On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 8:56 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 03:51:18PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Finally, I get this warning:
> >
> > execExprInterp.c: In function ‘ExecJsonCoerceCStringToText’:
> > execExprInterp.c:4765:3: warning: missin
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:51 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> SELECT JSON_VALUE(jsonb '"aaa"', '$' RETURNING int DEFAULT 111 ON ERROR);
> - json_value
> -
> -111
> -(1 row)
> -
> +ERROR: syntax error at or near "DEFAULT"
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:51 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:25 AM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> > v10 patches
>
> Finally, I get this warning:
>
> execExprInterp.c: In function ‘ExecJsonCoerceCStringToText’:
> execExprInterp.c:4765:3: warning: missin
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:25 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 30.08.2022 11:09, Amit Langote wrote:
> First of all, regarding 0009, my understanding was that we should
> disallow DEFAULT expression ON ERROR too for now, so something like
> the following does not occur:
>
> SELEC
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 6:19 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Aug-30, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Patches 0001-0006:
> >
> > Yeah, these add the overhead of an extra function call (typin() ->
> > typin_opt_error()) in possibly very common paths. Other than
>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 6:49 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 29.08.2022 15:56, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:11 AM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> I have completed in v9 all the things I previously planned:
>
> BTW, maybe the following hunk in boolin_opt_erro
ed.
That would be nice indeed.
I'm wondering if you're going to change the PASSING values
initialization to add the steps into the parent JsonExpr's ExprState,
like the previous patch was doing?
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:55 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:29 AM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> > Here is my plan:
> >
> > 0. Take my last v7-0001 patch as a base. It already contains refactoring
> > of JsonCoercion code. (Fix 0002 is not nee
ill be NULL for now:
/*
* JsonBehavior -
* representation of JSON ON ... BEHAVIOR clause
*/
typedef struct JsonBehavior
{
NodeTag type;
JsonBehaviorType btype; /* behavior type */
Node *default_expr; /* default expression, if any */
} JsonBehavior;
And if so, no expression left to check the Const-ness of?
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:48 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:46 PM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> > The desciprion of the v7 patches:
> >
> > 0003 Add EEOP_SUBTRANS executor step
> > v6 + new recursive JIT
> >
> > 0004 Split JsonExpr e
T
>
> 0004 Split JsonExpr execution into steps
> simply rebase of v6 + used LLMBuildSwitch() in EEOP_JSONEXPR
Will need to spend more time looking at these.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:52 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Andres, Andrew, Amit, Robert -- as you have either worked on this or
> expressed opinions -- any thoughts on this current patch set?
FWIW, I've started looking at these patches.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| not null |
Partition of: pp DEFAULT
alter table cc alter a drop not null ;
ERROR: column "a" is marked NOT NULL in parent table
IIRC, I had tried to propose implementing the same behavior for legacy
inheritance back in the day, but maybe we left it alone for not
breaking compatibility.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
leaving ExecInterpExpr() anyway, so maybe you meant the io coercion
itself was done using some code outside ExecInterpExpr()?
The current JsonExpr code does it by recursively calling
ExecInterpExpr() using the nested ExprState expressly for the
coercion.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi Andres,
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 5:37 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-08-04 17:01:48 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Honestly, this code seems like it should just be rewritten from scratch.
> >
> > Based
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:58 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> OK, pushed. This soon caused buildfarm to show a failure due to
> underspecified ORDER BY, so I just pushed a fix for that too.
Thank you.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
#else
> EnableDisableTrigger( all args )
> #endif
>
> and otherwise they're compatible as compiled today.
>
> Since there are no known users of this interface, it doesn't seem to
> warrant any more convenient treatment.
Makes sense.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-08-02 12:05:55 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:39 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2022-07-27 17:01:13 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > Here's an updated version
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 8:59 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I'll try to respond to other points
> in a separate email, but I wanted to clarify something about below:
>
> > I find my ego
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 3:01 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Aug-02, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Regarding the patch, I agree that storing the recurse flag rather than
> > overwriting subtype might be better.
> >
> > + boolexecTimeRecursion; /* set by
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 6:58 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 19:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:59 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> > > I'd quite like to push this patch early next week, so if anyone else
> > &g
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:39 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-07-27 17:01:13 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of the patch, with mostly cosmetic changes.
> > In particular, I added comments describing the n
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:58 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Aug-01, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 5:25 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > I do not think it's a great idea to have ALTER TABLE scribbling on
> > > the source parsetree.
> >
t by setting a new flag in AlteredTableInfo, instead of
AlterTableCmd. AlteredTableInfo has other runtime info about the
relation being altered and perhaps it wouldn't be too bad if it also
stores the inh/recurse flag.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:01 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Needed to be rebased again, over 2d04277121f this time.
Thanks for looking.
> 0001 adds es_part_prune_result but does not use it, so maybe the
> introduction of that
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:59 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 00:50, Amit Langote wrote:
> > So, in a way the caching scheme works for
> > LIST partitioning only if the same value appears consecutively in the
> > input set, whereas it does not for *a set of
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:28 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Amit Langote wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* The Datum has changed. Zero the number of times
> > we've
> > +* found
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:13 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > BTW, I was working on code inside llvm_compile_expr() a few days ago
> > and I thought I'd gotten the new evaluation steps I was adding correct
> > as it worke
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Rebased over 964d01ae90c.
>
> Sorry, left some pointless hunks in there while rebasing. Fixed in
> the attached.
Needed to be rebased again, over 2d04277121f this
this function can be quite expensive for LIST and RANGE partitioned
+ * tables have many partitions.
having many partitions
Many of the use cases for LIST and RANGE
+ * partitioned tables mean that the same partition is likely to be found in
mean -> are such that
we record the partition index we've found in the
+ * PartitionDesc
we record the partition index we've found *for given values* in the
PartitionDesc
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:13 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 15:22, Amit Langote wrote:
> > BTW, the only way I found to *forcefully* exercise llvm_compile_expr()
> > is to add `set jit_above_cost to 0` at the top of the test file, or
> > are we missing a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 2:12 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Jul-21, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Because I wrote all of it while not really understanding how the LLVM
> > constructs like blocks and branches work, the only reason I think
> > those llvm_compile_expr() add
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:55 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:09 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:37 AM Andres Freund
wrote:
> > > On 2022-07-19 20:40:11 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > About that, I was wondering if t
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:09 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:37 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-07-19 20:40:11 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > About that, I was wondering if the blocks in llvm_compile_expr() need
> > > to be hand-cod
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:37 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-07-19 20:40:11 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > About that, I was wondering if the blocks in llvm_compile_expr() need
> > to be hand-coded to match what's added in ExecInterpExpr() or if I've
> > mi
er more
> intractable than I expected. Almost all the legwork here has been done
> by Amit Langote, for which he deserves both my thanks and considerable
> credit, but I take responsibility for it.
>
> I just discovered today that this scheme is failing under
> "force_parall
tch is ready for committer.
Great, thanks.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:23 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > So, I hacked together a patch (attached 0001) that invents an "RI
> > plan" construct (struct RIPlan) to replace the use of an "SPI plan"
> > (stru
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Rebased over 964d01ae90c.
Sorry, left some pointless hunks in there while rebasing. Fixed in
the attached.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v19-0001-Move-PartitioPruneInfo-out-of-plan-nodes-into-Pl.pa
Rebased over 964d01ae90c.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v18-0002-Optimize-AcquireExecutorLocks-by-locking-only-un.patch
Description: Binary data
v18-0001-Move-PartitioPruneInfo-out-of-plan-nodes-into-Pl.patch
Description: Binary data
| A
> (2 rows)
>
> ALTER TABLE
> tgrelid | tgname | tgenabled
> -++---
> child1 | tg | A
> parent | tg | A
> (2 rows)
>
> DROP TABLE
> DROP FUNCTION
>
> The patch doesn't start recursion in case '
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 3:24 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
> > >
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 3:24 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
> > mentioned above and see if we can do away with using SQL in the
> > remaining cas
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:55 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 03:22:38PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:30 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > - If true, the stats include inheritance child columns, n
n RI check or action is implemented
using SQL plan or a hard-code plan, the execution should proceed with
the effectively same config/environment.
I will continue investigating what to do about points (1) and (2)
mentioned above and see if we can do away with using SQL in the
remaining cases.
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:11 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Simon reported $subject off-list.
>
> For triggers on partitioned tables, various enable/disable trigger
> variants recurse to also process partitions' triggers by way of
> ATSimpleRecursion() done in the "prep&q
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > > Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the
> > >
ch is a single array like:
>
> entry->attrmap = palloc(desc->natts * sizeof(AttrNumber));
LGTM, thank you.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:08 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:21 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > I agree it's an old bug. A partition map entry's localrel may point
> > to a stale Relation pointer
n
+* relation after the last use of this entry. Note that localrelvalid is
+* only updated by the relcache invalidation callback, so it may still be
+* true irrespective of whether the Relation pointed to by localrel has
+* been cleared or not.
+*/
if (found && entry->localre
t;leaf" partition is updatable
Regarding the commit message's top line, which is this:
Fix partition table's RI checking on the subscriber.
I think it should spell out REPLICA IDENTITY explicitly to avoid the
commit being confused to have to do with "Referential Integrity
checking".
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:24 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > > > @@ -1735,6 +
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@ apply_handle_insert_internal(ApplyExecutionData
> > *edata,
> > static void
> > check_relation_updatable
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:43 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > + * Don't throw any error here just mark the relation entry as not
> > updatable,
> > + * as replica identity is only for updates and deletes but inserts can
ot; here really means no-longer-useful, so we
should use that phrase as a nearby comment does:
Release the no-longer-useful attrmap, if any.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:02 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > +# Change the column order of table on publisher
> > I think it might be better to say something specific to describe the
> > test intent, like:
> >
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:31 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I think we can do that way as well but do you see any benefit in it?
> > The way I am suggesting will avoid the effort of updating the remote
> > rel copy till
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 10:36 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > >
t part. Also how about being
more specific about the test intent, say:
Test that replication continues to work correctly after altering the
partition of a partitioned target table.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 10:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> >
> > I wonder why not call this logicalrep_partmap_update() to go with
> > logicalrep_relmap_upda
.
@@ -584,7 +594,6 @@ logicalrep_partition_open(LogicalRepRelMapEntry *root,
Oid partOid = RelationGetRelid(partrel);
AttrMap *attrmap = root->attrmap;
boolfound;
- int i;
MemoryContext oldctx;
if (LogicalRepPartMap == NULL)
> Thanks to Hou Zhijie for helping me in the first patch.
Thank you both for the fixes.
> I will add a test for it later
That would be very welcome.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201902041630.gpadougzab7v%40alvherre.pgsql
pport to replicate into
> partitioned tables), so adding Amit L. and Peter E.
Thanks, I can see the problem.
I have looked at other mentioned problems with the code too and agree
they look like bugs.
Both patches look to be on the right track to fix the issues, but will
look more closely to see if I've anything to add.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:14 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:15 PM Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:35 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > I would probably just upd
e can live
> without it, so I changed my mind; I'll go with my version. I think we
> could revisit this later.
I guess I'm fine with leaving the text as-is, though slightly bothered
by leaving the phrase "partition of the given parent table with
specified partition bound va
ut that in the shared memory, or at least not with one-off
adjustments of the shared progress reporting state like in the
proposed patch.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
7;t change.
>
> That's a concern if backpatching. Otherwise, it's better to put them
> like shown in the patch.
Agreed.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> I think we should fix the syntax synopsis in the Parameters section
> of the CREATE FOREIGN TABLE reference page as well.
Oops, good catch.
> Attached is a patch for that.
Thank you.
I think we should also rewrite the description to match the CREATE
TABLE's text, as in the att
ollowing be a good rewrite:
If true, the stats cover the contents not only of the specified table,
but also of its child tables or partitions. (If the table is
partitioned, which contains no data by itself, the stats only cover
the contents of partitions).
Although, maybe the parenthetical is unnecessary.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
starelid | stainherit
--+
foo | t
foo1 | f
(2 rows)
Maybe you're thinking of RangeTblEntry that the planner makes 2 copies
for inheritance parents, but only 1 for partition parents as of
e8d5dd6be79.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 1:58 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:50 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > Attached 2 patches -- one for PG 11 onwards and another for PG 10.
>
> Committed, except I adjusted the v11 version so that the CREATE
> FOREIGN TABLE documentation woul
ate_table.sgml here as well.
Yes. a2a2205761 did that for alter_table.sgml and we evidently missed
including create_foreign_table.sgml in that discussion.
Attached 2 patches -- one for PG 11 onwards and another for PG 10.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PG10-missing-partition_bound_spec.patch
Description: Binary data
missing-partition_bound_spec.patch
Description: Binary data
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:17 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:31:14AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > * I think it's better to s/...or a LIST partition/...or with a LIST
> > partition
> >
> > * The capitalization of DEFAULT and LIST seems
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:04 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 15:01, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > +Previously, a partitioned table with DEFAULT partition or a LIST
> > > partition containing multip
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 15:01, Amit Langote wrote:
> > +Previously, a partitioned table with DEFAULT partition or a LIST
> > partition containing multiple values could not be used for ordered
> > partition scans. Now it
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:36 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:13:28PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Or maybe we could mention that but use a wording that doesn't make it
> > sound like an implementation detail, like:
> >
> > +Previously, an ord
should do something like the attached. A lot of
boilerplate is needed given that the various enable/disable trigger
variants are represented as separate sub-commands (AlterTableCmd
subtypes), which can perhaps be avoided by inventing a
EnableDisableTrigStmt sub-command node that stores (only?) t
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 2:56 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 14:41, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Though a bit late given beta is now wrapped, I have another partition
> > item wording improvement suggestion:
> >
> > -Previously, a partitioned table with an
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:48:41AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Btw, perhaps the following should be listed under E.1.3.2.1. Logical
> > Replication, not E.1.3.1.1. Partitioning?
> >
> >
> >
> &g
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:50 Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:00:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > (I have added an open item, just in case.)
>
> And fixed as of 27f1366
Thank you.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:41 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:34:41AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Attached a patch to fix with a test added. cc'ing Michael who
> > authored that commit.
>
> Indeed, 6f164e6d got that incorrectly. I don't
ed. cc'ing Michael who
authored that commit.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pgbench-accept-0-partitions.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:52 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Okay, I went with:
> > >
> > > Previously, such updates ran delete act
tion root.
WFM, thanks.
Btw, perhaps the following should be listed under E.1.3.2.1. Logical
Replication, not E.1.3.1.1. Partitioning?
Remove incorrect duplicate partitions in system view
pg_publication_tables (Hou Zhijie)
Attached a patch to do so.
--
Thanks, Amit La
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:41 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 04:02:31PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I have completed the first draft of the PG 15 release notes
> > The commit is intended to
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have completed the first draft of the PG 15 release notes
Thanks. Regarding:
Improve the trigger behavior of updates on partitioned tables that
move rows between partitions (Amit Langote)
Previously, such updates fired del
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> This one has been marked Returned with Feedback in the CF app, which
> makes sense given the discussion on -committers [1].
>
> Agree with the feedback given that it would be better to address *all*
> RI trigger check/action f
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:05 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> There were rebase conflicts with the recently committed
> execPartition.c/h changes. While fixing them, I thought maybe
> find_leaf_part_for_key() doesn't quite match in style with its
> neighbors in execPartition.h,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 8:45 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> Most looked fine changes to me except a couple of typos, so I've
> adopted those into the attached new version, even though I know it's
> too late to try to apply it.
>
> + * XXX is it worth doing a bms_copy()
Hi David,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 8:16 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 17:49, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Attached updated patch with these changes.
> Thanks for making the changes. I started looking over this patch but
> really feel like it needs quite a few more ite
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:41 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 20:28, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Here's an updated version. In Particular, I removed
> > part_prune_results list from PortalData, in favor of anything that
> > needs to look at the list c
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> And here is a version like that that passes make check-world. Maybe
> still a WIP as I think comments could use more editing.
>
> Here's how the new implementation works:
>
> AcquireExecutorLocks() calls ExecutorDoIni
There were rebase conflicts with the recently committed
execPartition.c/h changes. While fixing them, I thought maybe
find_leaf_part_for_key() doesn't quite match in style with its
neighbors in execPartition.h, so changed it to
ExecGetLeafPartitionForKey().
--
Amit Langote
EDB:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 5:36 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 5:20 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 19:58, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > Yes, the ExecLockRelsInfo node in the current patch, that first gets
> > > added to the QueryDesc and su
:20.798] Result: FAIL
Hmm, make check-world passes for me after rebasing the patch (v10) to
the latest HEAD (clean), nor do I see a failure on cfbot:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/amit-langote.html
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:00 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Apr-05, Amit Langote wrote:
> > While at it, maybe it's better to rename ExecInitPruningContext() to
> > InitPartitionPruneContext(), which I've done in the attached updated
> > patch.
>
> Good ca
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:55 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:33 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think the names ExecCreatePartitionPruneState and
> > ExecInitPartitionPruning are too confusingly similar. Maybe the former
> > should be renamed to somehow mak
+ * pruning got rid of some of the subplans, any subsequent pruning passes will
+ * will be looking at a different set of target subplans to choose from than
+ * those in the pre-initial-pruning set, so the maps in PartitionPruneState
+ * containing those indexes must be updated to reflect the new indexes of
+ * subplans in the post-initial-pruning set.
I've attached only the updated 0001, though I'm still working on the
others to address David's comments.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v9-0001-Some-refactoring-of-runtime-pruning-code.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 5:20 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 19:58, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Yes, the ExecLockRelsInfo node in the current patch, that first gets
> > added to the QueryDesc and subsequently to the EState of the query,
> > serves as that stashin
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:32 AM David Rowley wrote:
> >> 1. You've changed the signature of various functions by adding
> >> ExecLockRelsInfo *execlockrelsinfo. I'm wonde
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:08 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 16:09, Amit Langote wrote:
> > definition of PlannedStmt says this:
> >
> > /*
> > * PlannedStmt node
> > *
> > * The output of the planner
> >
301 - 400 of 1706 matches
Mail list logo
