Andres can you
please
point me how did you test it and what perf numbers you saw for this
particular patch(0005).
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
at the every place we call it.
>
I have changed the comment.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
0001-Check-default-partitition-child-validation-scan-is.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
of another partitioned table.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ8-q=2oahoxmvzbdnxi9g6i1idi4ozfkb67mk242d...@mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4cd13b03-846d-dc65-89de-1fd9743a3...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
0001-Check-default-partitition-child
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Thanks Robert for taking care of this.
> > My V29 patch series[1] is based on this commit now.
>
> Committed 0001-0003, 0005 with assorted modifications, mos
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > The fix would be much easier if the refactoring patch 0001 by Amul in
> hash
> > partitioning thread[2] is committed.
>
> Done.
>
Thanks Robert for tak
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <
rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Jeevan Ladhe <
> jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is the rebased set of patches.
>> Rob
change is in heap.c, as I said above we would need to have a
different version of get_default_partition_oid() to address this.
Your thoughts?
I haven't gone through the full patch yet, so there may be more
> comments here. There is some duplication of code in
> check_default_allows_bound() and ValidatePartitionConstraints() to
> scan the children of partition being validated. The difference is that
> the first one scans the relations in the same function and the second
> adds them to work queue. May be we could use
> ValidatePartitionConstraints() to scan the relation or add to the
> queue based on some input flag may be wqueue argument itself. But I
> haven't thought through this completely. Any thoughts?
>
check_default_allows_bound() is called only from DefineRelation(),
and not for alter command. I am not really sure how can we use
work queue for create command.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OM_Px6BXp1uDhhArw0bm-q4zCD5YwhDywR3K9ziBNL6A%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> > wrote:
> >> 0001:
> >> This patch refactors RelationBuildPartitionDesc(), basically this is
> patch
Hi Beena,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
> > Hi Jeevan,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 4.
>
Hi Beena,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> PFA the patch rebased over v25 patches of default list partition [1]
>
Thanks for rebasing.
Range partition review:
1.
There are lot of changes in RelationBuildPartitionDesc(). It was hard to
understand why these changes are ne
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > I have addressed following comments in V25 patch[1].
>
> Committed 0001. Since that code seems to be changing about every 10
> minutes, it seems best to get th
t Langote
has submitted[1] a separate patch(0003) to address skipping the scan
of the children of relation when it's being attached as a partition.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4cd13b03-846d-dc65-89de-1fd9743a3869%40lab.ntt.co.jp
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Hi Robert,
Please find my feedback inlined.
I have addressed following comments in V25 patch[1].
> > 0002:
> > This patch teaches the partitioning code to handle the NIL returned by
> > get_qual_for_list().
> > This is needed because a default partition will not have any constraints
> in
> > cas
Hi Ashutosh,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> Please find my feedback inlined.
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM
Hi Ashutosh,
Please find my feedback inlined.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have rebased the patches on the latest commit.
&
traints are proven.
>
> If I understand correctly, this is actually a completely separate
> feature not intrinsically related to default partitioning.
I don't see this as a new feature, since scanning the default partition
will be introduced by this series of patches only, and rather than a
feature this can be classified as a completeness of default skip
validation logic. Your thoughts?
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
construct describe output string.
Some ideas that come to my mind are:
Partition constraint: NIL
Partition constraint: no constraints
No partition constraint.
Partition constraint: true
Please let me know your thoughts.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Thanks Amit for addressing the comment.
The patch looks good to me. I have no more comments.
Verified that v2 patch applies cleanly and make check passes.
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
sentence can be rephrased as below:
"On the other hand, specifying DO NOTHING without target
as
an alternative action works fine."
Other than this patch looks good to me.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Starting a new thread for a p
ot;*
The get_default_partition_oid() uses parent relation to
retrieve PartitionDesc
from parent.
Kindly let me know if you think I am still missing anything.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Hi Beena,
I have posted the rebased patches[1] for default list partition.
Your patch also needs a rebase.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OVwDu%2BbeChWb5R5s6rfKLCiWcZT5617hqu7T3GdA1hAw%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Beena Emerson
ec or
> something would be better.
>
> Done.
Thanks for catching this, I agree with you.
I have changed the name to PartitionBoundSpec.
> - This is not a part of this patch, but in ruleutils.c, the error
> for unknown paritioning strategy is emitted as following.
>
> > elog(ERROR, "unrecognized partition strategy: %d",
> >(int) strategy);
>
> The cast is added because the strategy is a char. I suppose
> this is because strategy can be an unprintable. I'd like to see
> a comment if it is correct.
>
> I think this should be taken separately.
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
Refs:
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OARciE2X%
2BU0rjSKp9VuC279dYcCGkc3nCWKhHQ1_m2rw%40mail.gmail.com
partition, there's no point in instantiating its
> relcache.
>
Fixed.
>
> The comment in heap_drop_with_catalog() should mention why we lock the
> default
> partition before locking the table being dropped.
>
> extern List *preprune_pg_partitions(PlannerInfo *root, RangeTblEntry
> *rte,
> Index rti, Node *quals, LOCKMODE lockmode);
> -
> #endif /* PARTITION_H */
> Unnecessary hunk.
I could not locate this hunk.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Refs:
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OARciE2X%
2BU0rjSKp9VuC279dYcCGkc3nCWKhHQ1_m2rw%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/35d68d49-555f-421a-99f8-185a44d085a4%40lab.ntt.co.jp
t here never evaluate to NULL, so applying NOT works as
> intended.
>
> Added.
> + * Check whether default partition has a row that would fit the
> partition
> + * being attached by negating the partition constraint derived from
> the
> + * bounds.
ioned_table tuple of the
> parent. Thoughts?
>
I liked this suggestion. Having an entry in pg_partitioned_table would avoid
both expensive methods, i.e. 1. opening the parent or 2. lookup for
each of the children first in pg_inherits and then its corresponding entry
in
pg_class.
Unless anybody has any other suggestions/comments here, I am going to
implement this suggestion.
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeevan Ladhe writes:
> > In case of list partitioned table:
> > 1. If there is a partition accepting only null values and nothing else,
> then
> > currently the partition constraints for such a partition are construct
--
a | integer | | | | plain |
|
Partition of: t1 FOR VALUES IN (NULL)
Partition constraint: (a IS NULL)
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case of list partitioned table:
> 1. If there is a partition accepting o
ructing an empty array to avoid
executing ANY expression.
2.Also, we are constructing an expression using index 0 of arrays in
PartitionKey since currently we have only one column for list partition in
key,
added an assert for this.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
fix_empty_arry_get_qual_for_
Thanks Ashutosh and Kyotaro for reviewing further.
I shall address your comments in next version of my patch.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello, I'd like to review this but it doesn't
h 0003,
as in that patch we allow user to create a new partition even in the
cases when there exists a default partition.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Hi,
Sorry for being away from here.
I had some issues with my laptop, and I have resumed working on this.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Here are the details of the patches in attached zip.
> >
partitioning support to allow addition of new
partitions.
0004. extend default partitioning validation code to reuse the refactored
code
in patch 0001.
PFA
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Jeevan Ladhe <
jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 12,
gmoYmW9VwCWDpe7eXUxeKmAKOxm
> g8itgFkB5UTQTq4SnTjQ%40mail.gmail.com
> gets committed, all of this code will be gone entirely, so this will
> be moot. If we decide to repair the existing broken logic rather than
> ripping it out entirely then this is probably a good idea, but I hope
> that's not what happens.
>
That seems a better option to me too.
+1
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
ttached patch.
PFA, and let me know if I am missing something here.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
fix_atexecattahpartition.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> While the refactoring seems a reasonable way to re-use existing code,
> that may change based on the discussion in [1]. Till then please keep
> the refactoring patches separate from the main patch. In the f
tes-in-ATExecAttachPartition-td5965298.html
[2]
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Adding-support-for-Default-partition-in-partitioning-td5946868i120.html#a5965277
[3]
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Adding-support-for-Default-partition-in-partitioning-tp5946868p5965599.html
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Thanks Ashutosh,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>
>
thrown before we try to
check for the default partition data. So, in such cases I think we really
do not need to have logic to check if default partition refutes the new
partition contraints.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
mpletion(const char *text, int start, int end)
> COMPLETE_WITH_SCHEMA_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_tables, "");
> /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
> else if (TailMatches3("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny))
> -COM
ion() public. Per Amit's comment I have
removed this change and let the overlapping error without row contains.
I think this is analogus to other functions that are throwing violation
error
but are not local to execMain.c.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
osh's one
of the
comment to write a function for common code of ATExecAttachPartition() and
check_default_allows_bound().
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Insert():
/*
* Check the constraints of the tuple
*/
if (resultRelationDesc->rd_att->constr || resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheck)
ExecConstraints(resultRelInfo, slot, estate);
I couldn't debug it further today.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
Hi,
I have addressed Ashutosh's and Amit's comments in the attached patch.
Please let me know if I have missed anything and any further comments.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Amit Langote
>
Thanks Amit for your comments.
On 31-May-2017 6:03 AM, "Amit Langote"
wrote:
Hi Jeevan,
On 2017/05/30 16:38, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> I have rebased the patch on the latest commit.
> PFA.
Was looking at the patch and felt that the parse node representation of
default partitio
Hi,
I have fixed the issue related to default partition constraints not getting
updated
after detaching a partition.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have rebased the patch on the latest commit.
> PFA.
>
> Ther
1 values(null);
INSERT 0 1
Note that the parent correctly allows the nulls to be inserted.
[1] rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeevan Ladhe writes:
> > I have rebased the patch on recent commit.
>
> Pushed with some further tweaking.
>
Thanks Tom for taking care of this.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg315490.html
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
>
>
>> The existing comment is not valid
>> /*
>> * A null partition key is only acceptable if null-accepting
>> lis
Hi,
I have rebased the patch on recent commit.
With recent commits, some of the hunks in the v2 patch related to
castNode, are not needed.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> Thanks for catching this. For now thi
it returns a List.
+ *
+ * If DEFAULT is the only partiton for the table then this returns TRUE.
+ *
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com&
ena, as stated earlier will update this on my next version of patch.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
This patch needs a rebase on recent commits, and also a fix[1] that is
posted for get_qual_for_list().
I am working on both of these tasks. Will update the patch once I am done
with this.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017
e separately?
>
I have made this change at couple of places applicable.
PFA.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
fix_listdatums_get_qual_for_list_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
ied.
PFA.
[1]
*https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAOgcT0PLPge%3D5U6%3DGU5SnC3_8yutCbWWOiUva3Cw94M9zpbvgQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAOgcT0PLPge%3D5U6%3DGU5SnC3_8yutCbWWOiUva3Cw94M9zpbvgQ%40mail.gmail.com>*
Regards,
Jee
Forgot to attach the patch.
PFA.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi Rajkumar,
>
> postgres=# CREATE TEMP TABLE temp_list_part (a int) PARTITION BY LIST (a);
>> CREATE TABLE
>> postgres=# CREATE TEMP TABLE temp_def_part (a int);
>> CREATE TABL
ction unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or while processing the request.
> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
> !>
>
Thanks for reporting.
PFA patch that fixes above issue.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Hi,
I started looking into Rahila's default_partition_v11.patch, and reworked on
few things as below:
- I tried to cover all the review comments posted on the thread. Do let
me know if something is missing.
- Got rid of the functions get_qual_for_default() and
generate_qual_for_defaultpart().
Th
Hi,
Following code in function get_qual_for_list(partition.c) is not reachable.
else
result = list_make1(opexpr);
Attached is the patch that removes this dead code.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
partition_remove_dead_code.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Agreed. Committed your patch.
>
Thanks Robert!
> I committed this with fixes for those issues, plus I renamed the macro
> to partition_bound_accepts_nulls, which I think is more clear.
Thanks Robert.
KX0HCg%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
remove_has_null_PartitionBoundInfoData_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
all
the places, but that code is either list specific or does not have
availability
of partitioned key index.
Attached patch does this small change in make_partition_op_expr.
Another way is to, have an Assert in case of PARTITION_STRATEGY_LIST:
Assert(keynum !=
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> > wrote:
> >> I have fixed the crash in attached patch.
> before or while processing the request.
> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
> !>
>
Hi,
I have fixed the crash in attached patch.
Also the patch needed bit of adjustments due to recent commit.
I have re-based the patch on latest commit.
PFA.
Regards,
fall through and will return false from the outermost return statement.
I leave this decision to you, but further this block could be rewritten as
below and also can be defined as a macro:
bool
isDefaultPartitionBound(Node *value)
{
return (IsA(value, DefElem) &&
!strcmp(((DefElem) value)->defname, "DEFAULT"));
}
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
ERROR: relation "tab1" does not exist
ERROR: relation "tab2" does not exist
ERROR: relation "tab2" does not exist
invalid command \.
postgres=#
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
Hi Amit, Ashutosh,
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > On 2017/05/09 17:21, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM, amul sul wrote:
>
In my last email by mistake I attached Amul's patch itself.
Please find attached patch extending the fix to inheritance relations.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM, amul sul wrote:
>
>
;s original patch to address the
inheritance dumping issue.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
pg_dump_fix_for_partition_and_inheritance.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your explnation.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > While reviewing the code I was trying to explore more cases, and I here
> > comes an
> > open question to my mind:
test FOR VALUES IN(15);*
*ERROR: could not open file "base/12335/16420": No such file or directory*
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <
rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Rahila,
>
> pg_restore is failing for def
defeated?
Any views?
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
pletion:
CREATE TABLE pd PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES
I did some primary testing and did not find any problem so far.
I will review and test further and let you know my comments.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <
rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb
flag overwriteOK:
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions-recovers-subtrans-links-incorrectly-td5957751.html#a5957853
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Been seeing this warning recently:
>
> twophase.c: In
i);
INSERT 0 100
Time: 3166.445 ms (00:03.166)
postgres=# delete from mytab where a < 21;
DELETE 20
*Time: 355.288 ms*
Am I missing something here?
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Rahila Syed
> wrote:
> >> Following can also be considered as it specifies more clearly that the
> >> partition h
he one
mentioned by Keith; both of them are passing without errors.
Also, I did a pg_dump test and it is dumping the partitions and data
correctly.
But as mentioned earlier, it would be good if you have them in your patch.
I will do further review and let you know comments if any.
Regards,
Jeevan
Hi Ashutosh,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > Hi Rahila,
> >
> >
> > With your latest patch:
> >
> > Consider a case when a tab
(IsA(lfirst(cell1), DefElem))
+ {
+ def_elem = true;
+ *defid = inhrelid;
+ }
+ }
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Hi Rahila,
>
>
> With your latest patch:
>
> Consider a case when a table is partitioned on a boolean key.
>
>
#x27;);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE part_default PARTITION OF list_partitioned FOR
VALUES IN (DEFAULT);
CREATE TABLE
The creation of table part_default should have failed instead.
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Keith Fiske wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 201
IN
(4,5);
ERROR: parent table "list_partitioned" has a default partition
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> I applied the patch and was trying to perform some testing, but its
> ending up with server crash with the test shared by you in y
k you want to say:
-- check routing error through a list partitioned table when the key is null
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Just observed a crash due to thinko in the logic that handles NULL
> partition key. Absence of null-accepting p
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
The patch looks good to me now.
Passing this to committer.
The n
should it do a lazy evaluation of the branch? */
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
following:
if (coerceToBool(&vargs[0]))
*retval = vargs[1];
else
*retval = vargs[2];
Conclusion:
===
I have tested the patch and each of the operator is implemented correctly.
The only concern I have is precedence, otherwise the patch seems to be doing
what it is supposed to do.
[1]
85 matches
Mail list logo
