Re: [HACKERS] mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217

2017-09-11 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: To Tom Lane 2017-09-11 <20170911083136.stdnc4w52wk3o...@msg.df7cb.de> > postgres=# select test_param_where(); > FEHLER: XX000: unrecognized node type: 217 > KONTEXT: SQL-Anweisung »select bfrom numbers where a=x« > PL/pgSQL-Funktion test_param_where() Zeile 6 bei SQL-Anweisung > ORT:

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Jeff, Ok, the problem was a little bit more trivial than I thought. The issue is that under a low rate there may be no transaction in progress, however the wait procedure was relying on select's timeout. If nothing is active there is nothing to wait for, thus it was an active loop in

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/11 16:23, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor >> changes related to the PlanRowMarks. If the rowmark's prti is now the >> intermediate parent's RT index

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Michael Paquier writes: On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217

2017-09-11 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Tom Lane 2017-09-10 <13662.1505077...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Christoph Berg writes: > > I'm not sure if this is a bug in mysql_fdw, or in PG10: > > > ! ERROR: unrecognized node type: 217 > > Hm, nodetag 217 is T_List according to gdb. Wouldn't expect that > failure in very many

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: >> > Antonin Houska wrote: >> > >> >> Antonin Houska

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, amul sul wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:38 AM, amul sul wrote: >> > I've updated patch to use an extended hash function (Commit # >> >

Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> I have fixed the issues which were marked as TODOs in the attached >> patches. Also, I have included your test change patch in my series of >> patches. > > I've

Re: [HACKERS] Allow GiST opcalsses without compress\decompres functions

2017-09-11 Thread Dmitriy Sarafannikov
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested Hi Andrew! Thanks for the patch, but patch

Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names

2017-09-11 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Hi Pavel, On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > 2017-09-08 9:36 GMT+02:00 Jeevan Chalke : > >> Hi Pavel, >> I like the idea of using parameter name instead of $n symbols. >> >> However, I am slightly worried

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

2017-09-11 Thread Yuto Hayamizu
Hi hackers, Currently, cost of a filter with multiple clauses is estimated by summing up estimated cost of each clause. As long as a filter consists of simple clauses and its cost is fairly small, it works fine. However, when there exists some heavy clauses (like SubQuery or user-defined

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >>> I also confirmed that the partition-pruning patch set works fine with this >>> patch instead of the patch on that thread with

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Banck
Hi, On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:41:56AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 06.09.2017, 12:22 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > > On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote: > > > > > Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this > > > > > to the 2017-07 commitfest

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Khandekar
Thanks Amit for the patch. I am still reviewing it, but meanwhile below are a few comments so far ... On 8 September 2017 at 15:53, Amit Langote wrote: > [PATCH 2/2] Make RelationGetPartitionDispatch expansion order > depth-first > > This is so as it matches what

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Banck
Hi, On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:30:20AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut < > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote: > > >>> Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this > > >>> to

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think > for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower > issue. Just wondering (sorry I have not looked at your patch in details)...

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-09-11 Thread Rafia Sabih
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov > wrote: >> Hi Rafia, >> >> I like the idea of reducing locking overhead by sending tuples in bulk. The >> implementation could probably

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amit Kapila writes: >>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier >>> wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/09 9:58, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor > changes related to the PlanRowMarks. If the rowmark's prti is now the > intermediate parent's RT index rather than the top-parent's RT index, > it'd seem like that'd matter somehow. Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

2017-09-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/09/09 2:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I updated the patch to include just those changes. I'm not sure about >> one of the Ashutosh's changes whereby the child PlanRowMark is also passed >> to expand_partitioned_rtentry() to use as the

<    1   2