Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-14 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/05/14 1:07, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attached is the correct version. > > Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with > the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item.

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Attached is the correct version. Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item. You argued that wouldn't work because the contents of

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-12 Thread Amit Langote
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> Fixed. >> >> This seems to be the same patch

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Fixed. > > This seems to be the same patch version as last time, so none of the > things you mention as fixed are, in fact,

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Fixed. This seems to be the same patch version as last time, so none of the things you mention as fixed are, in fact, fixed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-12 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/05/12 12:22, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> Next update on this issue by Thursday 5/11. >> >> Attached updated patches. > > Thanks. 0001, at least, really needs a pgindent run. Also, my > compiler has this

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Next update on this issue by Thursday 5/11. > > Attached updated patches. Thanks. 0001, at least, really needs a pgindent run. Also, my compiler has this apparently-justifiable complaint:

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-10 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/05/10 12:08, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Yes, disallowing this in the first place is the best thing to do. >> Attached patch 0001 implements that. With the patch: > > Committed. Thanks. > With regard to

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Yes, disallowing this in the first place is the best thing to do. > Attached patch 0001 implements that. With the patch: Committed. With regard to 0002, some of the resulting constraints are a bit more

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-08 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/05/03 6:30, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the >> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case >> of

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the > range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case > of multi-column range partitioning. See below: > > create

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-02 Thread Beena Emerson
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Beena, > > On 2017/05/02 17:47, Beena Emerson wrote: > > Hello Amit, > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote < > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > >> wrote: > > > >> Per an off-list report from

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-02 Thread Amit Langote
Hi Beena, On 2017/05/02 17:47, Beena Emerson wrote: > Hello Amit, > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the >> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at

Re: [HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-02 Thread Beena Emerson
Hello Amit, On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the > range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case > of multi-column range partitioning. See

[HACKERS] multi-column range partition constraint

2017-05-02 Thread Amit Langote
Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case of multi-column range partitioning. See below: create table p (a int, b int) partition by range (a, b); create table p1 partition of p for values