Re: New committers: Melanie Plageman, Richard Guo

On 4/26/24 07:54, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Melanie Plageman and Richard Guo, who have accepted invitations to become our newest PostgreSQL committers. Please join us in wishing them much success and few reverts! Congrats ! Best

Re: PostgreSQL 17 Release Management Team & Feature Freeze

Hi, On 4/8/24 14:15, Tomas Vondra wrote: I think we need to fix & improve that - not to rework/push it at the very end. This is going to be very extreme... Either a patch is ready for merge or it isn't - when 2 or more Committers agree on it then it can be merged - the policy have to be

Re: 2023-11-09 release announcement draft

Hi, On 11/6/23 17:04, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Attached is the release announcement draft for the 2023-11-09 release (16.1 et al.). Please review for accuracy and notable omissions. Please have all feedback in by 2023-11-09 08:00 UTC at the latest (albeit the sooner the better).

Re: Commitfest manager for September

Hi Melanie, On 8/28/23 11:42, Melanie Plageman wrote: I too had planned to volunteer to help. I volunteer to do a triage/summary of patch statuses, as has been done occasionally in the past [1]. Have folks found this helpful in the past? Having a summary to begin with is very helpful for

Re: New committers: Nathan Bossart, Amit Langote, Masahiko Sawada

On 4/20/23 13:40, Tom Lane wrote: The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Nathan Bossart, Amit Langote, and Masahiko Sawada, who have accepted invitations to become our newest Postgres committers. Please join me in wishing them much success and few reverts. Huge congrats !

Re: GSOC2023

Hi, On 12/28/22 21:10, diaa wrote: *Hi Sir.* I’m Computer engineering student from Egypt Interested in Database Management Systems. Can I know details about the list of ideas for 2023 projects or how to prepare myself to be ready with the required knowledge? Thanks for your interest in GSoC

Re: GSoC: pgagroal: SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS support (2022)

Hi, On 4/18/22 04:16, wanghaitao0...@zju.edu.cn wrote: I'm Haitao Wang, interested in participating in GSOC 2022 PostgreSQL projects. Attached is my proposal. Please check! Thanks for your proposal to Google Summer of Code 2022 ! We'll follow up off-list to get this finalized. Best

Re: GsoC: pgexporter: Custom file

Hi, On 4/17/22 04:43, dl x wrote: My name is Donglin Xie, a MSc. student at Zhejiang University, in China. I am interested in the project *pgexporter: Custom_file.* The proposal is attached to this email. Looking forward to the suggestions! Thanks for your proposal to Google Summer of

Re: GSoC: pgmoneta: Write-Ahead Log (WAL) infrastructure (2022)

Hi, On 4/16/22 13:06, dl x wrote: My name is Donglin Xie, a MSc. student at Zhejiang University, in China. I am interested in the project *pgmoneta: Write-Ahead Log (WAL) infrastructure.* The proposal is attached to this email. Looking forward to the suggestions! Thanks for your proposal

Re: GSoC 2022: Proposal of pgmoneta on-disk encryption

Hi Jichen, On 4/13/22 10:40, Solo Kyo wrote: To whom it may concern: Hi, I am Jichen Xu. I am a first year master computer science student at Waseda University. Here is a link to my proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vdgPY5wvhjhrX9aSUw5mTDOnXwEQNcr4cxfzuSHMWlg Looking forward to

Re: GSoC: pgmoneta, storage API

Hi Mariam, On 4/4/22 09:16, Mariam Fahmy wrote: Hope you’re having a good day! I am Mariam Fahmy, A senior computer and systems engineering student at faculty of engineering, AinShams university. I am interested in working with pgmoneta during GSoC 2022. Here is a link to the draft proposal

Re: GSoC: pgmoneta: Write-Ahead Log (WAL) infrastructure (2022)

Hi Jinlang, On 4/1/22 12:39, Jinlang Wang wrote: To whom it may concern: Here is my proposal (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KKKDU6iP0GOkAMSdGRyxFJRgW964JFVROnpKkbzWyNw/edit?usp=sharing )

Re: Index Skip Scan (new UniqueKeys)

On 6/9/20 06:22, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: Here is a new version of index skip scan patch, based on v8 patch for UniqueKeys implementation from [1]. I want to start a new thread to simplify navigation, hopefully I didn't forget anyone who actively participated in the discussion. This CommitFest

Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch

On 3/23/22 18:22, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: The CF item could be set to RwF, what would you say, Jesper? We want to thank the community for the feedback that we have received over the years for this feature. Hopefully a future implementation can use Tom's suggestions to get closer to a

Re: Portability report: ninja

Hi, On 11/1/21 15:25, Tom Lane wrote: So it's pretty clear that if we go this way, it'll be the end of the line for support for some very old OS versions. I can't, however, argue with the idea that it's reasonable to require POSIX 2001 support now. Based on these results, I doubt that ninja

Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch

Hi Peter, On 10/21/21 22:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote: I returned to the 1995 paper "Efficient Search of Multidimensional B-Trees" [1] as part of the process of reviewing v39 of the skip scan patch, which was posted back in May. It's a great paper, and anybody involved in the skip scan effort

Re: Triage on old commitfest entries

On 10/3/21 16:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Index Skip Scan 16 Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress. This feature is definitely useful. My pet theory is that it hasn't made more progress because it

Re: Triage on old commitfest entries

Hi, On 10/3/21 16:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Index Skip Scan 16 Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress. This feature is definitely useful. My pet theory is that it hasn't made more progress because it

Increase log level in xlogreader.c ?

Hi, I have a 13.4 based setup (physical streaming replication) where the replica does the attach log upon startup, and when the first message is sent from the primary. There is the FATAL from when the WAL receiver shuts down, but I think it would be a benefit to have report_invalid_record()

Re: Middleware Messages for FE/BE

Hi Simon, On 8/20/21 10:39 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: Yeah, but it is a change to the protocol which means that the client drivers and middleware ecosystem needs to be updated to support that message. No, because FE messages don't need to be handled by the client, they just send them. Yes, but

Re: Middleware Messages for FE/BE

Hi Hannu, On 8/19/21 3:52 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: Jesper, please don't confuse my ramblings with Simon's initial proposal. As I understand, the original proposal was just about adding a new wire protocol message type, which then could be used for emitting custom messages by middleware support

Re: Middleware Messages for FE/BE

Hi, On 8/19/21 1:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: We need to be able to send the middleware a message. Replies can be sent as NoticeResponse, if needed, which already exists. Yeah, but you need the client driver - of all languages - to understand that notice. And, if different middleware uses

Re: Middleware Messages for FE/BE

Hi Simon, On 8/19/21 4:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: The current FE/BE protocol assumes that the client is talking to the server directly. If middleware wants to do something like load balancing, the only current option is to inspect the incoming commands and take action from that. That approach

Re: New committers: Daniel Gustafsson and John Naylor

On 6/30/21 4:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Daniel Gustafsson and John Naylor, who have accepted invitations to become our newest Postgres committers. Please join me in wishing them much success and few bugs. regards,

Re: [GSoC] Metrics and Monitoring for pgagroal

Hi Junduo, On 4/9/21 11:53 AM, Junduo Dong wrote: I'm Junduo Dong, a 22-year-old studying at China University of Geosciences. I would like to participate in the project "pgagroal: Metrics and monitoring" on page "https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2021; for GSoC 2021. Attachment is the

Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey

Hi, On 12/5/20 10:38 PM, Andy Fan wrote: Currently the UniqueKey is defined as a List of Expr, rather than EquivalenceClasses. A complete discussion until now can be found at [1] (The messages I replied to also care a lot and the information is completed). This patch has stopped at this place

Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey

Hi, On 11/30/20 5:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 26/11/2020 16:58, Andy Fan wrote: This patch has stopped moving for a while,  any suggestion about how to move on is appreciated. The question on whether UniqueKey.exprs should be a list of EquivalenceClasses or PathKeys is unresolved. I

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi Peter, Thanks for your feedback; Dmitry has followed-up with some additional questions. On 1/20/20 8:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: This is definitely not okay. I suggest that you find a way to add assertions to code like _bt_readpage() that verify that we do in fact have the buffer

Re: Index Skip Scan

de. Thanks again ! Best regards, Jesper >From 3c540c93307e6cbe792b31b12d4ecb025cd6b327 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jesperpedersen Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:46:05 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Unique key Design by David Rowley. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- src/backend/nodes/outfuncs.c | 14 +++ src/backend/no

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 11/11/19 1:24 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: v29 using UniqueKey attached. Just a small update to the UniqueKey patch to hopefully keep CFbot happy. Feedback, especially on the planner changes, would be greatly appreciated. Best regards,  Jesper >F

Re: Index Skip Scan

>From 4e27a04702002d06f60468f8a9033d2ac2e12d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jesperpedersen Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 08:49:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Unique key Design by David Rowley. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- src/backend/nodes/outfuncs.c | 14 +++ src/backend/nodes/print

Re: Application name for pg_basebackup and friends

On 11/7/19 1:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: I don't think we need a new comand line switch for it. +1. Please note that I have marked this patch as rejected in the CF app, per the arguments upthread. Ok, agreed. Thanks for the feedback ! Best regards, Jesper

Application name for pg_basebackup and friends

Add an -a / --appname command line switch to control the application_name property. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml| 11 +++ doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml| 11 +++ doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_recvlogical.sgml | 11 +++ src/bin/pg_basebac

Re: Index Skip Scan

hor: Jesper Pedersen --- src/backend/nodes/outfuncs.c | 14 +++ src/backend/nodes/print.c | 39 +++ src/backend/optimizer/path/Makefile| 2 +- src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c | 8 ++ src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c | 5 + src/backend/optimizer/p

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi, On 7/23/19 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks. Applied down to 9.6 where remote_apply has been introduced, with tweaks for 9.6 as the tool is named pg_receivexlog there. Thanks to everybody involved ! Best regards, Jesper

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

hor: Robert Haas Review-by: Michael Paquier, Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml | 10 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml index 0506120

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

enz Albe and Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml | 21 ++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml index e96d753955..beab6f0391 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 7/22/19 1:44 AM, David Rowley wrote: Here are the comments I noted down during the review: cost_index: I know you've not finished here, but I think it'll need to adjust tuples_fetched somehow to account for estimate_num_groups() on the Path's unique keys. Any Eclass with an

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi, On 7/18/19 9:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: pg_receivewal -D /tmp/wal -S replica1 --synchronous -h localhost -p 5432 -U repluser -W psql -c 'SELECT * FROM pg_stat_replication;' postgres psql -c 'SELECT * FROM pg_replication_slots;' postgres psql -c 'CREATE DATABASE test' postgres In what

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi, On 7/18/19 9:27 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: The location of the warning is also harder to catch for the reader, so instead let's move it to the top where we have an extra description for --synchronous. I am finishing with the attached that I would be fine to commit and back-patch as needed.

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

n't apply WAL, and as such synchronous-commit needs to be remote_write or lower. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authors: Michael Paquier, Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen Review-by: Michael Paquier, Álvaro Herrera,

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi Laurenz, On 7/17/19 5:21 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote: That's factually wrong. "on" (wait for WAL flush) works fine with pg_receivewal, only "remote_apply" doesn't. Please, try mkdir /tmp/wal initdb /tmp/pgsql pg_ctl -D /tmp/pgsql -l /tmp/logfile start psql postgres SELECT

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

g: 8bit Authors: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen Review-by: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml | 13 + 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

CH] Highlight that pg_receivewal doesn't apply WAL, and as such synchronous-commit needs to be remote_write or lower. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authors: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen Review-by: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Al

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi David, On 7/11/19 7:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: The UniqueKeys idea is quite separate from pathkeys. Currently, a Path can have a List of PathKeys which define the order that the tuples will be read from the Plan node that's created from that Path. The idea with UniqueKeys is that a Path can

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi David, On 7/11/19 7:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: The UniqueKeys idea is quite separate from pathkeys. Currently, a Path can have a List of PathKeys which define the order that the tuples will be read from the Plan node that's created from that Path. The idea with UniqueKeys is that a Path can

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

ite or lower. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authors: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen Review-by: Álvaro Herrera, Laurenz Albe and Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml | 8 1 file changed

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 7/9/19 10:14 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: Thomas, do you have any ideas for this ? I can see that MySQL did the functionality in two change sets (base and function support), but like you said we shouldn't paint ourselves into a corner. I think amskip() could be augmented by later patches to

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi, On 7/10/19 4:04 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:22:02AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: Works for me. Marked as "ready for committer". Hmm. synchronous_commit is user-settable, which means that it is possible to enforce a value in the connection string doing the

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi, On 7/9/19 6:22 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote: Works for me. Marked as "ready for committer". Thank you ! Best regards, Jesper

Re: pg_receivewal documentation

Hi Laurenz, On 7/9/19 5:16 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote: On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 10:06 -0400, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Here is a patch for the pg_receivewal documentation to highlight that WAL isn't acknowledged to be applied. I think it is a good idea to document this, but I have a few quibbles

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 7/4/19 6:59 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: For the MIN query you just need a path with Pathkeys: { i ASC, j ASC }, UniqueKeys: { i, j }, doing the MAX query you just need j DESC. David, are you thinking about something like the attached ? Some questions. * Do you see UniqueKey as a

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi Thomas and David, Thanks for the feedback ! On 7/2/19 8:27 AM, David Rowley wrote: On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 21:00, Thomas Munro wrote: I took this for a quick spin today. The DISTINCT ON support is nice and I think it will be very useful. I've signed up to review it and will have more to

Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays

Hi, On 7/1/19 2:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Yup, here's a rebase against HEAD (and I also find that check-world shows no problems). Thanks - no further comments. This is pretty much of a pain to maintain, since it changes the API for lnext() which is, um, a bit invasive. I'd like to make a

Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays

Hi, On 5/25/19 11:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: The cfbot noticed a set-but-not-used variable that my compiler hadn't whined about. Here's a v5 to pacify it. No other changes. This needs a rebase. After that check-world passes w/ and w/o -DDEBUG_LIST_MEMORY_USAGE. There is some unneeded

pg_receivewal documentation

:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that pg_receivewal doesn't acknowledge that WAL has been applied, and as such synchronous-commit needs to be remote_write or lower. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_receivewal.sgml | 8 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/

Re: Index Skip Scan

ved by Dmitry Dolgov and Jesper Pedersen. [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscan [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CADLWmXXbTSBxP-MzJuPAYSsL_2f0iPm5VWPbCvDbVvfX93FKkw%40mail.gmail.com --- contrib/bloom/blutils.c | 1 + doc/src/sgml/config.s

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi David, On 6/14/19 3:19 AM, David Rowley wrote: I read over this thread a few weeks ago while travelling back from PGCon. (I wish I'd read it on the outward trip instead since it would have been good to talk about it in person.) First off. I think this is a pretty great feature. It certainly

Re: Index Skip Scan

ved by Dmitry Dolgov and Jesper Pedersen. [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscan [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CADLWmXXbTSBxP-MzJuPAYSsL_2f0iPm5VWPbCvDbVvfX93FKkw%40mail.gmail.com --- contrib/bloom/blutils.c | 1 + doc/src/sgml/config.s

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi Rafia, On 6/1/19 6:03 AM, Rafia Sabih wrote: Here is my repeatable test case, create table t (market text, feedcode text, updated_at timestamptz, value float8) ; create index on t (market, feedcode, updated_at desc); insert into t values('TEST', 'abcdef', (select timestamp '2019-01-10

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi Floris, On 6/1/19 12:10 AM, Floris Van Nee wrote: Given a table definition of (market text, feedcode text, updated_at timestamptz, value float8) and an index on (market, feedcode, updated_at desc) (note that this table slightly deviates from what I described in my previous mail) and

Re: New committer: David Rowley

On 5/30/19 11:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Congratulations to David, may the buildfarm be gentle to him, and his first revert far away! Congrats ! Best regards, Jesper

Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE

Hi Amit, On 4/8/19 11:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: As of this commit, hashing functions hashtext() and hashtextextended() require a valid collation to be passed in. ISTM, satisfies_hash_partition() that's called by hash partition constraint checking should have been changed to use

COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE

Hi, The following case -- test.sql -- CREATE TABLE test (a text PRIMARY KEY, b text) PARTITION BY HASH (a); CREATE TABLE test_p0 PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES WITH (MODULUS 2, REMAINDER 0); CREATE TABLE test_p1 PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES WITH (MODULUS 2, REMAINDER 1); -- CREATE INDEX

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

On 4/3/19 1:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Pushed, many thanks Amit and Jesper for reviewing. Thank you for working on this feature. Best regards, Jesper

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 4/1/19 4:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I'm satisfied with this patch now, so I intend to push early tomorrow. Passes check-world, and my tests. Best regards, Jesper

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 3/29/19 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Mar-29, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Maybe the "(" / ")" in the CASCADE description should be removed from ref/drop_table.sgml as part of this patch. I'm not sure what text you propose to remove? Just the attached.

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 3/29/19 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Mar-29, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Could expand a bit on the change to DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL instead of DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_PRI / DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_SEC ? The PARTITION dependencies work in a way that doesn't do what we want. Admittedly

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 3/28/19 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I ended up revising the dependencies that we give to the constraint in the partition -- instead of giving it partition-type dependencies, we give it an INTERNAL dependency. Now when you request to drop the partition, it says this: create

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 3/26/19 5:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: As I said before, I'm thinking of getting rid of the whole business of checking partitions on the referenced side of an FK at DROP time, and instead jut forbid the DROP completely if any FKs reference an ancestor of that partition. Will that allow

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Amit, On 3/26/19 2:06 AM, Amit Langote wrote: Wouldn't you get the same numbers on HEAD too? IOW, I'm not sure how the patch here, which seems mostly about getting DDL in order to support foreign keys on partitioned tables, would have affected the result of this benchmark. Can you clarify

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 3/21/19 6:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Mar-21, Jesper Pedersen wrote: pgbench -M prepared -f select.sql I'm seeing 82.64% spent in GetCachedPlan(). plan_cache_mode is auto. Hmm, I can't reproduce this at all ... I don't even see GetCachedPlan in the profile. Do

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 3/21/19 4:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think the attached is a better solution, which I'll go push shortly. I see you pushed this, plus 0002 as well. Thanks ! Best regards, Jesper

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit, On 3/22/19 3:39 AM, Amit Langote wrote: I took a stab at this. I think rearranging the code in make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo() slightly will take care of this. The problem is that make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo() does some work which involves allocating arrays containing nparts

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 3/18/19 6:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I spent a few hours studying this and my conclusion is the opposite of yours: we should make addFkRecurseReferencing the recursive one, and CloneFkReferencing a non-recursive caller of that. So we end up with both addFkRecurseReferenced and

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit, On 3/19/19 8:41 PM, Amit Langote wrote: I have fixed all. Attached updated patches. The comments in the thread has been addressed, so I have put the CF entry into Ready for Committer. Best regards, Jesper

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi, On 3/19/19 11:15 PM, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: Here the details. [creating partitioned tables (with 1024 partitions)] drop table if exists rt; create table rt (a int, b int, c int) partition by range (a); \o /dev/null select 'create table rt' || x::text || ' partition of rt for values from ('

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

75c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jesperpedersen Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:02:27 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the --jobs option isn't passed down to vacuumdb. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Author: Jesper Pedersen and Kirk Jami

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit, On 3/12/19 4:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote: I wrestled with this idea a bit and concluded that we don't have to postpone *all* of preprocess_targetlist() processing to query_planner, only the part that adds row mark "junk" Vars, because only those matter for the problem being solved. To

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi, On 3/5/19 5:24 AM, Amit Langote wrote: Attached an updated version. Need a rebase due to 898e5e3290. Best regards, Jesper

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

On 3/5/19 5:24 AM, Amit Langote wrote: Attached an updated version. This incorporates fixes for both Jesper's and Imai-san's review. I haven't been able to pin down the bug (or whatever) that makes throughput go down as the partition count increases, when tested with a --enable-cassert build.

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit, Passes check-world. On 3/4/19 5:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote: See patch 0001. +* members of any appendrels we find here are added built later when s/built// See patch 0002. + grouping_planner(root, false, 0.0 /* retrieve all tuples */); Move comment out of

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi Alvaro, On 2/28/19 1:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Rebased to current master. I'll reply later to handle the other issues you point out. Applying with hunks. With 0003 using export CFLAGS="-DCOPY_PARSE_PLAN_TREES -O0 -fno-omit-frame-pointer" && CC="ccache gcc" ./configure --prefix

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 1/31/19 1:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:19:05 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote in A bit of adjustment after nodes/relation -> nodes/pathnodes. I had a look on this. The name "index skip scan" is a different feature from the feature with

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

1bb242 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jesperpedersen Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the --jobs option isn't passed down to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 6 +- src/bin/pg_up

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

Hi, On 1/30/19 7:59 PM, Jamison, Kirk wrote: I added most of the documentation back, as requested by Kirk. Actually, I find it useful to be documented. However, major contributors have higher opinions in terms of experience, so I think it's alright with me not to include the doc part if

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

n't passed down to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 6 +- src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c | 28 ++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

own to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c | 28 ++-- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c index fc5aa7010f..847e604088 100644 --- a/src/bin/pg_upgr

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the --jobs option isn't passed down to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 6 +- src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c | 28 ++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

80b1b6043d3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jesperpedersen Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the -j option isn't passed down to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 6 +- src/bin/pg_up

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

Hi Kirk, On 1/24/19 9:31 PM, Jamison, Kirk wrote: According to CF app, this patch needs review so I took a look at it. Currently, your patch applies and builds cleanly, and all tests are also successful based from the CF bot patch tester. I'm not sure if I have understood the argument raised

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi, On 1/21/19 4:01 AM, Amit Langote wrote: Rebased again due to 8d8dcead1295. Passes check-world on 8d8dcead1295. I ran a work load on the series, measuring the time to load the data plus the run-time to complete the work load. LoadRun master3m39s 144s 1778

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 1/7/19 1:07 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: While I'm still looking at 0004 - should we have a test that updates one of the constraints of fk to another partition in pk ? In addition: * Document pre_drop_class_check() * I think index_get_partition() would be more visible in partition.c

Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs

Hi, On 11/30/18 2:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Here's a more credible version of this patch series. The patch series applies with hunks, and passes check-world. No comments for 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0005. While I'm still looking at 0004 - should we have a test that updates one of the

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

ate: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Highlight that the -j option isn't passed down to vacuumdb by default. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 3 ++- src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c | 21 - 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deleti

Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

Hi, On 12/29/18 10:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 21/12/2018 11:12, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Here is a patch that passes the -j option from pg_upgrade down to vacuumdb if supported. It's not clear to me that that is what is usually wanted. The point of the post-upgrade analyze script

pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

21 Dec 2018 05:05:31 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Pass the -j option down to vacuumdb if supported. Author: Jesper Pedersen --- src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c | 25 ++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/chec

Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi, On 11/15/18 6:41 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: But having this logic inside _bt_next means that it will make a non-skip index only scan a bit slower, am I right? Correct. Well, it depends on how the skip scan is implemented. We don't have to make normal scans slower, because skip

Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables

Hi, On 11/12/18 6:17 PM, David Rowley wrote: On 9 November 2018 at 19:18, Amit Langote wrote: I have a comment regarding how you chose to make PartitionTupleRouting private. Using the v14_to_v15 diff, I could quickly see that there are many diffs changing PartitionTupleRouting to struct

Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit, On 11/9/18 3:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote: And here are patches structured that way. I've addressed some of the comments posted by Imai-san upthread. Also, since David's patch to postpone PlannerInfo.total_pages calculation went into the tree earlier this week, it's no longer included

  1   2   >