Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> New update - rebase after yesterday changes.
>
> What you want to change?
I think the problem might come from the still pending patch on that
series, which Andres posted in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170118221154.aldebi7yyjvds...@alap3.anarazel.de
As fa
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>>> Added the cleanup mechanism. But the tokenize_file() function call
>>> present in many places, But in one flow still
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> Added the cleanup mechanism. But the tokenize_file() function call
>> present in many places, But in one flow still it is possible to have
>> file descriptor leak because of pg_hb
Hi,
This may come from my lack of experience with Postgres, but I'm trying to
extract the byte portion of a Datum that is of type VarBit - bit/bit(n). I
see that the Datum pointer contains the value content of the bytes (after a
few bytes for the header) but I would need to point to the actual val
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> Long term, I think it would be pretty cool if we could develop a set
>> of features that give you distributed sequential consistency on top of
>> streaming replication. Something like (t
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On applying the patch on latest master branch and running regression tests
>> following failure occurs.
>> I applied it on latest parallel index scan patches as given in the l
Antonin Houska wrote:
Well, the following one does not seem to be a typical example. I could
generate the plan, but now I think that the aggregation push down does not in
general decrease the number of groups the final aggregation has to
process. Maybe I just hit planner limitation to estimate th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the
>> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation
>> of why it's not parallel_safe,
>
> Okay, so
Hi,
I got some 'trailing whitespace' error (shown below) when git applying
v7 patch attached upthread. I have corrected the same and also ran
pgindent on a new file 'hashfuncs.c' added as a part of this project.
Attached is the updated v8 patch.
0001-Add-support-for-hash-index-in-pageinspect-cont
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> 28.12.2016 23:43, Claudio Freire:
>
> Attached v4 patches with the requested fixes.
>
>
> Sorry for being late, but the tests took a lot of time.
I know. Takes me several days to run my test scripts once.
> create table t1 as select
On 2017/01/19 14:15, Amit Langote wrote:
> So, here are all the patches I posted to date (and one new at the bottom)
> for reported and unreported bugs, excluding the one involving
> BulkInsertState for which you replied in a new thread.
>
> I'll describe the attached patches in brief:
Sorry, I f
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 08:05 PM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Another thing is that in my experience most queries do joins on foreign
> >> keys
> >> (so the PK side is unique by definition), so the benefit on practical
> >> examples
> >> is likely muc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the
> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation
> of why it's not parallel_safe,
Okay, so basically we don't have any mechanism to perform parallel
sc
> It seems someone tried (perhaps ran out of steam, unfortunately):
> * Postgres extensions written in Rust *
> https://github.com/thehydroimpulse/postgres-extension.rs
There is another effort which looks active and promising:
(R)ust (P)ost(g)res FFI
https://github.com/posix4e/rpgffi
This is
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> Since Param is not parallel_safe till now, the SubPlan is also not
> parallel_safe. This is why CTE subplans will not be pushed under
> Gather.
Specifically, Params which are generated using generate_new_param()
are not parallel_safe. In the p
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> @@ -1213,6 +1216,7 @@ SS_process_ctes(PlannerInfo *root)
> &splan->firstColCollation);
> splan->useHashTable = false;
> splan->unknownEqFalse = false;
> + splan->parallel_safe = best_path->parallel_safe;
>
> I noticed that if path for C
Hello,
At Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:34:51 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > I managed to reproduce this. A little tweak as the first patch
> > lets the standby to suicide as soon as walreceiver sees a
> > contrecord at the beginning of
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> After commit-ab1f0c8, this patch needs a rebase. Attached find
> rebased version of the patch.
>
> Thanks to Kuntal for informing me offlist that this patch needs rebase.
In this patch, I have observed some changes while creating subplan fo
28.12.2016 23:43, Claudio Freire:
Attached v4 patches with the requested fixes.
Sorry for being late, but the tests took a lot of time.
create table t1 as select i, md5(random()::text) from
generate_series(0,4) as i;
create index md5_idx ON t1(md5);
update t1 set md5 = md5((random()
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Fixed.
>
> With respect to the second patch
> (parallel_index_opt_exec_support_v4.patch), I'm hoping it can use the
> new function from Dilip's bitmap heap scan patch set. See commit
> 7
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Changed as per suggestion.
>>
>>
>> I have also rebased the optimizer/executor support patch
>> (parallel_index_opt_exec_support_v4.patch) and added a test case in
>> it.
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Fixed.
>
> Thanks for the update. Some more comments:
>
> It shouldn't be necessary for MultiExecBitmapIndexScan to modify the
> IndexScanDesc. That seems really broken. If a parallel
On 19 January 2017 at 06:32, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's
>> > concern
>> > about plain "scram". Suppose it's
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, vinayak
wrote:
>
> On 2017/01/16 17:35, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>>> wrote:
>
> Long time passed since original patch proposed by Ashuto
On 2017-01-18 20:45, Petr Jelinek wrote:
AFAICS you should always get error from that test after you enable the
Ah tes, you were right, of course; I had assumed the earlier mentioned
CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... [ WITH (COPY DATA | NOCOPY DATA) ]
but that syntax wasn't implemented, I now understan
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
