in some simple
cases like below.
Test prepration
-
create or replace function simple_func(var1 integer) returns integer
as $$
begin
return var1 +
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 6/9/17 02:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have just played with that, and attached is a patch to implement the
>> so-said option with a basic set of tests, increasing code coverage of
>> pg_receivewal.c from 15% to 60%. I'll park that i
On 6 September 2017 at 00:43, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> This patch was moved to the currently open Commitfest. Given the above
> comment, is the last patch in this thread still up for review, or are you
> working on a new version? Just to avoid anyone reviewing an outdated version.
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jeevan Chalke
>> wrote:
>>> Attached patch for replacing linitial() with linital_node() appropriately in
>>> planner.c
>
>> Ok. The patch looks good to me. It compiles and make check passe
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, the main thing that we need xact.c's involvement for in the first
> place is the fact that implicit transaction blocks, unlike regular ones,
> auto-cancel on an error, leaving you outside a block not inside a failed
> one. So I don't exactly
On 30 August 2017 at 17:32, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 August 2017 at 18:34, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Thanks for the benchmarking results!
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rafia Sabih
>> wrote:
>>> Q4 | 244 | 12 | PA and PWJ, time by only PWJ - 41
>>
>> 12 seconds instead of 244? Whoa.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I don't follow that. You meant I should add a newline before
>> pg_realloc()? That is,
>>
>> +initialize_cmds =
>> +(char *) pg_realloc(initialize_cmds,
>> +
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)
>> +void
>> +AssertPageIsLockedForLSN(Page page)
>> +{
>> From a design point of view, bufmgr.c is an API interface for buff
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 8/21/17 01:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers
>>
>> - (*next_ProcessUtility_hook) (pstmt, queryString,
>> + next_ProcessUtility_hook(pstmt, queryString,
>>
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Arseny Sher wrote:
> Arseny Sher writes:
>
>> Attached patch fixes this by stopping workers before RO drop, as
>> already done in case when we drop replication slot.
>
> Sorry, here is the patch.
>
I could reproduce this issue, it's a bug. Added this to the open
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:35:13PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2017/08/30 17:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> >On 2017/08/30 9:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>On 2017/08/29 20:18, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> >>>On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> >>>
Hello Alik,
Applies, compiles, works for me.
Some minor comments and suggestions.
Two typos:
- "usinng" -> "using"
- "a rejection method used" -> "a rejection method is used"
I'm not sure of "least_recently_used_i", this naming style is not used in
pgbench. "least_recently_used" would be o
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> ERROR: 42704: replication slot "%s" does not exist
s/slot/origin/
> As far as I can see, replorigin_by_oid makes no use of its missing_ok
> = false in the backend code, so letting it untouched would have no
> impact. replorigin_by_name w
Hi Hackers,
I revised the patch like this:
- Add "command" column in the view
It tells that the running command is CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL.
- Enable VACUUM FULL progress monitor
Add heap_tuples_vacuumed and heap_tuples_recently_dead as a counter in the
view.
Sequence of phases a
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
