).
Is there a simpler way of doing things? Should I try generating a resjunk
TargetEntry in transformUpdateStmt and have its expr point to the subquery
and see if that works?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 3/31/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have invented a ROWEXPR_SUBLINK type that handles multiple output
columns.
The trouble is that since eventually columns of the parents have to be
part
of the query's targetList, I am sending the entire
.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
that, obviously I would want to go with the consensus on this
list as to what we think is the *best* way to go forward with partitioning.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
in.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
public.child_1
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
a | integer |
b | integer |
Indexes:
child_1_a_key UNIQUE, btree (a)
Check constraints:
child_1_a_check CHECK (a 10)
test1_b_check CHECK (b 0)
Inherits: test1
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
So we are unable to load any of the tables using COPY.
Aww, guess should have stuck to triggers as a first choice. Mea culpa, since
I should have investigated some more before deciding on rules, or should
have prodded you more earlier:)
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
. This entry gets
preprocessed similar to other fields of the Query from within
subquery_planner.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
update_test;
a ?column?
-- -
2030
Is the problem with the code in colNameToVar or maybe we should add checks
in transformSubLink?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 4/12/07, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/12/07, NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Shouldn't the final command below cause a 'column b does not exist
error'?
create table update_test (a int, b int);
create table supdate_test(x int, y int);
insert into update_test
,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
dont know if this is the
recommended way though). These will end up becoming a part of template1 and
any subsequent databases that are created will contain them.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
help
in such cases because of this very beauty of memory contexts :).
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
becomes a direct child of TopMemoryContext. Wouldn't it be a better idea to
create the table in CurrentMemoryContext?
If hash_destroy() is not explicitly invoked, this can cause a lot of bloat
especially if the intention was to use the hash table only for a while.
Regards,
Nikhils
Regards,
Nikhils
where the code was resetting the len
field to 0 and assigning '\0' to the data field to reset the variable. This
seems to be the only missing API which will be needed while working with the
StringInfo type.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Index: src/backend
Apologies! As Alvaro guessed it correctly I was working with 8.2 sources.
Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 8/29/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The attached patch should fix this.
And break other things, no doubt. needed = 0 is a perfectly
greater than 1 before calling this in
transformExpressionList?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi Alex,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Alex Hunsaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:14 AM, NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Add logic to disallow ADD CONSTRAINT ONLY to parent of an inheritance
hierarchy
* Add logic to mark inherited constraints in the children
pg_dump changes
just to be sure). Looks like some memory overwrite issue. The trace is as
follows:
Core was generated by `postgres: nikhils regression [local] CREATE
TABLE '.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x08378024 in AllocSetCheck (context
Hi Alvaro
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
NikhilS escribió:
I will take a look at the pg_dump related changes if you want. We will
need
changes in flagInhAttrs() and in getTableAttrs() to query the backend
for
these 2 attributes for post 80300
some thoughts on how to do this and will be happy to share the
same if the list is interested. Personally, I think data transformation
using such expressions is a pretty powerful and important activity while
doing the data load itself.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
this or exec_eval_datum could
itself be modified for cases where we just need the datum type. Should I
cook up a patch for this? I am inclined towards introducing a new function
(but that means that any new datum related changes need to be carried out in
2 functions instead of one currently).
Regards,
Nikhils
reason.
But consider for example when the datum type is PLPGSQL_DTYPE_REC. I dont
think its justified to have the overhead of heap_copytuple_with_tuple, when
all we need is just the typeid! Similar arguments apply for other datums
like PLPGSQL_DTYPE_ROW, PLPGSQL_DTYPE_TRIGARG e.g.
Regards,
Nikhils
, the
rd_refcnt for table foo is bumped up to 2, causing the above failure.
We might want to add a step to ExecuteTruncate(), or whatever calls it, to
make the list unique.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
need that for adding to web page.
Yes, agreed. We had someone else who wanted to be listed by alias some
time back (year+, don't remember whom it was) and that was turned down.
Agreed :), for the record, my name is Nikhil Sontakke.
Regard,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
should only create those indexes which do
not have isconstraint set to TRUE.
Comments?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
been checked in:
CREATE
- Have WITH CONSTRAINTS also create constraint indexes
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-04/msg00149.php
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
enhancement to COPY. The syntax and
other details mentioned above are ofcourse subject to discussion and
approval on the list.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
subtransaction.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On Dec 15, 2007 1:14 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any errors which occur before doing the heap_insert should not require
any recovery according to me.
A sufficient (though far from all-encompassing) rejoinder to that is
triggers and CHECK
or otherwise. While it definitely makes sense
for the FROM case maybe we could relax this for the COPY TO case.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
.
Thoughts?
..
Surely this wont be instantaneous?
..
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
don't overlap.
Detection of mutually exclusive ranges might not turn out to be so easy
afterall. I think there is some code in the constraint_exclusion area which
might help out in this.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
for many applications. We need it for our own stuff! :P
Agreed, syntax is just the sugar.
Also other than performance, how are updates involving partition keys
causing the resultant tuple to end up in a new partition handled here?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
Hi Longlong,
i think this is a better idea.
from *NikhilS *
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00584.php
But instead of using a per insert or a batch insert substraction, I am
thinking that we can start off a subtraction and continue it till we
encounter a failure
src/backend/utils/mmgr/README contains more information about the same too.
Regards,
Nikhils
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Dan Searle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had to fiddle about with switching memory contexts
this
rudimentary way of determing the inheritance :).
Am important decision here is about adding a new attribute to pg_constraint
as it is the only sane way of determining inherited constraints, but that
will require an initdb. Comments?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
thought/comments?
Regards,
Nikhils
(www.enterprisedb.com)-- All the world's a stage, and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.
Hi Jim,
On 10/13/06, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:17:47PM +0530, NikhilS wrote: Currently a select * from pg_statio_user_tables; displays only
heap_blks_read, heap_blks_hit stats amongst others for the main relation. It would be good to have the following stats
Hi,
So:
heap_blks_reused (with Jim's semantics), heap_blks_extend,
heap_blks_truncate are the interesting stats? Will try to work up a
patch for this.
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 10/15/06, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 11:32 +0530
Hi,
bgwriter doing aysncronous I/O for the dirty buffers that it is supposed to sync
Another decent use-case?
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 10/15/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn,On 10/15/06 10:56 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote
you mean the number of pages that could not be added
to the FSM because they had freespace which was less than the threshold
for this particular relation?
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:27:39AM +0530, NikhilS wrote: Hi,
So: heap_blks_reused
/o is stably supported on most *nix (apart from Linux 2.6.*) plus Windows.
Guess it would be still worth it, since one fine day 2.6.* will start supporting it properly too.
Regards,
Nikhils
Is it worth considering using readv(2) instead?Err, readv allows you to split a single consecutive read
codebase which provides microseconds level of delay coupled with SIGALRM support?
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com-- All the world's a stage, and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.
.
Since these can be turned on a per file basis, perf testing them out should be simpler too.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 10/25/06, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:53:23PM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote: Anyway, for those who want to see what they do in Linux,
http
for them. In case of HOT updates, we have a
single index entry with the chains getting traversed from the overflow
relation. So as Simon has mentioned the need to avoid long chains remains
a difficulty for both the situations.
Regards,
Nikhils
-- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
relations.
Regards,Nikhils-- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
with the HOT update patch.
Regards,
Nikhils
-- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
. Vacuumseems to dolittle to help in a long running transaction case. Generally in most of the pgbench runs that we carried out, autovacuum did not seem to be of much help even to PG82.
Regards,
Nikhils-- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
and bufmgr.c files only.
Comments please.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
# supply -g if --enable-debug
! if test $enable_debug = yes (test $ac_cv_prog_cc_g = yes ||
! test $ac_cv_prog_gcc_g = yes); then
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -g
fi
Should I submit a patch for this?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
becomes
difficult. Has this issue been faced by anybody else? If so can try out a
patch to avoid using O2 with enable-debug.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 2/2/07, Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, NikhilS wrote:
Hi,
configure with --enable-debug does not seem to add -g to CFLAGS
Hi,
On 2/2/07, Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, NikhilS wrote:
Hi,
Indeed it does, apologies for not doing the entire groundwork. But what
it
also does is that it adds -O2 by default for gcc even when
--enable-debug is
specified. gdb is not able to navigate
(single digit percentage)
of (NBuffers
* int) size. I have done pgbench/dbt2 runs and I do not see any negative
impact because of this. Are there any other suggestions for measuring the
backend memory footprint?
Regards,
Nikhils
On 2/21/07, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Added to TODO
lead to
more critical usage elsewhere... But agreed, it is hard to show with just
some performance runs.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 3/5/07, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the opinion of the list as to the best way of measuring
these rules.
Comments appreciated,
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 3/6/07, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS wrote:
iv) Based on the PRIMARY, UNIQUE, REFERENCES information specified,
pass it on to the children tables.
How will you maintain a primary key in such a table, considering that
indexes can't span multiple tables?
We
On 3/6/07, NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 3/6/07, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the intention is to use this information from the parent and make it a
property of the child table. This will avoid the step for the user
having
Hi,
On 3/6/07, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the intention is to use this information from the parent and make it a
property of the child table. This will avoid the step for the user having
to
manually specify CREATE INDEX and the likes on all
Hi Shane,
Maybe I'm looking at auto-maintenance which is beyond any current planning?
Many of your suggestions are useful, but auto-maintenance will be beyond the
current plan.
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
, and that
restriction avoids the indexing problem.
regards, tom lane
Sure, but as Chris mentioned earlier, wouldn't it be useful to maintain
uniqueness on a
partition-by-partition basis too?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
partitioning, the additional onus on the user is to specify
non-conflicting CHECKs for the range/list partitions.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
agree. For version 1, UNIQUE/PRIMARY indexes will cascade down to the
child table, only if the indexed column is present as part of the
partitioning rule.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
in its own
index and follow it up with dummy entries update into other partitions if
the need be.
Ofcourse as you have mentioned all of this so needs to be done after a
careful think on the locking/deadlocking etc issues.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 3/7/07, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am
with the partition. Do we want to reinvent additional syntax
when these are around and are documented?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
to add partitions)
ALTER TABLE tabname
ADD PARTITION partition_name CHECK(...)
[USING TABLESPACE tblspcname];
We could as well drop the USING part.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
partition.
Given that Simon wants to do away with having the master table APPENDed in
the planning phase, this would be better.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
Shane Ambler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
;
return 4;
}
Doing it this way would allow us to easily join two tables based upon a
common partition function.
In time, I would suggest we support both ways: declarative and
functional.
Till now, we are going the declarative way.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
disassociate and not drop.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
.
That again means that the onus is on the partition creator most of the
times..
Regards,
Nikhils
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
syntax, what changes and
where all they need to be made with respect to the documentation?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
:
UPDATE update_test SET (a,b) = (select a,b FROM update_test where c = 'foo')
WHERE a = 10;
Will try testing out some other variations too.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
making all the changes.
Grzegorz, I would have suggested to make an entry for VERBOSE in
parser/keywords.c, but it already seems to contain an entry for VERBOSE. I
hope you are using the opt_verbose rule in your gram.y in the CLUSTER
[VERBOSE] case.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http
of the above to hold, I think the subselect will have to be
treated like a EXPR_SUBLINK subquery. I was wondering if we have a similar
mechanism for plain selects/subselects to check and restrict their output to
a single row.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 3/16/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NikhilS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To allow both of the above to hold, I think the subselect will have to
be
treated like a EXPR_SUBLINK subquery. I was wondering if we have a
similar
mechanism for plain selects/subselects to check
78 matches
Mail list logo
