On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Jeevan Chalke
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:18 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I'm finally ready for a review again, so I'll update the
commitfest app.
I have reviewed this on code level.
1. Patch
Hello,
I'm reviewing this patch. I find this feature useful, so keep good work.
I've just begun the review of pg_hibernate.c, and finished reviewing other
files. pg_hibernate.c will probably take some time to review, so let me
give you the result of my review so far. I'm sorry for trivial
Commit 8b6010b8350a1756cd85595705971df81b5ffc07 eliminated the only
usage of a variable called typeStruct in plpy_spi.c, but left the
declaration and the code that sets a value for it. This is
generating a warning when I build. I would have just pushed a fix,
but I was concerned that it might
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Because this review advances the patch so far, it may be feasible
to get it committed in this CF. I'll see what is needed to get
there and maybe have a patch toward that end in a few days.
It appears that I need to create a new execution node and a way
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes:
Please find the patch attached to address the above concern. I have
updated docs, so that users can be aware of such behaviour.
I'm in the camp that says that we need to do something about this, not
just claim that it's operating as designed.
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Commit 8b6010b8350a1756cd85595705971df81b5ffc07 eliminated the only
usage of a variable called typeStruct in plpy_spi.c, but left the
declaration and the code that sets a value for it. This is
generating a warning when I build. I would have just
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
Attached is a delta patch between version 1.2 and 1.3, and also a
completely updated patch.
Just to note that I've started looking at this, and I've detected a rather
significant omission: there's no check that the join operator has anything
to do with
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
typeStruct in plpy_spi.c
No objection to removing the dead variable.
Done.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hi,
while reading the logical decoding docs, I came across a duplicated
paragraph in doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml - in the current
master branch, lines 108 to 115 are the same as lines 117 to 124.
I've attached a patch which removes the second instance of that
paragraph.
In case it is
Spent some time analyzing a severe performance regression on 9.1-9.3
upgrade for a user on IRC. Narrowed it down to this:
commit 807a40c5 fixed a bug in handling of (new in 9.2) functionality
of ScalarArrayOpExpr in btree index quals, forcing the results of
scans including such a qual to be
On 6 July 2014 03:20, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
Attached is a delta patch between version 1.2 and 1.3, and also a
completely updated patch.
Just to note that I've started looking at this, and I've detected a rather
significant omission:
On 5 July 2014 02:03, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
[1] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Loose_indexscan
Thanks. It talks about DISTINCT, and also about using index when you
don't have the leading column in your WHERE clause (as well as MySQL
(loose), at least Oracle (skip), SQLite
* Greg Stark (st...@mit.edu) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, last time when we tried doing bloom filters, I was short of some real
world useful hash functions that we could use for building the bloom filter.
Last time was we wanted to
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes:
Please find the patch attached to address the above concern. I have
updated docs, so that users can be aware of such behaviour.
I'm in the camp that says that we need to do
Kaigai,
* Kouhei Kaigai (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
Can you clarify where this is coming from..? It sounds like you're
referring to an existing implementation and, if so, it'd be good to get
more information on how that works exactly.
Oracle VPD - Multiple Policies for Each Table,
15 matches
Mail list logo
