Somehow the earlier patches missed qualifying pg_get_expr() by
pg_catalog. Fixed it along with annotating the partitioned partition
as ", PARTITIONED".
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Right now, we could do that if we order the list by bound expression;
>> lexically DE
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:16 PM
On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> 1. This comment seem wrong.
>>
>> /*
>> * Since the clauses in rel->baserestrictinfo should all contain Const
>> * operands, it should be possible
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote
> On 2017-11-05 01:05:59 +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
>> skip-gather-project-v1.patch does what it says on the tin. I still
>> don't have a test case for this, and I didn't find that it helped very
>> much,
I am also wondering in which case it can
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Aleksandr Parfenov
wrote:
> In attachment updated patch with fixes of empty XML tags in
> documentation.
Hi Aleksandr,
I'm not sure if this is expected at this stage, but just in case you
aren't aware, with this version of the patch the binary upgrade test
in
src
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> Rebased (there were conflicts in the SGML files).
Hi Nico
FYI that version has some stray absolute paths in constraints.source:
-COPY COPY_TBL FROM '@abs_srcdir@/data/constro.data';
+COPY COPY_TBL FROM '/home/nico/ws/postgres/src/test/regr
On 2017/11/06 12:53, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 November 2017 at 17:32, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> 2. This code is way more complex than it needs to be.
>>
>> if (num_parts > 0)
>> {
>> int j;
>>
>> all_indexes = (int *) palloc(num_parts * sizeof(int));
>> j = 0;
>> if (min_part_idx >= 0 && max_par
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote:
> Suppose that there are three qual clauses in a scan node, current
> postgres estimates per-tuple cost of the filter to be:
>cost(A) + cost(B) + cost(C)
>
> And basic idea of the attached patch is:
>cost(A) + clauselist_selectivity({A}
Hi pgsql-hackers,
Here's a little draft patch to add *some* tab completion ability for
SELECT in psql. I have often missed the ability, especially with
invocations of utility functions.
It would be nice to be able to suggest column names from the relevant
tables in the query, but, as the SQL lan
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I've marked the CF entry closed. However, I'm not sure if we're quite
done with this thread. Weren't we
On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated version of the patches
match_clauses_to_partkey() needs to allow for the way quals on Bool
columns are represented.
create table pt (a bool not null) partition by list (a);
create table pt_true partition of pt for values in('t')
Never mind, it turns out the issue boiled down to me declaring the
wrong prefixType in my config function.
TL;DR - PEBKAC
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Connor Wolf wrote:
> Ok, I've got everything compiling and it installs properly, but I'm
> running into problems that I think are either a si
On 3 November 2017 at 17:32, David Rowley wrote:
> 2. This code is way more complex than it needs to be.
>
> if (num_parts > 0)
> {
> int j;
>
> all_indexes = (int *) palloc(num_parts * sizeof(int));
> j = 0;
> if (min_part_idx >= 0 && max_part_idx >= 0)
> {
> for (i = min_part_idx; i <= max_part_
Andres Freund writes:
> Well, the current approach afaics requires #relations * 2 locks, whereas
> acquiring them in every worker would scale that with the number of
> workers.
Yeah, that's gonna be a problem with this proposal.
> IIUC the problem here is that even though a lock is already
> hel
Robert Haas writes:
> This looks like it's on the right track to me. I hope Tom will look
> into it, but if he doesn't I may try to get it committed myself.
I do plan to take a look at it during this CF.
> +/* Set or update cheapest_total_path and related fields */
> +set_cheape
On 31 October 2017 at 17:43, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, this is a rebased version.
>
> It gets a change of the meaning of monitoring value along with
> rebasing.
>
> In previous version, the "live" column mysteriously predicts the
> necessary segments will be kept or lost by the next checkp
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> The number of index lookups that failed to return anything can be a
>> critical performance factor in OLTP workloads. Therefore it seems like
>> it'd be a good idea to extend the explain analyze output to include that
>> information.
> I certain
Robert Haas writes:
> A basic problem here is that, as proposed, DROP COMPRESSION METHOD may
> break your database irretrievably. If there's no data compressed
> using the compression method you dropped, everything is cool -
> otherwise everything is broken and there's no way to recover. The
> o
On 2017/11/03 21:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>
>>> I think adding "is partitioned" at end of line isn't good; looks like a
>>> phrase but isn't translatable. Maybe add keyword PARTITIONED instead?
>>
>> In that ca
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Updated version of the patch is attached to this mail.
> Also I added support of date type to operator_predicate_proof to be able to
> imply (logdate <= '2017-03-31') from (logdate < '2017-04-01') .
Hi Konstantin,
Is there any reason w
On 2017/11/03 6:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
>
>> Sure, thanks.
>
> Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making the comments more
> explicit about why we
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, this is a rebased version.
Hello Horiguchi-san,
I think the "ddl" test under contrib/test_decoding also needs to be
updated because it looks at pg_replication_slots and doesn't expect
your new columns.
--
Thomas Munro
http://w
> If there's no data compressed
> using the compression method you dropped, everything is cool -
> otherwise everything is broken and there's no way to recover.
> The only obvious alternative is to disallow DROP altogether (or make it
> not really DROP).
Wouldn't whatever was using the compression
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Simon Riggs
> A backend-based solution is required for PL procedures and functions.
>
> We could put this as an option into PL/pgSQL, but it seems like it is
> a function of the transaction manager
On 2017-11-05 17:38:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lucas wrote:
> > The patch creates a "--lock-early" option which will make pg_dump to issue
> > shared locks on all tables on the backup TOC on each parallel worker start.
> > That way, the backup has a very small c
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lucas wrote:
> The patch creates a "--lock-early" option which will make pg_dump to issue
> shared locks on all tables on the backup TOC on each parallel worker start.
> That way, the backup has a very small chance of failing. When it does,
> happen in the first few
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> IIRC there were some concerns about what happened with pg_upgrade,
>> with consuming precious toast bits, and a few other things.
>
> yes, pg_upgrade may be a problem.
A basic problem here is that, as proposed, DROP COMPRESSION METHOD may
br
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks for the confirmation. Find rebased patch attached.
This looks like it's on the right track to me. I hope Tom will look
into it, but if he doesn't I may try to get it committed myself.
-if (rel->reloptkind == RELOPT_BASEREL)
-
Hi,
On November 5, 2017 1:33:24 PM PST, Jim Van Fleet wrote:
>Ran this change with hammerdb on a power 8 firestone
>
>with 2 socket, 20 core
>9.6 base-- 451991 NOPM
>0926_master -- 464385 NOPM
>11_04master -- 449177 NOPM
>11_04_patch -- 431423 NOPM
>-- two socket patch is a little down
Ran this change with hammerdb on a power 8 firestone
with 2 socket, 20 core
9.6 base-- 451991 NOPM
0926_master -- 464385 NOPM
11_04master -- 449177 NOPM
11_04_patch -- 431423 NOPM
-- two socket patch is a little down from previous base runs
With one socket
9.6 base -- 393727 NO
Andres Freund wrote:
The number of index lookups that failed to return anything can be a
critical performance factor in OLTP workloads. Therefore it seems like
it'd be a good idea to extend the explain analyze output to include that
information.
I certainly agree.
I've sometimes wondered if
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I can propose following alternative approach: teach read-only queries on
>> > hot
>> > standby to tolerate concurrent relation truncation. Therefore, when
>> > non-existent heap pa
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 2 November 2017 at 17:41, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> wrote:
>
>> In this patch compression methods is suitable for MAIN and EXTENDED
>> storages like in current implementation in postgres. Just instead only
>> of LZ4 you can specify any other com
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Юрий Соколов wrote:
> 2017-11-03 5:46 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane :
>>
>> Sokolov Yura writes:
>> > [ 0001-Improve-compactify_tuples.patch, v5 or thereabouts ]
>>
>> I went to check the shellsort algorithm against Wikipedia's entry,
>> and found that this appears to be an i
On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 12:23:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > I plan to use the attached patch after the minor release tags land. If
> > there's significant support, I could instead push before the wrap.
>
> This looks fine to me --- I think you should push now.
Done.
--
Hi
2017-11-05 4:07 GMT+01:00 Noah Misch :
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:06:40AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Please, if you can, try it write. I am little bit lost :)
>
> I'm attaching the patch I desired. Please review. This will probably miss
> this week's minor releases. If there's signif
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
> > Not specific problem to this patch, but I wonder if it should be made
> > more clear that those files (there are couple above of what you added)
> > are skipped no matter which dire
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Please find a minor comment fix for receivelog.c, HandleCopyStream().
>
> The comments talks about a START_STREAMING command, but i think
> START_REPLICATION is what's meant here.
>
Yeah, it is. Confusingly enough, START_STREAMING is what's r
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Paul Ramsey writes:
> >>> Whether I get a parallel aggregate seems entirely determined by the
> number
> >>> of rows, not the cost of preparing those rows.
> >
> >> This is true, as far as
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> shm-mq-reduce-receiver-latch-set-v1.patch causes the receiver to only
>> consume input from the shared queue when the amount of unconsumed
>> input exceeds 1/4 of the queue size. This caused a large performance
>> improvement in my testing b
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Lucas wrote:
> The patch creates a "--lock-early" option which will make pg_dump to issue
> shared locks on all tables on the backup TOC on each parallel worker start.
> That way, the backup has a very small chance of failing. When it does,
> happen in the first few
Ok, I've got everything compiling and it installs properly, but I'm running
into problems that I think are either a side-effect of implementing
picksplit incorrectly (likely), or a bug in SP-GiST(?).
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
__memcpy_sse2_unaligned () at
../sysdeps/x86_
42 matches
Mail list logo
