On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:41 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I *think* that it might be all right, because although what we
> >> are matching to is a user-written COALESCE() not an actual
> >> FULL JOIN USING column, it has to
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> But this patch seems to still work,
> and the other thing doesn't fix the problem, so pushed.
Thanks for working on this!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Amit Langote writes:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:41 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I *think* that it might be all right, because although what we
>> are matching to is a user-written COALESCE() not an actual
>> FULL JOIN USING column, it has to behave in somewhat the same
>> way. In particular, by
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:41 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > which does succeed in using partitionwise join. Please see attached
> > delta that applies on your v7 if that is what you'd rather have.
>
> I figured these queries were cheap enough that we could afford to run
> both.
Amit Langote writes:
> which does succeed in using partitionwise join. Please see attached
> delta that applies on your v7 if that is what you'd rather have.
I figured these queries were cheap enough that we could afford to run
both. With that and some revision of the comments (per attached),
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > Oops, I thought I copy-pasted 4-way full join test not this one, but
> > evidently didn't.
>
> Have you got such a query at hand? I wondered whether we shouldn't
> use a 4-way rather than 3-way test case; it'd offer more
Amit Langote writes:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:29 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> * I think your logic for building the coalesce combinations was just
>> wrong. We need combinations of left-hand inputs with right-hand inputs,
>> not left-hand with left-hand or right-hand with right-hand. Also the
>>
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:29 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > Okay, I tried that in the updated patch. I didn't try to come up with
> > examples that might break it though.
>
> I looked through this.
Thank you.
> * I think your logic for building the coalesce combinations was just
Amit Langote writes:
> Okay, I tried that in the updated patch. I didn't try to come up with
> examples that might break it though.
I looked through this.
* Wasn't excited about inventing makeCoalesceExpr(); the fact that it only
had two potential call sites seemed to make it not worth the
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 6:13 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > Updated patches attached.
>
> I looked through these and committed 0001+0002, with some further
> comment-polishing. However, I have no faith at all in 0003.
Thanks for the review.
> It is
> blithely digging through
Amit Langote writes:
> Updated patches attached.
I looked through these and committed 0001+0002, with some further
comment-polishing. However, I have no faith at all in 0003. It is
blithely digging through COALESCE expressions with no concern for
whether they came from full joins or not, or
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 8:18 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:00 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Just to leave a breadcrumb in this thread --- the planner failure
> >> induced by d25ea01275 has been fixed in 529ebb20a. The difficulty
> >> with multiway full joins
Amit Langote writes:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:00 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Just to leave a breadcrumb in this thread --- the planner failure
>> induced by d25ea01275 has been fixed in 529ebb20a. The difficulty
>> with multiway full joins that Amit started this thread with remains
>> open, but I
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:00 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 5:02 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> I can't say much about the patch; there's a little typo:
> >> "The nullability of inner relation keys prevents them to"
> >> ..should say "prevent them from".
>
Amit Langote writes:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 5:02 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> I can't say much about the patch; there's a little typo:
>> "The nullability of inner relation keys prevents them to"
>> ..should say "prevent them from".
> Thanks, will fix.
Just to leave a breadcrumb in this
Hi Justin,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 5:02 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:15:37PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Please find attached updated patches.
>
> Tom pointed me to this thread, since we hit it in 12.0
>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:15:37PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Please find attached updated patches.
Tom pointed me to this thread, since we hit it in 12.0
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16802.1570989962%40sss.pgh.pa.us#070f6675a11dff17760b1cfccf1c038d
I can't say much about the
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 03:02:17PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 05:15:37PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Please find attached updated patches.
>
> Tom pointed me to this thread, since we hit it in 12.0
>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:15 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks a lot for taking a close look at the patch and sorry about the
> delay.
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:29 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > I'm reviewing v2-0002 and I
Hello Richard,
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>> Fujita-san,
>>
>> To avoid losing track of this, I've added this to November CF.
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2278/
>>
>> I know there is one
Hi Amit,
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:30 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> Fujita-san,
>>
>> To avoid losing track of this, I've added this to November CF.
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2278/
>>
>> I know there is one more
Hi Amit,
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Fujita-san,
>
> To avoid losing track of this, I've added this to November CF.
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2278/
>
> I know there is one more patch beside the partitionwise join fix, but
> I've set the title to suggest
Fujita-san,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:10 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:18 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:22 PM Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:29 PM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > > > 0001 - fix partitionwise join to work
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:18 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:22 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:29 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > 0001 - fix partitionwise join to work correctly with n-way joins of
> > > which some are full joins (+ cosmetic improvements
Fujita-san,
Thanks for looking at this.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:22 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:29 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > 0001 - fix partitionwise join to work correctly with n-way joins of
> > which some are full joins (+ cosmetic improvements around the code
> >
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:29 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> 0001 - fix partitionwise join to work correctly with n-way joins of
> which some are full joins (+ cosmetic improvements around the code
> that was touched)
Here are my comments about the cosmetic improvements: they seem pretty
large to me, so
26 matches
Mail list logo
