Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to parallel query docs

David Rowley wrote: > I propose we just remove the whole paragraph, and mention about > the planning and estimated number of groups stuff in another new paragraph. > > I've attached a patch to this effect ... s/In a worse case scenario/In the worst case scenario,/ Other than that, the phrasing

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to parallel query docs

Robert Haas wrote: > +COUNT(*), each worker must compute subtotals which later must > +be combined to produce an overall total in order to produce the final > +answer. If the query involves a GROUP BY clause, > +separate subtotals must be computed for each group seen by each

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017

On January 27, 2017 07:08, Tom Lane wrote: > ... The things I think are unique to the currency situation are: ... Add the potential for regulatory requirements to change at any time - sort of like timezone information. So no hard coded behavior. rounding method/accuracy storage precision

Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot too old logging

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think I was suggesting: One or more rows required by this query may > already have been removed from "%s". I keep reading that as "you have data corruption because something removed rows that your query needs" rather than "this query took

Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot too old logging

Magnus wrote: > Just to be clear, you're suggesting 'One or more rows may have already been > removed from "%s"? Perhaps just 'This query attempted to access a page in "%s" that was modified after the snapshot was acquired.'

Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot too old logging

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is there value in showing the snapshot as well? I don't think so. Knowing the relname let's you look at your report/job and figure out if the access to that relation can be moved. Having the exact snapshot version isn't going to change

Re: [HACKERS] Snapshot too old logging

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Kevin Grittner writes: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the > >> snapshot too old error when it happens? >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes

Anastasia, et al, This is a review of including_columns_9.7_v5.patch. I looked through the commit fest list and this patch was interesting and I wanted to try it. I have used include columns on Microsoft SQL Server; DB2 for Linux, Unix, Windows; and DB2 for z/OS. After reading the e-mail

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

.. are some workloads where even larger settings ... Regards, Brad DeJong -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers