Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Peter Moser]

Hi Hackers,

On 12/1/19 4:45 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For now I have moved the patch to
> next CF, waiting on author.

We have withdrawn this patch for now. The reason for this is, that we
had ideas on how to split it into multiple simpler independent patches,
that can be reviewed and committed one by one.

Best regards,
Anton and Peter

Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Michael Paquier]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:58:31AM +0200, Peter Moser wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your effort. We are now trying to put again more work
> and time in this patch.
> We are grateful for any feedback.

The latest patch applies, but does not build because of an OID
conflict.  For development purposes, please make sure to use an OID in
the range 8000~9000 which are reserved for development per the
recently-added new project policy.  For now I have moved the patch to
next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Peter Moser]

Hi Ibrar, Thomas and Robert,

On 8/2/19 11:00 PM, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> I have rebased the patch and currently reviewing the patch 
> on master (1e2fddfa33d3c7cc93ca3ee0f32852699bd3e012).

Thanks a lot for your effort. We are now trying to put again more work
and time in this patch.
We are grateful for any feedback.

Thanks,
Peter

Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Ibrar Ahmed]

Hi,
I have rebased the patch and currently reviewing the patch
on master (1e2fddfa33d3c7cc93ca3ee0f32852699bd3e012).




On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:45 PM Thomas Munro  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:12 AM Ibrar Ahmed  wrote:
> > I start looking at the patch, there is a couple of problems with the
> patch. The first one is the OID conflict, which I fixed on my machine. The
> second problem is assertion failure. I think you have not compiled the
> PostgreSQL code with the assertion.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Looks like there was some good feedback for this WIP project last time
> around.  It's currently in "Needs Review" status in the July
> Commitfest.  To encourage more review and see some automated compile
> and test results, could we please have a fresh rebase?  The earlier
> patches no longer apply.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Thomas Munro
> https://enterprisedb.com
>


-- 
Ibrar Ahmed


001_temporal_query_processing_with_range_types_v4.patch
Description: Binary data

Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Thomas Munro]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:12 AM Ibrar Ahmed  wrote:
> I start looking at the patch, there is a couple of problems with the patch. 
> The first one is the OID conflict, which I fixed on my machine. The second 
> problem is assertion failure. I think you have not compiled the PostgreSQL 
> code with the assertion.

Hi Peter,

Looks like there was some good feedback for this WIP project last time
around.  It's currently in "Needs Review" status in the July
Commitfest.  To encourage more review and see some automated compile
and test results, could we please have a fresh rebase?  The earlier
patches no longer apply.

Thanks,

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

[Ibrar Ahmed]

I start looking at the patch, there is a couple of problems with the patch. The 
first one is the OID conflict, which I fixed on my machine. The second problem 
is assertion failure. I think you have not compiled the PostgreSQL code with 
the assertion. 

...
postgres=# SELECT *
FROM (projects p1 NORMALIZE projects p2 USING() WITH(t,t)) p_adjusted;
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(ptr == ((void *)0) || (((const Node*)(ptr))->type) == 
type)", File: "../../../src/include/nodes/nodes.h", Line: 588)
psql: server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: 2019-04-02 
12:50:09.654 UTC [27550] LOG:  server process (PID 27559) was terminated by 
signal 6: Aborted
...

Although this patch is WIP, but please avoid mix declaration to avoid the 
compiler warning message.

...
joinpath.c:993:3: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code 
[-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
   PathTarget *target_split = makeNode(PathTarget);
...

I am still looking at the patch.