description of root_tuple_slot missing

I noticed that the description of root_tuple_slot member is missing in the comment above PartitionTupleRouting definition. See if the attached patch fixes it correctly. Thanks, Amit diff --git a/src/include/executor/execPartition.h b/src/include/executor/execPartition.h index

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

Hi David. On 2018/04/21 14:09, David Rowley wrote: > On 20 April 2018 at 20:51, Amit Langote wrote: >> set constraint_exclusion to off; >> >> -- not ok! > > It needed a bit more effort than I put in the first time around to > make this work properly.

Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> "Amit" == Amit Kapila writes: > > Amit> by computing it before scanning the main heap (lazy_vacuum_rel) > Amit> and then pass it down. I have tried it and came up with the >

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

On 2018/04/22 2:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> I think if this bug/open item can be resolved by adopting the minimal >> patch, then we should use it for that. Maybe, we can discuss the rest of >> the changes independently. If they make things better

JIT flag definitions not parenthesized

Looks like the JIT flags definitions are not properly parenthesized. It might not matter too much for their current usage, but it might save a bit of confusion later. git grep "^#define .*<<.*[^)]$" indicates these are the only offenders. Patch attached. -- David Rowley

Re: using expression syntax for partition bounds (was: Re: Boolean partitions syntax)

On 2018/04/23 11:37, Amit Langote wrote: > I tried to update the patch to do things that way. I'm going to create a > new entry in the next CF titled "generalized expression syntax for > partition bounds" and add the patch there. Tweaked the commit message to credit all the authors. Thanks,

using expression syntax for partition bounds (was: Re: Boolean partitions syntax)

(patch and discussion for PG 12) On 2018/04/22 1:28, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> [ v8-0001-Allow-generalized-expression-syntax-for-partition.patch ] > > I find what you did to a_expr here to be pretty horrid. Thanks for the review. > I think what

Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards

> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes: Andrew> Since the tuple was vacuumable at that point, it will never Andrew> again become visible in any snapshot, so the only code that Andrew> should ever access its toast values is vacuum full/cluster, and, unfortunately,

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2018/04/21 0:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Langote wrote: > >> PS: git grep "partition by hash\|PARTITION BY HASH" on src/test indicates >> that there are hash partitioning related tests in create_table, >> foreign_key, and partition_join files as well. Do we want to use the >> custom

Format base - Code contribution

I would like to donate some code to the project, formatting numbers as any base from 2 to 64. The FAQ describes contributions to the core code, but it's possible contrib is a better target. This is all of course contingent on how well received this extension code is of course. Code available at

Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards

> "Amit" == Amit Kapila writes: Amit> Yeah, that's right, but it gives some uneasy feeling that we are Amit> attaching the wrong toast value. Oh, forgot to stress this before: referencing the wrong toast value in this case is something that can already happen, my

Re: pg_recvlogical broken in back branches

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 02:55:51PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > That change is testing the wrong variable. I plan to repair it as > attached. You are right here. Ditto The whole GetConnection() business in src/bin/pg_basebackup is confusing with the presence of a global variable. I am wondering

Re: pg_recvlogical broken in back branches

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 03:38:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 03:01:33AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > > A proposed fix is attached. It should be applied to 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, and > > 10. (Although, client version 10 can connect to server version 10, > > client version 10

Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards

> "Amit" == Amit Kapila writes: Amit> I haven't tried to reproduce it, but I can see the possibility of Amit> the problem described by you. What should we do next? I could see Amit> few possibilities: (a) Vacuum for main and toast table should Amit> always use

Re: BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN used nowhere (infra part of on-line checksum switcher)

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 14:04, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > Hi all, > > BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN has been added by commit eed1ce7, which is an > infrastructure piece

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 30.03.2018 19:50, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:38:25 +0300 >> Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: >> >> Attached rebased version of the patch. Fixed

Re: BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN used nowhere (infra part of on-line checksum switcher)

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN has been added by commit eed1ce7, which is an > infrastructure piece to be able to enable and disable dynamically > checksums on a cluster. The main idea is to be able to bypass

Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:26 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> "Amit" == Amit Kapila writes: > > Amit> I haven't tried to reproduce it, but I can see the possibility of > Amit> the problem described by you. What should we do next? I could see

BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN used nowhere (infra part of on-line checksum switcher)

Hi all, BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN has been added by commit eed1ce7, which is an infrastructure piece to be able to enable and disable dynamically checksums on a cluster. The main idea is to be able to bypass datallowconn which allows a background worker to connect to a database even if the

bms_prev_member won't work correctly if bitmapword is 64-bits

bms_prev_member mistakenly has a hardcoded 24 in the function. This should really be BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD - 8 so that it is properly set to 56 if someone compiles with 64-bit bitmapwords. The attached fixes this and also adds a test to exercise the function a bit. [1] indicates there's currently