On 2017/05/08 12:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> Thanks for committing the patch after improving it quite a bit, and sorry
>> that I couldn't reply promptly during the last week due to vacation.
>
> No worries, hopefully you have an op
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> Thanks for committing the patch after improving it quite a bit, and sorry
> that I couldn't reply promptly during the last week due to vacation.
No worries, hopefully you have an opportunity to review the additional
changes I made and
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/05/06 12:28, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Noah,
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 23:19 Noah Misch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:47:02PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost
>> wrote:
Noah,
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 23:19 Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:47:02PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost
> wrote:
> > > > Assuming this looks good to you, I'll push it tomorrow,
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:47:02PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Assuming this looks good to you, I'll push it tomorrow, possibly with
> > > other minor adjustments and perhaps a few mor
Amit,
* Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Assuming this looks good to you, I'll push it tomorrow, possibly with
> > other minor adjustments and perhaps a few more tests.
>
> Your latest patch looks good to me.
Found a few m
Amit,
* Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> Attached updated patches.
> >
> > Please find an updated version which corrects the issue with
> > binary-upgrade of partiti
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> Attached updated patches.
>
> Please find an updated version which corrects the issue with
> binary-upgrade of partitioned tables having partitions in other schem
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> Attached updated patches.
Please find an updated version which corrects the issue with
binary-upgrade of partitioned tables having partitions in other schemas,
along with a few other minor improvements.
If you could take a look at it,
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> Now that WITH OPTIONS is optional even for CREATE TABLE OF, perhaps it
> needs to be mentioned in the release notes?
Doesn't strike me as rising to the level of needing to go into the
release notes, but I won't object if people feel th
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> Sorry about the delay.
No worries, I'm just back from being in NY and will take a look at this
tomorrow (wrt the open item, I'll provide a status tomorrow).
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Stephen,
Sorry about the delay.
On 2017/04/27 23:17, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
So to summarize what the patches do (some of these were posted earlier)
0002: pg_dump: Do not emit WITH OPTIONS keywords with partition's
Noah,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:58:23PM +, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The status is simply that I've been considering Robert's comments regarding
> > the documentation and have had a busy weekend. I'll provide an update
> > tomorrow.
>
> This PostgreSQ
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:58:23PM +, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Noah, all,
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 19:52 Noah Misch wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:14:08PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:53:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadbo
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> So to summarize what the patches do (some of these were posted earlier)
> >>
> >> 0002: pg_dump: Do not emit WITH OPTIONS keywords with partition's columns
> >
> > I'm trying to understand why this is also different. At least on an
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/26 23:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> I looked through
>>> pg_get_partkeydef() and it didn't seem to be particularly expensive to
>>> run, though evidently it doesn't handle being passed an OID that it
>>> doesn't expect very cleanly:
>>>
>>> =# select pg_get_partkeydef(oid) fr
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 2017/04/26 0:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. We're always going to call both
> > getInherits() and getPartitions() and run the queries in each, with the
> > way the code is written today. In my experie
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/26 0:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> I think why getPartitions() is separate from getInherits() and then
>> flagPartitions() separate from flagInhTables() is because I thought
>> originally that mixing the two wo
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Interesting. Seems like the question is really what we mean by "ONLY"
> here. For my 2c, at least, if we can check that all of the partitions
> already have the constraint enforced, such that the only thing we're
> changing is the partitio
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I wonder why the restriction is there, which is probably part of the
> > reason that I'm thinking of phrasing the documentation that way.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of round to-its, is th
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> I think why getPartitions() is separate from getInherits() and then
> flagPartitions() separate from flagInhTables() is because I thought
> originally that mixing the two would be undesirable. In the partitioning
> case, getPartitions(
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I wonder why the restriction is there, which is probably part of the
> reason that I'm thinking of phrasing the documentation that way.
>
> Beyond a matter of round to-its, is there a reason why it couldn't (or
> shouldn't) be supported? I'm
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> + Once
> >> + partitions exist, we do not support using ONLY
> >> to
> >> + add or drop constraints on only the partitioned table.
> >>
> >> I wonder if the following sou
Noah, all,
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 19:52 Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:14:08PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:53:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:41:25PM -0400, Stephen Fros
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:14:08PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:53:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:41:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > I've put up a new patch for review on the thread and
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:53:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:41:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I've put up a new patch for review on the thread and plan to commit
> > > that tomorrow, assuming there isn't anything fu
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> + Once
>> + partitions exist, we do not support using ONLY to
>> + add or drop constraints on only the partitioned table.
>>
>> I wonder if the following sounds a bit more informative: Once partitions
>> exist, using ONLY will re
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/21 8:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/04/18 1:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> Please take a look at the attached and let me know your thoughts on it.
>>> I changed the code to complain again regarding TRUNCATE ONLY, sin
Greetings,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:41:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I've put up a new patch for review on the thread and plan to commit
> > that tomorrow, assuming there isn't anything further. That should
> > resolve the immediate issue, but I
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 2017/04/18 1:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> OK, I agree. I tweaked the existing bullet point about differences from
> >> traditional inheritance when using ONLY with partition
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:41:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:38:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Frost
> > > wrote:
> > > > Sure, though I won't be able to today and I've got s
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/18 1:43, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> OK, I agree. I tweaked the existing bullet point about differences from
>> traditional inheritance when using ONLY with partitioned tables.
>
> Please take a look at the att
Noah, all,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:38:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Sure, though I won't be able to today and I've got some doubts about the
> > > other patches. I'll have more time tom
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> OK, I agree. I tweaked the existing bullet point about differences from
> traditional inheritance when using ONLY with partitioned tables.
Please take a look at the attached and let me know your thoughts on it.
I changed the code to c
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:38:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Sure, though I won't be able to today and I've got some doubts about the
> > other patches. I'll have more time tomorrow though.
>
> OK, cool. I'll mark you down as the owne
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/14 0:05, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Robert,
>
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> So I think I was indeed confused before, and I think you're basically
>> right here, but on one point I think you are not right -- ALTER TABLE
>> ONLY .. CHECK () doesn't work on a t
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Sure, though I won't be able to today and I've got some doubts about the
> other patches. I'll have more time tomorrow though.
OK, cool. I'll mark you down as the owner on the open items list.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.ent
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> So I think I was indeed confused before, and I think you're basically
> right here, but on one point I think you are not right -- ALTER TABLE
> ONLY .. CHECK () doesn't work on a table with inheritance children
> regardless of whether the chil
On 2017/04/13 6:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I'm not following what you're getting at here.
>>
>> There's already a constraint on the table, and ALTER TABLE ONLY doesn't
>> say anything about what happens later on (certainly it doesn't make new
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm not following what you're getting at here.
>
> There's already a constraint on the table, and ALTER TABLE ONLY doesn't
> say anything about what happens later on (certainly it doesn't make new
> tables created with 'LIKE' have bits omitte
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
>> > that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is perform
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
> > that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is performed using only the
> > relkind, which is bogus. Spec
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
> that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is performed using only the
> relkind, which is bogus. Specifying ONLY should cause an error only when
> the table has part
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/04/11 22:12, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Children can have constraints (including NOT NULL constraints) which
>>> parents lack, and can have a different column order, but m
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Children can have constraints (including NOT NULL constraints) which
> > parents lack, and can have a different column order, but must have
> > exactly the same column names and types.
>
> Als
On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole
>> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written
>> down specification about (a) how much partition member t
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole
> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written
> down specification about (a) how much partition member tables are allowed
> to deviate schema-wise f
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole
>> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written
>> down specification about (a) how much partition member tables are allowed
>> to dev
Tom, Robert,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I would appreciate help from other contributors and committers on this
> > open item; pg_dump is not my strong point. In the absence of such
> > help, I will do my best with it. I will set aside time this week to
> >
Robert Haas writes:
> I would appreciate help from other contributors and committers on this
> open item; pg_dump is not my strong point. In the absence of such
> help, I will do my best with it. I will set aside time this week to
> study this and send another update no later than Thursday.
The
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open it
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:38:41PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/03/29 0:39, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >>> Isn't it bogus that this is generating ALTER TABLE .. SET NOT NULL
> >>> columns at all? You didn't say anything like that when
On 2017/03/29 0:39, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Isn't it bogus that this is generating ALTER TABLE .. SET NOT NULL
>>> columns at all? You didn't say anything like that when setting up the
>>> database, so why should it be there when dumping?
>>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Isn't it bogus that this is generating ALTER TABLE .. SET NOT NULL
>> columns at all? You didn't say anything like that when setting up the
>> database, so why should it be there when dumping?
>
> So we should find a way for the NOT NULL con
On 2017/03/27 23:30, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
>> command for those schema elements of a table that could not be included
>> directly in the CREATE TABLE command for the
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/03/21 1:40, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/02/17 22:32, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER T
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
> command for those schema elements of a table that could not be included
> directly in the CREATE TABLE command for the table.
>
> For example:
>
> create table p (a i
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 2017/02/17 22:32, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
> >> command for those schema elements of a table that c
Hi Stephen,
On 2017/02/17 22:32, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
>> command for those schema elements of a table that could not be included
>> directly in the CREAT
Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> In certain cases, pg_dump's dumpTableSchema() emits a separate ALTER TABLE
> command for those schema elements of a table that could not be included
> directly in the CREATE TABLE command for the table.
Any chance we could start adding
60 matches
Mail list logo