Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:59 PM Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:53:41PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov > > wrote: > > > What is XXX supposed to be? > > > > > > The rest of patch looks good to me. > > > > I've pushed the

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:53:41PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > What is XXX supposed to be? > > > > The rest of patch looks good to me. > > I've pushed the patch excepts XXX. Thank you. > You're welcome to clarify XXX and/or

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > What is XXX supposed to be? > > The rest of patch looks good to me. I've pushed the patch excepts XXX. Thank you. You're welcome to clarify XXX and/or do additional corrections. -- Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional:

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:44 AM Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:05:51PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 AM Nikita Glukhov > > wrote: > > > Attached new version of reordered patches. > > > > I'm going to push this if no objections. > > Find

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:05:51PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 AM Nikita Glukhov > wrote: > > Attached new version of reordered patches. > > I'm going to push this if no objections. Find attached patch with editorial corrections to docs for this commit.

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Attached new version of reordered patches. Questionable patches for AM-specific per-attribute options were moved to the end, so they can be skipped now. On 16.03.2020 18:22, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hi! I took a look on this patchset. There is a first set of questions. * Patchset badly

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Hi! I took a look on this patchset. There is a first set of questions. * Patchset badly needs comments. I've to literally reverse engineer to get what's going on. But I still don't understand many things. * I'm curious about what local_relopts.base field means. void

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Attached new version of the patches. On 12.09.2019 3:16, Tomas Vondra wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:44:28AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: 2. New AM method amattoptions().  

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not > the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required > or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting > at

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:44:28AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: 2. New AM method amattoptions().   amattoptions() is used to specify per-column AM-specific options.   The example is

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: 2. New AM method amattoptions().   amattoptions() is used to specify per-column AM-specific options.   The example is signature length for bloom indexes (patch #3). I'm somewhat

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 11.09.2019 1:14, Tomas Vondra wrote: BTW, is there a place where we actually verify the signature of the new am proc? Because I only see code like this: +    case OPCLASS_OPTIONS_PROC: +    ok = true; +    break; in all "validate" functions. See assignProcTypes() at

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: On 04.09.2019 1:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote: 1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For example the

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: On 04.09.2019 1:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote: 1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For example the gtsvector_options does this: I think this is part of what Nikolay's

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote: > 1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For > example the gtsvector_options does this: I think this is part of what Nikolay's patch series was supposed to address. But that one has been going way too slow. I agree we need something

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Hi, while rebasing the patch series [1] adding bloom/multi-minmax BRIN opclasses, I've decided to also rebase it on top of this patch, because it needs the opclass parameters. So I had to rebase this too - it went mostly fine, with reasonably limited bitrot. The rebased patch series is attached.

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM Tom Lane wrote: > How about saying that you must give an opclass name if you want to > specify options, ie the syntax is > > [ opclass_name [ ( options... ) ] ] > > I'm not necessarily wedded to that, but it seems worth throwing > out the idea. Agreed,

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:58 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote: >> "opclass (options)" looks the most natural to me. But we still need some >> keyword before the parentheses when the opclass is not specified since we >> can't distinguish "func_name (func_params)" and "col_name

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:58 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote: > I agree that we should distinguish per-index and per-column options, but they > can also be AM-specific and opclass-specific. True, but an index is bound to a single AM, and a column is bound to a single opclass which is bound to a single

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Attached 3rd version of the patches. On 20.11.2018 14:15, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: Attached 2nd version of the patches. Nothing has changed since March, this is just a rebased version. CREATE INDEX syntax and parameters

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:46 AM Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > 1. I've seen you've added a new attribute into pg_index. Why??!! > As far as I can get, if have index built on several columns (A1, A2, A3) you > can set, own opclass for each column. And set individual options for each > opclass if we are

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > Attached 2nd version of the patches. Nothing has changed since March, > this is just a rebased version. > > CREATE INDEX syntax and parameters storage method still need discussion. I've played around a bit with you patch

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > >> But since it is now "Rejected with feedback", let's wait till autumn. > > > > We don't want to wait that long. But now we only need to сome to an > > agreement > > about CREATE INDEX syntax and where to store the

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 02.03.2018 19:12, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал: 2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for intarray. May be you should do the

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал: > > 2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my > > prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for > > intarray. May be you should do the same. (Use my example it will be more

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 3/1/18 3:50 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Any objections to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it >> to the next CF as is. > > I think that Returned with Feedback would be good. We will continue >

Re: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Nikita, > > On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: >> В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: >> >>> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters. >>> >>> This

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > Concerning the patch that you've provided. I've just have a short look. But I > already have some question. > > 1. I've seen you've added a new attribute into pg_index. Why??!! > As far as I can get, if have index built

Re: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Hi Nikita, On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > >> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters. >> >> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru: >>

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал: > I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters. > > This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru: > http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/opclass_pgconf.ru-2018.pdf > > A analogous work was