On 14 June 2018 at 04:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's still one thing I'm a bit confused about here. I noticed that
> we weren't actually using the partopfamily and partopcintype fields in
> PartitionPruneContext, so I removed them. But that still leaves both
> partsupfunc and partcollation as
Hi,
I am getting a server crash for below test case.
postgres=# CREATE TABLE test( c1 int, c2 int, c3 text) partition by
range(c1);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# create table test_p1 partition of test for values from
(minvalue) to (0);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# create table test_p2 partition of test for
On 13-06-2018 22:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
For context: in the backend, elog() is only used for internal messages
(i.e. "can't-happen" conditions), and ereport() is used for user-facing
messages. There are many things ereport() has that elog() doesn't,
such
as additional message fields (HINT,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> UNBOUNDED would be terrible. It does not mean the same thing as UNBOUND.
>
> Perhaps something like NO CHECK would meet the case, i.e. we're not checking
> the link at function creation time.
>
> I haven't thought through the other
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
>>> RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
>>> The speed of synchronous
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/06/12 22:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> -- create triggers, user may create different trigger functions one
>> for each partition, unless s/he understands that the tables can share
>> trigger functions
>> create function trig_t1p1()
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think, in general, that we should try to pick semantics that make a
>> partitioned table behave like an unpartitioned table, provided that
>> all triggers are defined on the partitioned table itself.
>
> Well, then we lose the property Alvaro
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
>> - BEFORE row triggers are not supported
>
> I think this is fine. The existing wording suggests that the user
> creates the triggers on the partitioned table, and that will be
>
Hi Heikki,
>
> Pushed, thanks for the review!
>
There was a slight oversight in the twophase_gid length calculation in
the XactLogCommitRecord() code path in the cf5a1890592 commit. The
corresponding XactLogAbortRecord() code path was ok. PFA, a small
patch to fix the oversight.
Regards,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> However, I only spent about 10 mins looking into this, there may be
> some giant holes in the idea. It would need much more research.
It kind of flies in the face of the idea that a RangeTblEntry is just
a node that can be freely copied
On 14.06.2018 15:44, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
The speed of synchronous replication between two nodes
On 14 June 2018 at 19:17, Amit Langote wrote:
> I had sent a patch to try to get rid of the open(NoLock) there a couple of
> months ago [1]. The idea was to both lock and open the relation in
> ExecNonLeafAppendTables, which is the first time all partitioned tables in
> a given Append node are
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/06/14 11:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:25:23PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 8:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Even if you want to argue that there's a use case for these situations,
it
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Some assorted comments:
>
> 2.
> +/*
> + * Structure used to represent value to be used when the attribute is not
> + * present at all in a tuple, i.e. when the column was created after the
> tuple
> + */
> +
> +typedef struct attrMissing
> +{
On 2018/06/12 22:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> -- create triggers, user may create different trigger functions one
> for each partition, unless s/he understands that the tables can share
> trigger functions
> create function trig_t1p1() returns trigger as $$ begin return new;
> end;$$ language
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Ideriha, Takeshi <
ideriha.take...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
thank you for the review
> Hi,
> I feel like that on-conflict-do-nothing support is useful especially
> coupled with --data-only option.
> Only the difference of data can be restored.
>
> >The attache
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Vik Fearing
wrote:
> I just noticed a problem with log_statement = 'ddl' and log_line_prefix
> containing '%x'. If the statement is the first in the transaction, it
> will be logged before it is executed, and more importantly, before a
> transaction ID is
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:37 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Several features in various discussed access methods would benefit from
> being able to perform actions when writing out a buffer. As an example,
> because it doesn't require understanding any of the new proposed storage
> formats, it'd
On 14 June 2018 at 18:57, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> What I think pg is actually doing is taking the value of the ntile()
> argument from the first row and using that for the whole partition.
> In your example, enabling or disabling hashagg changes the order of the
> input rows for the window
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:54:45PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I'm wondering if that means we should then also not do it specifically
> for
> > scram in this version. Otherwise we're likely to end up with a parameter
> > that only
Hi,
I have postgres edb 9.6 version, i have below query to solve it out.
i have configured streaming replication having master and slave node
on same server just to test it.
All worked fine but when i made slave service stop, and create some
test databases in master, after then i made slave
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:01 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:06 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> It's a good idea. How does it perform with many duplicate entries?
>
> I agree that this is a good idea. It
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
>> RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
>> The speed of synchronous replication between two nodes is increased from 56k
>> TPS to 60k
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:36:33PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> ... I attached the rebased patch.
I attached new version of the patch.
I found a bug when CompoundAffix,
SuffixNodes, PrefixNodes, DictNodes of IspellDictData structure are
empty. Now they have terminating entry and therefore they
Hello Charles,
>The first evaluation is coming. Here is my progress so far. During
> the first stage of work, I have implemented the thrift binary
> protocol as the format of postgresql plugin. Currently, the main
> interface is byte. Users who use this plugin need to provide thrift
> bytes
On 13-06-2018 22:44, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Marina,
I suppose that this is related; because of my patch there may be a lot
of such code (see v7 in [1]):
- fprintf(stderr,
- "malformed variable \"%s\" value:
\"%s\"\n",
-
On 2018-Jun-14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 2.
> > +/*
> > + * Structure used to represent value to be used when the attribute is not
> > + * present at all in a tuple, i.e. when the column was created after the
> > tuple
> > + */
> > +
> >
On 06/07/2018 09:01 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On Jun 6, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the
On 2018-Jun-14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 02:06:57AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On 13 June 2018 at 15:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>> I guess you could go either way ... we're just changing one unhelpful
>
Hello Charles,
>I saw the list of errors you posted. That's because I have some new
> function implemented and pushed without testing(in order forget my
> change in local machine).
> So you are saying it is best to keep each commit workable. Right?
Ideally, yes. You can always create a
> On Jun 14, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> anyone who wants a BEFORE trigger has a good reason
> for wanting it.
I have used before triggers to enforce the immutability of a column.
i.e.
if (new.member_key != old.member_key) then
raise exception 'Unable to change
I wrote:
> This appears to be the fault of commit ab7271677, whose authors I've cc'd:
> the stanza starting at about allpaths.c:1672 is bullheadedly creating a
> parallel path whether that's allowed or not. Fixing it might be as simple
> as adding "rel->consider_parallel" to the conditions there.
On 2018-06-14 15:59:22 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > b) extensions containing AMs would need to do something INSERT ... ON
> >CONFLICT DO NOTHING like.
>
> We already have CREATE ACCESS METHOD command. I think this command
> should handle that internally. And I don't understand why
Greetings,
* Andrew Dunstan (andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Well, this went quiet. I'm happy to be CFM and assisted by Michael and
> Ashutosh
>
> Are there any privileges required that I should see about obtaining?
I've set you up with the cf admin privs (which Michael also has).
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:44 AM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> > > Our B-tree is currently maintaining duplicates unordered. So, during
> > > insertion
> > > we can traverse rightlinks in order to find page, which would fit new
> > > index tuple.
> > > However, in this case we're traversing pages
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> If I am reading Tom's reply upthread correctly, we should not allow
> creating a temporary partitioned table as well as temporary partitions
> altogether.
I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
in which all the rels are temp tables of the
good idea, will keep a feature branch, and set up ci.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 8:03 AM Aleksander Alekseeev <
a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Hello Charles,
>
> >I saw the list of errors you posted. That's because I have some new
> > function implemented and pushed without testing(in order
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:32 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > However, that doesn't
> > look like inevitable shortcoming, because we could store heap TID in
> > t_tid of pivot index tuples.
>
> But the offset doesn't have enough space
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/06/07 19:42), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since I'm not 100% sure that that is the right way to go, I've been
>>> rethinking how to fix this issue. Yet another idea I
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> However, I only spent about 10 mins looking into this, there may be
>> some giant holes in the idea. It would need much more research.
> It kind of flies in the face of the idea that a RangeTblEntry is just
> a
Hi Aleksander,
I saw the list of errors you posted. That's because I have some new
function implemented and pushed without testing(in order forget my change
in local machine).
So you are saying it is best to keep each commit workable. Right?
Thanks Charles.
2018-06-14 1:41 GMT-07:00
David Rowley writes:
> On 14 June 2018 at 18:57, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> What I think pg is actually doing is taking the value of the ntile()
>> argument from the first row and using that for the whole partition.
Yes, easily verified by looking at window_ntile(): the argument is only
examined
On 2018-Jun-05, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> When a SUBSCRIPTION is altered, then the currently running
> table-synchronization workers that are no longer needed for the
> altered subscription, are terminated. This is done by the function
> AtEOXact_ApplyLauncher() inside CommitTransaction(). So
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hello,
The v2 patches look good to me. However, I found a couple other
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
> I am getting a server crash for below test case.
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE test( c1 int, c2 int, c3 text) partition by
> range(c1);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# create table test_p1 partition of test for values from
> (minvalue) to (0);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=#
On 14.06.2018 16:25, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
Speed of random HDD access is limited by speed of disk head movement.
By running several IO requests in parallel we just increase probability of
head movement, so actually parallel access to
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:56 PM Claudio Freire wrote:
> Not at all. Insertion cost in unique indexes with lots of duplicates
> (happens, dead duplicates) grows quadratically on the number of
> duplicates, and that's improved by making the index unique and sorted.
Sorry, I've messed up the terms.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Speed of random HDD access is limited by speed of disk head movement.
> By running several IO requests in parallel we just increase probability of
> head movement, so actually parallel access to HDD may even decrease IO speed
> rather
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - BEFORE row triggers are not supported
>>
>> I think this is fine. The existing wording suggests that the user
>>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Could you, please, clarify what do you mean by "fan-in"? As I
> understood, higher "fan-in" means more children on single non-leaf
> page, and in turn "better branching". Is my understanding correct?
Yes, your understanding is
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 05:22 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> As per discussion at PGCon unconference, I think that firstly we need
>> to discuss what threats we want to defend database data against.
>
> Exactly. While certainly there is demand for
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I would go as far as suggesting to remove qualifiers that indicate what
> the file is for (such as "relation mapping file"); relying on the path
> as indicator of what's going wrong should be sufficient, since it's an
> error that affects
I've been thinking about using heap TID as a tie-breaker when
comparing B-Tree index tuples for a while now [1]. I'd like to make
all tuples at the leaf level unique, as assumed by L This can
enable "retail index tuple deletion", which I think we'll probably end
up implementing in some form or
> On 14 Jun 2018, at 16:56, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The v2 patches look good to me. However, I found a couple other
> places where we might be able to use this micro-optimization.
Thanks a lot for your review!
> 1) dependencies_clauselist_selectivity() in dependencies.c
>
> /*
>
> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:16, Andres Freund wrote:
Thanks for the review!
> I'm not sure I really like the appending bit. There's a security
> argument to be made about doing so, but from a user POV that mostly
> seems restrictive. I wonder if that aspect would be better handled by
> adding an
Thanks for the updated patch set.
On 6/14/18, 2:34 PM, "Daniel Gustafsson" wrote:
>> 2) BuildRelationExtStatistics() in extended_stats.c.
>>
>> /* check allowed number of dimensions */
>> Assert(bms_num_members(stat->columns) >= 2 &&
>> bms_num_members(stat->columns)
Hi,
On 2018-06-14 16:17:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > How about not renaming the functions, but just change argument types?
Yea, I'm in favor of this. I don't think the 'u' in there would benefit
us, and the cast from signed to unsigned is well defined, so it's safe
to
Somehow I missed this thread ...
On 06/14/2018 02:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jun-14, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
2.
+/*
+ * Structure used to represent value to be used when the attribute is not
+ * present at all in a tuple, i.e. when
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> How about not renaming the functions, but just change argument types?
Yeah, I didn't understand why anything else would be on the table.
We already changed their arg types for 11, no? This is just second
thoughts about what to change them to.
On 2018-Jun-14, Andres Freund wrote:
> But I do think there's a few things that are doable without actually
> needing to invoke any user defined code aside of the AM code
> itself. E.g. heap pruning / aggressively setting hint bits doesn't need
> to invoke operators, and I can think of some ways
Greetings,
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> There was very interesting presentation at pgconf about pg_prefaulter:
>
> http://www.pgcon.org/2018/schedule/events/1204.en.html
I agree and I've chatted a bit w/ Sean further about it.
> But it is implemented in GO and
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Raphael Medaer wrote:
> Hi pg-hackers,
>
> I'm trying to fix some of limitations in table inheritance. My first use
> case concerns "referencing" foreign keys in parent table.
>
> The attached patch propagates foreign keys to inherited tables. I'm
> automatically
Hello
How about not renaming the functions, but just change argument types?
Having to change all callsites to cope with some new naming convention
does not strike me as a great idea ... it may collide with any
backpatching in the area, for one.
--
Álvaro Herrera
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-14 15:59:22 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> We already have CREATE ACCESS METHOD command. I think this command
>> should handle that internally. And I don't understand why "ON
>> CONFLICT DO NOTHING". If AM with given name already exists in pg_am,
>> why
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Andrew Gierth
wrote:
> The original patch, a self-described "lazy-sunday project", made
> absolutely no mention of any compatibility issue, simply discussed the
> new options it was allowing, and got no feedback or review. Had it
> mentioned or even hinted that
On 2018-Jun-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'm inclined to think that auto-dereference is indeed a good idea,
> > and am tempted to go make that change to make all this consistent.
> > Comments?
>
> Here's a draft patch for that. I ended up only changing
> plperl_sv_to_datum. There is
Hi mentors,
The repo currently can be build on my mac. You can check it out.
Also I am working on the CI config to monitor each commit.
Thanks
2018-06-14 8:29 GMT-07:00 Charles Cui :
> good idea, will keep a feature branch, and set up ci.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 8:03 AM Aleksander
On 2018/06/14 23:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>> If I am reading Tom's reply upthread correctly, we should not allow
>> creating a temporary partitioned table as well as temporary partitions
>> altogether.
>
> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
>
I've identified the underlying cause of the misbehavior reported in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7cb957dd12774a52ac8a680b73910...@imaginesoftware.com
and it's a bit embarrassing: we're doing dependency logging for casts
all wrong. A cast expression produces a FuncExpr parse node, which
On 2018/06/14 22:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
>> I'm attaching a patch here to forbid adding a temporary table as partition
>> of permanent table. I didn't however touch the feature that allows *all*
>> members in a partition tree to be temporary
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:48:50AM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> It then apparently went unnoticed until after the release of pg 10, at
> which point it got retroactively documented (in the release notes and
> nowhere else), in response to a brief discussion of a user complaint
> that happened on
On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
> have to disallow is (a) temp/permanent mixes and (b) temp tables from
> different sessions.
So, this used to
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
>> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
>> have to disallow is (a) temp/permanent mixes and (b) temp tables from
>> different
> "Justin" == Justin Pryzby writes:
>> It then apparently went unnoticed until after the release of pg 10,
>> at which point it got retroactively documented (in the release notes
>> and nowhere else), in response to a brief discussion of a user
>> complaint that happened on -general and
On 6/11/18 16:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This affects pretty much nothing. In fact some of the other changes I've
> recently committed were arguably more dangerous. Do you want me to
> revert the whole lot?
No, but this whole let's clean up the Perl code initiative seemed to
have come out of
Hi,
>-Original Message-
>From: Surafel Temesgen [mailto:surafel3...@gmail.com]
>thank you for the review
>
> Do you have any plan to support on-conlict-do-update? Supporting this
> seems
>to me complicated and take much time so I don't mind not implementing this.
>
>
>i agree its
>-Original Message-
>From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
>On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:05:23AM +, Ideriha, Takeshi wrote:
>> >From: Surafel Temesgen [mailto:surafel3...@gmail.com]
>> >Subject: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump
>>
>> >Sometimes I have to maintain two
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
>> I wonder if it would be worth adding a run-time check in
>> window_ntile() that causes an ERROR on first call if there are any
>> Vars or PARAM_EXEC Params in the function argument. An ERROR might
>> be better than doing something that the user does not
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>> I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
>> RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
>> The speed of synchronous replication between two nodes is increased from 56k
>> TPS to
On 6/5/18 07:02, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> I haven't written a patch for it, but I think we should have a
> separate on_commit_stop_workers for eachyou get subtransaction. At
> subtransaction commit, we replace the on_commit_stop_workers list of
> the parent subtransaction with the one from the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
>
> On 06/14/2018 02:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-Jun-14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
2.
+/*
+ * Structure used to represent value to be used when the
On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
pg_wal_prefetch function will infinitely traverse WAL and prefetch block
references in WAL records
using posix_fadvise(WILLNEED) system call.
Hi Konstantin,
Why stop at the page cache...
On 2018/06/13 23:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Seems reasonable. Really, I think we should look for a way to hang
>> onto the relation at the point where it's originally opened and locked
>> instead of reopening it here. But that's probably more invasive than
>> we can really
On 2018/06/09 3:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> BTW, while working on this, I was a bit disturbed by the
> execReplication.c changes (namely: if the partitioning is not identical
> on both sides, things are likely to blow up pretty badly), but that's a
> separate topic.
Hmm, yes. If the partition of
Hi
ntile() throws ERROR when hashagg is false, test case given below.
postgres=# create table foo (a int, b int, c text);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# insert into foo select i%20, i%30, to_char(i%12, 'FM') from
generate_series(0, 36) i;
INSERT 0 37
postgres=# explain select ntile(a) OVER () from
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> pg_wal_prefetch function will infinitely traverse WAL and prefetch block
> references in WAL records
> using posix_fadvise(WILLNEED) system call.
Hi Konstantin,
Why stop at the page cache... what about shared buffers?
--
Thomas
> "Rajkumar" == Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
> writes:
Rajkumar> Hi
Rajkumar> ntile() throws ERROR when hashagg is false, test case given
Rajkumar> below.
Rajkumar> postgres=# create table foo (a int, b int, c text);
Rajkumar> CREATE TABLE
Rajkumar> postgres=# insert into foo select
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Thanks for the discussion.
>
> At Thu, 7 Jun 2018 19:16:57 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote in
>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > At Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:58:28 +0900 (Tokyo Standard
88 matches
Mail list logo
