Hi,
On 2022-04-06 11:11:42 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Maybe we should add --no-unlogged-table-data to those pg_dumpall runs?
Yes, I think we should. And then we should explicitly add an unlogged table
that isn't dropped. That way we get pg_upgrade testing etc.
Thomas, what do you think?
Gree
On 4/6/22 12:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just
>> rip it out.
> If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test
> parallelism, right? Wouldn't th
Hi,
On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just
> rip it out.
If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test
parallelism, right? Wouldn't the better fix be to just tweak the parallelism
sett
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I think we should, but I think here the obvious solution is to drop the
>> table when we're done with it. I'll test that.
> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just
> rip it out.
Perhaps moving it to some other place (test/modules/somethin
On 4/6/22 11:33, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 4/6/22 11:11, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
>>> On 4/6/22 09:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I
On 4/6/22 11:11, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
>> On 4/6/22 09:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm therefore going to commit this series
Th
Greetings,
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> On 4/6/22 09:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> I'm therefore going to commit this series
> >> The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine, th
On 4/6/22 09:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> I'm therefore going to commit this series
>> The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine, the slowest test in the main
>> regression tests:
>>
>> 46
On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'm therefore going to commit this series
> The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine, the slowest test in the main
> regression tests:
>
> 4639 ms jsonb_sqljson
> 2401 ms btree_index
> 2166
Andres Freund writes:
> The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine, the slowest test in the main
> regression tests:
> ...
> Any chance the slowness isn't required slowness?
In general, there's been a serious bump in the buildfarm cycle
time in the last month --- for example, on my admittedly s
Hi,
On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm therefore going to commit this series
The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine, the slowest test in the main
regression tests:
4639 ms jsonb_sqljson
2401 ms btree_index
2166 ms stats_ext
2027 ms alter_table
1616 ms triggers
1498 m
On 3/28/22 15:48, Greg Stark wrote:
> FYI I think the patch failure in the cfbot is spurious because the
> cfbot got confused by Erik's patch.
The cfbot is likely to be confused until I am finished committing the
SQL/JSON patches. Just disregard it.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: h
FYI I think the patch failure in the cfbot is spurious because the
cfbot got confused by Erik's patch.
On 3/24/22 18:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 3/5/22 09:35, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 3/4/22 15:05, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> On 3/4/22 13:13, Erikjan Rijkers wrote:
Op 04-03-2022 om 17:33 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
> This set of patches deals with items 1..7 above, but not yet the ERROR
>
On 3/26/22 07:29, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Op 25-03-2022 om 21:30 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
>>
>> On 3/22/22 10:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 22 Mar 2022, at 16:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and
json-table
next week.
>>> My c
Op 25-03-2022 om 21:30 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
On 3/22/22 10:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 22 Mar 2022, at 16:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
next week.
My comments from 30827b3c-edf6-4d41-bbf1-298181874...@yesql.se are yet
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 1:30 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 3/22/22 10:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> On 22 Mar 2022, at 16:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
> >> next week.
> > My comments from 30827b3c-edf6-4d41-bbf1-298
On 3/22/22 11:27, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 3/22/22 10:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2022-Mar-22, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
>>> next week.
>> I think it'd be a good idea to push the patches one by one and let a day
>>
On 3/22/22 10:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2022, at 16:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
>> next week.
> My comments from 30827b3c-edf6-4d41-bbf1-298181874...@yesql.se are yet to be
> addressed (or at all responded
On 3/22/22 10:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Mar-22, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
>> next week.
> I think it'd be a good idea to push the patches one by one and let a day
> between each. That would make it easier to chas
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:32 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 3/22/22 09:28, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:53 PM Matthias Kurz
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I am watching this thread since quite a while and I am waiting
> > eagerly a long time a
> On 22 Mar 2022, at 16:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
> next week.
My comments from 30827b3c-edf6-4d41-bbf1-298181874...@yesql.se are yet to be
addressed (or at all responded to) in this patchset. I'll paste the ones which
s
On 2022-Mar-22, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
> next week.
I think it'd be a good idea to push the patches one by one and let a day
between each. That would make it easier to chase buildfarm issues
individually, and make sure the
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 15:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I'm planning on pushing the functions patch set this week and json-table
> next week.
>
Great! Thank you very much!
On 3/22/22 09:28, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:53 PM Matthias Kurz
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> I am watching this thread since quite a while and I am waiting
> eagerly a long time already that this feature finally lands in
> PostgreSQL.
> Given that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:53 PM Matthias Kurz wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I am watching this thread since quite a while and I am waiting eagerly a
> long time already that this feature finally lands in PostgreSQL.
> Given that in around 2 weeks PostgreSQL 15 will go into feature freeze (in
> the l
Hi everyone!
I am watching this thread since quite a while and I am waiting eagerly a
long time already that this feature finally lands in PostgreSQL.
Given that in around 2 weeks PostgreSQL 15 will go into feature freeze (in
the last years that usually happened around the 8th of April AFAIK), is
On 2/9/22 08:22, Himanshu Upadhyaya wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:44 AM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> rebased with some review comments attended to.
> I am in process of reviewing these patches, initially, have started
> with 0002-JSON_TABLE-v55.patch.
> Tested many different scenarios with v
On 3/4/22 13:13, Erikjan Rijkers wrote:
> Op 04-03-2022 om 17:33 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
>>
>
>> This set of patches deals with items 1..7 above, but not yet the ERROR
>> ON ERROR issue. It also makes some message cleanups, but there is more
>> to come in that area.
>>
>> It is based on the lates
Op 04-03-2022 om 17:33 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
This set of patches deals with items 1..7 above, but not yet the ERROR
ON ERROR issue. It also makes some message cleanups, but there is more
to come in that area.
It is based on the latest SQL/JSON Functions patch set, which does not
include th
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:44 AM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> rebased with some review comments attended to.
I am in process of reviewing these patches, initially, have started
with 0002-JSON_TABLE-v55.patch.
Tested many different scenarios with various JSON messages and these
all are working as ex
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 09:03:05AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> rebased again.
This version conflicts with recent c4cc2850f4d1 (Rename value node fields).
Can you send a rebased version?
On 9/14/21 2:04 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 9/14/21 2:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 5:41 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>> On 9/2/21 8:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>
> >> [0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v51.patch]
> >> [0002-JSON_TABLE-v51.patch]
> >> [0003-JSON_TABLE-PLAN-DEFAULT-clause-v51
út 14. 9. 2021 v 20:04 odesílatel Erik Rijkers napsal:
> On 9/14/21 2:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 9/13/21 5:41 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> >> On 9/2/21 8:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
>
> >> [0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v51.patch]
> >> [0002-JSON_TABLE-v51.patch]
> >> [0003-JSON_TABLE-PL
On 9/14/21 2:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 9/13/21 5:41 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On 9/2/21 8:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> [0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v51.patch]
>> [0002-JSON_TABLE-v51.patch]
>> [0003-JSON_TABLE-PLAN-DEFAULT-clause-v51.patch]
>> [0004-JSON_TABLE-PLAN-clause-v51.patch]
Thank
On 9/2/21 8:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 7/22/21 3:49 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Hi
Here are the 4 unchanged patches from v49, to which I added 2 patches,
which are small changes wrt usage of 'JsonIs' versus 'IsJson'.
That should make the cfbot green again.
Apparently not, but I have re
Below are a few small comments from a casual read-through. I noticed that
there was a new version posted after I had finished perusing, but it seems to
address other aspects.
+ Gerenates a column and inserts a composite SQL/JSON
s/Gerenates/Generates/
+ into both child and parrent colum
On 5/18/21 9:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 5/8/21 2:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 4/12/21 11:34 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On 2021.03.27. 02:12 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Attached 47th version of the patches.
We're past feature freeze for 14 and alas, JSON_TABLE has not made it.
I have tested q
> On 2021.03.27. 02:12 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Attached 47th version of the patches.
We're past feature freeze for 14 and alas, JSON_TABLE has not made it.
I have tested quite a bit with it and because I didn't find any trouble with
functionality or speed, I wanted to at least mention that here
> On 2021.03.30. 22:25 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>
>
> On 30.03.2021 19:56, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
> >> On 2021.03.27. 02:12 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> >>
> >> Attached 47th version of the patches.
> > Hi,
> >
> > Apply, build all fine. It also works quite well, and according to
> > specification
On 30.03.2021 19:56, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On 2021.03.27. 02:12 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Attached 47th version of the patches.
Hi,
Apply, build all fine. It also works quite well, and according to
specification, as far as I can tell.
But today I ran into:
ERROR: function ExecEvalJson not in
> On 2021.03.27. 02:12 Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>
> Attached 47th version of the patches.
>
[..]
>
> I have added forgotten files and fixed the first patch.
>
> [0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v47.patch]
> [0002-JSON_TABLE-v47.patch]
> [0003-JSON_TABLE-PLAN-DEFAULT-clause-v47.patch]
> [0004-JSON_TABLE-P
On 3/26/21 4:48 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> On 2021.03.26. 21:28 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 3/25/21 8:10 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 1/20/21 8:42 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Thank you for review.
Attached 45th version of the patches. "SQL/JSON functions" patch
corresponds to
> On 2021.03.26. 21:28 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 3/25/21 8:10 AM, David Steele wrote:
> > On 1/20/21 8:42 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> >> Thank you for review.
> >>
> >> Attached 45th version of the patches. "SQL/JSON functions" patch
> >> corresponds to
> >> v52 patch set posted in the separate t
On 3/25/21 8:10 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/20/21 8:42 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>> Thank you for review.
>>
>> Attached 45th version of the patches. "SQL/JSON functions" patch
>> corresponds to
>> v52 patch set posted in the separate thread.
>
> Another rebase needed (http://cfbot.cputube.org/
On 1/20/21 8:42 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Thank you for review.
Attached 45th version of the patches. "SQL/JSON functions" patch corresponds to
v52 patch set posted in the separate thread.
Another rebase needed (http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2902.log),
marked Waiting on Author.
I can se
For new files introduced in the patches:
+ * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2019, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
2021 is a few days ahead. It would be good to update the year range.
For transformJsonTableColumn:
+ jfexpr->op =
+ jtc->coltype == JTC_REGULAR ? IS_JSON_VALUE :
+ jt
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It looks like this needs to be additionally rebased - I will set cfbot to
> "Waiting".
... Something that has not happened in four weeks, so this is marked
as returned with feedback. Please feel free to resubmit once a rebase
is do
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:33:34PM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 23.03.2020 19:24, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > This patch needs rebase
>
> Attached 43rd version of the patches based on the latest (v47) SQL/JSON
> functions patches.
It looks like this needs to be additionally rebased - I will set
Hi
This patch needs rebase
Regards
Pavel
Hi
I read this patch
There are some typo in doc
*name* *type* EXISTS [ PATH *json_path_specification* ]
*Gerenates* a column and inserts a boolean item into each row of this
column.
Is good to allow repeat examples from documentation - so documentation
should to contains a INSERT with JSON, qu
čt 21. 11. 2019 v 17:31 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> On 17.11.2019 13:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> út 12. 11. 2019 v 22:51 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
> napsal:
>
>> On 12.11.2019 20:54, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > please, can you rebase 0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v40.patc
On 17.11.2019 13:35, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
út 12. 11. 2019 v 22:51 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
mailto:n.glu...@postgrespro.ru>> napsal:
On 12.11.2019 20:54, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> please, can you rebase 0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v40.patch. I have a
> problem with pa
Hi
út 12. 11. 2019 v 22:51 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> On 12.11.2019 20:54, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > please, can you rebase 0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v40.patch. I have a
> > problem with patching
> >
> > Pavel
>
> Attached 41th version of the patches rebased onto current maste
Hi
út 12. 11. 2019 v 22:51 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> On 12.11.2019 20:54, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > please, can you rebase 0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v40.patch. I have a
> > problem with patching
> >
> > Pavel
>
> Attached 41th version of the patches rebased onto current maste
Hi
please, can you rebase 0001-SQL-JSON-functions-v40.patch. I have a problem
with patching
Pavel
út 12. 11. 2019 v 1:13 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> Attached 40th version of the patches.
>
>
> On 19.10.2019 18:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> This patch is still pretty big - it is about 6000 lines (without any
> documentation). I checked the standard - and this patch try to implement
>
>
Hi
po 30. 9. 2019 v 18:09 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
> Hi
>
> so 28. 9. 2019 v 3:53 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
> napsal:
>
>> Attached 39th version of the patches rebased onto current master.
>>
>>
This patch is still pretty big - it is about 6000 lines (without any
documentation). I chec
Hi
so 28. 9. 2019 v 3:53 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> Attached 39th version of the patches rebased onto current master.
>
>
Regress tests fails on my comp - intel 64bit Linux, gcc 9.2.1
Comments:
* +<->/* Only XMLTABLE and JSON_TABLE are supported currently */
this comment has not sens
On 23.07.2019 16:58, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I got warning
ar crs libpgcommon.a base64.o config_info.o controldata_utils.o d2s.o
exec.o f2s.o file_perm.o ip.o keywords.o kwlookup.o link-canary.o
md5.o pg_lzcompress.o pgfnames.o psprintf.o relpath.o rmtree.o
saslprep.o scram-common.o string.o un
Now this is one giant patchset ... and at least the first patch seems to
have more than one thing within -- even the commit message says so. It
seems clear that this is going to take a long time to digest; maybe if
we can get it in smaller pieces we can try to have a little at a time?
In other wor
Hi
út 16. 7. 2019 v 16:06 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> On 29.06.2019 8:40, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> so 29. 6. 2019 v 7:26 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
> napsal:
>
>> Attached 36th version of patches rebased onto jsonpath v36.
>>
>
> I cannot to apply these patches on master. Please,
Hi
so 29. 6. 2019 v 7:26 odesílatel Nikita Glukhov
napsal:
> Attached 36th version of patches rebased onto jsonpath v36.
>
I cannot to apply these patches on master. Please, can you check these
patches?
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Nikita Glukhov
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
On 01.03.2019 19:17, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:19 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Attached 34th version of the patches.
Kinda strange version numbering -- the last post on this thread is v21.
For simplicity of dependence tracking, version numbering of JSON_TABLE patches
matches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:19 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Attached 34th version of the patches.
Kinda strange version numbering -- the last post on this thread is v21.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:50 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>
> Attached 16th version of JSON_TABLE patches.
>
> Changed only results of regression tests after the implicit coercion via I/O
> was removed from JSON_VALUE.
Thank you for working on this patch! Unfortunately, the current version of
patch
66 matches
Mail list logo
