Hello all,
This is to inform all that this patch has been merged with default
list partition patch [1]. There will be no further updates here. The
status of this will be updated on the commitfest according to progres
on that thread.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0ONgwajdtkoq%2
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> 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:
>> >>
>> >>
>
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.
> >> static List *
> >> -get_qual_for_range(PartitionKey key, PartitionB
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.
>> static List *
>> -get_qual_for_range(PartitionKey key, PartitionBoundSpec *spec)
>> +get_qual_for_range(Relation parent, PartitionBoundSpec *spec,
>> +
Hi Jeevan,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
>
> 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:
Thank you for your review.
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
PFA the patch rebased over v25 patches of default list partition [1]
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NwqnavYtu-QM-DAZ6N%3DwTiqKgy83WwtO2x94LSLZ1-Sw%40mail.gmail.com
--
Beena Emerson
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
default_range
Hello,
PFA the updated patch which returns NULL instead of true when the
default partition has no constraints and also have modified the output
as discussed above.
This applies over v24 patch [1] of default list partition. I will
rebase over the next version when it is updated.
[1]
https://www.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
>> This looks like a problem with the default list partitioning patch. I
>> think "true" is what we expect to see here in both cases.
>
> In case of list partition if there is only default partition, then there is
> no
> specific value set that
Hi Robert, Beena,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
> wrote:
> > --difference in the description of default partition in case of list vs
> > range
> >
> > create table lp (a int) partition by list(a);
> > create table lp_d
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> --difference in the description of default partition in case of list vs
> range
>
> create table lp (a int) partition by list(a);
> create table lp_d partition of lp DEFAULT;
> postgres=# \d+ lp_d
>Ta
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> Hello Rajkumar,
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Beena,
> >
> > I have applied Jeevan's v24 patches and then your v9 patch over commit
> > 5ff3d73813ebcc3ff80be77c30b458d728951036.
> > and while t
Hello Rajkumar,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
>
> Hi Beena,
>
> I have applied Jeevan's v24 patches and then your v9 patch over commit
> 5ff3d73813ebcc3ff80be77c30b458d728951036.
> and while testing I got a server crash. below is sql to reproduce it.
>
> postgres=#
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> I have updated the patch to make it similar to the way default/null is
> handled in list partition, removing the PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT.
> This is to be applied over v24 patches shared by Jeevan [1] which
> applies on commit id 5ff3d73
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
>
> Why do we need to introduce PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT at all? It
> seems to me that the handling of default range partitions ought to be
> similar to the way a null-accepting lis
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Thanks for informing.
> PFA the updated patch.
> I have changed the numbering of enum PartitionRangeDatumKind since I
> have to include DEFAULT as well. If you have better ideas, let me
> know.
Why do we need to introduce PARTITION_RANGE_DAT
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> 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
>
Thanks f
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
wrote
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hello Beena,
>
> Thanks for the updated patch. It passes the basic tests which I performed.
>
> Few comments:
> 1. In check_new_partition_bound(),
>
>> /* Default case is not handled here */
>>if (spec->is_default)
>>
Thank you for your review Dilip and Rahila.
PFA the updated patch which is rebased to Jeevan's latest list
partition patch [1] and also handles your comments.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OARciE2X%2BU0rjSKp9VuC279dYcCGkc3nCWKhHQ1_m2rw%40mail.gmail.com
--
Beena Emerson
Enterpri
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
>> Hello Dilip,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
This is basically crashing in RelationBuildPartit
Hello Beena,
Thanks for the updated patch. It passes the basic tests which I performed.
Few comments:
1. In check_new_partition_bound(),
> /* Default case is not handled here */
>if (spec->is_default)
>break;
The default partition check here can be performed
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello Dilip,
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> This is basically crashing in RelationBuildPartitionDesc, so I think
>
> Thank you for your review and analysi
Hello Dilip,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> This is basically crashing in RelationBuildPartitionDesc, so I think
>> we don't have any test case for testing DEFAULT range partition where
>> partition key has more than o
Hello Rahila,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Beena,
>
> I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5
> patch does not apply cleanly on master?
>
Thanks for looking into this.
The patch is to be applied on Jeevn's partition patch
(http://ww
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hi Beena,
>
> I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5
> patch does not apply cleanly on master?
>
I am currently working on Dilip's comments, I will update the patch soon.
--
Beena Emerson
EnterpriseDB: h
Hi Beena,
I started testing and reviewing the patch. Can you update the patch as v5
patch does not apply cleanly on master?
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > I think somebody should do some te
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think somebody should do some testing of the existing code with
> valgrind. And then apply the list-partitioning patch and this patch,
> and do some more testing with valgrind. It seems to be really easy to
> miss these uninitialized access
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> For the default partition we are only setting bound->content[0] to
> default, but content for others key
> attributes are not initialized. But later in the code, if the content
> of the first key is RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT then it should not acces
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> This is basically crashing in RelationBuildPartitionDesc, so I think
> we don't have any test case for testing DEFAULT range partition where
> partition key has more than one attribute. So I suggest we can add
> such test case.
Some more comm
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> PFA the updated patch.
> This is rebased over v21 patches of list partition.
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg316818.html)
While testing I have noticed segmentation fault for a simple case.
create t
Hello,
PFA the updated patch.
This is rebased over v21 patches of list partition.
(http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg316818.html)
--
Beena Emerson
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
default_range_partition_v5.patch
Descripti
Hello Dilip,
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
>> The new patch is rebased over default_partition_v18.patch
>> [http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg315831.html]
>
> I have done the initial review of t
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> The new patch is rebased over default_partition_v18.patch
> [http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg315831.html]
I have done the initial review of the patch, I have few comments.
+ if ((lower->content[0] == RANGE_DATUM_
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think if you have found spelling mistakes unrelated to this patch,
>>> then it is better to submit those as a separate patch
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I think if you have found spelling mistakes unrelated to this patch,
>> then it is better to submit those as a separate patch in a new thread.
>
> +1.
Sure, attached is the version without
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think if you have found spelling mistakes unrelated to this patch,
> then it is better to submit those as a separate patch in a new thread.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
>
> Hi Beena,
>
> I had a look at the patch from the angle of aesthetics and there are a
> few cosmetic changes I might suggest. Please have a look at the
> attached patch and if you agre
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> PFA the updated patch.
> Dependent patch default_partition_v17.patch [1]
> This patch adds regression tests and removes the separate function to
> get default partition qual.
>
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
> w
Hello,
PFA the updated patch.
Dependent patch default_partition_v17.patch [1]
This patch adds regression tests and removes the separate function to
get default partition qual.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Hi Beena,
>
> I went through your patch, and here are some of my
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Hi Beena,
>
> I went through your patch, and here are some of my comments:
>
Thank you for your comments. I will take care of them in the next
version of patch.
> - I am sorry, but I could not understand following hunk. Does this change
> r
Hi Beena,
I went through your patch, and here are some of my comments:
- For generating a qual for default range partition, instead of scanning
for all
the children and collecting all the boundspecs, how about creating and
negating
an expression from the lists of lowerdatums and upperdatums in bo
Hello,
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Beena Emerson
> wrote:
> Would it be more readable if this reads as NOT
> (constraint_for_partition_1 || constraint_for_partition_2 ||
> constraint_for_partition_3
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Many were in favour of the default partition for tables partitioned by range
> [1].
> Please find attached the WIP patch for the same which can be applied over
> the default_partition_v12.patch.
>
> Syntax: Same as agreed for list:
44 matches
Mail list logo
