Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Do you value test coverage so little?
If you're asking whether I think real-world usability is more
important than test coverage, then yes.
Quite honestly, I'd be inclined to rip
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:07:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Do you value test coverage so little?
If you're asking whether I think real-world usability is more
important than
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Do you value test coverage so little?
If you're asking whether I think real-world usability is more
important
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Here's v2 based on your feedback.
I pruned test coverage down to just the highlights. By the end of patch
series,
the net change becomes +67 to alter_table.sql and +111 to alter_table.out.
The
alter_table.out delta is
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 08:57:30AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Here's v2 based on your feedback.
I pruned test coverage down to just the highlights. ?By the end of patch
series,
the net change becomes +67 to
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Do you value test coverage so little?
If you're asking whether I think real-world usability is more
important than test coverage, then yes.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:31:21PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Do you value test coverage so little?
If you're asking whether I think real-world usability is more
important than test coverage, then yes.
No, I wasn't asking
Here's v2 based on your feedback.
I pruned test coverage down to just the highlights. By the end of patch series,
the net change becomes +67 to alter_table.sql and +111 to alter_table.out. The
alter_table.out delta is larger in this patch (+150), because the optimizations
don't yet apply and
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:41:35PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:37:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
This begins the patch series
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 16:59 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
This begins the patch series for the design I recently proposed[1] for
avoiding
some table rewrites in ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE. I'm posting
these
patches today:
These sound very good.
I have a concern that by making the
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
This begins the patch series for the design I recently proposed[1] for
avoiding
some table rewrites in ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE. I'm posting
these
patches today:
0 - new test cases
This doesn't look right.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:24:46AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 16:59 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
This begins the patch series for the design I recently proposed[1] for
avoiding
some table rewrites in ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE. I'm posting
these
patches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:37:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
This begins the patch series for the design I recently proposed[1] for
avoiding
some table rewrites in ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE. ?I'm posting
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I have a concern that by making the ALTER TABLE more complex that we
might not be able to easily tell if a rewrite happens, or not.
Perhaps we should add a WITHOUT REWRITE clause? That would allow a user
to specify that they
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 07:14 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
These changes do make it harder to guess how much work the ALTER TABLE
will do. Indeed, about 1/4 of my own guesses prior to writing were
wrong. Something like WITHOUT REWRITE might be the way to go, though
there are more questions: if it
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 07:14 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
These changes do make it harder to guess how much work the ALTER TABLE
will do. Indeed, about 1/4 of my own guesses prior to writing were
wrong. Something like WITHOUT
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:27:46AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
True. ?At least we could completely document the lock choices on the ALTER
TABLE
reference page. ?The no-rewrite cases are defined at arms length from ALTER
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 08:06 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 07:14 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
These changes do make it harder to guess how much work the ALTER TABLE
will do. Indeed, about 1/4 of my own guesses
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:17:23PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 08:06 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Given your thoughts above, my preference would be for
EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE to describe the actions that will take
On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Okay; I'll see what I can come up with. The other part I was going to try to
finish before the last commitfest begins is avoiding unnecessary rebuilds of
indexes involving changed columns. Is that more or less important than
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 07:14 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:24:46AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I have a concern that by making the ALTER TABLE more complex that we
might not be able to easily tell if a rewrite happens, or not.
What about add EXPLAIN support to it, then
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:37:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
This begins the patch series for the design I recently proposed[1] for
avoiding
some table
22 matches
Mail list logo
