Hello Richard and Tom,
04.09.2024 06:50, Richard Guo wrote:
I pushed this patch with the test case remaining, as it adds only a
minimal number of test cycles. I explained in the commit message why
the test case is included in equivclass.sql rather than in join.sql.
While playing with the equi
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:51 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> The new test case fails starting from adf97c156, and we have to
> install a hash opfamily and a hash function for the hacked int8alias1
> type to make the test case work again.
>
> Now, I'm more dubious about whether we really need to add a test
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:56 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> Do you think it works if we place this test in equivclass.sql and
> write a comment explaining why it's there, like attached? Now I’m
> also starting to wonder if this change actually warrants such a test.
The new test case fails starting from
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 12:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I took a brief look at this. I think the basic idea is sound,
> but I have a couple of nits:
Thank you for reviewing this patch!
> * It's not entirely obvious that the checks preceding these additions
> are sufficient to ensure that the clauses
Richard Guo writes:
> Thank you for confirming. Here is an updated patch with some tweaks to
> the comments and commit message. I've parked this patch in the July
> commitfest.
I took a brief look at this. I think the basic idea is sound,
but I have a couple of nits:
* It's not entirely obvio
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:24 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> Richard Guo писал(а) 2024-06-19 16:30:
> > I think we can simply verify the validity of commutators for clauses in
> > the form "inner op outer" when selecting mergejoin/hash clauses. If a
> > clause lacks a commutator, we should conside
Richard Guo писал(а) 2024-06-19 16:30:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Richard Guo writes:
> It seems to me that the new operator is somewhat artificial, since it is
> designed to support a mergejoin but lacks a valid commutator. So before
> we proceed to discuss the fix, I'd
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > It seems to me that the new operator is somewhat artificial, since it is
> > designed to support a mergejoin but lacks a valid commutator. So before
> > we proceed to discuss the fix, I'd like to know whether this is a va
Richard Guo writes:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:51 PM Alexander Pyhalov
> wrote:
>> ERROR: could not find commutator for operator XXX
> It seems to me that the new operator is somewhat artificial, since it is
> designed to support a mergejoin but lacks a valid commutator. So before
> we proce
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:51 PM Alexander Pyhalov
wrote:
> There's the following inconsistency between try_mergejoin_path() and
> create_mergejoin_plan().
> When clause operator has no commutator, we can end up with mergejoin
> path.
> Later create_mergejoin_plan() will call
Hi.
There's the following inconsistency between try_mergejoin_path() and
create_mergejoin_plan().
When clause operator has no commutator, we can end up with mergejoin
path.
Later create_mergejoin_plan() will call get_switched_clauses(). This
function can error out with
ERROR: coul
11 matches
Mail list logo
