Does Postgres provide a convenient way for one process to pass data to another
using shared memory?
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
_
Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org
ch this space). LWLocks
> (our usual lock primitive for cases where spinlocks are inappropriate)
> currently don't work correctly inside DSM segments (this too will be fixed).
I've now found this through the test_shm_mq sample. Looks like an answer, if
quite a bit of machi
on (F.41) was removed
between 9.4 and 9.5 -- is there a problem?
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
transactions”. There are random mentions of subtransactions in the
release notes, but nothing substantive that I can find, and nothing about
transaction nesting.
Any pointers to docs or help to understand much appreciated.
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
_
Andl - A New Database Language
and understanding the transaction environment is turning
out to be a major challenge.
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.
and on ext3 fsync is horribly slow because it writes out
_everything_ that's pending, not just stuff related to the file you do the
fsync on.
David Lang
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
it's just unsafe and slow ;-)
David Lang
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
volunteers or objections to my offer.
I am still ready, eager, and willing!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
cificaly "9.7-first"
> or
> > something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
> clear.
>
> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
>
>
>
> We do need to pick one of them :)
I'm good with 9.7-first. I presume it
We do need to pick one of them :)
>>
>> Anybody else with preferences?
>
> I would prefer to see a consistent namimg pattern (i.e., 2016-09)
> and rename it if we reschedule.
I'm fine with that - it does help set expectations.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
>> volunteers or objections to my offer.
>
>> I am still ready, eager, and willing!
>
> I haven't heard any other voluntee
On 3/1/16 8:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> David Steele writes:
>>>>> I volunteered a
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
> >> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> David Steele writes:
> >>&
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:34:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> >> wrote:
> >&
#x27;s get reviewing!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
o me. Though, I'm a bit late as the
> commitfest is already closed to new patches, I guess asking the CF
> manager to split this might work (assuming I produce the patch files)?
If the patch is broken into two files that gives the review/committer
more options but I don't th
e upper planner changes in
first, but soon! not at the end of March 'fest, as doing so would most
likely kill parallel aggregate for 9.6, and I kinda think that would
be silly as (I think) it's pretty much the biggest missing piece of
the parallel query set.
--
David Rowley
On 3 March 2016 at 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> I agree that it would be good to get this in as soon as possible. I'm
>> currently very close to being done with writing Parallel Aggregate on
>> top of the upper planner changes. So far this ver
On 3 March 2016 at 22:57, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 March 2016 at 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you come across any points where it seems like it could be
>> done better or more easily, that would be tremendously valuable feedback
>> at this stage.
>
> Well since y
t;leaf node" in the path tree.
Propagating these would mean I could remove that parameter again.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
istence of the outstanding issues above, I feel like I
might be posting the patch a little earlier, but wanted to do so since
this is quite a hot area in the code at the moment and I wanted to
post for transparency.
To apply the patch please apply [1] first.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id
te, '2016-03-31'::date, interval '1
day')::date
But it would have been cleaner to write:
generate_series('2016-03-01'::date, '2016-03-31'::date)
More importantly, though, I don't like that the timestamp version of the
function happily takes da
On 5 March 2016 at 10:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wonder why do we have two identical copies of clause_sides_match_join ...
Yeah, I noticed the same a while back, and posted about it. Here was
the response:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26820.1405522...@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
David Row
't see why we need to give the impression that
there is in EXPLAIN.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chan
ET ROLE;,
> LOG: AUDIT: SESSION,7,1,READ,SELECT,,,SELECT * FROM team;,
Well, that definitely doesn't look right.
You may have noticed that the pgaudit patch is marked as "returned with
feedback" so it is closed for the current commitfest and will not be
included in 9.6.
I'
On 8 March 2016 at 10:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've pushed it now; we'll soon see if the buildfarm finds any problems.
Fantastic! I'm looking forward to all the future optimisation
opportunities that this opens up.
Thanks for making this happen.
--
David Rowley
On 5 March 2016 at 07:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:00 PM, David Rowley
>> 3. The code never attempts to mix and match Grouping Agg and Hash Agg
>> plans. e.g it could be an idea to perform Partial Hash Aggregate ->
>> Gather -> Sort -> Finalize
The attached fixes a small spelling error in a comment.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
parallel_spelling_fix.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac
The attached fixes a small error in the logicaldecoding docs.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
logicaldecoding_docs_typo_fix.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
On 9 March 2016 at 04:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> My concerns are:
>> 1. Since there's no cheapest_partial_path in RelOptInfo the code is
>> currently considering every partial_path for parallel hash aggregate.
On 23 January 2016 at 05:36, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/17/2015 02:17 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> On 17 December 2015 at 19:11, Simon Riggs > <mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 December 2015 at 00:17, Tomas Vond
t... YAML
seems most compact.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8907.1440383...@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
server, but received
Using a fresh build from 51c0f63 I can logon reliably every time so I
don't think there's an issue in my environment.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
gssapi.pcap
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I'll be
happy to open the CF entry again.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
tch to the next commitfest.
There hasn't been any movement on this patch in a while. Will you have
a new tests ready for review soon?
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
soon, then?
ISTM that this patch should be "returned with feedback" or "rejected"
based on the thread. I'm marking it "waiting for author" for the time
being.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-ha
ot;needs review" but I have changed it to "waiting for
author".
Thanks,
-David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 9 March 2016 at 04:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> 3. Nothing in create_grouping_paths() looks at the force_parallel_mode
>> GUC. I had a quick look at this GUC and was a bit surprised to see 3
>> possible states, bu
Hi Simon,
On 3/10/16 7:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Can you add this to the CF? It was submitted before deadline.
I presume you have access to do that?
No problem - here it is:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/576/
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 3/9/16 7:37 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 03/02/16 05:02, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:24 PM, David Steele wrote:
I have attached a patch that adds an ereport() macro to suppress client
output for a single report call (applies cleanly on 1d0c3b3). I'll also
move it t
On 8 March 2016 at 11:15, David Rowley wrote:
> The setrefs.c parts of the patch remain completely broken. I've not
> had time to look at this again yet, sorry.
Ok, so again, apologies for previously sending such a broken patch.
I've since managed to free up a bit of time to wor
thout any message when used with ERROR level.
Right you are. The v3 patch adds this check.
I also added the documentation to sources.sgml that Tom pointed out was
missing.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/sources.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/sources.sgml
index fcb3e40..4ad15d
ent way of violating the protocol. Maybe we
> should reduce the max setting of that to ERROR?
This was the same conclusion I came to for the log_level setting in pgaudit.
I'll submit a proposal to hackers after 9.6 to make this change.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
l submit a proposal to hackers after 9.6 to make this change.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Can anyone with access to a
> BSD system review and test?
Is anyone with access to/experience with BSD able to review and test
this patch? Seems like it would make a great addition to 9.6.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
current behavior potentially allows for more flexible
> error reporting, I'm for keeping it.
It looks like a decision needs to be made here whether to apply this
patch, send it back to the author, or reject it so I'm marking it "Ready
for Committer".
Robert, since you were p
On 1/20/16 11:42 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley
> mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
> > Agreed. So I'
into the last CF, or
for other reasons altogether.
I think you should try to make it clear why this patch would be a win
for 9.6.
Is anyone willing to volunteer a review or make an argument for the
importance of this patch?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/11/16 1:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>> It looks like a decision needs to be made here whether to apply this patch,
>>> send it back to the author, or reject it so I'm mar
sal to change it to 'replica' came up
everybody seemed to fall in line with that.
+1 from me for using 'replica' as the WAL level to replace 'hot_standby'
and 'archive'.
+1 from me for removing the 'hot_standby' and 'archive' options entirely
in 9.6 rather than deprecating.
Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for
committer'.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> Konstantin does not agree with my assessment, perhaps unsurprisingly.
I'm certainly no stranger to feeling strongly about a patch!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
It looks like we are waiting on a new patch from you before this can be
reviewed. Are you close to having that done?
Meanwhile, I have marked it "Waiting on Author".
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/11/16 2:00 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David Steele I'm concerned about the lack of response or reviewers for this patch.
> It may be because everyone believes they had their say on the original
> thread, or because it seems like a bi
.
It looks like there is still some discussion to be had here about
whether a "human readable" solution is enough.
Until that's resolved I've marked this patch "Waiting on Author".
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ds that seem idle or
have issues that need to be resolved. Please do not hesitate to contact
me about about any concerns that you might have regarding the Commitfest
process.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 11 March 2016 at 03:39, David Rowley wrote:
> A couple of things which I'm not 100% happy with.
>
> 1. make_partialgroup_input_target() doing lookups to the syscache.
> Perhaps this job can be offloaded to a new function in a more suitable
> location. Ideally the Aggref wou
in RelOptInfo, this would also allow
rel_supports_distinctness() to do something a bit smarter than just
return false if there's no indexes. That might not buy us much though,
but at least relations tend to have very little unique indexes, even
when they have lots of indexes.
--
David
be possible to analyse the join rel too and search for
a base rel which supports the distinctness, and then ensure none of
the other rels which make up the join rel can cause tuple duplication
of that rel. But this just causes missed optimisation opportunities.
--
David Rowley
On 12 March 2016 at 16:31, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached an updated patch which is based on commit 7087166,
> things are really changing fast in the grouping path area at the
> moment, but hopefully the dust is starting to settle now.
The attached patch fixes a harmless co
run EXPLAIN ANALYZE on this with the 6 workers, does the actual
number of Gather rows come out at 105? I'd just like to get an idea of my
cost estimate for the Gather are going to be accurate for real world data
sets.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
hat function which states:
/*
* Limit the degree of parallelism logarithmically based on the size of the
* relation. This probably needs to be a good deal more sophisticated, but we
* need something here for now.
*/
So this will likely see some revision at some point, after 9.6.
--
David Row
dding a column which explicitly
stores that value (1), or collecting stats on the expression (2), or
teaching the planner about the internals of that function, which is
likely just never going to happen. (3) is just going to make the
outlook of a hash plan look a little brighter, although you'
ime currently?
There is nothing in the planner yet, or any patch that I know of to
push the Partial Aggregate node to below an Append node. That will
most likely come in 9.7.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Serv
On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote:
Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for
committer'.
This patch is now ready for committer.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
est/regress/expected/aggregates.out: patch does not apply
Please provide a new patch for review. Meanwhile I am marking this
"waiting on author".
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chan
list to store SQL multistatement but
immediately the caller moves the elements into an array. This
patch totally changes the way to linked list.
Any takers to review this updated patch?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.or
) was
terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault
Fixed this, try the new patch. The bug was in incorrect handling
of some GIN categories.
Oleg, it looks like Constantin has updated to patch to address the issue
you were seeing. Do you have time to retest and review?
Thanks,
--
-David
da
Does that mean the patch is not yet complete?
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam3swzq3_plqch4w7uq8q_f2t4hesektr2n0rq5pxa18oer...@mail.gmail.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
I don't think it would be clear to any reviewer which patch to apply
even if they were working. I'm marking this "waiting for author".
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subs
you have signed up to review. Do you have an idea when
you will get the chance to do that?
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 3/14/16 10:28 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Rebased patch is attached.
Thanks for the quick turnaround!
Marko, you are signed up to review this patch. Do you have an idea of
when you'll be able to do that?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
w? Meanwhile I am
marking this as "waiting for author".
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
e itself simple.
It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
objections?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-
with XLogInsertExtended() since it seems to be a
rare use case where flags are required. This can always be refactored
in the future if/when the use of flags spreads.
I think it would be good to make a decision on this before asking
Michael to rebase.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sen
All three
patches apply (with whitespace issues).
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
you are signed up to review. Any opinion on which course is
best?
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
t all questions
have been answered by Amit.
Is this "ready for committer" or still in need of further review?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
ment so if you
could do a followup review that would be great.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/14/16 4:10 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>
>> Hi Robbie,
>>
>> On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>> Hello friends,
>>>
>>> Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. It's also
>>
On 3/14/16 7:20 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>
>>
>> Strange timing since I was just testing this. Here's what I got:
>>
>> $ pg/bin/psql -h localhost -U vagr...@pgmasters.net postgres
>> conn->inStart = 179, conn->inEnd = 179,
for queries which estimate a larger
number of groups than partial path rows.
> + aggstate->finalizeAggs == true)
>
> We usually just say if (a) not if (a == true) when it's a boolean.
> Similarly !a rather than a == false.
hmm, thanks. It appear
parallel aggregate.
> 4) Is clauses.h the right place for PartialAggType?
I'm not sure that it is to be honest. I just put it there because the
patch never persisted the value of a PartialAggType in any struct
field anywhere and checks it later in some other file. In all place
t want this one getting
bloated with debates on that. It's not code I'm planning on going
anywhere near for this patch.
I'll start a thread...
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
4151882 MB, 4054 GB)
For 1594323001 pages there will be 14 workers (rel size 12455648 MB, 12163 GB)
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANkGpBtUvzpdvF2=_iq64ujmvrpycs6d4i9-wepbusq1sq+...@mail.gmail.com
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
On 15 March 2016 at 15:24, James Sewell wrote:
>
> I did want to test with some really slow aggs, but even when I take out the
> small table test in create_parallel_paths I can't seem to get a parallel plan
> for a tiny table. Any idea on why this would be David?
In the test p
On 15 March 2016 at 13:48, David Rowley wrote:
> An updated patch will follow soon.
I've attached an updated patch which addresses some of Robert's and
Tomas' concerns.
I've not done anything about the exprCollation() yet, as I'm still
unsure of what it should do. I
th a 9.4 client so didn't try any others.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/15/16 1:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele
>> This patch no longer applies cleanly:
>>
>> $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch
>> error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404
>> error: src/backen
On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
> On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
>>> I don't think w
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:37:36PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:13:33PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >> On 11/2/15 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> >> >I'd like to ad
Hi Michael,
On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review? Meanwhile I am
>>&
apping that for the next minor release, so I propose the attached
> patches.
I noticed this when reviewing the pg_receive_xlog refactor and was going
to submit a patch after the CF. It didn't occur to me to piggyback on
this work but I think it makes sense.
+1 from me for fixing this in pg_
27;ll move this to the next CF
> and try and get an updated patch done in time for that one.
There's been no activity on this thread for while and no new patch was
submitted for the CF.
I have marked it "returned with feedback".
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pg
ate, mark it
> Ready for Committer?
Author has been set to Kyotaro Horiguchi.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> test, or to move all operator related testing to one file. This is however
> clearly outside of the scope of this patch, so in v3 I've simplified tests
> using
> queries from oidjoins.sql.
You've signed up to review this patch, do you have an idea of when you
might be a
error: patch failed: src/include/utils/builtins.h:1151
Falling back to three-way merge...
Applied patch to 'src/include/utils/builtins.h' with conflicts.
U src/include/utils/builtins.h
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql
bout a few dozen kilobytes
>> there ...
>
> Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
>
> Here is a v23 with a memory leak anyway.
Álvaro, it looks like you've been both reviewer and committer on this
work for some time.
The latest patch seems to address you final concern. Can I mark it
"ready for committer"?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
breviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.
>
> It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
> reflects a type on which it is applied.
> What would the best name be for it?
Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it
l, and it's tricky for regular users to deduce that as it's related to
> the type of the internal state and not to the input types. An example of
> that is the SUM(bigint) example mentioned above.
I agree. I will look for a suitable place.
--
David Rowley htt
On 16 March 2016 at 09:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:56 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> A comment does explain this, but perhaps it's not good enough, so I've
>> rewritten it to become.
>>
>> /*
>> * PartialAggref
>> *
>&
1 - 100 of 5584 matches
Mail list logo
