Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 2/21/18 15:53, Magnus Hagander wrote: > *Two new functions are added, pg_enable_data_checksums() and > pg_disable_data_checksums(). The disable one is easy -- it just changes > to disable. The enable one will change the state to inprogress, and then > start a background worker (the

Re: Drop --disable-floatN-byval configure options?

On 2/21/18 12:17, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't actually envision changing the C code much at all; we might want > to resurrect the old code at some point. I just want to reduce the number > of supported configurations. Yeah, it can exist like EXEC_BACKEND, as a way to manually simulate a different

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I took a look at this today and thought it might be OK to commit, Thank you for looking at this! > modulo a few minor issues: (1) you didn't document the new tranche and Fixed. > (2) I prefer to avoid if (blah) {

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 22 February 2018 at 22:31, Amit Langote wrote: > Some comments: Hi Amit, Thanks for looking at this. I'll work through your comments and produce a patch sometime in the near future. One problem that I'm facing now is down to the way I'm gathering the ParamIds

Incorrect grammar

Here is a tiny patch to fix $SUBJECT in a comment in execPartition.c. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c index 4048c3e..882b538 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c +++

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

(2018/02/22 11:52), Amit Langote wrote: On 2018/02/21 20:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote: void BeginForeignRouting(ModifyTableState *mtstate, ResultRelInfo *resultRelInfo, int partition_index); Prepare for a tuple-routing operation on a foreign table. This is

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 02/21/2018 02:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: I suspect that it could make sense to use a Bloom filter to

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 22 February 2018 at 22:48, Amit Langote wrote: >> I'm having to add some NULL handling there for the run-time pruning >> patch but wondered if it was also required for your patch. > > Hmm, not sure why. Can you explain a bit more? hmm, yeah, but perhaps we

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Re-sending this one with proper formatting. Apologies for the horrible gmail-screws-up-the-text-part of the last one! No change to patch or text, just the formatting. //Magnus Once more, here is an attempt to solve the problem of on-line enabling of checksums that me and Daniel have been

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

Hi David. On 2018/02/21 18:06, David Rowley wrote: > Other things I don't particularly like about the current patch are how > I had to construct the partition key expressions in > set_valid_runtime_subplans_recurse(). This pretty much uses code > borrowed from set_baserel_partition_key_exprs().

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 21 February 2018 at 23:44, Amit Langote wrote: > Please find attached updated patches. Thanks for updating the code. The question I have now is around NULL handling in partkey_datum_from_expr(). I've not managed to find a way to get a NULL Const in there as it

<    1   2