Re: Relation bulk write facility
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-02-27T20:24:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Relax fsyncing at end of a bulk load that was not WAL-logged
- 68f199cea3b1 17.0 landed
- 077ad4bd76b1 18.0 landed
-
Fix cross-version upgrade tests after f0827b443.
- e8aecc5c2ce1 17.0 landed
-
Remove AIX support
- 0b16bb8776bb 17.0 landed
-
Fix compiler warning on typedef redeclaration
- d360e3cc60e3 17.0 landed
-
Introduce a new smgr bulk loading facility.
- 8af256524893 17.0 landed
Attachments
- 0001-Remove-AIX-support.patch (text/x-patch) patch 0001
On 26/02/2024 06:18, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 09:42:03AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> So, we now need to strip the remnants of AIX support from the code and >>> docs? I don't see that much of it, but it's misleading to leave it >>> there. >>> >>> (BTW, I still want to nuke the remaining snippets of HPPA support. >>> I don't think it does anybody any good to make it look like that's >>> still expected to work.) >> >> +1 for removing things that don't work (or that we think probably don't work). > > Seeing this stuff eat developer time because of the debugging of weird > issues while having a very limited impact for end-users is sad, so +1 > for a cleanup of any remnants if this disappears. Here's a patch to fully remove AIX support. One small issue that warrants some discussion (in sanity_check.sql): > --- When ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==4 (e.g. AIX), the C ABI may impose 8-byte alignment on > +-- When MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF==8 but ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==4, the C ABI may impose 8-byte alignment > -- some of the C types that correspond to TYPALIGN_DOUBLE SQL types. To ensure > -- catalog C struct layout matches catalog tuple layout, arrange for the tuple > -- offset of each fixed-width, attalign='d' catalog column to be divisible by 8 > -- unconditionally. Keep such columns before the first NameData column of the > -- catalog, since packagers can override NAMEDATALEN to an odd number. > +-- (XXX: I'm not sure if any of the supported platforms have MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF==8 and > +-- ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==4. Perhaps we should just require that > +-- ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF) What do y'all think of adding a check for ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF to configure.ac and meson.build? It's not a requirement today, but I believe AIX was the only platform where that was not true. With AIX gone, that combination won't be tested, and we will probably break it sooner or later. -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)