Perfect, see you then.
-=e
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> Sure. Let's pair on it tomorrow morning then.
>
> On Sep 22, 2016 11:17 AM, "Ed Espino" wrote:
>
>> Roman,
>>
>> If possible, I wouldn't mind observing your review.
>>
>> -=e
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11
Ruilong,
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to perform the IP review. It might
help to review the IPMC comments to identify the patterns they use. Their
feedback can be found at the following link:
https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg55541.html
Additionally, you migh
+1 to go for HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating RC4 voting.
@Roman and @Ed, if possible, would you please elaborate more regarding the
review so that broader developers can do that as well? Thanks.
Best regards,
Ruilong Huo
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Ed Espino wrote:
> Roman,
>
> If possible, I wou
+1 with Vineet's comment.
in your statement "insert into call_center select * from ext_call_center;"
There are two strict restriction of how many virtual segments need to be
started:
1 the bucket number of hash distributed result relation call_center (must
equal to #vseg)
2 the number of locations
Roman,
If possible, I wouldn't mind observing your review.
-=e
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Ed Espino wrote:
> All outstanding Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating RC3 issues have been
> resolved. We can go for RC4 as soon as possible.
>
> -=e
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Vineet Goel
All outstanding Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating RC3 issues have been
resolved. We can go for RC4 as soon as possible.
-=e
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Vineet Goel wrote:
> Seems like the pending issues are resolved, so we're good to go with RC4
> now.
>
> Ed - would u agree?
>
>
>
> On Thu
Seems like the pending issues are resolved, so we're good to go with RC4
now.
Ed - would u agree?
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:23 AM Goden Yao wrote:
> I want to check if the community thinks we're ready to spin up another RC4
> voting.
> Let me know so I can prepare the binary.
> -Goden
>
> On
I want to check if the community thinks we're ready to spin up another RC4
voting.
Let me know so I can prepare the binary.
-Goden
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:59 AM Goden Yao wrote:
> Just to confirm based on Legal-79, ppport.h is an exception with your PR,
> it looks we're good now.
> Thanks Ed.
Hi All,
I was running hawq check on a system, and I hit the following error:
20160909:16:34:48:339941 gpcheck:hdw1:gpadmin-[ERROR]:-host(hdw1): on
device (sdd) IO scheduler 'cfq' does not match expected value 'deadline'
20160909:16:34:48:339941 gpcheck:hdw1-[ERROR]:-host(hdw1): on device (sde)
IO
Kyle R Dunn created HAWQ-1069:
-
Summary: Support Kerberos and token impersonation
Key: HAWQ-1069
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-1069
Project: Apache HAWQ
Issue Type: Improvement
Randomly distributed tables make Hawq2.x more elastic: big queries use more
resources, while small queries will use less resources.
But hash distributed table need to use the same number of resource as the
bucket number of table, no matter the query cost is large or small. As a
result, a scan on a
Ming LI created HAWQ-1068:
-
Summary: master process panic with signal 11 when call
get_ao_compression_ratio(null)
Key: HAWQ-1068
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-1068
Project: Apache HAWQ
12 matches
Mail list logo
