Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Minor typo in the source repository documentation

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin Mai wrote: > Hello Tom, > > thanks for the clarification. The sentence felt a little bumpy to me, > but I am native German speaker, so maybe it is just me then. > > Since "they" means the tools, would changing > ... the files they

Re: [HACKERS] Make subquery alias optional in FROM clause

doesn't count much but it would be -1. Question: Will the patch be removed if and when Oracle decides to be compatible with the standard and forbids non-aliased derived tables? (I know it's a rather theoretical question. Unlikely that Oracle breaks backwards compatibility on that.) Pantelis Theodosiou

Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets

> > Introducing new SQL keywords is of course not an option, > since it would possibly break backwards compatibility. > > I'm not advocating it but I don't see how introducing new SQL keywords breaks backwards compatibility. Pantelis Theodosiou

Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Jacobson writes: > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Uh ... maybe check whether SELECT set1 EXCEPT SELECT set2 > and SELECT set2 EXCEPT SELECT set1 are both empty? >

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Pantelis Theodosiou <yperc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Antonin Houska <a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > >> Attached is a draft patch that lets partial aggregation happen at base >> relation level. If th

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > Attached is a draft patch that lets partial aggregation happen at base > relation level. If the relations contain relatively small number of groups, > the number of input rows of the aggregation at the query level can be >

Re: [HACKERS] missing optimization - column <> column

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > >> Would it be worth replacing the condition with the equivalent? >> I mean would that help optimizing better some queries when it knows that >> a is (not) nullable or when "a" is more complicated expression? >> >> a

Re: [HACKERS] missing optimization - column <> column

te something like "1 <> 1", it will be folded. > > regards, tom lane > > > Would it be worth replacing the condition with the equivalent? I mean would that help optimizing better some queries when it knows that a is (not) nullable or when "a" is more complicated expression? a <> a: (a IS NULL) AND NULL a = a : (a IS NOT NULL) OR NULL Pantelis Theodosiou

Re: [HACKERS] Indirect indexes

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:14:51PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > Also, it seems indirect indexes would be useful for indexing columns > > > that are not updated frequently on tables that are updated frequently, > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Fast AT ADD COLUMN with DEFAULTs

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Serge Rielau wrote: > > via Newton Mail > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > On

Re: [HACKERS] Fast AT ADD COLUMN with DEFAULTs

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2016-10-05 15:23:05 -0700, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: >> > On 10/5/16, Andres Freund wrote: >> > > On 2016-10-05 11:58:33

Re: [HACKERS] Feature suggestion: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING RETURNING which returns existing row data

This can be solved by chaining modifying CTEs. Something like this (not tested) that can work with multiple rows inserted: WITH vals (bk1, bk2, other_t1_columns, other_t2_columns) AS ( VALUES (bk1val, bk2val, other_t1_values, other_t2_values), (bk1val, bk2val,