Hi,
Documentation of run-time pruning tells readers to inspect "nloops"
property of the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, but I think that's a typo of
"loops" which is actually output ("internal variable to track that
property is indeed nloops).
However, for pruned partitions' subplans, what's actually
Hi, thank you for the comment.
>-Original Message-
>From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 5:09 PM
>
>Hello.
>
>At Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:13:26 +, "Ideriha, Takeshi"
> wrote in
>
> I found a few more
> places where true/false is used other than
> ssl_passphrase_command_supports_reload in config.sgml.
> Attached is a patch to fix them in config.sgml.
I will commit this to the master branch if there's no objection.
Since this is an enhancement, not a bug fix, I think no
Hi Amit,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached v8 patches.
Thanks for the patch. I took a look 0003, 0005, 0006 of v8 patch.
1.
0003: line 267-268
+* Child relation may have be marked dummy if
build_append_child_rel
+* found
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:40:40PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> Thanks for the updated patch! The code looks good to me, the patch
> applies cleanly and builds without warnings, and it seems to work well
> in my manual tests. I just have a few wording suggestions.
How are you testing this?
On 2018/12/05 10:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:25:09AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I think more people would directly understand the "is not a table" for a
>> foreign table than a partitioned one (for example, it does now show up in
>> \dt or under tables in pgadmin,
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:25:09AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think more people would directly understand the "is not a table" for a
> foreign table than a partitioned one (for example, it does now show up in
> \dt or under tables in pgadmin, but partitioned ones do). That said, if
> it's
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:41:59PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I spent a few minutes trying to think of a way of determining which
> query to use at SQL-execution time -- two CTEs, one of which would be
> short-circuited ... but I couldn't figure out how. I also tried to use
> the new
Stephen Frost writes:
> Greetings Robbie,
>
> * Dmitry Dolgov (9erthali...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:12 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> >
>> > Michael Paquier writes:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 05:23:28PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> > >> If you're in a position
Hi,
On 2018-12-04 12:31:48 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> best of three of
> time make -s install INSTALL=/bin/true
>
> 9.3: 1.53s
> 9.4: 1.55s
> 9.5: 1.90s
> 9.6: 2.10s
> 10: 2.45s
> 11: 2.81s
> master: 2.99s
>
> Obviously a part of that can be explained by the tree getting bigger,
> but that
Hi,
On 2018-12-04 15:45:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I'd like to see this revived, getting a bit tired waiting longer and
> > longer to see isolationtester complete. Is it really a problem that we
> > require a certain number of connections? Something on the order of
Andres Freund writes:
> I'd like to see this revived, getting a bit tired waiting longer and
> longer to see isolationtester complete. Is it really a problem that we
> require a certain number of connections? Something on the order of 30-50
> connections ought not to be a real problem for
On 12/4/18, 1:36 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> Okay, here is an updated patch for this stuff, which does the following:
> - Check for a WAL segment if it has a ".ready" status file, an orphaned
> status file is removed only on ENOENT.
> - If durable_unlink fails, retry 3 times. If there are too
On 12/4/18 12:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
best of three of
time make -s install INSTALL=/bin/true
9.3: 1.53s
9.4: 1.55s
9.5: 1.90s
9.6: 2.10s
10: 2.45s
11: 2.81s
master: 2.99s
Obviously a part of that can be explained by the tree getting bigger,
but that can't be all of it.
It also gets
Hi,
best of three of
time make -s install INSTALL=/bin/true
9.3: 1.53s
9.4: 1.55s
9.5: 1.90s
9.6: 2.10s
10: 2.45s
11: 2.81s
master: 2.99s
Obviously a part of that can be explained by the tree getting bigger,
but that can't be all of it.
It also gets a bit worse if LLVM is enabled (due to the
On 2018-Dec-04, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to see this revived, getting a bit tired waiting longer and
> longer to see isolationtester complete. Is it really a problem that we
> require a certain number of connections? Something on the order of 30-50
> connections ought not to be a
Hi,
On 2018-01-25 18:27:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > Here's a concrete proposal. Runtime is 45.7 seconds on my laptop. It
> > > can be further reduced, but not by more than a second or two unless you
> > > get in the business of modifying
On 2018-Dec-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> v2 attached.
Oops.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>From 4015ed3741e81528882761252ddf463d4c10aed5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On 2018-Dec-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... this patch breaks the expectation set at the top of describe.c:
>
> * Support for the various \d ("describe") commands. Note that the current
> * expectation is that all functions in this file will succeed when working
> * with servers of versions 7.4
Hi
I wrote plpgsql_check https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check.
It is working well, but because it does static analyse only, sometimes it
can produces false alarms or it should to stop a analyse, because there are
not necessary data.
https://github.com/okbob/plpgsql_check/issues/36
I see one
Hi,
On 2018-11-10 17:42:16 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:46 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Teodor: Do you think that the issue is fixable? It looks like there
> > are serious issues with the design of 218f51584d5 to me. I don't think
> > the general "there can't be any
Greetings,
* Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:01:36 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in <20181128010136.gu1...@paquier.xyz>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > That isn't at all what I got from that.
> > >
>
On 2018-Dec-04, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That's probably a win performance-wise anyway, as I have no doubt
> > that the performance of this query is awful compared to what it
> > replaces, so we don't really want to use it if we don't
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > This is not very useful. I propose that we change it so that it only
> > displays the one on the partitioned table on which the constraint was
> > defined:
>
> OK goal, but ...
>
> > Patch attached.
>
> ...
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This is not very useful. I propose that we change it so that it only
> displays the one on the partitioned table on which the constraint was
> defined:
OK goal, but ...
> Patch attached.
... this patch breaks the expectation set at the top of describe.c:
* Support
When \d a table referenced by a foreign key on a partitioned table, you
currently get this:
Table "public.referenced"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
+-+---+--+-
a | integer | | not null |
Indexes:
On 2018-Dec-04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> During the development of my recent patch "unused/redundant foreign key
> code" [0], I had developed a few additional test cases to increase the
> coverage in ri_triggers.c. They are in the attached patches with
> explanations. With these, coverage
During the development of my recent patch "unused/redundant foreign key
code" [0], I had developed a few additional test cases to increase the
coverage in ri_triggers.c. They are in the attached patches with
explanations. With these, coverage should be pretty complete, except
hard-to-trigger
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 7:02 PM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> It can works :). Please, assign it to next commitfest.
Ok
From e6d0261156838b07a5a25332fa0121d6d5c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: didier
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:20:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add sqlstate output mode to VERBOSITY
On 12/4/18 10:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> After reading this thread, I think I like WHERE better than FILTER.
> Tally:
>
> WHERE: Adam Berlin, Lim Myungkyu, Dean Rasheed, yours truly
> FILTER: Tomas Vondra, Surafel Temesgen
>
> Couldn't find others expressing an opinion in this regard.
>
After reading this thread, I think I like WHERE better than FILTER.
Tally:
WHERE: Adam Berlin, Lim Myungkyu, Dean Rasheed, yours truly
FILTER: Tomas Vondra, Surafel Temesgen
Couldn't find others expressing an opinion in this regard.
On 2018-Nov-30, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I think it should be
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:38 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/12/04 11:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:51:40AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> Okay, here is a patch. I didn't find any tests in subscription.sql
> >> related to unsupported relkinds, so didn't bother
(2018/12/03 20:20), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/11/30 18:51), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/11/28 13:38), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> BTW another thing I noticed is this comment on costing aggregate
>>> pushdown paths using local statistics in estimate_path_cost_size:
>>>
>>> * Also,
33 matches
Mail list logo
