Mailing lists [pgsql-hackers]

21 April 2017

• 00:05   Re: [HACKERS] AGG_HASHED cost estimate Jeff Janes
• 00:22   Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and inheritance Peter Eisentraut
• 00:29   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Petr Jelinek
• 00:58   Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c Peter Eisentraut
• 01:25   Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken Andres Freund
• 01:31   Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher setapplication_name? Peter Eisentraut
• 01:33   Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher setapplication_name? Peter Eisentraut
• 01:36   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Peter Eisentraut
• 01:38   [HACKERS] changing mvstats output to be valid JSON Alvaro Herrera
• 01:41   Re: [HACKERS] some review comments on logical rep code Peter Eisentraut
• 02:04   Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables Robert Haas
• 02:27   Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning Robert Haas
• 02:49   Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken Tom Lane
• 03:24   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem Claudio Freire
• 03:24   [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS Alvaro Herrera
• 03:25   Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slothandling Peter Eisentraut
• 03:27   Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start) Tom Lane
• 03:30   Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slothandling Peter Eisentraut
• 03:35   Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportableimplementation of background worker start) Andres Freund
• 03:47   Re: [HACKERS] Use sync commit for logical replication apply in TAP tests Tom Lane
• 03:50   Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start) Tom Lane
• 04:09   Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start) Tom Lane
• 04:13   Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS Tom Lane
• 05:23   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 05:32   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 05:39   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 05:43   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table Stephen Frost
• 05:44   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 05:53   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 05:59   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 06:05   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 06:07   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 06:10   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 06:21   Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS Tomas Vondra
• 06:44   Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and inheritance Amit Langote
• 07:40   [HACKERS] walsender & parallelism Andres Freund
• 07:53   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table Stephen Frost
• 08:20   Re: [HACKERS] walsender & parallelism Petr Jelinek
• 08:24   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Noah Misch
• 08:32   Re: [HACKERS] walsender & parallelism Craig Ringer
• 08:34   Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slothandling Petr Jelinek
• 08:37   Re: [HACKERS] walsender & parallelism Petr Jelinek
• 08:38   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Masahiko Sawada
• 08:52   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table Amit Langote
• 08:55   Re: [HACKERS] some review comments on logical rep code Masahiko Sawada
• 08:57   Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling Michael Paquier
• 09:00   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 09:02   Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Noah Misch
• 10:11   Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and PANIC during shutdowncheckpoint in publisher Michael Paquier
• 10:20   Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Masahiko Sawada
• 10:27   Re: [HACKERS] some review comments on logical rep code Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
• 11:34   Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
• 11:43   Re: [HACKERS] AGG_HASHED cost estimate Ashutosh Bapat
• 12:34   Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. Noah Misch
• 12:41   Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables Ashutosh Bapat
• 12:46   Re: [HACKERS] identity columns Noah Misch
• 13:02   Re: [HACKERS] some review comments on logical rep code Masahiko Sawada
• 13:11   Re: [HACKERS] some review comments on logical rep code Masahiko Sawada
• 14:00   Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
• 14:33   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
• 15:20   [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Heikki Linnakangas
• 16:08   [HACKERS] Triggers and logical replication (10devel) Egor Rogov
• 16:10   [HACKERS] Why is get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner() in pathkeys.c? David Rowley
• 16:30   Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS Tels
• 17:04   Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS David Rowley
• 18:25   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Stephen Frost
• 18:46   Re: [HACKERS] dtrace probes Jesper Pedersen
• 18:49   Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slothandling Peter Eisentraut
• 19:02   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Simon Riggs
• 19:08   [HACKERS] Old versions of Test::More Andrew Dunstan
• 19:20   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Michael Paquier
• 19:21   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Michael Paquier
• 19:29   Re: [HACKERS] Triggers and logical replication (10devel) Merlin Moncure
• 19:31   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Simon Riggs
• 19:42   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Heikki Linnakangas
• 19:50   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
• 19:52   Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS Tels
• 19:53   Re: [HACKERS] Triggers and logical replication (10devel) Egor Rogov
• 19:59   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Petr Jelinek
• 20:04   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Petr Jelinek
• 20:09   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Peter Eisentraut
• 20:09   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Peter Eisentraut
• 20:11   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Petr Jelinek
• 20:15   Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker doesn't start immediately on eabled Peter Eisentraut
• 20:19   Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker Masahiko Sawada
• 20:23   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Peter Eisentraut
• 20:29   Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables Ashutosh Bapat
• 20:31   Re: [HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical repdepends on? Petr Jelinek
• 20:33   Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers Simon Riggs
• 20:36   Re: [HACKERS] Old versions of Test::More Daniel Gustafsson
• 20:42   Re: [HACKERS] Old versions of Test::More Andrew Dunstan
• 20:45   Re: [HACKERS] Old versions of Test::More Tom Lane
• 21:09   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 21:19   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Alvaro Herrera
• 22:50   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 23:15   Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1 Andrew Borodin
• 23:20   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Andres Freund
• 23:38   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane
• 23:49   Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start Tom Lane