Re: Issues while building PG in MS Windows, using MSYS2 and MinGW-w64

"insaf.k" wrote: I am trying to build PG from source, in MS Windows using MSYS2 and MinGW-w64. I've tried to build PG 10.0 as wells as 10.3. I've done configuring like this ./configure --prefix="/d/pg10/" And when I do "make" or "make world", I'm getting

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It strikes me also that, at least for debugging purposes, it's seriously >>> awful that you can't

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

Thomas Munro writes: > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It strikes me also that, at least for debugging purposes, it's seriously >> awful that you can't tell from outside what result this function got. > I don't think *broken*

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Andrew Gierth writes: >>> Isn't there a hidden assumption about endianness there? Right, thanks. >> Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but does anyone actually run >> ARMs

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

I wrote: > Andrew Gierth writes: >> Isn't there a hidden assumption about endianness there? > Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but does anyone actually run > ARMs big-endian? After a bit more thought ... we could remove the magic constant, along with any

Re: GSoC 2018: thrift encoding format

Thanks for your confirm Aleksander! Also I am thinking of how to deal with complex data structure like map, list, or set. I guess one possible solution is to get raw data bytes for these data structure? Otherwise it could be hard to wrap into a Datum. 2018-05-02 8:38 GMT-07:00 Aleksander Alekseev

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

Andrew Gierth writes: > "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: > + uint64 data = 42; > Isn't there a hidden assumption about endianness there? Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but does anyone actually run ARMs

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

> "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: + uint64 data = 42; Isn't there a hidden assumption about endianness there? -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > I admit I am more concerned about the possibility of bugs than I am > > > about providing a

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I admit I am more concerned about the possibility of bugs than I am > > about providing a performance-related tool. > > I agree that if partition pruning has bugs, somebody might want to >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Sorry, but comparing lines at that state is just bullshit. I totally disagree, proportions will be same in any case. Most of the comments of converted tests are missing. > Add 100-500 lines? ok. You detect like a third of the things that the old configure > detected. > I tried to use

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-03 09:42:49 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > 2018-05-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund : > > Given that you don't have feature parity this just seems like trolling. > > > > I have. I have some lacks with .po generation and documentation but all! > other features same,

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I admit I am more concerned about the possibility of bugs than I am > about providing a performance-related tool. I agree that if partition pruning has bugs, somebody might want to turn it off. On the other hand,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

2018-05-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund : > On 2018-05-03 09:29:32 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > > > > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > > > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > > > you prefer. > > > > > >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-03 09:29:32 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > > you prefer. > > > It's not a hyperbole it's fact and I even talked about it on conference. >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > you prefer. It's not a hyperbole it's fact and I even talked about it on conference. You should just compare all my cmake files with Makefile+.in+.m4 (and

Re: Unportable code in autoprewarm.c

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there a reason why this record count needs to be int64 rather than > plain int, and if so what? This code is not exactly well documented, > but it looks to me like the number of records should be bounded by > NBuffers,

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:03:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It's only ~100 bytes per stack level. I think under normal loads > nobody would notice. If you're worried about cross-transaction > memory consumption, our various caches tend to be a lot worse. Perhaps, that's one reason why people

Re: A few warnings on Windows

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:03:15AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Build succeeded. > 0 Warning(s) > 0 Error(s) > > Huzzah! Great work. This has been some time... -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On 3 May 2018 at 11:38, David G. Johnston wrote: > Maybe "Partition Filtering" (I'm disliking selection, I'm thinking we must > always select partitions) I don't see why "Filtering" is any different from pruning, they both imply removing something that was once there.

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:06 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 1 May 2018 at 21:44, Amit Langote > wrote: > > About the patch in general, it seems like the newly added documentation > > talks about "Partition Pruning" as something that

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't have any way to test this, but it looks plausible, so pushed. > > (I note you forgot to run autoheader, btw.) Thanks! -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On 1 May 2018 at 21:44, Amit Langote wrote: > About the patch in general, it seems like the newly added documentation > talks about "Partition Pruning" as something that *replaces* constraint > exclusion. But, I think "Partition Pruning" is not the thing that >

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

Michael Paquier writes: > With connection poolers letting the connections to the server be around > for a long time, wouldn't it be an issue to let this much memory live > longer than the transaction context? The deeper the stack, the more > memory consumed, hence the more

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:20:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > Yes, that was the idea. Here is an adjusted patch. > > Looks OK to me as far as the leak issue goes. I have no opinion on > whether this is adequate in respect to

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > you prefer. I don't see that any compelling evidence has been > presented that a

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Andres Freund writes: > Now you could argue that we could just rewrite to non-recursive > make. But that'd be nearly as much work as migrating to another > buildsystem. I'm sure it'd be a significant amount of work ... but it wouldn't require redesigning any configuration or

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

Thomas Munro writes: > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Do you really need the pg_crc32c_armv8_choose_dummy global variable? > True. Of course I needed an interesting length too... I don't have any way to test this, but it

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-02 23:43:50 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > On 02.05.2018 17:44, Robert Haas wrote: > > But having parallel make work better and more efficiently > > and with fewer hard-to-diagnose failure modes would definitely be > > nice. > > that's especially a thing I haven't seen in "our"

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 02.05.2018 17:44, Robert Haas wrote: But having parallel make work better and more efficiently and with fewer hard-to-diagnose failure modes would definitely be nice. that's especially a thing I haven't seen in "our" environment, this was an area where autotools and cmake didn't really

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > Yes, that was the idea. Here is an adjusted patch. Looks OK to me as far as the leak issue goes. I have no opinion on whether this is adequate in respect to cleanup-after-error problems. regards, tom lane

Re: A few warnings on Windows

Thomas Munro writes: > One more problem. whelk builds against Python 3.6 and says: > c:\users\pgbf\appdata\local\programs\python\python36-32\include\pyconfig.h(174): > warning C4142: benign redefinition of type > (src/pl/plpython/plpy_elog.c) >

Re: A few warnings on Windows

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Seems reasonable to me. Pushed, we'll see what the buildfarm thinks. Build succeeded. 0 Warning(s) 0 Error(s) Huzzah! One more problem. whelk builds against Python 3.6 and says:

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

On 5/2/18 12:30, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not particularly. It seems impossible that _SPI_stack could grow > faster than the machine's actual stack, which would mean (on typical > setups) that you couldn't get more than perhaps 10MB of _SPI_stack > before hitting a stack-overflow error. That's a

Re: A few warnings on Windows

Thomas Munro writes: > The only remaining warnings on those machines now come from the fact > that our port_win32.h and Perl's XSUB.h both want to define macros to > define macros for libc functions like mkdir etc. plperl.h already > seems to deal with other

Unportable code in autoprewarm.c

I've been going through compiler warnings from the buildfarm, and I notice jacana is unhappy about this: /* First line of the file is a record count. */ if (fscanf(file, "<<" INT64_FORMAT ">>\n", _elements) != 1) It's entirely correct to complain, because we only guarantee that

Re: stats_ext test fails with -DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > tl;dr: we lack buildfarm coverage of CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE. > This is probably bad. It might be okay to just add that to > prion's configuration; Will do that pronto. cheers andre -- Andrew Dunstan

Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement

>If somebody produced a trace showing the buffer lookups in order To get things moving, I've created a DTrace script that captures buffer reads: https://github.com/vlsi/pgsqlstat/blob/pgsqlio/pgsqlio Is it something that can be used to capture live traces? Sample output can be seen here:

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> -1 from me. What about the case where only some tuples are massive? > > Well, what about it? If there are just a few wide tuples, then the peak > memory consumption will depend on how many of those happen to be in memory >

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I'm not sure what you could derive that from, to make it less arbitrary. At > the moment, I'm thinking of just doing something like this: > > /* > * Minimum amount of memory reserved to hold the sorted tuples in > *

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Independently of this, perhaps we should put in special case in > dumptuples(), so that it would never create a run with fewer than maxTapes > tuples. The rationale is that you'll need to hold that many tuples in memory

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On 02/05/18 19:41, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: To fix, I propose that we change the above so that we always subtract tapeSpace, but if there is less than e.g. 32 kB of memory left after

GSOC 2018

-hackers, Who is coordinating GSOC this year? Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development. Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org * Unless otherwise

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > With a small work_mem values, maxTapes is always 6, so tapeSpace is 48 kB. > With a small enough work_mem, 84 kB or below in this test case, there is not > enough memory left at this point, so we don't subtract

Re: Transform for pl/perl

Peter Eisentraut writes: > These two items are now outstanding: > > On 4/10/18 07:33, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: >> 2) jsonb scalar values are passed to the plperl function wrapped in not >>one, but _two_ layers of references > > I don't understand this

Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 5/1/18 11:42, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >> That seems like an odd way to approach this. Why not just remove the >> reset of _SPI_stack and _SPI_stack_depth, so as to subtract code

Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > This seems to be an old idea. I'm not too surprised ... this area has been well-studied. > I've always had a problem with the 8GB/16GB upper limit on the size of > shared_buffers. Not because it's wrong, but because it's not

Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

Hi! Thank you for your attention on this subject. It's definitely right, that documentation needs to be revised in these places. On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > index eabe2a9..e305de9 100644 > --- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml > +++

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> To fix, I propose that we change the above so that we always subtract >> tapeSpace, but if there is less than e.g. 32 kB of memory left after

Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported

On 5/2/18 02:26, Amit Langote wrote: > You're right. I think that's what you were also saying on the other > thread, in reply to which I directed you to this thread. I very clearly > missed that BEFORE ROW triggers are still disallowed. fixed -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: stats_ext test fails with -DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE

Amit Langote writes: > On 2018/05/02 0:33, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amit Langote writes: >>> While playing around with a -DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE build, I noticed that >>> stats_ext test failed with errors for multiple statements that

Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > To fix, I propose that we change the above so that we always subtract > tapeSpace, but if there is less than e.g. 32 kB of memory left after that > (including, if it went below 0), then we bump availMem back up to 32

Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > 2nd attempt That looks like good English to me. I can't vouch for whether it's technically correct. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> That indeed would be an improvement, but maybe we could fix that specific >> pain point without having to throw away twenty years worth of work? > > Indeed! Only a few thousands of lines of code can generate the whole

Re: GSoC 2018: thrift encoding format

Hello Charles, > Can I assume the data in thrift is always send inside a struct? Sure! > I think this question also valid for protobuf? Right, pg_protobuf assumes that data is always a message which is an equivalent of Thrift's struct. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev signature.asc

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

Hi, On 05/02/2018 05:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Robert, you added this as an open item. I don't think it's clear that >> there's a bug here, and even less clear that it's something new for >> v11. Am I understanding

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Robert, you added this as an open item. I don't think it's clear that > there's a bug here, and even less clear that it's something new for > v11. Am I understanding that right? Should we close this open item? Yeah, I

Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > -When no tuples were deleted from the heap, B-tree indexes might still > -be scanned during VACUUM cleanup stage by two > -reasons. The first reason is that B-tree index contains deleted >

Re: lingering references to V0 calling convention

On 23/04/18 14:17, John Naylor wrote: I noticed one in the SPI docs and tried to look for more. The attached patch is an attempt at removing the remaining references. The original SPI example returned a uint64 as a signed int8 SQL type, so I'm not sure if I handled that correctly. Committed,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 02.05.2018 16:22, Tom Lane wrote: (-D? really?) it's worse ... "cmake -L" only produces a alphabetically sorted list of known -D settings, just listing the names without description. That's so far behind from what ./configure --help produces. (And don't get me started on cmake-gui.

Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow"

"David G. Johnston" writes: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> That's probably true, but making dev, test, and production boxes >> similar is generally good practice and users can do as much or as >> little of it as they

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

Thomas Munro writes: > Ahh, OpenSSL's armcap.c shows how to do this. You need to > siglongjmp() out of there. Here's a patch that does it that way. > Isn't this better? Do you really need the pg_crc32c_armv8_choose_dummy global variable? That seems pretty ugly.

Re: BufFileSize() doesn't work on a "shared" BufFiles

On 30/04/18 22:00, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Perhaps that would be OK, if it was properly commented. But it's not actually hard to make BufFileSize() work on shared files, too, so I think we should do that. I agree

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Geoff Winkless writes: > Being blunt, unless I've missed the point all the arguments I've read so > far for cmake seem to be advantages for the developers, not the users. As > developers who put in your time you are of course entitled to make your > lives easier but I'm just

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi David. > > On 2018/05/02 8:18, David Rowley wrote: > > On 1 May 2018 at 21:44, Amit Langote > wrote: > > > > I re-read the patch and it still looks fine to me. I'm sure it

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Constraint > > exclusion was pretty easy to get wrong, hence the need for a separate > > section, and I suppose the new partition pruning may be prey to the same > > problems, so it seems

Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > But one could very well argue that BEFORE ROW triggers on the > parent should run before performing the tuple routing and not be cloned to > individual partitions, in which case the result would not have been

Re: inconsistency and inefficiency in setup_conversion()

On 4/28/18, Tom Lane wrote: > John Naylor writes: >> Solution #1 - As alluded to in [1], turn the conversions into >> pg_proc.dat and pg_conversion.dat entries. Teach genbki.pl to parse >> pg_wchar.h to map conversion names to numbers. >> Pros: >> -likely

Re: FPW stats?

> On 2 May 2018 at 13:10, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:22:34PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >> Recently I've heard people complaining that Postgres doesn't expose any >> statistics about how many full page writes happened during some time >> frame. > >

Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > ... trying to figure out how to detect the instruction portably using SIGILL > ... Ahh, OpenSSL's armcap.c shows how to do this. You need to siglongjmp() out of there. Here's a patch that does it that way.

Re: FPW stats?

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:22:34PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > Recently I've heard people complaining that Postgres doesn't expose any > statistics about how many full page writes happened during some time > frame. pg_waldump --stats? > I guess it can be implemented in a more effective and

Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions

(2018/05/02 15:45), Etsuro Fujita wrote: (2018/05/02 10:10), Amit Langote wrote: On 2018/05/02 6:09, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-05-01 13:41:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Committed. Here is a small patch to remove a no-longer-needed cast in postgresBeginForeignInsert(). Best regards,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 00:57, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello Geoff! > > About cmake: > 1. You can still use the binary build for your system. > 2. You can still build Postgres from source and with old gcc, you need > only install cmake (it's very easy) Only most modern

FPW stats?

Hi, Recently I've heard people complaining that Postgres doesn't expose any statistics about how many full page writes happened during some time frame. Indeed, I couldn't find any easy way to do so, and judging from my understanding of xloginsert.c it actually can be done per database with the

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

Hi David. On 2018/05/02 8:18, David Rowley wrote: > On 1 May 2018 at 21:44, Amit Langote wrote: >> About the patch in general, it seems like the newly added documentation >> talks about "Partition Pruning" as something that *replaces* constraint >> exclusion. But,

Re: Patch missing from back branches

On 1 May 2018 at 21:04, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed this patch into the 9.5 branch, so it should be possible to > spin dory up on that branch now. Thanks Tom! Thanks everyone else for your input on the issue! Regards, Haroon -- Haroon

Re: Global snapshots

> On 2 May 2018, at 05:58, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 5/1/18 12:27, Stas Kelvich wrote: >> Clock-SI is described in [5] and here I provide a small overview, which >> supposedly should be enough to catch the idea. Assume that each node runs >> Commit >>

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

On 05/01/2018 10:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Robert, you added this as an open item. I don't think it's clear that > there's a bug here, and even less clear that it's something new for > v11. Am I understanding that right? Should we close this open item? Hi, FIY this change is related to

Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement

02.05.2018 01:37, Peter Geoghegan пишет: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I agree that double-counting correlated accesses is a a problem, and I >> agree that we probably want to do something about it. I am skeptical >> that using wall-clock time is

Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions

(2018/05/02 10:10), Amit Langote wrote: On 2018/05/02 6:09, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-05-01 13:41:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Committed. Thank you. Thanks for committing, Robert! There's still an open items entry for this thread - has that been resolved by this commit Afaik, yes.

Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported

On 2018/05/02 14:17, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 4/26/18 05:03, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On 2018/04/26 13:01, David Rowley wrote: The attached small patch removes the mention that partitioned tables

Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:38:22PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Perhaps, I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it might > be better to have the word "partitioned" in the message. That's what Peter is pointing to upthread and what the v1 of upthread was doing. I would tend to