On 08/01/2018 03:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Committed to master and v11. Thanks for the review.
Thanks!
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> New version attached.
>
> Looks good to me.
Committed to master and v11. Thanks for the review.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Comp
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> New version attached.
Looks good to me.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch]
>
> +plans just as they can in any other plan. However, in a parallel plan,
> +it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a
> +
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch]
+plans just as they can in any other plan. However, in a parallel plan,
+it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a
+Parallel Append node.
Maybe drop "it is also possible that
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> +scanning them more than once would preduce duplicate results. Plans that
>
> s/preduce/produce/
Fixed, thanks.
> +Append or MergeAppend plan node.
> vs.
> +Append of regular Index Scan plans; each
>
> I think we should standardi
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I
>> think it needs to be in a new as the same level as those
>> others. It's a different kind of thing.
>
> I'm a littl
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I
> think it needs to be in a new as the same level as those
> others. It's a different kind of thing.
I'm a little skeptical about that idea because I'm not sure it's
really i
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Adrien Nayrat
> wrote:
>> I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation :
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html
>
> I agree it might be nice to mention this
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Adrien Nayrat
wrote:
> I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation :
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html
I agree it might be nice to mention this somewhere on this page, but
I'm not exactly sure where it wo
Hello,
I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation :
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html
If you agree I can add it to Open Items.
Thanks,
--
Adrien NAYRAT
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 6 December 2017 at 04:01, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:02 AM, amul sul wrote:
>> Here are the changes I did on v21 patch to handle crash reported by
>> Rajkumar[1]:
>>
>> diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> index e3b17cf0e
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:02 AM, amul sul wrote:
> Here are the changes I did on v21 patch to handle crash reported by
> Rajkumar[1]:
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
> b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
> index e3b17cf0e2..e0ee918808 100644
> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeApp
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Apart from this I have added few assert to keep eye on node->as_whichplan
> value in the attached patch, thanks.
This is still hot, moved to next CF.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Thanks a lot Rajkumar for this test. I am able to reproduce this crash by
> enabling partition wise join.
>
> The reason for this crash is the same as
> the
> previous[1] i.e node->as_whichplan
> value. This time append->first_partial_plan valu
Thanks a lot Rajkumar for this test. I am able to reproduce this crash by
enabling partition wise join.
The reason for this crash is the same as
the
previous[1] i.e node->as_whichplan
value. This time append->first_partial_plan value looks suspicious. With
the
following change to the v21 patc
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Look like it is the same crash what v20 claim to be fixed, indeed I
> missed to add fix[1] in v20 patch, sorry about that. Attached updated
> patch includes aforementioned fix.
Hi,
I have applied latest v21 patch, it got crashed when enabled
par
Look like it is the same crash what v20 claim to be fixed, indeed I
missed to add fix[1] in v20 patch, sorry about that. Attached updated
patch includes aforementioned fix.
1]
http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b97kLNW8Z9nvc_JUUG5wVQUXvG=f37WsX8ALF0A=kah...@mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Amul
On Thu, Nov 23, 2
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:45 AM, amul sul wrote:
> Attaching updated version of "ParallelAppend_v19_rebased" includes this
> fix.
>
Hi,
I have applied attached patch and got a crash with below query. please take
a look.
CREATE TABLE tbl (a int, b int, c text, d int) PARTITION BY LIST(c);
CREAT
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul wrote:
>> By doing following change on the v19 patch does the fix for me:
>>
>> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> @@ -489,11 +489,9 @@ choose_next_su
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul wrote:
> By doing following change on the v19 patch does the fix for me:
>
> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
> +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
> @@ -489,11 +489,9 @@ choose_next_subplan_for_worker(AppendState *node)
> }
>
> /* Pick
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 21 November 2017 at 12:44, Rafia Sabih
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot Robert for the patch. I will have a look. Quickly tried
>>> to test some aggregate queries with a partition
On 21 November 2017 at 12:44, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
>> Thanks a lot Robert for the patch. I will have a look. Quickly tried
>> to test some aggregate queries with a partitioned pgbench_accounts
>> table, and it is crashing. Will get back w
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Thanks a lot Robert for the patch. I will have a look. Quickly tried
> to test some aggregate queries with a partitioned pgbench_accounts
> table, and it is crashing. Will get back with the fix, and any other
> review comments.
>
> Thanks
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
