>> Amit Langote, which one was your intention?
> I wanted to show DETACH PARTITION command's usage with a range partitioned
> table (detaching the "oldest" partition).
> So, we should apply Nagata-san's patch.
Thank you for the confirmation. I have pushed the patch.
* Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/11/2017 11:33 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
To build correctly, it requires defining _WIN32_WINNT to be 0x600 or
above (and using an SDK that knows about InitOnceExecuteOnce()).
We already define _WIN32_WINNT to be 0x0600 on all appropriate platforms
On 2017/06/12 11:01, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Attached is a simple patch to fix a documentation typo in
>> the ALTER TABLE example.
> Or the original author's intention might have been something like
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
PFA patch that fixes the issue described in above thread. As mentioned
in the above thread, the crash is basically happening in varstr_cmp()
function and it's only happening on Windows because in varstr_cmp(),
if the collation provider is ICU, we don't even think of calling ICU
On 2017/06/10 12:23, Vinayak Pokale wrote:
Thank you for your reply
On Jun 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Michael Meskes" > wrote:
> Could you please add a "DO CONTINUE" case to one of the test cases? Or
> add a new one? We would need a test
While the refactoring seems a reasonable way to re-use existing code,
that may change based on the discussion in . Till then please keep
the refactoring patches separate from the main patch. In the final
version, I think the refactoring changes to ATAttachPartition and the
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> This fourth point is not necessarily a defect: I wonder if RangeTblEntry is
>> the right place for enrtuples. It's a concept regularly
I tried to look into your refactoring code.
When applied all 3 patches, I got some regression failures, I have fixed
them now in attached patches, attached the regression.diffs.
Moving further, I have also made following changes in attached patches:
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Munro
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
>> case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Andrew Gierth
>> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes:
> Robert> I don't see a reason why MakeTransitionCaptureState needs to
> Robert> force the tuplestores into TopTransactionContext or make them
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have spent some time now studying this patch. I might be missing
> something, but to me this appears to be in great shape. A few minor
> -if ((event == TRIGGER_EVENT_DELETE &&
> Attached is a simple patch to fix a documentation typo in
> the ALTER TABLE example.
Or the original author's intention might have been something like
@@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@ ALTER TABLE cities
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> However there is one more problem here; if the relation status entry
>> is deleted while corresponding table sync worker is waiting to be
>> changed its status,
Attached is a simple patch to fix a documentation typo in
the ALTER TABLE example.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
index 56ea830..4c61c44 100644
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Few comments on the latest patch:
> + /* Prewarm buffer. */
> + buf = ReadBufferExtended(rel, blk->forknum, blk->blocknum, RBM_NORMAL,
> + NULL);
> + if (BufferIsValid(buf))
> + ReleaseBuffer(buf);
> I believe I've identified the reason why skink and some other buildfarm
> members have been failing the pg_upgrade test recently.
> Not sure what we want to do about it. One idea is to make
> ALTER SEQUENCE not so transactional when in binary-upgrade mode.
On closer inspection,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tomas Vondra
> I do strongly recommend reading this paper analyzing choke points of
> individual TPC-H queries:
> It's slightly orthogonal to the issue at hand (poor
On 6/11/17 7:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Do you mean teaching the optimizer to do something like this?:
Uh, no. I don't think we want to add any run-time checks. The point in
this example is that we'd get a better
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Note that I introduced a new, redundant exists() in the agg_lineitem
> fact table subquery. It now takes 23 seconds for me on Tomas' 10GB
> TPC-H dataset, whereas the original query took over 90 minutes.
> Clearly we're
> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes:
Andrew> I have it; I will post a status update before 23:59 BST on 11
This is that status update. I am still studying Thomas' latest patch
set; as I mentioned in another message, I've confirmed a memory leak,
On 11/05/17 09:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05/11/2017 07:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Bruce Momjian
I have added this as an open item because we will have to wait to see
where we are with driver support as the release gets
> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes:
Robert> I don't see a reason why MakeTransitionCaptureState needs to
Robert> force the tuplestores into TopTransactionContext or make them
Robert> owned by TopTransactionResourceOwner.
Nor do I, and I'm pretty sure it's leaking
I believe I've identified the reason why skink and some other buildfarm
members have been failing the pg_upgrade test recently. It is that
recent changes in sequence support have caused binary-upgrade restore
runs to do some sequence OID/relfilenode assignments without any heed
to the OIDs that
>>> * the comments get formatted differently for -ts4 than -ts8
Still haven't put any thought into it, so I still don't know what to do
>>> * extra spacing getting inserted for fairly long labels
I think the fix is as easy as not producing the space. I committed that.
>>> * some enum
On 06/11/2017 11:33 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> my buildfarm animal woodlouse (Visual Studio 2013 on Windows 7)
> stopped working correctly some months ago. After Tom kindly prodded me
> into fixing it, I noticed that I had configured it to skip the
> ecpg-check step because one of
On 11 June 2017 at 20:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The standard way of doing this is to calculate the "standard error" of
>> the sample proportion - see, for example , :
>> SE = sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)
>> Note, however, that this formula assumes that the sample size n is
Dean Rasheed writes:
> I think we should attempt to come up with a more principled approach
> to this, taking into account the table and sample sizes. Here's what I
> found, after a bit of research:
Thanks for doing some legwork on this!
> A common initial rule of
On 11 June 2017 at 16:59, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/11/2017 08:55 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Yeah, I noticed the same while working on the RLS related patch. I did
>> not see anything else in rewriteHandler.c but it is probably worth
>> looking wider for other omissions.
> 8 июня 2017 г., в 17:03, Amit Kapila написал(а):
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov
>>> Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same?
>> Because rsync was running with —size-only flag.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Interesting stuff. Here's a small recommendation for a couple of those
> new messages.
Hm. I don't object to folding those two messages into one, but now that
I look at it, the text needs some more work anyway, perhaps. What we're
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do you mean teaching the optimizer to do something like this?:
> Uh, no. I don't think we want to add any run-time checks. The point in
> this example is that we'd get a better rowcount estimate if we noticed
> that the
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The thing that would actually have a chance of improving matters for Q20
>> would be if we could see our way to looking through the aggregation
>> subquery and applying the foreign key
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The thing that would actually have a chance of improving matters for Q20
> would be if we could see our way to looking through the aggregation
> subquery and applying the foreign key constraint for lineitem. That
> seems like
Chapman Flack writes:
> The manual says regproc "will display schema-qualified names on output
> if the object would not be found in the current search path without
> being qualified."
That's less than the full truth :-(
> Is regproc displaying the schema in this case
On 05/06/17 09:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> First, I think we need a larger hard floor on the number of occurrences
> of a value that're required to make ANALYZE decide it is a "most common
> Second, the code also has a rule that potential MCVs need to have an
> estimated frequency at least
I was idly following along in GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays
when I noticed this:
=# select * from pg_amproc where amprocfamily = 2745;
amprocfamily | amproclefttype | amprocrighttype | amprocnum |
On 06/11/2017 08:55 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/11/2017 04:32 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about
>> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and
>> information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top
On 06/11/2017 04:32 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about
> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and
> information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of
> partitioned tables are non-updatable, which
On 06/09/2017 02:52 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 06:16 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 06/08/2017 11:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:45:20AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On 06/07/2017 06:49 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
> I ended up narrowing it down to 4 tables (one
my buildfarm animal woodlouse (Visual Studio 2013 on Windows 7) stopped
working correctly some months ago. After Tom kindly prodded me into
fixing it, I noticed that I had configured it to skip the ecpg-check
step because one of the tests in the "thread" section (not always the
It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about
partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and
information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of
partitioned tables are non-updatable, which is wrong. Attached is a
patch to fix this.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> While completing my annual src/backend/nodes/*funcs.c audit, I noticed defects
> in commit 18ce3a4 changes to RangeTblEntry:
> 1. Field relid is under a comment saying it is valid for RTE_RELATION only.
The comment is out
While completing my annual src/backend/nodes/*funcs.c audit, I noticed defects
in commit 18ce3a4 changes to RangeTblEntry:
1. Field relid is under a comment saying it is valid for RTE_RELATION only.
Fields coltypes, coltypmods and colcollations are under a comment saying
they are valid for
Mail list logo