On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 06:49:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-10-06 at 12:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Good points, updated patch attached.
>
> That patch is good to go, as far as I am concerned.
Patch applied back to PG 11, thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian
On Fri, 2023-10-06 at 12:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Good points, updated patch attached.
That patch is good to go, as far as I am concerned.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 04:48:20AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 22:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Very good point! Updated patch attached.
>
> Thanks! Some small corrections:
>
> > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> > index
On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 22:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Very good point! Updated patch attached.
Thanks! Some small corrections:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> index 9cf9d030a8..be1c522575 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml
> +++
On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 12:39:43AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 18:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 05:53:56AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > > We may have different mental models here. This relates to the part
> > > > that I wasn't keen on in your
On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 18:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 05:53:56AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > We may have different mental models here. This relates to the part
> > > that I wasn't keen on in your patch, i.e:
> > >
> > > + The partitions of a partitioned table
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 05:53:56AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > We may have different mental models here. This relates to the part
> > that I wasn't keen on in your patch, i.e:
> >
> > + The partitions of a partitioned table are normal tables and get
> > processed
> > + by autovacuum
> >
Sorry for dropping the ball on this; I'll add it to the next commitfest.
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 21:43 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > I think your first sentence it a bit clumsy and might be streamlined to
> >
> > Partitioned tables do not directly store tuples and consequently do not
> >
> On 13 Jul 2023, at 00:21, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 21:43, David Rowley wrote:
>> While I agree that the majority of partitions are likely to be
>> relkind='r', which you might ordinarily consider a "normal table", you
>> just might change your mind when you try to INSERT
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 21:43, David Rowley wrote:
> While I agree that the majority of partitions are likely to be
> relkind='r', which you might ordinarily consider a "normal table", you
> just might change your mind when you try to INSERT or UPDATE records
> that would violate the partition
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 19:46, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Did you see Justin's wording suggestion in
> https://postgr.es/m/20230118174919.GA9837%40telsasoft.com ?
> He didn't attach it as a patch, so you may have missed it.
> I was pretty happy with that.
I didn't pay too much attention as I tend to
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 16:26 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 22:15, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Attached is a new version of my patch that tries to improve the wording.
>
> I had a look at this and agree that we should adjust the paragraph in
> question if people are finding it
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 22:15, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Attached is a new version of my patch that tries to improve the wording.
I had a look at this and agree that we should adjust the paragraph in
question if people are finding it confusing.
For your wording, I found I had a small problem with
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 15:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:50:05PM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to document when partition
On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 15:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:50:05PM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Is it possible to document when partition table statistics helps?
> >
> > I think it would be difficult to come
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:50:05PM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Is it possible to document when partition table statistics helps?
>
> I think it would be difficult to come up with an exhaustive list.
I was afraid of that. I asked only
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is it possible to document when partition table statistics helps?
I think it would be difficult to come up with an exhaustive list.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves*
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 11:49 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I tweaked this a bit to end up with:
>
> > - Partitioned tables are not processed by autovacuum. Statistics
> > - should be collected by running a manual ANALYZE
> > when it is
> > + The leaf partitions of a partitioned table
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:49:19AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > Maybe (all?) the clarification the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves*
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 16:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Maybe (all?) the clarification the docs need is to say:
> > "Partitioned tables are not *themselves* processed by autovacuum."
>
> Yes, I think the lack of autovacuum needs
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:00:50PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:53:24PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:27:47PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > > Here is my take on the wording:
> > >
> > > Since all the data for a partitioned table is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:53:24PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:27:47PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:37:01AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:05 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > >> I've pushed the last version, and
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:27:47PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:37:01AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:05 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
> >> call it a bugfix, but I
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:37:01AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:05 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
>> call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
>> mentioning in the docs, even on older
On 10/5/22 13:37, Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:05 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
mentioning in the docs, even on older branches).
I'd like to suggest
On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 15:05 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
> call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
> mentioning in the docs, even on older branches).
I'd like to suggest an improvement to this. The
> On 28 Mar 2022, at 15:05, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
> call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
> mentioning in the docs, even on older branches).
I happened to spot a small typo in this commit in the
On 3/16/22 00:00, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>> [ new patch ]
>>
>> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
>> think the next step is for Justin to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > [ new patch ]
>
> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
> think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the
> latest version
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> [ new patch ]
This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the
latest version that Tomas posted. If he is, then I suggest that he
also mark it Ready for
On 1/21/22 19:02, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Thanks for looking at this
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 06:21:57PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
On 10/8/21 14:58, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Cleaned up and attached as a .patch.
The patch implementing autoanalyze on partitioned tables should
revert relevant
Thanks for looking at this
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 06:21:57PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/8/21 14:58, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Cleaned up and attached as a .patch.
> >
> > The patch implementing autoanalyze on partitioned tables should
> > revert relevant portions of this patch.
Hi,
On 10/8/21 14:58, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Cleaned up and attached as a .patch.
The patch implementing autoanalyze on partitioned tables should
revert relevant portions of this patch.
I went through this patch and I'd like to propose a couple changes, per
the 0002 patch:
1) I've reworded
Cleaned up and attached as a .patch.
The patch implementing autoanalyze on partitioned tables should revert relevant
portions of this patch.
>From cec31df3772ca51bbf14ebee207bcfd22e498073 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:06:18 -0500
Subject: [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:54 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Adding -hackers, sorry for the duplicate.
>
> This seems to be deficient, citing
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0d1b394b-bec9-8a71-a336-44df7078b295%40gmail.com
>
> I'm proposing something like the attached. Ideally, there
Adding -hackers, sorry for the duplicate.
This seems to be deficient, citing
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0d1b394b-bec9-8a71-a336-44df7078b295%40gmail.com
I'm proposing something like the attached. Ideally, there would be a central
place to put details, and the other places could
38 matches
Mail list logo
