вс, 1 мар. 2020 г. в 22:26, Tom Lane :
>
> Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> > [ autoprepare-extended-4.patch ]
>
> The cfbot is showing that this doesn't apply anymore; there's
> some doubtless-trivial conflict in prepare.c.
>
> However ... TBH I've been skeptical of this whole proposal from the
> be
> On 1 Mar 2020, at 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, I really think we ought to reject this patch and move on.
> Maybe it could be resurrected sometime in the future when we have a
> better handle on when to cache plans and when not.
>
> If you want to press forward with it anyway, certainly t
Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> [ autoprepare-extended-4.patch ]
The cfbot is showing that this doesn't apply anymore; there's
some doubtless-trivial conflict in prepare.c.
However ... TBH I've been skeptical of this whole proposal from the
beginning, on the grounds that it would probably hurt mor
On 01.12.2019 6:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:23:38AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Sorry,
New version of the patch with corrected expected output for rules test is
attached.
It looks like the documentation is failing to build. Could you fix
that? There may be ot
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:23:38AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Sorry,
> New version of the patch with corrected expected output for rules test is
> attached.
It looks like the documentation is failing to build. Could you fix
that? There may be other issues as well. I have moved the patc
On 25.09.2019 23:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This patch fails the "rules" tests. Please fix.
Sorry,
New version of the patch with corrected expected output for rules test
is attached.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff
This patch fails the "rules" tests. Please fix.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 01.08.2019 19:56, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 31.07.2019 19:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/07/2019 23:59, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Fixed patch version of the path is attached.
Much of the patch and the discussion has been around the raw parsing,
and guessing which literals ar
Am 02.08.2019 um 10:57 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
On 02.08.2019 11:25, Daniel Migowski wrote:
I have two suggestions however:
1. Please allow to gather information about the autoprepared
statements by returning them in pg_prepared_statements view. I would
love to monitor usage of them as w
On 02.08.2019 11:25, Daniel Migowski wrote:
Am 01.08.2019 um 18:56 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
I decided to implement your proposal. Much simple version of
autoprepare patch is attached.
At my computer I got the following results:
pgbench -M simple -S 22495 TPS
pgbench -M extende
Am 01.08.2019 um 18:56 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
I decided to implement your proposal. Much simple version of
autoprepare patch is attached.
At my computer I got the following results:
pgbench -M simple -S 22495 TPS
pgbench -M extended -S 47633 TPS
pgbench -M prepared -S 476
On 31.07.2019 19:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/07/2019 23:59, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Fixed patch version of the path is attached.
Much of the patch and the discussion has been around the raw parsing,
and guessing which literals are actually parameters that have been
inlined into
On 31.07.2019 19:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/07/2019 23:59, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Fixed patch version of the path is attached.
Much of the patch and the discussion has been around the raw parsing,
and guessing which literals are actually parameters that have been
inlined into
On 09/07/2019 23:59, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Fixed patch version of the path is attached.
Much of the patch and the discussion has been around the raw parsing,
and guessing which literals are actually parameters that have been
inlined into the SQL text. Do we really need to do that, though
On 09.07.2019 15:16, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:32 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
Sorry, are you tests autoprepare-16.patch I have sent in the last e-mail?
I can not reproduce the problem with building documentation:
+ autoprepare_threshold (integer/type>)
The problem
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:32 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Sorry, are you tests autoprepare-16.patch I have sent in the last e-mail?
> I can not reproduce the problem with building documentation:
+ autoprepare_threshold (integer/type>)
The problem is that "integer/type>". (Missing "<").
On 08.07.2019 2:23, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:29 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
Attached please find rebased version of the patch.
Also this version can be found in autoprepare branch of this repository
https://github.com/postgrespro/postgresql.builtin_pool.git
on github.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:29 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Attached please find rebased version of the patch.
> Also this version can be found in autoprepare branch of this repository
> https://github.com/postgrespro/postgresql.builtin_pool.git
> on github.
Thanks. I haven't looked at the code
On 01.07.2019 12:51, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
New version of the patching disabling autoprepare for rules and handling
planner error.
Hi Konstantin,
This doesn't apply. Could we please have a fresh rebase for the new Commitfest?
Thanks
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> New version of the patching disabling autoprepare for rules and handling
> planner error.
Hi Konstantin,
This doesn't apply. Could we please have a fresh rebase for the new Commitfest?
Thanks,
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.c
New version of the patching disabling autoprepare for rules and handling
planner error.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/autoprepare.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/autoprepare.sgml
new file mode 100644
index 00
New version of the patch with fixed error of autopreparing CTE queries.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/autoprepare.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/autoprepare.sgml
new file mode 100644
index 000..b3309bd
---
Thank you very much for the review!
On 19.03.2019 5:56, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:46 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Rebased version of the patch is attached.
I'm sorry for the late review.
I confirmed behavior of autoprepare-12.patch. It is summarized below.
・parameter
Exp
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:46 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Rebased version of the patch is attached.
I'm sorry for the late review.
I confirmed behavior of autoprepare-12.patch. It is summarized below.
・parameter
Expected behavior was shown according to the set value.
However, I think that i
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:46 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Rebased version of the patch is attached.
Thank you for your quick rebase.
> This files are just output of test execution and it is not possible to expect
> lack of
> trailing spaces in output of test scripts execution.
I underst
On 29.01.2019 4:38, Nagaura, Ryohei wrote:
Hi,
Although I became your reviewer, it seems to be difficult to feedback in this
CF.
I continue to review, so would you update your patch please?
Until then I review your current patch.
There is one question.
date_1.out which maybe is copy of date.
Hi,
Although I became your reviewer, it seems to be difficult to feedback in this
CF.
I continue to review, so would you update your patch please?
Until then I review your current patch.
There is one question.
date_1.out which maybe is copy of date.out includes trailing space and gaps of
indent
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:06 AM Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing. Since another CF is about to end, maybe you can
> > post the full review feedback?
>
> Since I had been busy with my private work, I couldn't revie
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reviewing. Since another CF is about to end, maybe you can
> post the full review feedback?
Since I had been busy with my private work, I couldn't review.
I want to review next commit fest. I am sorry I postponed many tim
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:46 AM Yamaji, Ryo
> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 0:36 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
> > I have registered the patch for next commitfest.
> > For some reasons it doesn't find the latest autoprepare-10.patch and still
> > refer to autoprepare-6.patch as t
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 0:36 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> I have registered the patch for next commitfest.
> For some reasons it doesn't find the latest autoprepare-10.patch and still
> refer to autoprepare-6.patch as the latest attachement.
I'm sorry for the late reply. I'm currently r
On 22.08.2018 07:54, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 0:36 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
I have registered the patch for next commitfest.
For some reasons it doesn't find the latest autoprepare-10.patch and still
refer to autoprepare-6.patch as the latest attachement.
I am s
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 0:36 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> I have registered the patch for next commitfest.
> For some reasons it doesn't find the latest autoprepare-10.patch and still
> refer to autoprepare-6.patch as the latest attachement.
I am sorry for the long delay in my response
On 07.08.2018 13:02, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
I want to confirm one point.
If I will have reviewed the autoprepare patch, then are you ready to register
the patch at commit fest in the near future? I fear that autoprepare patch do
not registered at commit fest in the future (for example, you are so
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 7:02 AM
> To: Yamaji, Ryo/山地 亮
> Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
>
> Th
On 02.08.2018 08:25, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 4:53 PM
To: Yamaji, Ryo/山地 亮
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
I failed
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 4:53 PM
> To: Yamaji, Ryo/山地 亮
> Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
>
> I failed
On 31.07.2018 12:12, Yamaji, Ryo wrote:
3. I confirmed the transition of the amount of the memory when it tried to
prepare query
of the number that exceeded the value specified for autoprepare_limit.
[autoprepare_limit=1 and execute 10 different queries]
plan cache context: 1032 used
; PostgreSQL mailing
lists ; Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Thank you very much for reporting the problem.
Rebased version of the patch is attached.
Hi Konstantin.
I think that this patch excel very much. Because the customer of our
company has
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Thank you very much for reporting the problem.
Rebased version of the patch is attached.
Hi Konstantin.
I think that this patch excel very much. Because the customer of our
company has the demand that migrates from other DB to PostgreSQL
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Knizhnik [mailto:k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:53 PM
> To: Thomas Munro ; Stephen Frost
>
> Cc: Michael Paquier ; PostgreSQL mailing
> lists ; Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之
>
> Subject: Re:
On 3/2/18 9:26 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost
>>> wrote:
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> Updated version of the patch i
Hi Konstantin,
On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
>
> On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost
>> wrote:
>>> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
Updated version of the patch is attached.
>>> This patch app
On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
Updated version of the patch is attached.
This patch appears to apply with just a bit of fuzz and make check
passes, so I'm not sure why th
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
>> Updated version of the patch is attached.
>
> This patch appears to apply with just a bit of fuzz and make check
> passes, so I'm not sure why this is currently marked as 'Waiting fo
Greetings,
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> On 30.11.2017 04:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> > wrote:
> >>One more patch passing all regression tests with autoprepare_threshold=1.
> >>I still do not think that it should
On 30.11.2017 04:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
One more patch passing all regression tests with autoprepare_threshold=1.
I still do not think that it should be switch on by default...
This patch does not apply, and did not get any revi
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
>> This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving it
>> to next CF with waiting on author as status. Please provide a rebased
>> version.
>> Tsunakawa-sa
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com]
> This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving it
> to next CF with waiting on author as status. Please provide a rebased version.
> Tsunakawa-san, you are listed as a reviewer of this patch. If you are not
> plannin
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> One more patch passing all regression tests with autoprepare_threshold=1.
> I still do not think that it should be switch on by default...
This patch does not apply, and did not get any reviews. So I am moving
it to next CF with waitin
50 matches
Mail list logo
