Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-09 22:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
[ patch ]
I've committed a revised version of Andres' patch. Mostly cosmetic
fixes, but the hash implementation was still wrong:
return DirectFunctionCall1(hashint8, PG_GETARG_LSN(0));
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-09 22:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
[ patch ]
I've committed a revised version of Andres' patch.
Thanks!
I thought even that was kind of overkill; but a bigger
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
You plan to commit it?
Yes unless many people object
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
On 2014-05-11 06:02:23 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[ shrug... ] proactive would have been doing this a month ago.
If we're going to
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be
fixed.
Sigh. We have some debate isomorphic to this one every year, it seems
like. The argument why it shouldn't be fixed now is: ITS. TOO. LATE.
Which part of that isn't clear to
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be
fixed.
Sigh. We have some debate isomorphic to this one every year, it seems
like. The argument why it
On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be
fixed.
Sigh. We have some debate
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't even understand why it's
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Sorry but I don't understand why it's too late. The 9.4 branch not been
created yet.
The problem is that once the beta is in progress (starting tomorrow),
the projects tries to avoid
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't even understand why it's
On 2014-05-11 00:31:09 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
(makes me really wish betas were properly tagged with git as well...)
They are tags for betas, here is for example the update of CATVERSION for 9.3:
$ git log -p REL9_3_BETA1..REL9_3_0 src/include/catalog/catversion.h |
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
The problem is that once the beta is in progress (starting tomorrow),
the projects tries to avoid changes which require a dump and restore (or
pg_upgrade). Since the patch
On 2014-05-10 19:08:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund
and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
The problem is that once the beta is in progress (starting tomorrow),
the projects tries to avoid changes which require a
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Last night I sent a patch [1] to add more tests and change the operator
name. Maybe we can merge the test cases... ;-)
Sure, I noticed that. But I think that they are more complicated than
necessary. I am as
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anyway. I accept it's too late for beta1 now. Let's commit it if there's
another catversion bump.
+1. Let's rely on the experience of senior committers here.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Uh. They're different:
Datum
On 2014-05-09 22:01:07 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
+DATA(insert OID = 3260 (403pglsn_opsPGNSP PGUID ));
+DATA(insert OID = 3261 (405pglsn_opsPGNSP PGUID ));
The patch looks good to me except the name of index operator class.
I
On 2014-05-09 22:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
+DATA(insert OID = 3260 (403pglsn_opsPGNSP PGUID ));
+DATA(insert OID = 3261 (405pglsn_opsPGNSP PGUID ));
The patch looks
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-09 22:01:07 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes unless many people object the commit.
Michael,
You're now modifying the patch?
Not within a couple of days.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes unless many people object the commit.
Michael,
You're now modifying the patch?
Not within a couple of days.
I think it's really too late for this for 9.4. At
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-05-09 22:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
+DATA(insert OID = 3260 (403pglsn_opsPGNSP PGUID
));
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes unless many people object the commit.
Michael,
You're now modifying the patch?
Not within
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think it's really too late for this for 9.4. At this point it's
less than 48 hours until beta1 wraps, and we do not have the bandwidth
to do anything
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think it's really too late for this for 9.4. At this point it's
less than 48
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You plan to commit it?
Yes unless many people object the commit.
Michael, you're now modifying the patch?
OK, I have been able to put my head
Hi,
On 2014-05-06 23:55:04 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
If helps, I added some regression tests to the lastest patch.
I think we should apply this patch now. It's much more sensible with the
opclasses present and we don't win anything by waiting for 9.5.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 05/07/2014 07:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-06 22:49:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
FWIW, the format you're using makes applying
Hi,
Craig just mentioned in an internal chat that there's no btree or even
hash opclass for the new pg_lsn type. That restricts what you can do
with it quite severely.
Imo this should be fixed for 9.4 - after all it was possible unto now to
index a table with lsns returned by system functions or
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Craig just mentioned in an internal chat that there's no btree or even
hash opclass for the new pg_lsn type. That restricts what you can do
with it quite severely.
Imo this should be fixed for 9.4 - after all it was possible unto now to
index a
On 2014-05-06 09:37:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Craig just mentioned in an internal chat that there's no btree or even
hash opclass for the new pg_lsn type. That restricts what you can do
with it quite severely.
Imo this should be fixed for 9.4 -
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
Craig just mentioned in an internal chat that there's no btree or even
hash opclass for the new pg_lsn type. That restricts what you can do
with it quite severely.
Imo this should be fixed for 9.4 - after all it
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-06 09:37:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Sorry, it is *way* too late for 9.4.
It's imo a regression/oversight introduced in the pg_lsn patch. Not a
new feature.
You can argue that if you like, but it doesn't matter. It's too late for
a
On 05/06/2014 05:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-06 09:37:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Sorry, it is *way* too late for 9.4.
It's imo a regression/oversight introduced in the pg_lsn patch. Not a
new feature.
You can argue that if you like, but it
On 05/06/2014 04:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05/06/2014 05:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-06 09:37:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Sorry, it is *way* too late for 9.4.
It's imo a regression/oversight introduced in the pg_lsn patch. Not a
new
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Makes sense, especially knowing operators needed for btree processing
are already defined. Patch attached solves that.
Please find attached an updated patch, I completely forgot that the
compare function needs to
Hi,
On 2014-05-06 22:49:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Makes sense, especially knowing operators needed for btree processing
are already defined. Patch attached solves that.
Thanks for doing that quickly.
FWIW, the format you're using makes applying the patch including the
commit message
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-06 22:49:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
FWIW, the format you're using makes applying the patch including the
commit message relatively hard. Consider using git format-patch.
Could you be clearer? By
On 2014-05-07 08:16:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-06 22:49:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
FWIW, the format you're using makes applying the patch including the
commit message relatively hard. Consider
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Uh. They're different:
Datum
timestamp_hash(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
/* We can use either hashint8 or hashfloat8 directly */
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
return hashint8(fcinfo);
#else
return
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Uh. They're different:
Datum
timestamp_hash(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
/* We can use either hashint8 or hashfloat8 directly */
On 05/07/2014 07:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-06 22:49:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
FWIW, the format you're using makes applying the patch including the
commit message relatively hard. Consider using
45 matches
Mail list logo
