Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

David Rowley wrote: > On 19 January 2018 at 16:00, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > And I'd like to ask David to check out his mail environment so > > that SPF record is available for his message. > > Will investigate This should be fixed now. Please let us know

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 23 January 2018 at 23:22, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/01/23 15:44, David Rowley wrote: >> Attached is what I had in mind about how to do this. > > Thanks for the delta patch. I will start looking at it tomorrow. Thanks. I've been looking more at this and I've

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Amit , On 19 January 2018 at 04:03, David Rowley wrote: > On 18 January 2018 at 23:56, Amit Langote > wrote: >> So, I've been assuming that the planner changes in the run-time pruning >> patch have to do with selecting clauses

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 19 January 2018 at 16:00, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > And I'd like to ask David to check out his mail environment so > that SPF record is available for his message. Will investigate -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

ail now has > Subject: Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender > Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning > as its subject, whereas the mail you're replying to only had > Subject: Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Amit, It seems your mail system continually adds "[Sender Address Forgery]" prefixes to messages. E.g. this mail now has Subject: Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning as its subjec

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 18 January 2018 at 23:56, Amit Langote wrote: >> I've not fully worked out how run-time pruning >> will use this as it'll need another version of >> get_partitions_from_clauses but passes in a PartScanClauseInfo >> instead, and does not call

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

David, On 2018/01/12 12:30, David Rowley wrote: > Can you also perform a self-review of the patch? Some of the things > I'm picking up are leftovers from a previous version of the patch. We > might never get through this review if you keep leaving those around! Sorry, I will look more closely