David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com writes:
[ wfunc_pushdown_partitionby_v0.4.patch ]
I've committed this with the addition of a volatility check and some
other basically-cosmetic adjustments.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 28 June 2014 18:12, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com writes:
[ wfunc_pushdown_partitionby_v0.4.patch ]
I've committed this with the addition of a volatility check and some
other basically-cosmetic adjustments.
Great, thank you for making the required
On 06/21/2014 02:03 PM, David Rowley wrote:
I'm marking this Waiting on Author pending discussion on pushing down
entire expressions, but on the whole I think this is pretty much ready.
As I said above, I don't think playing around with that code is really
work for this patch. It
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
This latest patch is ready for a committer to look at now. The weird
comments have been changed, superfluous regression tests removed, and
nothing done about expression pushdown per (brief) discussion.
I started to look at this patch and realized
On 06/27/2014 02:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
This latest patch is ready for a committer to look at now. The weird
comments have been changed, superfluous regression tests removed, and
nothing done about expression pushdown per (brief) discussion.
I
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 06/27/2014 02:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
In exactly the same way, it isn't safe to push down quals into
subqueries that use DISTINCT unless the quals are non-volatile. This
consideration is missed by the current code, and I think that's a bug.
Given
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Why wouldn't it go back all the way to 9.0? (assuming 8.4 is dead)
People get unhappy when minor releases de-optimize queries that had
been working for them. It's not too late to change the behavior of
9.4, but I'm hesitant to do it in
On 21 June 2014 01:38, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
I've had a chance to look at this and here is my review.
On 04/14/2014 01:19 PM, David Rowley wrote:
I've included the updated patch with some regression tests.
The first thing I noticed is there is no documentation, but I
I've had a chance to look at this and here is my review.
On 04/14/2014 01:19 PM, David Rowley wrote:
I've included the updated patch with some regression tests.
The first thing I noticed is there is no documentation, but I don't
think we document such things outside of the release notes, so
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Thomas Mayer thomas.ma...@student.kit.edu
wrote:
Hello David,
sorry for the late response. I will try out your changes from the view of
a user in mid-June. However, I can't do a trustworthy code review as I'm
not an experienced postgre-hacker (yet).
Thanks,
Hello David,
sorry for the late response. I will try out your changes from the view
of a user in mid-June. However, I can't do a trustworthy code review as
I'm not an experienced postgre-hacker (yet).
Best Regards
Thomas
Am 14.04.2014 13:19, schrieb David Rowley:
On 14 April 2014 03:31,
On 14 April 2014 03:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com writes:
On this thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52c6f712.6040...@student.kit.eduthere
was some discussion around allowing push downs of quals that happen to be
in every window clause of
On this thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52c6f712.6040...@student.kit.edu there
was some discussion around allowing push downs of quals that happen to be
in every window clause of the sub query. I've quickly put together a patch
which does this (see attached)
I'm posting this just
David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com writes:
On this thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52c6f712.6040...@student.kit.edu there
was some discussion around allowing push downs of quals that happen to be
in every window clause of the sub query. I've quickly put together a patch
which does
14 matches
Mail list logo
