Alexander Korotkov writes:
> I have a question about Sort path. AFAICS this question wasn't mentioned in
> the upthread discussion.
> We're producing Sort plans in two ways: from explicit Sort paths, and from
> other paths which implicitly assumes sorting (like MergeJoin path).
> Would it be bette
On 9 March 2016 at 13:31, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If yes, then the only slight worry is that there will lot of repetition
> in wait_event_type column, otherwise it is okay.
> >
> >
> > There is morerows attribute of entry tag
On 9 March 2016 at 21:30, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > There certainly are server/protocol frustrations.
>
> I'm sympathetic to all of these and think we should work on fixing
> them, particularly...
>
> > STRING TYPE ISSUES
> > ---
> >
> > PgJDB
Hi,
I wonder why you define the gidlen as uint32 when it would fit into
uint8 which in the current TwoPhaseFileHeader struct should be win of 8
bytes on padding (on 64bit). I think that's something worth considering
given that this patch aims to lower the size of the data.
--
Petr Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I think setting up N ResultRelInfos in advance where the tuple would only
> ever require one might be superfluous. But that may point to some flaw in
> my original design or thinking about the case.
You have a point. But maybe we should get
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Which means your creates would look like (following Robert Haas's implied
>> suggestion that we leave off the string literal quotes):
>>
>> CREATE TABLE foo_ax1x PARTITION OF foo FOR VALUES ( , (b,2) );
>> CREATE TABLE foo_ax1x PARTITION
On 09/03/16 05:31, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:32:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Fix use of locales for VS 2015
lc_codepage is a flag missing from locale.h, causing this code path
introduced in VS 2012 to fail. Perhaps there is a reason for this field
t
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>> How about instead changing things so that we specifically reject
>>> indexes? And maybe some kind of a check that will reject anything
>>> that lacks a relfilnode? That seems like
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I have updated the patch to include
> wait_event_type information in the wait_event table.
I think we should remove "a server process is" from all of these entries.
Also, I think this kind of thing should be tighte
On 09/03/16 12:09, Yury Zhuravlev wrote:
Good point. It did not occur to me that this would bring a hard
dependency for non-Windows builds. Let's keep both scripts then. The
attached is changed to do so.
Hello.
What about putenv problem? We can't write:
#define putenv(x) pgwin32_putenv(x)
becau
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
>
>>
>> If yes, then the only slight worry is that there will lot of repetition
in wait_event_type column, otherwise it is okay.
>
>
> There is morerows attribute of entry tag in Docbook SGML, it behaves like
rowspan in HTML.
>
Thanks for
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> There certainly are server/protocol frustrations.
I'm sympathetic to all of these and think we should work on fixing
them, particularly...
> STRING TYPE ISSUES
> ---
>
> PgJDBC can work around Pg's IMO somewhat overzealous type checks ...
Th
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
>> The first one in the list will be the cheapest; why not just look at
>> that? Sorted partial paths are interesting if some subsequent path
>> construction step can make use of that sort ordering, but they're
>> never interesting from the poin
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 07:18, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
>> mean we want more reviewers in addition to them for such patches?
>
> Yeah. Personally I'm not too confident about what p
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> It's hard to miss the fact that there are an absolutely breathtaking
>> number of patches in this CommitFest - 80! - that are in the "needs
>> review" state. We really, really, really need more review to happen -
>
> Many of "needs review" st
On 03/08/2016 11:54 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jesper Pedersen
wrote:
I can confirm the marginal speed up in tps due to the new WAL size.
The TWOPHASE_MAGIC constant should be changed, as the file header has
changed definition, right ?
Thanks for looking at it
Hi,
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 11:23 +0100, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> > Alright. I'm attaching the latest version of this patch
> split in two
> > parts: the first one is
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> Attached is a version that addresses today's concerns, and also
finishes
> >> filling in the loose ends I'd left before, such as documentation and
> >> outfuncs.c support. I think this is in a committable state now, though
> >> I p
On 09.03.2016 09:15, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
BTW, there's some additional refactoring I had had in mind to do in
grouping_planner to make its handling of the targetlist a bit more
organized; in particular, I'd like to see it using PathTarget
representation more consistently throughout the pos
Hi. As I just said to Tomas Vondra: since your patch creates a new
object type, please make sure to add a case to cover it in the
object_address.sql test. That verifies some things such as
pg_identify_object and related.
Thanks,
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Post
On 9 March 2016 at 18:13, 李海龙 wrote:
>
>
> HI, pgsql-hackers
>
> The include-timestamp data returned by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes() is
> always 2000-01-01 in 9.5.1, is it not normal?
>
Did you enable track_commit_timestamps in the server?
If not, and it's returning 2000-01-01 I think that'
Hi,
I gave a very quick skim to patch 0002. Not a real review yet. But
there are a few trivial points to fix:
* You still have empty sections in the SGML docs (such as the EXAMPLES).
I suppose the syntax is now firm enough that we can get some. (I looked
at the other patches to see whether it
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I tried replacing the random() with PostmaterRandom() for a test and it
>> worked.
>> This is generating different random values, so the issue is not occurring.
>>
>> "Global/Po
Hi, Tom!
I have a question about Sort path. AFAICS this question wasn't mentioned in
the upthread discussion.
We're producing Sort plans in two ways: from explicit Sort paths, and from
other paths which implicitly assumes sorting (like MergeJoin path).
Would it be better to produce Sort plan only
Hi,
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 10:58 +0100, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Joel Jacobson
> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
> wrote:
> > Thank you for spending your time to run these :-)
>
> n/p, it took
Good point. It did not occur to me that this would bring a hard
dependency for non-Windows builds. Let's keep both scripts then. The
attached is changed to do so.
Hello.
What about putenv problem? We can't write:
#define putenv(x) pgwin32_putenv(x)
because in new CRT putenv have different signat
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> I tried replacing the random() with PostmaterRandom() for a test and it
worked.
> This is generating different random values, so the issue is not occurring.
>
> "Global/PostgreSQL.2115609797"
>
> I feel, we should add the the data direct
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> > Alright. I'm attaching the latest version of this patch split in two
> > parts: the first one is NULLs-related bugfix and the second is the
> > "improvement" part, which applies on top of the first one.
>
> I
HI, pgsql-hackers
The include-timestamp data returned by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes() is
always 2000-01-01 in 9.5.1, is it not normal?
The following is the test:
[postgres@pgtest ~]$ cat /etc/issue
CentOS release 6.4 (Final)
Kernel \r on an \m
[postgres@pgtest ~]$ uname -av
Linux pgtest
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
> wrote:
> > Thank you for spending your time to run these :-)
>
> n/p, it took like 30 seconds :-)
>
Great! I'm glad to hear it was as easy to use as I hoped for :-)
> I don't want to be
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 00:06:43 -0500
Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:04:56PM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> > My company is developing code for Postgresql for another company
> > and want to communicate, debate and share the results with the
> > community.
> >
> > The objetives are u
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
- when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the run).
Every other place where doCustom() returns false is implemented as
return clientDone(...). I t
>> Spgist index tree is much better than gist - 12149 pages vs 1334760 !
I assume this is the reason why it is bigger. IP addresses are very
well suited to SP-GiST. They naturally do not overlap.
> I also noticed, that spgist is much faster than gist for other inet
> operators. I'd like to see
Sorry, I should correct one point.
At Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:29:49 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20160309.172949.8413.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
>
> At Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:08:55 -0500, Tom Lane
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Corey Huinker writes:
>> So, I'd propose we following syntax:
>> ALTER INDEX foo SET DISABLED
>> -- does the SET indisvalid = false shown earlier.
>
> This is exactly *not* what Tatsuo-san was after, though; he was asking
> for a session-local d
On 2016/03/08 2:35, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Another option to avoid such a hazard would be to remove the two changes
from ExecInitModifyTable and create ExecAuxRowMarks and junk filters even in
the pushdown case. I made the changes because we won
Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
At Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:08:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
<21567.1457478...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > Hello, This is a (maybe) committer-ready patch of a Tomas
> > Vondra's project.
>
> I think this needs quite a
On 2016/03/09 4:36, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Attached patch makes minor modification to the GetForeignPlan
documentation. This adds the description about outer_plan, the new
parameter added in 9.5.
Good catch. Committed and back-patched to 9.
Hello Robert,
Here is a v35 b & c.
This is not acceptable:
+ /* guess double type (n for "inf",
"-inf" and "nan") */
+ if (strchr(var, '.') != NULL ||
strchr(var, 'n') != NULL)
+ {
+
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo