Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

2017-10-26 Thread Rushabh Lathia
traditional single-line output, unchanged): > > -> Hash (actual rows=100 loops=1) >Buckets: 131072 Batches: 16 Memory Usage: 3227kB >-> Seq Scan on simple s (actual rows=100 loops=1) > > (It actually says "Tuples Hashed", not "Hashed" but I edited the above > to fit on a standard punchcard.) Thoughts? > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D2U%2B% > 2BLp3bNTv2Bv_kkr5NE2pOyHhxU%3DG0YTa4ZhSYhHiw%40mail.gmail.com > > -- > Thomas Munro > http://www.enterprisedb.com > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

2017-10-05 Thread Rushabh Lathia
-- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2017-09-20 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As per the earlier discussion in the thread, I did experiment using > > BufFileSet interface from paral

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Amit for the patch. > > > > I reviewed the code changes as well as performed more

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
t 5:30 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > This seems like a good optimization. I tried to simulate the test given > > in

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-13 Thread Rushabh Lathia
add regression > tests to cover above cases in the patch. > > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Ji_ > 0pgrjFotAyvvfxGikxJQEKcxD863VQ-xYtfQBy0uQ%40mail.gmail.com Sure, once you do that - I will review the patch. Thanks, > > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

2017-09-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Okay, I have marked this as ready for committer. Thanks, On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2) Add partition to the fo

Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

2017-09-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
original is fine. > > > > We have used this style in the "else" case of if (!verbose). So, I > just copied it. I have removed that change in the attached patch. > > -- > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database C

Re: [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2

2017-08-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
0.00..48.25 rows=25 width=4) ( > actual time=0.015..0.019 rows=1 loops=1) > Filter: ((id = 1) OR (id = 5)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 6 >-> Seq Scan on h3 (cost=0.00..48.25 rows=25 width=4) ( > actual time=0.005..0.010 rows=1 loops=1) > Filter: ((id = 1) OR (id = 5)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 3 > Planning time: 0.396 ms > Execution time: 0.139 ms > (9 rows) > > Can not detach / attach / drop partition table. > > Best regards, > young > > -- > > https://yonj1e.github.io/ > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-13 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please find attach patch with the changes. > > I found the way that you had the logic structured in

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-11 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> (1) seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction, so I don't like that > >> option. (2) woul

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > It seems like with we set the numParents and parents only for the > > dumpable objects (flagInhT

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-08 Thread Rushabh Lathia
pg_dump: pg_dump.c:2063: getRootTableInfo: Assertion `tbinfo->numParents > == 1' failed. > Aborted (core dumped) > > > > Thanks & Regards, > Rajkumar Raghuwanshi > QMG, EnterpriseDB Corporation > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-04 Thread Rushabh Lathia
data-via-root ? > >> > >> WFM. > >> > > > > ​+1 > > +1. > > Thanks, > Amit > > Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dump.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dump.sgml index bafa031..65f7e9

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-03 Thread Rushabh Lathia
. Rather than that: --use-partitioned-table [partitioned_name, ...] # if names are omitted it defaults to all the partitioned tables. Here user need to specify the root relation name in the option - and any partition table have that as a ROOT, will load the data through top-parent-relation. That really says what dump is really doing without focusing on how the > data will be used like restoring/inserting/copying etc. > > -- > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database Company > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-01 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > My colleague Robert and I had doubt about the order in of TABLE > > and TABLE_DATA. We thought earlier

[HACKERS] reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table

2017-08-01 Thread Rushabh Lathia
might not solve the purpose which has been discussed in the above mentioned thread. But later looking into code I realize the sort order for DO_TABLE and DO_TABLE_DATA are different, so we don't need to worry about that issue. TODOs: - Update documentation for pg_dump & pg_dumpall Thanks, Rus

Re: [HACKERS] cache lookup failed error for partition key with custom opclass

2017-07-26 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Some looking around says that this *isn't* the only p

Re: [HACKERS] cache lookup failed error for partition key with custom opclass

2017-07-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> writes: > > PFA patch, where added elog() to add the error message same as all other > > places. > > Some looking around says that this *isn't* th

[HACKERS] cache lookup failed error for partition key with custom opclass

2017-07-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
places where get_opfamily_proc() unable to find valid function oid. PFA patch, where added elog() to add the error message same as all other places. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com diff --git a/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c b/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c index 43238dd

[HACKERS] RLS policy not getting honer while pg_dump on declarative partition

2017-06-16 Thread Rushabh Lathia
the dump output. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com -- -- PostgreSQL database dump -- -- Dumped from database version 10beta1 -- Dumped by pg_dump version 10beta1 SET statement_timeout = 0; SET lock_timeout = 0; SET idle_in_transaction_session_timeout = 0; SET client_encoding = 'UTF8

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

2017-05-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
row multiple time and defining such > behaviour can be complicated. > > -- > Regards, > Dilip Kumar > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

2017-04-05 Thread Rushabh Lathia
ure if that's even a workable solution. Just trying to think of ways > around the current limitations and still allow this feature. > I like the idea about having DEFAULT partition for the range partition. With the way partition is designed it can have holes into range partition. I think DEFAULT for the range partition is a good idea, generally when the range having holes. When range is serial then of course DEFAULT partition doen't much sense. Regarda, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

2017-04-04 Thread Rushabh Lathia
er option into the CREATE partition table. Could you briefly elaborate why you think the lack global index support > would be a problem in this regard? > > I agree that some design is required here to implement a solution > redistribution of rows; not only in the context of supporting the notion > of default partitions, but also to allow the feature to split/merge range > (only?) partitions. I'd like to work on the latter for v11 for which I > would like to post a proposal soon; if anyone would like to collaborate > (ideas, code, review), I look forward to. (sorry for hijacking this > thread.) > > Thanks, > Amit > > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no workers.

2017-04-03 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Hi, On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> >> wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no workers.

2017-04-02 Thread Rushabh Lathia
; -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-30 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/28/2017 11:07 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> ... >> I think we all agree that we should get rid of nreaders from the >> GatherMergeState and need to do some co

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-28 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com > wrote: > > > On 03/27/2017 01:40 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> >> ... >> I was doing more testing with the patch and I found one more server >> crash with the patch around sam

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:11 PM, David Rowley > <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 28 March 2017 at 04:57, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, M

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Tomas Vondra < > tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 03/25/2017 05:18 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> >>> >>&

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

2017-03-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
partitions. > > Thank you, > Rahila Syed > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I picked this for review and noticed that patch is not getting >> cleanly complied on my environment. >> >> par

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-26 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 03/25/2017 05:18 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com >> <mailto:peter.ei

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-25 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3/25/17 09:01, David Rowley wrote: > > On 25 March 2017 at 23:09, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Also another point which I think w

Re: [HACKERS] crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0

2017-03-25 Thread Rushabh Lathia
aunched. > > > -- > David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

[HACKERS] [psql] patch to fix ordering in words_after_create array

2017-03-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
16 18:54:28 2017 -0400 psql: Add completion for \help DROP|ALTER PFA patch to fix the same. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com diff --git a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c index f749406..02a1571 100644 --- a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c +++ b/src/bin/ps

Re: [HACKERS] create_unique_path and GEQO

2017-03-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database Company > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

[HACKERS] dblink module printing unnamed connection (with commit acaf7ccb94)

2017-03-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
onger useful dblink.h file. Reviewed-by: Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> Before this, macro used to assign the conname local variable; I quickly worked on the fix and attached patch do fix the issues. Patch assign the conname local variable, so that error contex

Re: [HACKERS] Possible regression with gather merge.

2017-03-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
e_ordered_paths, which is wrong. Into create_ordered_paths(), GM should not consider the limit while doing costing for the sort node. Attached patch fix the bug. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for reporting, I am looking into

Re: [HACKERS] Possible regression with gather merge.

2017-03-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
y: v1, v2 > > Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB > > -> Seq Scan on test (cost=0.00..15406.00 rows=100 > > width=16) (actual time=0.085..107.522 rows=100 loops=1) > > Planning time: 0.093 ms > > Execution time: 211.608 ms > > (7 rows) > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards > > Mithun C Y > > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > > -- > Thanks and Regards > Mithun C Y > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

2017-03-21 Thread Rushabh Lathia
pg_dump or pg_upgrade; it all just falls out of getting the >> partitioning constraints correct and consistently enforcing them, just >> as for any other partition. >> >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I tried to cover all the suggestion in the attached latest patch. > > Committed. I reworded the

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
out what's going on. > - DSMWriteZeroBytes, maybe? > > DSMFillZeroWrite? Basically want to keep the file IP operation at the end of the event name. > Of course the constants should be renamed to match. > I tried to cover all the suggestion in the attached latest patch. Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-15 Thread Rushabh Lathia
nf_file() is getting called during the ALTER SYSTEM call. Here write happen only when someone explicitly run the ALTER SYSTEM call. This is administrator call and so doesn't seem like necessary to add separate wait event for this. PFA latest patch with other fixes. > > On Wed, Mar 8, 201

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-14 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Error coming from create_gather_merge_plan() from below condition: > > > > if (me

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
memory watch point and found that target list for GatherMerge is getting changed into groupping_planner() -> apply_projection_to_path(). PFA patch to fix this issue. On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 10

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh < > andr...@visena.co

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> wrote: > På fredag 10. mars 2017 kl. 10:09:22, skrev Rushabh Lathia < > rushabh.lat...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> &

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> wrote: > På fredag 10. mars 2017 kl. 09:53:47, skrev Rushabh Lathia < > rushabh.lat...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> >

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-10 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> wrote: > På torsdag 09. mars 2017 kl. 18:09:45, skrev Robert Haas < > robertmh...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wr

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-09 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Robert for committing this. > > > > My colleague Neha Sharma found one regression wit

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-09 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is another version of patch with the suggested changes. > > Committed. > > Thanks Rober

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-08 Thread Rushabh Lathia
, WriteXLog, ReadDataBlock On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi < rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am attaching another version of the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-03-08 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Amit for raising this point. I was not at all aware of > mark/restore. > > I tried to c

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-08 Thread Rushabh Lathia
ther version of the patch, as I found stupid mistake in the earlier version of patch, where I missed to initialize initial value to WaitEventIO enum. Also earlier version was not getting cleanly apply on the current version of sources. -- Rushabh Lathia EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE/ALTER ROLE PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method')

2017-03-07 Thread Rushabh Lathia
gards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Print correct startup cost for the group aggregate.

2017-03-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
sh Bapat > > <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Rushabh Lathia < > rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> While reading through the cost_agg() I found that startup cost for the > >>> group aggregate is not correctly as

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-03-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My colleague Rahila reported compilation issue with > > the patch. Issue was only c

[HACKERS] Print correct startup cost for the group aggregate.

2017-03-02 Thread Rushabh Lathia
t; Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts (cost=0.00..61487.89 rows=198155 width=8) Filter: (filler ~~ '%foo%'::text) (6 rows) PFA patch to correct the same. Regards, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com fix_startup_cost_cost_agg.patch Description: application/download -- Sent via pgsql-hac

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-02-28 Thread Rushabh Lathia
s(hashint4(10))%3; > QUERY PLAN > -- > Append (cost=0.00..61.00 rows=14 width=4) >-> Seq Scan on h (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=4) > Filter: ((abs(hashint4(i)) % 3) = 2) > -> Seq Scan on h3 (cost=0.00..61.00 rows=13 width=4) > Filter: ((abs(hashint4(i)) % 3) = 2) > (5 rows) > > Best regards, > Yugo Nagata > > -- > Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > Regards, Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2017-02-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote: > On 2017/02/21 19:31, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Etsuro Fujita >> <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp <mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> w

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2017-02-21 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/02/13 18:24, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> I started reviewing the patch again. Patch applied cleanly on latest >> source >> as well as regression pass through with the patch.

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-02-20 Thread Rushabh Lathia
My colleague Rahila reported compilation issue with the patch. Issue was only coming with we do the clean build on the branch. Fixed the same into latest version of patch. Thanks, On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tu

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-02-19 Thread Rushabh Lathia
e factors or may be planner has > ignored such a plan. However, as we are not clear what kind of > benefits we can get via mark/restore support for GatherMerge, it > doesn't make much sense to take the trouble of implementing it. > > > > > A comment update is probably a good idea

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-02-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-02-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com > wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Please find attached latest patch. > > The latest patch still applies (with some fuzz), bui

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2017-02-13 Thread Rushabh Lathia
ssed other > comments > > from you: moved rewriting the fdw_scan_tlist to postgres_fdw.c, > > added/revised comments, and added regression tests for the case where a > > pushed down UPDATE/DELETE on a join has RETURNING. > > > > My apologies for having been late to work on this. > > Moved to CF 2017-03. > -- > Michael > -- Rushabh Lathia

[HACKERS] pg_restore is broken on 9.2 version.

2017-02-07 Thread Rushabh Lathia
s" error. if (opts->number_of_jobs <= 0) { fprintf(stderr, _("%s: invalid number of parallel jobs\n"), progname); exit(1); } Please find attach patch to initialize default value for number of jobs to 1. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-02-01 Thread Rushabh Lathia
tached latest patch. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am sorry for the delay, here is the latest re-based patch. > > my colleague Neha Sharma, reported one regression with the patch, where > explain output for the Sor

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-02-01 Thread Rushabh Lathia
o fix that issue. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Rushabh Lathia > > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.co

Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-01-30 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Attached is the patch, which extend the existing wait event > infrastructure > > to imple

[HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O

2017-01-30 Thread Rushabh Lathia
. Thanks to my colleague Robert Haas for his help in design. Please let me know your thought, and thanks for reading. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com wait_event_disk_IO.patch Description: binary/octet-stream -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)

2017-01-29 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:43 AM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Consider the below test; >> >> CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key); &

[HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)

2017-01-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
. It seems check_srf_call_placement() sets the hasTargetSRFs flag and but when the SRFs at the rtable ofcourse this flag doesn't get set. It seems like missing something their, but I might be completely wrong as not quire aware of this area. regards, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-01-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is the benchmark number which I got with the latest (v6) patch: &

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-01-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmai

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-01-17 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2017-01-12 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Rushabh Lathia < > rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > > wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-11-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Rushabh Lathia >> <rushabh.lat...@gmail

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2016-11-23 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hi Rushabh, > > On 2016/11/22 19:05, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> I started reviewing the patch and here are few initial review points and >> questions for you. >> > > Tha

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

2016-11-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Boolean > value (either infinite or not) and to distinguish +infinity from > -infinity, we looked at whether the bound is lower or upper (the lower > flag). Now, instead, the variable holding the status of individual range > bound datum is set to a ternary value: RANGE_DATUM_FINITE (0), > RANGE_DATUM_NEG_INF (1), and RANGE_DATUM_POS_INF (2), which still fits in > a bool. Upon encountering an infinite range bound datum, whether it's > negative or positive infinity derives the comparison result. Consider the > following example: > > partition p1 from (1, unbounded) to (1, 1); > partition p2 from (1, 1) to (1, 10); > partition p3 from (1, 10) to (1, unbounded); > partition p4 from (2, unbounded) to (2, 1); > ... so on > > In this case, we need to be able to conclude, say, (1, -inf) < (1, 15) < > (1, +inf), so that tuple (1, 15) is assigned to the proper partition. > > Does this last thing sound reasonable? > > Thanks, > Amit > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2016-11-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
ending >>> upon the status of this patch. Does that make sense? >>> >> > OK, I'll extract from the patch the minimal part that wouldn't depend on >> the two patches. >> > > Here is a patch for that. Todo items are: (1) add more comments and (2) > add more regression tests. I'll do that in the next version. > > Best regards, > Etsuro Fujita > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-11-16 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com > wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> > >

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

2016-11-15 Thread Rushabh Lathia
ted on top of the patch set [1]. The patch is still WIP (ie, > needs more comments and regression tests, at least), but any comments would > be gratefully appreciated. > > Best regards, > Etsuro Fujita > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11eafd10-d3f8-ac8a-b64 > 2-b0e65037c76b%40lab.ntt.co.jp > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-11-11 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Oops forgot to attach latest patch in the earlier mail. On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 27,

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-11-11 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please find attached latest patch which fix the review point as well as > > additiona

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-10-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
patch and I haven't observed any regression. Some of TPC-H queries showing additional benefit with the latest patch, but its just under 5%. Do let me know if I missed anything. On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 20,

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-10-24 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-10-20 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Query 4: With GM 7901.480 -> Without GM 9064.776 > > Query 5: With GM 53452.126 -> Withou

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

2016-10-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Thanks Amit for reviewing this patch. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi hackers, > > > > Attached is the patch to im

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-09-29 Thread Rushabh Lathia
> case not two Thinking more, I am good for keeping prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (with changed column name). and then \sf will be used to get the source code for PL, SQL, language. Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > -- Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-09-28 Thread Rushabh Lathia
language) is still very much useful for the people - it make sense not to change it at all. Also agree with Stephen view that once we do end up improving \sf - we may be re-consider removing source code from the \df+ output. For now we should stick with the goal for a thread that started out being about showing parallel status in \df+ output. > Thanks! > > Stephen > -- Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

2016-09-25 Thread Rushabh Lathia
abase users. I think experienced users > probably initially felt mollycoddled when they first encountered the > error but I'm sure that some were secretly glad of its existence from > time to time... I think it's a useful feature for users who want it, > and a nice little demonstration of how extensible Postgres is. > > -- > Thomas Munro > http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-09-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> writes: > > I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part > > of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output in

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing docs about GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml

2016-09-22 Thread Rushabh Lathia
future > work. > I performed basic test with patch, a) patch get applied cleanly on latest source, b) able to build documentation cleanly. Marking this as ready for committer. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

2016-09-21 Thread Rushabh Lathia
oes the result less readable. > > Now I am thinking so using footer for this purpose is not too great idea - > maybe we can live better without it (without source code of PL in \dt+ > result, I would to see only C function source there). If you like using > footer, then the format should be changed to be more consistent, readable? > I am not sure, how it can be enhanced. > > Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

2016-09-02 Thread Rushabh Lathia
T is turned on inside a > transaction. But only when there is an implicit BEGIN as in following case, > > postgres=# \set AUTOCOMMIT OFF > postgres=# create table test(i int); > CREATE TABLE > postgres=# \set AUTOCOMMIT ON > \set: Cannot set AUTOCOMMIT to ON inside a transaction, either COMMIT or > ROLLBACK and retry > postgres=# > > Thank you, > Rahila Syed > > Regards, Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com

Re: [HACKERS] Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

2016-09-02 Thread Rushabh Lathia
of psql, error will abort >> the >> > current transaction and roll back all the previous commands. >> >> A server error would do that, but a psql errror won't. >> >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] [parallel query] random server crash while running tpc-h query on power2

2016-08-15 Thread Rushabh Lathia
gular instrumentation which is per-query context. PFA patch. -- Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execParallel.c b/src/backend/executor/execParallel.c index 380d743..5aa6f02 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/execParallel.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/execParallel.c @@ -5

[HACKERS] [parallel query] random server crash while running tpc-h query on power2

2016-08-12 Thread Rushabh Lathia
state->reader) into gather_readnext() instead of calling ExecShutdownGatherWorkers(). 2) Teach ExecParallelRetrieveInstrumentation() to do allocation of planstate->worker_instrument into proper memory context. Attaching patch, which fix the issue with approach 1). Regards. Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist

2016-06-28 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Thanks Tom. I performed testing with the latest commit and test are running fine. On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> writes: > > SELECT setval('s', max(100)) from tab; > > ERROR: ORDER/GR

  1   2   3   >