pgsql-hackers since 2020-08-03 00:00 
The PostgreSQL developers team lives here. Discussion of current development issues, problems and bugs, and proposed new features. If your question cannot be answered by people in the other lists, and it is likely that only a developer will know the answer, you may re-post your question in this list. You must try elsewhere first!
Search the Archives
Browse Archives
Prev
|
Next
  
    
    Aug. 3, 2020
    
    
    Aug. 4, 2020
    
    
    Aug. 5, 2020
    
      
        
          | Thread | 
          Author | 
          Time | 
        
      
      
  
  
    | 
      RE: Creating foreign key on partitioned table is too slow
     | 
    [email protected] | 
    00:43 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File:
 "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
     | 
    Amit Langote | 
    00:53 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to
 VACUUM
     | 
    Bossart, Nathan | 
    00:56 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File:
 "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
     | 
    Justin Pryzby | 
    01:04 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: new heapcheck contrib module
     | 
    Peter Geoghegan | 
    01:06 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File:
 "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)
     | 
    Amit Langote | 
    01:12 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use
     | 
    Justin Pryzby | 
    01:21 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use
     | 
    David Rowley | 
    01:44 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use
     | 
    James Coleman | 
    02:01 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other 📎
     | 
    Alvaro Herrera | 
    02:11 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use
     | 
    Justin Pryzby | 
    02:13 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
     | 
    Alvaro Herrera | 
    02:14 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use
     | 
    David Rowley | 
    02:27 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path 📎
     | 
    David Rowley | 
    03:00 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: LSM tree for Postgres
     | 
    Peter Geoghegan | 
    03:12 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: pg13dev: explain partial, parallel hashagg, and memory use 📎
     | 
    David Rowley | 
    05:25 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: For standby pg_ctl doesn't wait for PM_STATUS_READY in
 presence of promote_trigger_file
     | 
    Kyotaro Horiguchi | 
    05:46 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer
     | 
    Thomas Munro | 
    06:00 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Reg. Postgres 13
     | 
    Joel Mariadasan (jomariad) | 
    06:08 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: LSM tree for Postgres
     | 
    Konstantin Knizhnik | 
    06:13 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: [PATCH] - Provide robust alternatives for replace_string 📎
     | 
    Asim Praveen | 
    07:08 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: LSM tree for Postgres
     | 
    Konstantin Knizhnik | 
    07:08 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Reg. Postgres 13
     | 
    Magnus Hagander | 
    07:29 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Yet another issue with step generation in partition pruning
     | 
    Amit Langote | 
    08:12 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: [PATCH v1] elog.c: Remove special case which avoided %*s format
 strings..
     | 
    Michael Paquier | 
    08:22 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options
 to VACUUM
     | 
    Masahiko Sawada | 
    09:56 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: LSM tree for Postgres
     | 
    Dmitry Dolgov | 
    11:09 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors
     | 
    Robert Haas | 
    11:19 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Can a background worker exist without shared memory access for
 EXEC_BACKEND cases?
     | 
    Bharath Rupireddy | 
    11:24 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Can a background worker exist without shared memory access for
 EXEC_BACKEND cases?
     | 
    Robert Haas | 
    11:45 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Which SET TYPE don't actually require a rewrite
     | 
    Magnus Hagander | 
    12:52 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large
 in-progress transactions 📎
     | 
    Amit Kapila | 
    12:55 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Can a background worker exist without shared memory access for
 EXEC_BACKEND cases?
     | 
    Bharath Rupireddy | 
    13:02 | 
  
  
  
  
    | 
      Re: Can a background worker exist without shared memory access for
 EXEC_BACKEND cases?
     | 
    Robert Haas | 
    13:14 | 
  
  
      
    
  
Browse Archives
Prev
|
Next