Hi,
On 2020-01-09 11:13:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 2:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > I agree to the patch as-is. Thanks for the explanatin.
>
> OK. Thanks for the review, and for your thoughtful consideration of my
> comments.
>
> I went ahead and committed this
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 2:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> I agree to the patch as-is. Thanks for the explanatin.
OK. Thanks for the review, and for your thoughtful consideration of my comments.
I went ahead and committed this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterp
At Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:52:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:53 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > The doc is saying that "size" is "Size of the allocation" and
> > "allocated_size" is "size including padding". It seems somewhat
> > confusing to me. I'm not sure what word
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:53 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> The doc is saying that "size" is "Size of the allocation" and
> "allocated_size" is "size including padding". It seems somewhat
> confusing to me. I'm not sure what wording is best but I think people
> use net/gross wordings to describe li
At Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:30:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > It seems like it'd be worth subdividing "" into the actual
> > anonymous allocations and the allocator overhead (which is both
> > padding and whatever the shmem allocator itself eats
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:06 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems like it'd be worth subdividing "" into the actual
> anonymous allocations and the allocator overhead (which is both
> padding and whatever the shmem allocator itself eats). Maybe call
> the latter "". After which, I'd be tempted to call
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:59 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Can we please stop splitting this error message in two?
>>
>> +errmsg("materialize mode required, but it is not " \
>> + "allowed in this context")));
>>
>> (What's with the n
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:59 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Dec-18, Robert Haas wrote:
> > - code: Declare values/nulls arrays only once at function scope
> > instead of 3x, and tighten up code, per Andres and self-review.
>
> Really small nit: I'd rather have the "nulls" assignment in all ca
On 2019-Dec-18, Robert Haas wrote:
> - code: Declare values/nulls arrays only once at function scope
> instead of 3x, and tighten up code, per Andres and self-review.
Really small nit: I'd rather have the "nulls" assignment in all cases
even when the previous value is still valid. This tight cod
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I didn't really read the patch in any detail, but those things
> hopped out at me.
Thanks for the reviews. Here is a new version. Changes:
- doc: Add an entry to the table of system views, per Tom.
- doc: Wrap reference to "" in tags, per self-r
Hi,
On 2019-11-18 21:49:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +/* SQL SRF showing allocated shared memory */
> +Datum
> +pg_get_shmem_allocations(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> This could be more talkative.
I don't really see what it'd say, except restate the function name as a
sentence? I think that kind of c
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:59:34AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-11-15 14:43:09 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This never got applied, and that annoyed me again today, so here's a
>> new version that I've whacked around somewhat and propose to commit. I
>> ripped out the stuff pertaining to d
Hi,
On 2019-11-15 14:43:09 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Here's a rebased version. I remember why I didn't call the column
> > "offset" (as Michael complained about upthread), it's a keyword...
>
> This never got applied, and that annoyed me
Robert Haas writes:
> This never got applied, and that annoyed me again today, so here's a
> new version that I've whacked around somewhat and propose to commit.
> ...
> Other things I changed:
> - Doc edits.
> - Added REVOKE statements as proposed by Michael (and I agree).
> - Can't patch pg_proc
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Here's a rebased version. I remember why I didn't call the column
> "offset" (as Michael complained about upthread), it's a keyword...
This never got applied, and that annoyed me again today, so here's a
new version that I've whacked around s
15 matches
Mail list logo
