On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:27 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 21 Mar 2023, at 06:03, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:54 AM Gregory Stark (as CFM)
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 14:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> >>> But I think the bigger problem for this patch set is
> On 21 Mar 2023, at 06:03, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:54 AM Gregory Stark (as CFM)
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 14:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> But I think the bigger problem for this patch set is that the
>>> design-level feedback from
>>>
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:54 AM Gregory Stark (as CFM)
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 14:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But I think the bigger problem for this patch set is that the
> > design-level feedback from
> >
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 14:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 1:47 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> But I think the bigger problem for this patch set is that the
> design-level feedback from
>
Hi,
On 2022-10-15 14:47:05 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated patches.
These started to fail to build recently:
[04:43:33.046] ccache cc -Isrc/backend/postgres_lib.a.p -Isrc/include
-I../src/include -Isrc/include/storage -Isrc/include/utils
-Isrc/include/catalog -Isrc/include/nodes
On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 1:47 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> I have merged your incremental patch into 0003.
Note that if someone goes to commit 0003, they would have no idea that
I contributed to the effort. You should probably try to keep a running
list of co-authors, reviewers, or other people that
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 2:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:47 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > [ patches ]
>
> While looking over this thread I came across this code:
Thanks for looking.
> /* For data reading, executor always omits detached partitions */
> if
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:47 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> [ patches ]
While looking over this thread I came across this code:
/* For data reading, executor always omits detached partitions */
if (estate->es_partition_directory == NULL)
estate->es_partition_directory =
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 7:17 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 19:15 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2022-Oct-07, Amit Langote wrote:
>> > > Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, this I am not sure how to reproduce on
>> > > my own, so I am currently left with second-guessing what may be going
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 19:15 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-07, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, this I am not sure how to reproduce on
> > > my own, so I am currently left with second-guessing what may be going
> > > wrong on 32 bit machines with whichever of the
On 2022-Oct-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, this I am not sure how to reproduce on
> > my own, so I am currently left with second-guessing what may be going
> > wrong on 32 bit machines with whichever of the 4 patches.
> >
> > For now, I'll just post 0001, which I am
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 6:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:24 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-10-01 18:21:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2022-09-29 18:18:10 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > So, here's a final revision for today. Sorry for the noise.
> > >
> >
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:24 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-10-01 18:21:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-09-29 18:18:10 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > So, here's a final revision for today. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> > This appears to fail on 32bit systems. Seems the new test is
Hi,
On 2022-10-01 18:21:15 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-09-29 18:18:10 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > So, here's a final revision for today. Sorry for the noise.
>
> This appears to fail on 32bit systems. Seems the new test is indeed
> worthwhile...
>
>
Hi,
On 2022-09-29 18:18:10 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> So, here's a final revision for today. Sorry for the noise.
This appears to fail on 32bit systems. Seems the new test is indeed
worthwhile...
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6581521615159296?logs=test_world_32#L406
[19:12:24.452] Summary of
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 6:09 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:43 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:46 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry about the delay.
> > >
> > > So I came up with such a patch that is attached as 0003.
> > >
> > > The main problem I
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:43 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Sorry about the delay.
> >
> > So I came up with such a patch that is attached as 0003.
> >
> > The main problem I want to fix with it is the need for RI_FKey_check()
> > to "force"-push
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Sorry about the delay.
>
> So I came up with such a patch that is attached as 0003.
>
> The main problem I want to fix with it is the need for RI_FKey_check()
> to "force"-push the latest snapshot that the PartitionDesc code wants
> to use to
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:05 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 8:59 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > That bit came in to make DETACH CONCURRENTLY produce sane answers for
> > RI queries in some cases.
> >
> > I guess my comment should really have said something like:
> >
> > HACK:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 8:59 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I'll try to respond to other points
> in a separate email, but I wanted to clarify something about below:
>
> > I find my ego slightly wounded by the
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:23 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > So, I hacked together a patch (attached 0001) that invents an "RI
> > plan" construct (struct RIPlan) to replace the use of an "SPI plan"
> > (struct _SPI_plan).
> >
> > With that in place,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Uh ... if such caching behavior is at all competently implemented,
> it will be transparent because the cache will notice and respond to
> events that should change its outputs.
Well, that assumes that we emit appropriate invalidations in every
Robert Haas writes:
> ... I think there's some
> debate to be had here over what behavior we need to preserve exactly
> vs. what we can and should change.
For sure. For example, people occasionally complain because
user-defined triggers can defeat RI integrity checks. Should we
change that?
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:23 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> So, I hacked together a patch (attached 0001) that invents an "RI
> plan" construct (struct RIPlan) to replace the use of an "SPI plan"
> (struct _SPI_plan).
>
> With that in place, I decided to rebase my previous patch [1] to use
> this new
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 3:24 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
> > > mentioned above and see if we can do away
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 3:24 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
> > mentioned above and see if we can do away with using SQL in the
> > remaining cases.
>
> Hi Amit, looks like
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
> mentioned above and see if we can do away with using SQL in the
> remaining cases.
Hi Amit, looks like isolation tests are failing in cfbot:
Hi,
I had proposed $subject for some RI trigger functions in the last dev
cycle [1]. Briefly, the proposal was to stop using an SQL query
(using the SPI interface) for RI checks that could be done by directly
scanning the primary/unique key index of the referenced table, which
must always be
28 matches
Mail list logo
