Hi!
> 2 окт. 2018 г., в 11:55, Michail Nikolaev
> написал(а):
>
> > Okay, it has been more than a couple of days and the patch has not been
> > updated, so I am marking as returned with feedback.
>
> Yes, it is more than couple of days passed, but also there is almost no
> feedback since 20
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:22:42AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 10/1/18, 7:07 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:37:01PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>>> Without the find_all_inheritors() stuff, I think we would just need to
>>> modify the ANALYZE documentation
On 2018-09-27 20:03:58 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-09-28 12:21:08 +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Here I attached further cleanup patches.
> > 1. Re-arrange the GUC variable
> > 2. Added a check function hook for default_table_access_method GUC
>
> Cool.
>
>
> > 3. Added a new hook
On 28 September 2018 at 18:13, Edmund Horner wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 17:02, Edmund Horner wrote:
>> I did run pgindent over it though. :)
>
> But I didn't check if it still applied to master. Sigh. Here's one that
> does.
I know commit fest is over, but I made a pass of this to
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> > >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> > >> which can
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:24 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > Over the thread for bug #14825 I posted some draft code to show one
> > way to save/restore the enum blacklist for parallel workers. Here's a
> > better version, and a new thread. 0001
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:24 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Over the thread for bug #14825 I posted some draft code to show one
> way to save/restore the enum blacklist for parallel workers. Here's a
> better version, and a new thread. 0001 is the code by Andrew Dustan
> and Tom Lane that was reverted
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 04:27:57PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Yeah, maybe there is no reason to delay proceeding with
> pg_partition_children which provides a useful functionality.
So, I have been looking at your patch, and there are a couple of things
which could be improved.
Putting the new
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> >> which can help us to discuss the merits of this patch.
>
> > By now, the
On 2018-Oct-03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:35:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I'm not clear what interface are you proposing. Maybe they would just
> > use the clone-or-fail mode, and note whether it fails? If that's not
> > it, please explain.
>
> Okay. What I
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:35:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm not clear what interface are you proposing. Maybe they would just
> use the clone-or-fail mode, and note whether it fails? If that's not
> it, please explain.
Okay. What I am proposing is to not have any kind of automatic
On 2018-Oct-03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> There could be an argument for having an automatic more within this
> scheme, still I am not really a fan of this. When somebody integrates
> pg_upgrade within an upgrade framework, they would likely test if
> cloning actually works, bumping immediately
Hi Andrew, Tom, all,
Over the thread for bug #14825 I posted some draft code to show one
way to save/restore the enum blacklist for parallel workers. Here's a
better version, and a new thread. 0001 is the code by Andrew Dustan
and Tom Lane that was reverted in 93a1af0b, unchanged by me except
On 2018/10/03 8:31, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:29 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached is what I have at the moment.
>
> I realise this is a WIP but FYI the docs don't build (you removed a
> element that is still needed, when removing a paragraph).
Thanks Thomas for the
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:18:01PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> In Debian /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf has been changed to
> "CiperString=DEFAULT@SECLEVEL=2", which implies that "RSA and DHE
> keys need to be at least 2048 bit long" according to the
> following page.
>
>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:31:35PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I can see the argument for that. But I don't understand where the
> automatic mode fits into this. I would like to keep all three modes
> from my patch: copy, clone-if-possible, clone-or-fail, unless you want
> to argue against
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:29 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Attached is what I have at the moment.
I realise this is a WIP but FYI the docs don't build (you removed a
element that is still needed, when removing a paragraph).
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:37 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 1 Oct 2018, at 01:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:51:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> You could have chosen something less complicated, like "ホゲ", which is
> >> the equivalent of "foo" in English.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:20 AM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I hope so now, there are almost complete functionality. Please, check it.
Hi Pavel,
FYI there is a regression test failure on Windows:
plpgsql ... FAILED
*** 4071,4077
end;
$$ language plpgsql;
select stacked_diagnostics_test();
-
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:07 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> I've attached v4 of the patch.
Hi Michael,
Windows doesn't like sigaction:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.15189
I'm not sure if we classify this as a "frontend" program. Should it
be using
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jimmy Yih writes:
> > Looking at the internal code (mostly get_from_clause_item() function), we
> > saw that when a subquery is used, there is no tuple descriptor passed to
> > get_query_def() function. Because of this, get_target_list() uses the
Andres Freund writes:
> I've looked through the patch. Looks good to me. Some minor notes:
[ didn't see this till after sending my previous ]
> - How about adding our own strchrnul for the case where we don't
> HAVE_STRCHRNUL? It's possible that other platforms have something
> similar,
Here's a version of this patch rebased over commit 625b38ea0.
That commit's fix for the possibly-expensive memset means that we need
to reconsider performance numbers for this patch. I re-ran my previous
tests, and it's still looking like this is a substantial win, as it makes
snprintf.c faster
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 05:23:28PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> If you're in a position where you're using Kerberos (or most other
>> things from the GSSAPI) for authentication, the encryption comes at
>> little to no additional setup cost. And then you get all the
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:55 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
> >> Okay, I have pushed the test case patch on HEAD. Attached is the
> >> code-fix patch, let's wait for a day so that we have all the results
> >> which can help us to discuss the merits of this patch.
>
> > By now, the
Hi,
On 2018-09-26 21:30:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a rebased version of <15785.1536776...@sss.pgh.pa.us>.
>
> I think we should try to get this reviewed and committed before
> we worry more about the float business. It would be silly to
> not be benchmarking any bigger changes against
Am 02.10.2018 um 19:07 schrieb Tom Lane:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 09/29/2018 02:13 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
[ proposed patch ]
Yes. So there are a couple of things here. First, the dll has
SO_MAJORVERSION in the name. And second it stops building any static
libraries and instead builds
On 2018-10-02 11:02:37 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-02 18:35:29 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I looked at the patch. Some comments.
> >
> > On 2018/10/02 16:35, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I wasn't quite happy yet with that patch.
> > >
> > > - ConvertTupleSlot seems
Hello,
I would like to know if there is a vacancy for becoming a Google Code-In
mentor with your organization this year.
I have prior experience in Java, Python, Android, React, React native, Deep
learning, Computer Vision, MySQL, PostgreSQL.
I have prior experience of open source and working
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:52:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:50:23PM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > We are already in September, hence it is time to move on with the 2nd
> > commit fest for v12. As usual, there are many patches waiting for
> > review and
On 2018-10-02 18:35:29 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I looked at the patch. Some comments.
>
> On 2018/10/02 16:35, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I wasn't quite happy yet with that patch.
> >
> > - ConvertTupleSlot seems like a too generic name, it's very unclear it's
> > related to tuple
Hi,
Back in 2016 a patch was proposed to fix the O(N^2) performance on transactions
that generate many notifications. The performance issue is caused by the check
for duplicate notifications.
I have a feature built around LISTEN / NOTIFY that works perfectly well, except
for the enormous
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 09/29/2018 02:13 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> [ proposed patch ]
> Yes. So there are a couple of things here. First, the dll has
> SO_MAJORVERSION in the name. And second it stops building any static
> libraries and instead builds windows import libraries with names
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 10/2/18, 7:22 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote:
>> See the bottom of src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql starting around
>> line 1010.
> AFAICT the cleanest way to do this in system_views.sql is to hard-code
> the pg_default tablespace OID in the DEFAULT expression.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:55 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> On 2018-Sep-26, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > On 2018-Sep-26, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I agree that it would be surprising for transaction timestamp to be newer
> > >> than statement timestamp. So for now at least,
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> One might reasonably expect NULL there, but column_privilege_check
>> observes that you have table-level select privilege so it doesn't
>> bother to look up the column number. Not sure if this is worth
>> doing something about.
>
On 10/2/18, 7:22 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 08:00 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> Christoph Berg wrote:
>>> Re: Bossart, Nathan 2018-10-01
>>> <69fd7e51-2b13-41fd-9438-17395c73f...@amazon.com>
> 1. Do we really need two functions, one without input argument
> to list the
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> OK, so here's a patch that I think does the right things.
> >> I noticed that has_foreign_data_wrapper_privilege() and some other
> >> recently-added members of the
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> OK, so here's a patch that I think does the right things.
>> I noticed that has_foreign_data_wrapper_privilege() and some other
>> recently-added members of the has_foo_privilege family had not gotten
>> the word about not failing
Hi,
On 2018-10-02 17:28:26 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/10/02 16:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm kinda wondering if we shouldn't have the tuple
> > conversion functions just use the slot based functionality in the back,
> > and just store those in the TupConversionMap.
>
> Sorry, I
On 2018-09-28 09:35:48 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
> > transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
> > mean that the transaction timestamp as
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:32:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, my problem with this patch is that I remain unconvinced of the basic
>> correctness of the transform (specifically the unique-ification approach).
>> Noah's points would be important to address if we were
Hi,
On 2018-10-02 10:55:56 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
> >> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
> >> mean that the transaction timestamp
Hello,
I would like to know if there is some vacancy for Google Code-In mentor
with your organization this year.
I have prior experience in React, Javascript, Machine Learning, Deep
Learning, and Machine Learning. I have prior experience of open source and
working remotely. I hope to leverage
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:32:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:59:10PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> If you're going to keep this highly-simplified estimate, please expand the
> >> comment to say why it doesn't matter or what makes it hard to do
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
> > >> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:55:56AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
> >> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
> >> mean that the transaction
On 10/02/2018 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Thanks to all who participated in the patch review, authoring, and
>> everybody else who helped in making the different patches move forward.
>
> Thanks for being CFM! I know it's a lot of work ...
+10!
Joe
--
Crunchy Data
Michael Paquier writes:
> My brain is rather fried for the rest of the day... But we could just
> be looking at using USE_ASSERT_CHECKING. Thoughts from other are
> welcome.
I'd go with folding the condition into a plain Assert. Then it's
obvious that no code is added in a non-assert build.
Michael Paquier writes:
> Thanks to all who participated in the patch review, authoring, and
> everybody else who helped in making the different patches move forward.
Thanks for being CFM! I know it's a lot of work ...
regards, tom lane
Hi,
Based on the current status of the open items and where we are at in the
release cycle, the date for the first release candidate of PostgreSQL 11
will be 2018-10-11.
If all goes well with RC1, the PostgreSQL 11.0 GA release will be
2018-10-18. This is subject to change if we find any issues
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 26/09/2018 23:19, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> It’s not clear to me just how common it is to use GCC via homebrew on macOS.
> I use that all the time.
Hm, so did 5e2217131 break anything for you? Does that version of gcc
claim to know -F or -framework switches?
On 28/09/2018 07:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +static bool cloning_ok = true;
> +
> +pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "copying \"%s\" to \"%s\"\n",
> + old_file, new_file);
> +if (cloning_ok &&
> +!cloneFile(old_file, new_file, map->nspname, map->relname, true))
> +{
> +
> On 2 Oct 2018, at 14:23, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2018 23:30, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> ssl_min_protocol_version = 'TLSv1'
>>> ssl_max_protocol_version = ‘any'
>>
>> I don’t think ‘any’ is a clear name for a setting which means “the highest
>> supported version”. How
On 01/10/2018 23:30, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>ssl_min_protocol_version = 'TLSv1'
>>ssl_max_protocol_version = ‘any'
>
> I don’t think ‘any’ is a clear name for a setting which means “the highest
> supported version”. How about ‘max_supported’ or something similar?
I can see the
On 10/02/2018 08:00 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Bossart, Nathan 2018-10-01 <69fd7e51-2b13-41fd-9438-17395c73f...@amazon.com>
1. Do we really need two functions, one without input argument
to list the default tablespace?
I think that anybody who uses with such
On 26/09/2018 23:19, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> It’s not clear to me just how common it is to use GCC via homebrew on macOS.
I use that all the time.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
(2018/09/21 20:03), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/09/18 21:14), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
At Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:01:39 +0900, Etsuro
Fujita wrote
in<5b9bb133.1060...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
I wrote a patch using
the Param-based approach, and compared the two approaches.
I don't think
there would be any
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Bossart, Nathan 2018-10-01
> <69fd7e51-2b13-41fd-9438-17395c73f...@amazon.com>
> > > 1. Do we really need two functions, one without input argument
> > > to list the default tablespace?
> > > I think that anybody who uses with such a function whould
> > >
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Having said that, I'm fine with having it return NULL if the given
> >> attname matches an attisdropped column.
>
> > Ok, that's really all I was asking about.
>
> Ah, we
Re: Bossart, Nathan 2018-10-01 <69fd7e51-2b13-41fd-9438-17395c73f...@amazon.com>
> > 1. Do we really need two functions, one without input argument
> >to list the default tablespace?
> >I think that anybody who uses with such a function whould
> >be able to feed the OID of
Hi,
Here is an updated patch which adds some simple syntax for adding the
optimization barrier. For example:
WITH x AS MATERIALIZED (
SELECT 1
)
SELECT * FROM x;
Andreas
diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/expected/postgres_fdw.out b/contrib/postgres_fdw/expected/postgres_fdw.out
index
Hi,
I looked at the patch. Some comments.
On 2018/10/02 16:35, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wasn't quite happy yet with that patch.
>
> - ConvertTupleSlot seems like a too generic name, it's very unclear it's
> related to tuple mapping, rather than something internal to slots. I
> went for
On 28/09/2018 09:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the
>> transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also
>> mean that the transaction timestamp as observed in pg_stat_activity
>> would move during VACUUM, for
On 2018/10/02 16:40, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> For executing them we have:
>>> - do_convert_tuple
>>> - ConvertPartitionTupleSlot
>>>
>>> which is two randomly differing spellings of related functionality,
>>> without the name indicating that they, for reasons, don't both use
>>>
(2018/10/02 16:45), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:11:54PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
I tried to close it as being committed, but couldn't do so, because I
can't find Fujita-san's name in the list of committers in the CF app's
drop down box that lists all committers.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:11:54PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> I tried to close it as being committed, but couldn't do so, because I
> can't find Fujita-san's name in the list of committers in the CF app's
> drop down box that lists all committers.
Indeed, Fujita-san has been added to the list.
It seems the pach tester is confused by the addition of the
demonstration diff file. I'm reattaching just the patchset to see if
it turns green.
-John Naylor
From 107e3c8a0b65b0196ea4370a724c8b2a1b0fdf79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Naylor
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 12:51:41 +0700
Subject:
Hi,
On 2018-10-02 16:18:19 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that some clean up might be in order, but want to clarify a few
> points.
>
> On 2018/10/02 15:11, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The naming around partition related tuple conversions is imo worthy of
> >
Hi,
On 2018-09-28 15:36:00 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 03:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi Amit,
> >
> > Could you rebase this patch, it doesn't apply anymore.
>
> Thanks for informing. Attached are both mine and Amit Langote's patch
> rebased and attached ...
I
Hi,
I agree that some clean up might be in order, but want to clarify a few
points.
On 2018/10/02 15:11, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The naming around partition related tuple conversions is imo worthy of
> improvement.
Note that tuple conversion functionality in tupconvert.c has existed
On 2018/08/31 21:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/08/31 21:30), Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> Thank you for taking care of that and for committing the patch. I have
>> now closed this issues on the open items list.
>
> Thanks!
I noticed that the CF entry for this was not closed. As of this
The previous patch doesn't work...
At Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:00:49 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20180927.220049.168546206.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> - 0001 to 0006 is rebased version of v4.
> - 0007 adds conditional locking to dshash
>
> - 0008 is the no-UDP
On 10/2/18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> v4 does not apply anymore. I am moving this patch to next commit fest,
> waiting on author.
v5 attached.
-John Naylor
From ea0a180bde325b0383ce7f0b3d48d1ce9e941393 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Naylor
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:52:07 +0700
Subject:
Hello.
> Okay, it has been more than a couple of days and the patch has not been
> updated, so I am marking as returned with feedback.
Yes, it is more than couple of days passed, but also there is almost no
feedback since 20 Mar after patch design was changed :)
But seriously - I still working
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:18:01PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'm not sure both styles would be appropriate style in the postgres
> code so I would rather add elog(ERROR) instead. Thought?
My brain is rather fried for the rest of the day... But we could just
be looking at using
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:50:23PM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We are already in September, hence it is time to move on with the 2nd
> commit fest for v12. As usual, there are many patches waiting for
> review and integration:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/19/
> With a couple of days of
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:06:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The ideal scope would be to track all referenced collation versions on
> every index, and only update them at CREATE INDEX or REINDEX time
> (also, as discussed in some other thread, CHECK constraints and
> partition keys might be
Bonjour Michaël,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I re-attached the v19 for a check on the list.
You are marked as the committer of this patch in the CF app since last
April and this patch is marked as ready for committer. Are you planning
to look at it soon?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:03:17AM -0300, Matheus de Oliveira wrote:
> You are correct. I have made a test that tries all combinations of ALTER
> CONSTRAINT ON UPDATE/DELETE ACTION, but it caused a really huge output. I
> have changed that to a simple DO block, and still trying all possibilities
>
Hi,
The naming around partition related tuple conversions is imo worthy of
improvement.
For building tuple conversion maps we have:
- convert_tuples_by_name
- convert_tuples_by_name_map
- convert_tuples_by_position
- ExecSetupChildParentMapForLeaf
- TupConvMapForLeaf
- free_conversion_map
I've
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 05:52:24PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I attached the updated version patch as the previous versions conflict
> with the current HEAD.
Please note that the latest patch set does not apply anymore, so this
patch is moved to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
82 matches
Mail list logo
