On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 04:08:23PM +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
A suitably-instrumented run of make installcheck-world under valgrind
turned
up a handful of memory-related bugs:
Nice work. How did you instrument things
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:44:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
A suitably-instrumented run of make installcheck-world under valgrind
turned
up a handful of memory-related bugs:
Hmm, interesting work, but I don't think I believe in the necessity for
this
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:06:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I remain unconvinced, because there are too many corner cases. Should
collation propagate up out of a subselect? How about a CTE? You're
starting to get into some pretty weird action-at-a-distance situations
if so, analogous to the
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:06:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I remain unconvinced, because there are too many corner cases. Should
collation propagate up out of a subselect? How about a CTE? You're
starting to get into some pretty weird
On Mar 13, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org wrote:
What you're suggesting is going to lead to situations where the user
sets a non-default collation on every field in every table in the
database and depending on the query they will sometimes get the default
collation
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:16:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I said don't propegate the collation *state*, the collation should be
propegated.
Well, it's exactly that distinction that's bugging me. It seems a bit
arbitrary if collation propagates in certain cases where collation state
Currently, we don't measure any statistics about the ordering
correlation of multi-column indexes, which means that btcostestimate
has to pick a number out of the air if there's more than one column.
We've been around on that at least once already: it used to use first
column's correlation divided
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 19:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not planning to do anything about this idea right now, since I'm
still hip-deep in collations, but I thought I'd throw it out to get
it on the record.
Comments?
One question: Where is the overhead increase?
JD
