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;
> +
> + /
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
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 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.
>>
>
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
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
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 2017/11/06 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 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 2017/11/03 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 2017/11/03 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
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 2017/10/31 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
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 2017/10/27 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
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 2017/10/24 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 2017/10/24 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 2017/10/23 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 2017/10/18 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 2017/10/22 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 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
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 2017/10/14 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 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 2017/10/13 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/
>>
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 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 2017/09/30 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 2017/10/05 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 2017/10/06 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 2017/10/04 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
Hi David.
Thanks a lot for your review comments and sorry it took me a while to reply.
On 2017/09/28 18:16, David Rowley wrote:
> On 27 September 2017 at 14:22, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> - 0001 includes refactoring that Dilip proposed upthread [1] (added him as
>> an au
On 2017/10/03 7:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
Thanks to everyone who participated, and to everyone who have responded
to my
nagging via t
On 2017/09/30 1:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:16 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> I'd imagine, for
>> each partition key, you'd want to store a Datum with the minimum and
>> maximum possible value based on the quals processed. If either the
>> minimum or maximum is still set to NU
On 2017/09/28 22:19, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> I also noticed ambiguity in printing "No partition constraint" in
> non-verbose mode and "Partition constraint:..." in verbose one for
> partition tables regardless of the type of partition.
> Attached small patch removes any output about partition cons
On 2017/09/28 22:29, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 09:19 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
>>> E.g. "No partition constraint" vs. "Partition constraint:
>>> satisfies_hash_partition(...)".
>>
>> I also noticed ambiguity in printing "No partition constraint" in
>> non-verbose mode and "Partition c
On 2017/09/28 13:58, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
> I was looking into the latest patch set, seems like we can reuse some
> more code between this path and runtime pruning[1]
>
> + foreach(lc1, matchedclauses[i])
> + {
>
On 2017/09/28 16:13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/09/21 12:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Associate partitioning information with each RelOptInfo.
>>>
>>> This is not used for anything yet, but it is necess
Thanks Michael for working on this.
On 2017/09/27 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking more closely at the problem in $subject, that I
> have mentioned a couple of times, like here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqqa37oune_rjzpmwc4exqalx9f27-ma_-rsfl_3mj+
Sorry, I meant to say PartitionSchem"e"Data in subject.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2017/09/21 12:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> Associate partitioning information with each RelOptInfo.
>
> This is not used for anything yet, but it is necessary infrastructure
> for partition-wise join and for partition pruning without constraint
> exclusion.
>
> Ashutosh Ba
On 2017/09/27 22:41, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 09/27/2017 03:05 AM, amul sul wrote:
Attached rebased patch, thanks.
>>> While reading through the patch I thought it would be better to keep
>>> MODULUS and REMAINDER in caps, if CREATE TABLE was in caps too in order to
>>> highlight
Hi Jesper.
Firstly, thanks for looking at the patch.
On 2017/09/26 22:00, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> On 09/15/2017 04:50 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I will post rebased patches later today, although I think the o
Hi David,
On 2017/09/27 6:04, David Rowley wrote:
> On 25 September 2017 at 23:04, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> By the way, I'm now rebasing these patches on top of [1] and will try to
>> merge your refactoring patch in some appropriate way. Will post more
>&
On 2017/09/27 1:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen
> wrote:
>> One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be
>> merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest
>> entries doesn't account for hash partitions
On 2017/09/25 20:21, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for looking at the patches and the comments.
>
>> It's not clear to me whether get_rel_partitions() itself, as it is, is
>> callable from outside
On 2017/09/26 11:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I think that's right, although, I don't see any new RangeVar created under
>> vacuum() at the moment. Maybe, you're referring to the Nathan's patch
&g
On 2017/09/26 11:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> Something like that looks like a good compromise for
On 2017/09/16 1:57, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I believe the intended advantage of the current system is that if you
>> specify multiple operations in a single ALTER TABLE command, you only
>> do one scan rather than hav
On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Except that small thing, the patches do their duty.
>>
>> Thanks, revised patches attached.
>
> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer stat
On 2017/09/26 12:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the
>> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to
>> xlog.c as compress
On 2017/09/26 11:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the
>> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to
>> xlog.c as compress
On 2017/09/14 16:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi.
>
> It seems to me that some of the code in partition.c is better placed
> somewhere under the executor directory. There was even a suggestion
> recently [1] to introduce a execPartition.c to house some code around
> tuple-routing.
On 2017/09/26 9:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, I'd noticed that while reviewing the vacuum-multiple-tables patch.
>>> My thought about fixing it was to pass a null RangeVar when
On 2017/09/25 18:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm, I'm not sure if we need to lock the partitions, too. Locks taken by
>> find_all_inheritors() will be
Hi Dilip.
Thanks for looking at the patches and the comments.
On 2017/09/16 18:43, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Thanks for the updated patch. I was going through the logic of
>
On 2017/09/25 12:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Somebody inserted this into vacuum.c's get_rel_oids():
>>
>> tuple = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid));
>> if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple))
>> elog(ERROR, "cach
Hi.
Trying to catch up.
On 2017/09/25 13:43, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Added and updated the comments for both btree and hash index patches.
>
> I don't have real complaints about this patch, this looks fine to me.
>
> +* Currently, the
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Rebased patches attached. Because Dilip complained earlier today about
>> clauses of the form (const op var) not causing partition-pruning, I've
>> add
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should call check_default_allows_bound() from
>> ATExecAttachPartition(), too, instead of validating updated default
>> pa
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> LGTM. The patch applies cleanly on the current HEAD, compiles (small
>> bit in regress.c requires compilation), and make check passes. Marking
>> this as "ready for committer".
>
> Co
On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> I will post rebased patches later today, although I think the overall
> design of the patch on the planner side of things is not quite there yet.
> Of course, your and others' feedback is greatly welcome.
Rebased patches attached.
On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Sure, no problem.
>
> OK, I took a closer look at all patches, but did not run any manual
> tests to test the compression except some stuff with
> wal_consistency_c
On 2017/09/15 15:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> The fact that
> parent is locked after the child and with ShareUpdateExclusiveLock instead
> of AccessExclusiveLock, we observe this race condition when SELECTing from
> the parent.
Oops, I meant "parent table is locked with AccessSha
Hi.
On 2017/08/28 18:28, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> << the following is another topic >>
>
BTW, in the partitioned table case, the parent is always locked first
using an AccessExclusiveLock. There are other considerations in that case
such as needing to recreate the partition desc
On 2017/09/15 0:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
>> Thanks Amit for reviewing.
>>> Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip
>>> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to
>>> PartConstraintImpliedB
Hi Dilip,
Thanks for looking at the patch.
On 2017/09/15 13:43, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Amit Langote
>> [PATCH 2/5] WIP: planner-side changes for partition-pruning
>>
>> This patch adds a stub get_partitions_for_keys in partition.c with a
>
On 2017/09/15 10:55, David Rowley wrote:
> On 21 August 2017 at 18:37, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I've been working on implementing a way to perform plan-time
>> partition-pruning that is hopefully faster than the current method of
>> using constraint exclusion to
On 2017/09/15 4:43, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> I have few changes to multi-level expansion patch as per discussion in
>> earlier mails
>
> OK, I have committed
> 0002-Multi-level-partitioned-table-expansion.patch with a few cosmetic
> changes.
On 2017/09/15 1:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
>> On 14 September 2017 at 06:43, Amit Langote
>>> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Attached updated patch.
>>
>>
On 2017/09/14 16:53, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 13 September 2017 at 10:05, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Coincidentally, I just wrote the patch for canonicalizing stored values,
>> instead of erroring out. Please see attached if that's what you were
>> thinking too.
>&
Repeating links for better accessibility:
On 2017/09/14 16:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> [1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoafr%3DhUrM%3Dcbx-k%3DBDHOF2OfXaw95HQSNAK4mHBwmSjtw%40mail.gmail.com
> [2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7fe0007b-7ad1-a593-df11-ad0536
Hi.
It seems to me that some of the code in partition.c is better placed
somewhere under the executor directory. There was even a suggestion
recently [1] to introduce a execPartition.c to house some code around
tuple-routing.
IMO, catalog/partition.c should present an interface for handling
oper
f the
> default partitioning support.
Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip
scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to
PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint()? We don't need to repeat the
explanation of what it do
On 2017/08/07 11:05, Amit Langote wrote:
> By the way, bulk of 0004 is refactoring which it seems is what Jeevan's
> default partition patch set also includes as one of the patches [1]. It
> got a decent amount review from Ashutosh. I broke it down into a separate
> patch, so
On 2017/09/14 7:43, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> I debugged what happens in case of query "select 1 from t1 union all
>> select 2 from t1;" with the current HEAD (without multi-level
>> expansion patch attached). It doesn't set partitioned_rels
On 2017/09/14 1:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> It seems to me we don't really need the first patch all that much. That
>> is, let's keep PartitionDispatchData the way it is for now, since we don't
>> r
On 2017/09/11 18:56, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated patch does it that way for both partitioned table indexes
> and leaf partition indexes. Thanks for pointing it out.
It seems to me we don't really need the first patch all that much. That
is, let's keep PartitionDispatc
Hi Dean,
On 2017/09/13 17:51, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Did anything happen on this, or did we just forget it completely?
>>
>> I forgot it. :-(
>>
>> I really think we should fix this.
>
> Ah, sorry. This was fo
On 2017/09/13 16:59, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/13 16:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> In the attached updated patch, I created separate .sour
On 2017/09/13 16:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In the attached updated patch, I created separate .source files in
>> src/test/regress/input and output directories called fdw_handler.source
>> and put the test_fdw_handle
On 2017/09/13 16:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I updated the patches so that the metapage's pd_lower is set to the
>> correct value just before *every* point where we are about to insert a
>> full page i
On 2017/09/13 16:21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> locks taken from the executor are worthless because plancache.c will
>> always do the job for us. I don't know of a case where we execute a
>> saved plan without going through the plan cache, but
On 2017/09/12 19:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I think the code here expects the original parent_rte and not the one
> we set around line 1169.
>
> This isn't a bug right now, since both the parent_rte s have same
> content. But I am not sure if that will remain to be so. Here's patch
> to fix the t
On 2017/09/13 13:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/12 23:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think one point which might be missed is that the patch needs to
>>> modify pd_lower for all usages of metapage, not only when it is first
>>> time
On 2017/09/13 12:05, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 June 2017 at 10:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> BTW, in the partitioned table case, the parent is always locked first
>> using an AccessExclusiveLock. There are other considerations in that case
>> such as needing to recreate
Thanks for the review.
On 2017/09/12 23:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I updated the patches for GIN, BRIN, and SP-GiST to include the following
>> changes:
>>
>> 1. Pass REGBUF_STNADARD flag when registering the met
On 2017/09/12 20:17, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Thanks Ashutosh for taking a look at this.
>>
>> On 2017/09/05 21:16, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> The patch needs a rebase.
>>
>> Attached rebased patc
On 2017/09/06 19:14, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/09/06 18:46, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>> Okay, I have marked this as ready for committer.
>
> Thanks Ashutosh and Rushabh for rebasing and improving the patch. Looks
> good to me too.
Patch needed to be rebased after the defaul
On 2017/09/11 18:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>>> care of a patch for btree and hash, would
On 2017/09/12 18:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I noticed that we might need to be careful about what the value
>> of the root parent's PlanRowMark's allMarkType field gets set to. We nee
On 2017/09/12 17:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So, we can remove partitioned_rels from (Merge)AppendPath and
>> (Merge)Append nodes and remove ExecLockNonLeafAppendTables().
>
> Don't we need partitioned_re
Thanks Ashutosh for taking a look at this.
On 2017/09/05 21:16, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> The patch needs a rebase.
Attached rebased patch.
Thanks,
Amit
From 75bcb6ebcc00193cb0251fced994f03d205e9e7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: amit
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:37:42 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Add som
On 2017/09/12 16:39, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/11 19:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> IMHO, we should make it the responsibility of the
On 2017/09/12 16:55, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So I looked at this a bit closely and came to the conclusion that we may
>> not need to keep partitioned table RT indexes in the
>> (Merge)Append.partitioned_rels after all
On 2017/09/11 21:07, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> So, all partitioned partitions are getting locked correctly. Am I
>>> missing something?
>>
>> That's not a valid test. In that scenar
On 2017/09/11 19:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> IMHO, we should make it the responsibility of the future patch to set a
>> child PlanRowMark's prti to the direct parent's RT index, when we actually
>> know that
Hi Amit,
On 2017/09/11 16:16, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Thanks Amit for the patch. I am still reviewing it, but meanwhile
> below are a few comments so far ...
Thanks for the review.
> + next_parted_idx += (list_length(*pds) - next_parted_idx - 1);
>
> I think this can be replaced just by :
> +
On 2017/09/11 16:23, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor
>> changes related to the PlanRowMarks. If the rowmark's prti is now the
>> intermediate parent's RT index rather than the top-parent'
1 - 100 of 1334 matches
Mail list logo
