On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 05:02:24PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> I did not read that thread yet, when I sent v3 patch.
> build_reloptions is a good stuff and we should use it for sure.
>
> I've looked at yours v4 version of the patch, it is exactly what we need
> here.
> Can we commit it as it
В письме от среда, 13 ноября 2019 г. 16:30:29 MSK пользователь Michael Paquier
написал:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:50:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > We have been through great length to have build_reloptions, so
> > wouldn't it be better to also have this code path do so? Sure you
> > n
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:50:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We have been through great length to have build_reloptions, so
> wouldn't it be better to also have this code path do so? Sure you
> need to pass NULL for the parsing table.. But there is a point to
> reduce the code paths using d
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:22:32PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> Here goes v3 patch with the typo fixed
Still one here in v3 of the patch:
+ * Since there are no options for patitioned tables for now, we just do
+ * validation to report incorrect option error and leave.
It looks like you are
В письме от среда, 23 октября 2019 г. 11:59:45 MSK пользователь Amit Langote
написал:
> Sorry for the late reply.
Same apologies from my side. Get decent time-slot for postgres dev only now.
> I looked atthe v2 patch and noticed a typo:
>
> + * Binary representation of relation options fo
Hi Nikolay,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:38 PM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:50:05 +0900
> Amit Langote пишет:
> > > I think it is bad idea to suggest option adder to ad it to
> > > StdRdOption, we already have a big mess there. Better if he add it
> > >
> > I think it is bad idea to suggest option adder to ad it to
> > StdRdOption, we already have a big mess there. Better if he add it
> > to an new empty structure.
>
> I tend to agree that this improves readability of the reloptions code
> a bit.
>
> Some comments on the patch:
>
> How about nam
В Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:50:05 +0900
Amit Langote пишет:
> > I think it is bad idea to suggest option adder to ad it to
> > StdRdOption, we already have a big mess there. Better if he add it
> > to an new empty structure.
>
> I tend to agree that this improves readability of the reloptions code
> a
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:48 PM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
>
> I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in
> separate th
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:50 PM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от вторник, 8 октября 2019 г. 16:00:49 MSK пользователь Amit Langote
> написал:
> > IIUC, this patch invents PartitionedRelOptions as the binary
> > representation for future RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED parameters. As long
> > a
В письме от вторник, 8 октября 2019 г. 16:00:49 MSK пользователь Amit Langote
написал:
> > > > The idea of this patch is following: If you read the code, partitioned
> > > > tables do not have any options (you will not find
> > > > RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED
> > > > in boolRelOpts, intRelOpts, realR
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:43 PM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от понедельник, 7 октября 2019 г. 14:57:14 MSK пользователь Michael
> Paquier написал:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> > > The idea of this patch is following: If you read the code, part
В письме от понедельник, 7 октября 2019 г. 14:57:14 MSK пользователь Michael
Paquier написал:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> > This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch
> > thread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJu
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
>
> I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in
> separat
Hi!
This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in
separate thread. So it is new thread.
The idea of this patch is following: I
15 matches
Mail list logo
