On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> I found one typo in the document of MV. Please see the attached
>> patch.
>
> Pushed. Thanks!
Thanks!
I found that pg_dump always fails against 9.2 or before server because
of the MV patch.
$ pg_dump
pg_dump: [arc
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> - "SELECT
> reltoastidxid "
> - "FROM
Greg Smith wrote:
> I think I can see how to construct such an example for the btrfs
> version, but having you show that explicitly (preferably with a whole
> sample session executing it) will also help reviewers. Remember: if
> you want to get your submission off to a good start, the reviewer sh
-Original Message-
From: gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 5:16 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Bruce Momjian; Peter Geoghegan; Robert Haas; Tom Lane; PG Hackers
Subject: Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input within
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Yes, you are right. I knew of a median of medians technique for pivot
> selection and I mistook that for the median of medians median selection
> algorithm (which it definitely isn't).
> I was not aware of a true linear time selection of the
Yes, you are right. I knew of a median of medians technique for pivot
selection and I mistook that for the median of medians median selection
algorithm (which it definitely isn't).
I was not aware of a true linear time selection of the median algorithm {which
is what median of medians accomplis
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Median of medians selection of the pivot gives you O(n*log(n)).
>
> No. It does make O(n*n) far less probable, but it does not eliminate it.
> If it were possible, then introspective sort would be totally without purpose.
No really, quickso
"A Machine-Checked Proof of the Average-Case Complexity of Quicksort in Coq"
By Eelis van der Weegen and James McKinna
Institute for Computing and Information Sciences
Radboud University Nijmegen
Heijendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Contains a formal proof, validated by machine
-Original Message-
From: gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Bruce Momjian; Peter Geoghegan; Robert Haas; Tom Lane; PG Hackers
Subject: Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input withi
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for updating the patch!
- "SELECT reltoastidxid
"
- "FROM info_rels i
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_class c "
-
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Dann Corbit wrote:
> There is no such thing as a quicksort that never goes quadratic. It was
> formally proven
The median of medians selection of the pivot gives you O(n*log(n)).
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why do you want to temporarily mark it as valid? I don't see any
> requirement that it is set to that during validate_index() (which imo is
> badly named, but...).
> I'd just set it to valid in the same transaction that does the swap.
+1. I c
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> +
>> + Concurrent indexes based on a PRIMARY KEY or an
>>
>> + EXCLUSION constraint need to be dropped with ALTER
>> TABLE
>>
>> Typo: s/EXCLUSION/EXCLUDE
>
> Tha
On 9 March 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Thom.
>
>> I don't mind being an admin again.
>
> Can you gather together all of the projects suggested on this thread and
> use them to create updated text for the GSOC page? If you don't have
> web repo access, I can create a patch, but if you can do
On 3/1/13 1:40 AM, Jonathan Rogers wrote:
I've been thinking about both of these issues and decided to try a
different approach. This patch adds GUC options for two external
commands
This is a reasonable approach for a proof of concept patch. I like the
idea you're playing with here, as a use
On 8 March 2013 03:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I also see the checksum patch is taking a beating. I wanted to step
> back and ask what percentage of known corruptions cases will this
> checksum patch detect? What percentage of these corruptions would
> filesystem checksums have detected?
>
> Als
While hacking on the writable-foreign-tables patch, my attention was
drawn to what seems to be a pre-existing bug. Consider the section
of ExecDelete() that computes the results for DELETE RETURNING:
/* Process RETURNING if present */
if (resultRelInfo->ri_projectReturning)
{
On Friday, March 08, 2013 11:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12.02.2013 11:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * equivalent_tlists
>> + *returns whether two traget lists are equivalent
>> + *
>> + * We consider two target lists equivalent if both have
>> + * only Var entries and resjunk
Original Message-
>From: gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark
>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:59 PM
>To: Dann Corbit
>Cc: Bruce Momjian; Peter Geoghegan; Robert Haas; Tom Lane; PG Hackers
>Subject: Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input with
On 03/07/2013 12:42 PM, Ray Stell wrote:
> What Tom said works for me. Here is a page that gives an example and I think
> it demonstrates that the root CA does not allow everybody in the gate, the
> chain has to be in place:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1456034/trouble-understanding-
20 matches
Mail list logo
