{"push_id":2388646477,"size":7,"distinct_size":1,"ref":"refs/heads/commitfest/17/1248","head":"eca352cc2ace2dd15b2463c8848bb3bcb9c7ec38","before":"7637cd24220a5b7e9208e4162b1a80c860f261ee","commits":[{"sha":"4e0c743c18bf5435a4850510c5c74b3521c3e1e5","author":{"name":"Tom Lane","email":"9ca635a44fdf5aa326758d8d245579b9ae84653c@sss.pgh.pa.us"},"message":"Fix cross-checking of ReservedBackends/max_wal_senders/MaxConnections.\n\nWe were independently checking ReservedBackends < MaxConnections and\nmax_wal_senders < MaxConnections, but because walsenders aren't allowed\nto use superuser-reserved connections, that's really the wrong thing.\nCorrect behavior is to insist on ReservedBackends + max_wal_senders being\nless than MaxConnections.  Fix the code and associated documentation.\n\nThis has been wrong for a long time, but since the situation probably\nhardly ever arises in the field (especially pre-v10, when the default\nfor max_wal_senders was zero), no back-patch.\n\nDiscussion: https://postgr.es/m/28271.1520195491@sss.pgh.pa.us","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/4e0c743c18bf5435a4850510c5c74b3521c3e1e5"},{"sha":"6a0b30f0401a76b3a972e366ba30aa7e49ffbf87","author":{"name":"Tom Lane","email":"9ca635a44fdf5aa326758d8d245579b9ae84653c@sss.pgh.pa.us"},"message":"In initdb, don't bother trying max_connections = 10.\n\nThe server won't actually start with that setting anymore, not since\nwe raised the default max_wal_senders to 10.  Per discussion, we don't\nwish to back down on that default, so instead raise the effective floor\nfor max_connections (to 20).  It's still possible to configure a smaller\nsetting manually, but initdb won't set it that way.\n\nSince that change happened in v10, back-patch to v10.\n\nKyotaro Horiguchi\n\nDiscussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180209.170823.42008365.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/6a0b30f0401a76b3a972e366ba30aa7e49ffbf87"},{"sha":"04e7ecadf64d18f67ca1d0632d8ab71f120ca5e3","author":{"name":"Tom Lane","email":"9ca635a44fdf5aa326758d8d245579b9ae84653c@sss.pgh.pa.us"},"message":"Revert \"Temporarily instrument postgres_fdw test to look for statistics changes.\"\n\nThis reverts commit c2c537c56dc30ec3cdc12051f4ea5363aa66d73c.\nIt's now clear that whatever is going on there, it can't be blamed\non unexpected ANALYZE runs, because the statistics are the same\njust before the failing query as they were at the start of the test.","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/04e7ecadf64d18f67ca1d0632d8ab71f120ca5e3"},{"sha":"44468f49bbe7e47e5a27a1ccbf13549ff85149f2","author":{"name":"Tom Lane","email":"9ca635a44fdf5aa326758d8d245579b9ae84653c@sss.pgh.pa.us"},"message":"Add test scaffolding for exercising optimizer's predicate-proof logic.\n\nThe predicate-proof code in predtest.c is a bit hard to test as-is:\nyou have to construct a query whose plan changes depending on the success\nof a test, and in tests that have been around for awhile, it's always\npossible that the plan shape is now being determined by some other factor.\nOur existing regression tests aren't doing real well at providing full\ncode coverage of predtest.c, either.  So, let's add a small test module\nthat allows directly inspecting the results of predicate_implied_by()\nand predicate_refuted_by() for arbitrary boolean expressions.\n\nI chose the set of tests committed here in order to get reasonably\ncomplete code coverage of predtest.c just from running this test\nmodule, and to cover some cases called out as being interesting in\nthe existing comments.  We might want to add more later.  But this\nset already shows a few cases where perhaps things could be improved.\n\nIndeed, this exercise proves that predicate_refuted_by() is buggy for\nthe case of clause_is_check = true, though fortunately we aren't using\nthat case anywhere yet.  I'll look into doing something about that in\na separate commit.  For now, just memorialize the current behavior.\n\nDiscussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/44468f49bbe7e47e5a27a1ccbf13549ff85149f2"},{"sha":"960df2a9715c5c232b0f6f3effd40a3323eed6b0","author":{"name":"Robert Haas","email":"93159bdbbeed5b47be970d58edfbdf1c3ce55e4c@postgresql.org"},"message":"Correctly assess parallel-safety of tlists when SRFs are used.\n\nSince commit 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9, the existing\ncode was no longer assessing the parallel-safety of the real tlist\nfor each upper rel, but rather the first of possibly several tlists\ncreated by split_pathtarget_at_srfs().  Repair.\n\nEven though this is clearly wrong, it's not clear that it has any\nuser-visible consequences at the moment, so no back-patch for now.  If\nwe discover later that it does have user-visible consequences, we\nmight need to back-patch this to v10.\n\nPatch by me, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.\n\nDiscussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoaob_Strkg4Dcx=VyxnyXtrmkV=ofj=pX7gH9hSre-g0Q@mail.gmail.com","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/960df2a9715c5c232b0f6f3effd40a3323eed6b0"},{"sha":"a63c3274a68832182f84ca5d2b8cc5a7462bdacb","author":{"name":"Tom Lane","email":"9ca635a44fdf5aa326758d8d245579b9ae84653c@sss.pgh.pa.us"},"message":"Fix test_predtest's idea of what weak refutation means.\n\nI'd initially supposed that predicate_refuted_by(..., true) ought to\nsay that \"A refutes B\" means \"non-falsity of A implies non-truth of B\".\nBut it seems better to define it as \"truth of A implies non-truth of B\".\nThis is more useful in the current system, slightly easier to prove,\nand in closer correspondence to the existing code behavior.\n\nWith this change, test_predtest no longer claims that any existing\ntest cases show false proof reports, though there still are cases\nwhere we could prove something and fail to.\n\nDiscussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/a63c3274a68832182f84ca5d2b8cc5a7462bdacb"},{"sha":"eca352cc2ace2dd15b2463c8848bb3bcb9c7ec38","author":{"name":"Commitfest Bot","email":"aab6a594935fe5db0d690bc154b19f642bfbe9d7@cputube.org"},"message":"[CF 17/1248] Subscription code improvements\n\nThis commit was automatically generated by cfbot at commitfest.cputube.org.\nIt is based on patches submitted to the PostgreSQL mailing lists and\nregistered in the PostgreSQL Commitfest application.\n\nThis branch will be overwritten each time a new patch version is posted to\nthe email thread or the master branch changes.\n\nCommitfest entry: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1248\nPatch(es): https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBX9LPFWRXR3fJxq%3DkJd_gW%2BTgn0WS3qHXqHQ54exTyqw%40mail.gmail.com\nAuthor(s): Petr Jelínek, Masahiko Sawada","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commits/eca352cc2ace2dd15b2463c8848bb3bcb9c7ec38"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"postgresql-cfbot"}}