On 2016/09/11 8:04, Corey Huinker wrote:
> V2 of this patch:
>
> Changes:
> * rebased to most recent master
> * removed non-tap test that assumed the existence of Unix sed program
> * added non-tap test that assumes the existence of perl
> * switched from filename/program to filename/is_program to
Hi Fabien,
On 2016/09/07 23:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Custom script looks like:
>>
>> \;
>> select a \into a
>>from tab where a = 1;
>> \set i debug(:a)
>>
>> I get the following error:
>>
>> undefined variable "a"
>> client 0 aborted in state 1; execution of meta-command failed
>
> Good ca
On 2016/09/13 2:01, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I agree with all the code cleanups suggested and have made then in the
> attached patch, to save the committer some time.
Thanks. Have already marked the patch as ready for the committer.
> Also in this patch, I changed sgml
On 2016/09/09 18:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> A related change is renaming RangeBound structure in Amit
> Langote's patches to PartitionRangeBound to avoid name conflict with
> rangetypes.h. That change too should vanish once we decide where to keep
> that structure and its final name.
This change
Spotted a typo in the header comment of execIndexing.c. Attached fixes it.
s/exclusive constraints/exclusion constraints/g
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execIndexing.c b/src/backend/executor/execIndexing.c
index 0e2d834..009c1b7 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/execIndexing.c
+
Hi Fabien,
On 2016/09/13 17:41, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Amit,
>
>> [...]
>> There still seems to be a change in behavior of the -r option due to the
>> patch. Consider the following example:
>>
>> select a from a where a = 1 \;
>> select a+1 from a where a = 1;
>> ...
>> - statement laten
On 2016/09/15 0:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> I don't understand. Why don't you just use "call pprint(the bitmapset)"
>> in the debugger?
>
> Bitmapsets aren't Nodes, so pprint doesn't work directly on them.
> I usually find that I can pprint some node containing the value(s)
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Wow, this is bad. What is needed in this case is "canonicalization" of
>> the range partition bounds specified in the command.
>
> I think we sho
Hi Fabien,
I am marking the pgbench-into-5.patch [1] as "Ready for Committer" as I
have no further comments at the moment.
Thanks,
Amit
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/alpine.DEB.2.20.1609130730380.10870%40lancre
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Hi Ashutosh,
On 2016/09/22 14:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Hi Amit,
> Following sequence of DDLs gets an error
> --
> -- multi-leveled partitions
> --
> CREATE TABLE prt1_l (a int, b int, c varchar) PARTITION BY RANGE(a);
> CREATE TABLE prt1_l_p1 PARTITION OF prt1_l FOR VALUES START (0) END
> (250
On 2016/09/26 16:12, Amit Langote wrote:
> I am marking the pgbench-into-5.patch [1] as "Ready for Committer" as I
> have no further comments at the moment.
Wait... Heikki's latest commit now requires this patch to be rebased.
commit 12788ae49e1933f463bc59a6efe46c4a01
On 2016/09/26 20:27, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Amit,
>
>>> I am marking the pgbench-into-5.patch [1] as "Ready for Committer" as I
>>> have no further comments at the moment.
>>
>> Wait... Heikki's latest commit now requires this patch to be rebased.
>
> Indeed. Here is the rebased version,
On 2016/09/22 19:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> For list partitions, the ListInfo stores the index maps for values
>> i.e. the index of the partition to which the value belongs. Those
>> indexes are same as the indexes in partition OIDs arra
Sorry about the delay in replying.
On 2016/09/15 21:58, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> It looks like there is some problem while creating paramterized paths
> for multi-level partitioned tables. Here's a longish testcase
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Please check if you are able to reproduce these err
On 2016/09/27 15:44, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> By the way, I fixed one thinko in your patch as follows:
>>
>> -result->oids[i] = oids[mapping[i]];
>> +result->oids[mapping[i]] = oids[i];
>
> While I can not spot any problem with this logic, when I make that
> change and run partitio
On 2016/09/27 18:09, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I tried to debug the problem somewhat. In set_append_rel_pathlist(),
>>> it finds that at least one child has a parameterized path as the
>>> cheapest path, so it doesn't create an unparameterized path for append
>>> rel. At the same time there is a pa
On 2016/09/28 13:30, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> This mail looks exactly same as that from Shrinivas. Please check answers
> there.
Here is a link to the discussion thread that Ashutosh is referring to:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRfxJJJGNhtQaS2CQ7Boyfo88nu-45JcNKeREUbQUPxOEw%40
On 2017/10/04 4:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>>> Regarding nomenclature and my previous griping about wisdom, I was
>>> wondering about just calling this a "partition join" like you have in
>>> the regression test. So the GUC would be enable_par
On 2017/10/06 2:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I guess we don't need to squash, as they could be seen as implementing
>> different features. Reordering the patches helps though. So, apply them
>> in this order:
On 2017/10/05 22:28, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> In the 'ftp' listing, v10 appears at the bottom:
> https://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
>
> With all the other v10* directories at the top, we could get a lot of
> people installing wrong binaries...
>
> Maybe it can be fixed so that it appears at th
On 2017/09/30 1:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I looked into how satisfies_hash_partition() works and came up with an
>> idea that I think will make constraint exclusion work. What if we emitted
>> the hash partition con
On 2017/10/13 4:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached a patch to modify the INFO messages in check_default_allows_bound.
>
> Committed. However, I didn't see a reason to adopt the comment change
> you proposed, so I
On 2017/10/13 6:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> Is anybody still reviewing the main patch here? (It would be good if
> the answer is "yes".)
I am going to try to look at the latest version over the weekend and early
next week.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg
On 2017/10/13 22:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017/10/05 22:28, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>> In the 'ftp' listing, v10 appears at the bottom:
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
>>
Hi Amit.
On 2017/10/04 22:51, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Main patch :
> update-partition-key_v20.patch
Guess you're already working on it but the patch needs a rebase. A couple
of hunks in the patch to execMain.c and nodeModifyTable.c fail.
Meanwhile a few comments:
+void
+pull_child_partition_co
On 2017/10/14 4:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> The relkind check in DefineIndex has grown into an ugly rats nest of
>> 'if' statements. I propose to change it into a switch, as per the
>> attached.
>
> wfm
+1
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via p
Hi.
Noticed that a alter table sub-command's name in Description (where it's
OWNER) differs from that in synopsis (where it's OWNER TO). Attached
patch to make them match, if the difference is unintentional.
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_ta
On 2017/10/18 1:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Implement table partitioning.
>>
>> Is it intentional that you can use ALTER TABLE OWNER TO on the parent
>> table, and that this does not recurse to modify the partitions' owners?
>> This doesn't seem to be
On 2017/10/22 5:25, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
Down at the bottom of the build log in the regression diffs file you can
see:
! ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation
On 2017/10/18 20:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Noticed that a alter table sub-command's name in Description (where it's
>> OWNER) differs from that in synopsis (where it's OWNER TO). Attached
>> patch to make them m
On 2017/10/23 2:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Seltenreich writes:
>> testing master as of 7c981590c2, sqlsmith just triggered the following
>> assertion:
>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!const Node*)(node))->type) == T_SubLink))",
>> File: "prepunion.c", Line: 2231)
>
> Hmm. adjust_appendrel_at
On 2017/10/24 1:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I started with Maksim's submitted code, and developed according to the
>>> ideas discussed in this thread. Attached is a very WIP patch series for
>>> this feature.
Ni
On 2017/10/24 0:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/10/23 2:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm. adjust_appendrel_attrs() thinks it's only used after conversion
>>> of sublinks to subplans, but this is a counterexample. I wonder if
>>> that
On 2017/10/26 20:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> It can perhaps taught to not make that conclusion by taking into account
>> the default partition's partition constraint, which includes constraint
>> inherited fr
On 2017/10/27 13:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> I don't think we really want to get into theorem-proving here, because
>>> it's slow.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm saying we could use theorem-pr
Thanks for the test case.
On 2017/10/30 17:09, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> I am getting wrong output when default is sub-partitioned further, below is
> a test case.
>
> CREATE TABLE lpd(a int, b varchar, c float) PARTITION BY LIST (a);
> CREATE TABLE lpd_p1 PARTITION OF lpd FOR VALUES IN (1,2,
On 2017/10/31 21:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Lætitia Avrot (laetitia.av...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> As Amit Langot pointed out, the column_constraint definition is missing
>> whereas it is used in ALTER TABLE synopsis. It can be easily found in the
>> CREATE TABLE synopsis, but it's not very user frie
Hi Amit.
Thanks a lot for updated patches and sorry that I couldn't get to looking
at your emails sooner. Note that I'm replying here to both of your
emails, but looking at only the latest v22 patch.
On 2017/10/24 0:15, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 08:28, Amit Lang
On 2017/11/03 6:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
>
>> Sure, thanks.
>
> Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making
On 2017/11/03 21:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>
>>> I think adding "is partitioned" at end of line isn't good; looks like a
>>> phrase but isn't translatable. Maybe add keyword PARTITIONED instead?
>>
>> In that ca
On 2017/11/06 12:53, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 November 2017 at 17:32, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> 2. This code is way more complex than it needs to be.
>>
>> if (num_parts > 0)
>> {
>> int j;
>>
>> all_indexes = (int *) palloc(num_parts * sizeof(int));
>> j = 0;
>> if (min_part_idx >= 0 && max_par
On 2017/11/06 13:15, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached updated version of the patches
>
> match_clauses_to_partkey() needs to allow for the way quals on Bool
> columns are represented.
>
> create table pt (a bool not
On 2017/11/06 21:52, David Rowley wrote:
> On 6 November 2017 at 23:01, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> OK, I have gotten rid of the min/max partition index interface and instead
>> adopted the bms_add_range() approach by including your patch to add the
>> same in the patch s
On 2017/11/07 14:40, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 7 November 2017 at 00:33, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Also, +1 for Amit Langote's idea of trying to merge
>> mt_perleaf_childparent_maps with mt_persubplan_childparent_maps.
>
> Currently I am trying to see if it simplifies things if we do that. We
> w
Hi David.
Thanks for the review.
(..also looking at the comments you sent earlier today.)
On 2017/11/07 11:14, David Rowley wrote:
> On 7 November 2017 at 01:52, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> Thanks. I'll look over it all again starting my Tuesday morning. (UTC+13)
>
> I have a little more review
Hi Rajkumar,
Thanks for testing.
On 2017/11/08 15:52, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> Attached updated set of patches, including the fix to make the new pruning
>> code handle Boolean partitioning.
>>
>
On 2017/11/09 7:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> jotpe writes:
>> In the current documentation [1] this create table statement is listed:
>> CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement
>> FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01')
>> TABLESPACE fasttablespace
>> WITH (para
Hi Amul.
On 2017/11/09 20:05, amul sul wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/11/06 14:32, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
>>>&g
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks for taking a look. Replying to all your emails here.
On 2017/11/10 12:30, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> In 0002, bms_add_range has a bit naive-looking loop
>
> + while (wordnum <= uwordnum)
> + {
> + bitmapword mask = (bitmapword) ~0;
> +
> + /
On 2016/10/03 13:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> I removed DEPENDENCY_IGNORE. Does the following look good or am I still
>>> missing something?
>
I noticed that un-including access/heapam.h from the following files
leaves things just fine.
src/backend/commands/aggregatecmds.c
src/backend/commands/collationcmds.c
src/backend/commands/conversioncmds.c
src/backend/commands/lockcmds.c
It seems any calls into heapam.c that there used to be have
Hi,
On 2016/10/04 13:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>
>>> Why always rollback any dangling transaction? There can be a case that
>>> a foreign server has a dangling transaction which needs to be
>>> committed because the portions of that transaction on the other shards
>>> are committed.
>>
>> Right
On 2016/10/04 16:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> Heuristics can not become the default behavior. A user should be given
>>> an option to choose a heuristic, and he should be aware of the
>>> pitfalls when using this heuristic. I guess, first, we need to get a
>>> solution which ensures that the trans
Hi,
On 2016/10/05 14:19, Chenxi Li wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm reading some papers about aggregation push down like in "
> https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/37228/1/main.pdf"; and "
> http://www.vldb.org/conf/1995/P345.PDF";. I think it is very useful but very
> complex to implement. In some comp
Hi,
On 2016/10/05 16:57, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> I observed, when creating foreign table with range partition, data is not
> inserting into specified partition range. below are steps to reproduce.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> postgres=# INSERT INTO test_range (a) values (5),(25),(15);
> INSERT 0 3
>
On 2016/10/06 17:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
My understanding is that basically the local server can not return
COMMIT to the client until 2nd phase is completed.
>>>
>>>
Thanks to both of you for taking this up and sorry about the delay in
responding.
On 2016/10/05 20:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/10/05 14:09, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I think it would be a bit inefficient to use PlanCacheFuncCallback as the
>>> inval callback function for those caches, beca
On 2016/10/06 21:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/10/06 20:17, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/10/05 20:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> On 2016/10/05 14:09, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>> IMO, maintaining that extra function and
>>>> the risk of bugs because
Just noticed that the getBlobs() query does not work for a 7.3 server
(maybe <= 7.3) due to the following change in commit 23f34fa4 [1]:
else if (fout->remoteVersion >= 70100)
appendPQExpBufferStr(blobQry,
- "SELECT DISTINCT loid, NULL::oid, NULL::oid"
+
On 2016/10/07 11:47, Amit Langote wrote:
> Just noticed that the getBlobs() query does not work for a 7.3 server
> (maybe <= 7.3) due to the following change in commit 23f34fa4 [1]:
>
> else if (fout->remoteVersion >= 70100)
> appe
On 2016/10/07 18:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> It's allowed to specify an non-default opclass in partition by clause,
> but I do not see any testcase testing the same. Can you please add
> one.
OK, I will add some tests related to that.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsq
Attached fixes what seems like a copy-pasto in pg_cast.h.
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/include/catalog/pg_cast.h b/src/include/catalog/pg_cast.h
index ee568d8..04d11c0 100644
--- a/src/include/catalog/pg_cast.h
+++ b/src/include/catalog/pg_cast.h
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ typedef enum CoercionCodes
/*
If I create btree index on a int2vector column, it does not get used for
queries because the query search always fails to match the index operator
(family).
During index creation, GetDefaultOpClass() returns array_ops for a
int2vector index column, because type int2vector is binary-coercible with
On 2016/10/11 15:58, Amit Langote wrote:
> If I create btree index on a int2vector column, it does not get used for
> queries because the query search always fails to match the index operator
> (family).
>
> During index creation, GetDefaultOpClass() returns array_ops for a
>
On 2016/10/11 21:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> I was wrong that the index *never* gets used. It does in fact get used if
>> the operator is an ordering search operator (<, <=, >, >=), in which case
>> the query would use an array_ops operator
Currently, if child table has a non-inherited constraint and a constraint
with the same name is added to the parent, it will fail with an error as
illustrated below:
create table parent (a int);
CREATE TABLE
create table child (constraint check_a check (a > 0) no inherit) inherits
(parent);
CREATE
On 2016/10/12 18:10, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 08:52 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached fixes what seems like a copy-pasto in pg_cast.h.
>
> Applied, thanks.
Thanks, Heikki!
Regards,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
Attached fixes a minor typo: s/Thes/These/g
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/include/foreign/foreign.h b/src/include/foreign/foreign.h
index 5dc2c90..143566a 100644
--- a/src/include/foreign/foreign.h
+++ b/src/include/foreign/foreign.h
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
/*
* Generic option types for validation.
On 2016/10/13 19:37, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> In case we can not reach a foreign server during post-commit phase,
>> basically the transaction and following transaction should stop until
>> the crashed server revived.
>
> I have repeatedly given reasons why this is not correct. You and Amit
> seem
On 2016/10/19 12:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Having said that, I like the latest version (v6), so I'd vote for marking
> this as Ready For Committer.
+1, thanks a lot!
Regards,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
htt
Thanks for the review!
On 2016/10/25 20:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/10/05 2:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Attached revised patches.
>
> Few assorted review comments for 0001-Catalog*:
>
>
> 1.
On 2016/10/25 15:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/10/05 2:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Hmm, do we ever fire triggers on the parent for operations on a child
>>> table? Note this thread, which seems po
On 2016/10/26 11:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> 1.
>>> @@ -1775,6 +1775,12 @@ BeginCopyTo(ParseState *pstate,
>>> {
>>> ..
>>> + else if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKI
On 2016/10/26 12:09, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/10/26 11:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, CopyTo() can be be taught
On 2016/10/26 17:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> @@ -123,6 +123,9 @@ typedef struct RelationData
> {
> ..
> MemoryContext rd_partkeycxt; /* private memory cxt for the below */
> struct PartitionKeyData *rd_partkey; /* partition key, or NULL */
> + MemoryContext rd_pdcxt; /* private context for partdes
On 2016/10/27 3:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I will include these changes in the next version of patches I will post
>> soon in reply to [1].
>> [1]
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYJcUTcN7vVgg54
On 2016/11/02 2:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> [ new patches ]
>
> Reviewing 0005:
>
> Your proposed commit messages says this:
>
>> If relation is the target table (UPDATE and DELETE), flattening is
>
On 2016/11/02 2:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> [ new patches ]
>
> Reviewing 0006:
Thanks for the review!
> This patch seems scary. I sort of assumed from the title -- "Teach a
> few places to use partition chec
On 2016/11/02 16:41, Amit Langote wrote:
> Having said all that, I am open to switching to the catalogued partition
> constraints if the arguments I make above in favor of this patch are not
> all that sound.
One problem I didn't immediately see a solution for if we go with
On 2016/11/02 2:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Insisting that you can't drop a child without detaching it first seems
>>> wrong to me. If I already made this comment and you responded to it,
>>> ple
Hi Jaime,
On 2016/11/08 2:24, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 7 November 2016 at 12:15, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> On 28 October 2016 at 02:53, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please find attached the latest version of the patches
>>
>> Hi,
>>
Hi Jaime,
On 2016/11/08 2:15, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 28 October 2016 at 02:53, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
> I started to review the functionality of this patch, so i applied all
> 9 patches. After that i found this warning, which i guess is because
> it needs a cast.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't think we need "named constants", especially not
>>> manually-maintained ones. The thing that would help in pg_proc.h is for
>>> numeric type OIDs to be repla
On 2016/11/10 2:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> In this latest patch set:
>
> src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c:3194: indent with spaces.
> +*rdatum;
This one I will fix.
>
> With all patches applied, "make check" fails with a bunch of diffs
> that look like this:
I forgot to quote your comments in the email I sent on Friday [1], with
new patches that do take care of the following comments.
On 2016/11/11 4:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Amit Langote
>>
>> OK, "partition key" and "partitioning me
On 2016/11/04 0:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:46 AM, wrote:
>> El 2016-10-28 07:53, Amit Langote escribió:
>>> @@ -6267,6 +6416,12 @@ ATAddForeignKeyConstraint(AlteredTableInfo *tab,
>>> Relation rel,
>>> * Validity checks (per
On 2016/11/11 20:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I have not looked at the latest set of patches, but in the version
> that I have we create one composite type for every partition. This
> means that if there are thousand partitions, there will be thousand
> identical entries in pg_type. Since all the pa
On 2016/11/18 1:43, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> OK, I will share the performance results soon.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>> Also, in 0006:
>>>
>>> - I doubt that PartitionTreeNodeData's header comment will
On 2017/02/15 16:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> The new partitioned tables do not contain any data by themselves. Any
>> data inserted into a partitioned table is routed to and stored in one of
>> its partitions. I
On 2017/02/17 1:17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> But surely it should be possible to use DO NOTHING without inferring some
> particular unique index? That's possible with an approach based on
> inheritance.
Hmm. Code after the following comment fragment in ExecInsert():
* Do a non-concl
On 2017/02/17 13:25, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> would be working on a leaf partition chosen by tuple-routing after an
>> insert on a partitioned table. The leaf partitions can very well have a
>> unique inde
On 2017/02/17 14:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error out
>> with the patch. As discussed here, DO UPDATE cannot be supported at the
>> moment.
>
On 2017/02/16 23:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Why not vacuum all partitions?
>> Why not analyze all partitions?
>> Truncate all partitions
>
> I agree. But, we need to be careful that a database-wide VACUUM or
> ANALYZE doesn't hit the partition
In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
command for those schema elements of a table that could not be included
directly in the CREATE TABLE command for the table.
For example:
create table p (a int, b int) partition by range (a);
create table p1 partition of p
Re-posting the patch I posted in a nearby thread [0].
On 2017/02/16 2:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as
>> an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can mani
On 2017/02/20 1:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So I count more than a few votes saying that we should be able to DROP
>> partitioned tables without specifying CASCADE.
>>
>> I tried to implement that using t
On 2017/02/20 5:31, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 February 2017 at 11:32, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 10 February 2017 at 06:19, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>
>>> the "right thing" here being that the
>>> command's code either throws an error or w
On 2017/02/20 1:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Also attaching 0002 (unchanged) for tab-completion support for the new
>> partitioning syntax.
>
> At one point you have this:
>
> +/* Limited completi
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/02/17 22:32, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
>> command for those schema elements of a table that could not be i
On 2017/02/19 18:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Do you mean that if database-wide analyze is to be run, we should also
>> exclude those RELKIND_RELATION relations that are partitions?
>>
>> So the only way to update a p
101 - 200 of 1334 matches
Mail list logo
