On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>
>> So because of this high projection cost the seqpath and parallel path
>> both have fuzzily same cost but seqpath is winning because it's
>> parallel safe.
>
>
> I think you are correct.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Yes, I also think the same idea can be used, in fact, I have mentioned
>> it [1] as soon as you have committed that patch. Do we want to do
>> anything at this stage for PG-10? I don't think we should attempt
>> so
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> From the triviality department: I noticed some branches in
> tab-complete.c's gargantuan if statement, mostly brand new, that break
> from the established brace style. Should we fix that like this?
For consistency I think it does.
--
Micha
On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
has_partitions. Is that la
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
>>> has_partitions. Is that latter just its immediate partitions?
>>> Recursion a
On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type
>>> "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table
>>> as having partit
On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
>> has_partitions. Is that latter just its immediate partitions?
>> Recursion all the way down? Somewhere in between?
>>
>
> We have patc
Hi,
>From the triviality department: I noticed some branches in
tab-complete.c's gargantuan if statement, mostly brand new, that break
from the established brace style. Should we fix that like this?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
remove-extraneous-braces-from-tab-complete.patch
D
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have done some review of subscription handling (well self-review) and
> here is the result of that (It's slightly improved version from another
> thread [1]).
Thank you for working on this and patches!
> I split it into several patc
On 2017/07/12 4:24, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 11 July 2017 at 13:29, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> Most of the patch seems to be replacing "content" with "kind",
>> RangeDatumContent with PartitionRangeDatumKind and RANGE_DATUM_FINITE
>> with PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_VALUE. But those changes in name do
On 2017/07/11 19:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Attached updated patches.
>
> There's an extra "we" in
> +* Note that attachRel's OID is in this list. If it's partitioned, we
> +* we don't need to schedule it to be scann
Greetings,
I have SPGist and Gist index are built on 2d points. I'm wondering does
spgist/gist track the bounding box of each leaf page (data block)?
and if yes, how can I access it
Best Regards
---
Amira Shawky Mohamed
TA at Computer Dept.
Faculty of Engineering
Cairo University
Mark Rofail wrote:
>- now the RI checks utilise the @>(anyarray, anyelement)
> - however there's a small problem:
> operator does not exist: integer[] @> smallint
> I assume that external casting would be required here. But how can I
> downcast smallint to integer or in
here are the modifications to ri_triggers.c
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Mark Rofail
wrote:
>
> *What I did *
>
>- now the RI checks utilise the @>(anyarray, anyelement)
>
> Best Regards,
> Mark Rofail
>
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> We may document that GIN index is required to accelerate RI queries for
> array FKs. And users are encouraged to manually define them.
> It's also possible to define new option when index on referencing
> column(s) would be created auto
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
>
> In below function, we always multiply the target->cost.per_tuple with
> path->rows, but in case of gather it should multiply this with
> subpath->rows
>
> apply_projection_to_path()
>
>
> path->startup_cost += target->cost.startup - o
On 11 July 2017 at 13:29, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> +
> + Also note that some element types, such as timestamp,
> + have a notion of "infinity", which is just another value that can
> + be stored. This is different from MINVALUE and
> + MAXVALUE, which are not real values th
I started to look into allowing domains over composite types, which is
another never-implemented case that there's no very good reason not to
allow. Well, other than the argument that the SQL standard only allows
domains over "predefined" (built-in) types ... but we blew past that
restriction ages
On 07/11/2017 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Can anyone think of a reason not to pursue that?
>
>
I'm all for it.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstanhttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pg
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:44:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Over in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/877ezgyn60@metapensiero.it
> there's a gripe about array_agg() not working for a domain type.
> It fails because we don't create an array type over a domain type,
> so the parser can't id
Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yes, I also think the same idea can be used, in fact, I have mentioned
> it [1] as soon as you have committed that patch. Do we want to do
> anything at this stage for PG-10? I don't think we should attempt
> something this late unless people feel this is a show-stopper issu
Resending without the .tar.bz2 that get blocked
Sorry for the delay, I had extended vacations that kept me away from
my test rigs, and afterward testing too, liteally, a few weeks.
I built a more thoroguh test script that produced some interesting
results. Will attach the results.
For now, to t
Over in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/877ezgyn60@metapensiero.it
there's a gripe about array_agg() not working for a domain type.
It fails because we don't create an array type over a domain type,
so the parser can't identify a suitable output type for the polymorphic
aggregate.
We cou
Project: Explicitly support predicate locks in index AMs besides b-tree
I have done following tasks during this week.
1) worked on how to detect rw conflicts when fast update is enabled
2) created tests for different gin operators
3) went through some patches on commitfest to review
4) solved
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 6 July 2017 at 22:43, Joe Conway wrote:
>> I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
>> Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2
>>
>
> On 7 July 2017 at 03:21, Amit Langote wrote:
>> +1 to releasing this syntax in
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:51 AM, AP wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58:25PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> >> I can understand your concerns. To address first concern we need to
>> >> work on one or more of fol
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58:25PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:22 AM, AP wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 05:19:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> I think if you are under development, it is always advisable to create
> >> indexes after initial bulk load. That way it w
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>
> Attached updated patches.
There's an extra "we" in
+* Note that attachRel's OID is in this list. If it's partitioned, we
+* we don't need to schedule it to be scanned (would be a noop anyway
And some portions of the commen
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions
>> > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if t
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > Just one idea that I had while reading the code.
> >
> > In ExecAsyncEventLoop you iterate estate->es_pending_async, then move the
> > complete requests to the end and finaly adjust estate->es_num_pending_async
> > so
> > that the array no longer contains the comple
Hello.
I noticed that a comment above StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock
in backend/storage/ipc/standby.c using wrong names of a variable
and a type.
The attached patch fixes it. The same mistake is found in older
versions back to 9.0.
fix_typo_of_standby_c_10_master.patch is for 10 and master an
31 matches
Mail list logo
