On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> I don't see how. There really is no declaration in there for a
>> variable called server.
>
> Absolutely correct. My only guess is that it was from failing to make clean
> after a checkout/re-checkout. A good
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> There seems to be double successive assignment to fdw_private in recent
> commit. Here's patch to remove the first one.
Committed along with a fix for another problem I noted along the way.
--
Robert Haas
There seems to be double successive assignment to fdw_private in recent
commit. Here's patch to remove the first one.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> >> I don't see
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> The possible tests might be:
> - creating a server/table with fetch_size set
> - altering an existing server/table to have fetch_size set
> - verifying that the value exists in pg_foreign_server.srvoptions and
>
>
>
> postgres_fdw.c:2642:16: error: use of undeclared identifier 'server'
> foreach(lc, server->options)
>
Odd. Compiled for me. Maybe I messed up the diff. Will get back to you on
that with the tests suggested.
> ^
>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> postgres_fdw.c:2642:16: error: use of undeclared identifier 'server'
>> foreach(lc, server->options)
>
>
> Odd. Compiled for me. Maybe I messed up the diff. Will get back to you on
> that with
>
>
> I don't see how. There really is no declaration in there for a
> variable called server.
>
Absolutely correct. My only guess is that it was from failing to make clean
after a checkout/re-checkout. A good reason to have even boring regression
tests.
Regression tests added.
diff --git
Corey Huinker wrote:
> Enjoy.
Didn't actually look into the patch but looks like there's progress
here and this might be heading for commit. Moving to next one.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Revised in patch v3:
> * get_option() and get_fetch_size() removed, fetch_size searches added to
> existing loops.
> * Move fetch_size <= 0 tests into postgres_fdw_validator() routine in
> option.c
> * DEBUG1 message
>
>
> Looks pretty good. You seem to have added a blank line at the end of
> postgres_fdw.c, which should be stripped back out.
>
Done.
>
> > I'm not too keen on having *no* new regression tests, but defer to your
> > judgement.
>
> So... I'm not *opposed* to regression tests. I just don't
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> - We could consider folding fetch_size into "Remote Execution
>> Options", but maybe that's too clever.
>
> If you care to explain, I'm listening. Otherwise I'm going forward with the
> other suggestions you've
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Here's a re-based patch. Notable changes since the last patch are:
>
> - some changes had to move to postgres_fdw.h
> - the regression tests are in their own script fetch_size.sql /
> fetch_size.out. that should make
>
>
> Review:
>
> - There is an established idiom in postgres_fdw for how to extract
> data from lists of DefElems, and this patch does something else
> instead. Please make it look like postgresIsForeignRelUpdatable,
> postgresGetForeignRelSize, and postgresImportForeignSchema instead of
>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> >> - We could consider folding fetch_size into "Remote Execution
> >> Options", but maybe that's too clever.
> >
> > If you care to
>
>
>> I believe it won't be needed as a regression test but DEBUGn
>> messages could be usable to see "what was sent to the remote
>> side". It can be shown to the console so easily done in
>> regression test. See the deocumentation for client_min_messages
>> for details. (It could receive far
>Have you got numbers showing any actual performance win for postgres_fdw?
For JDBC purposes, it would be nice to have an ability of asking
backend "to stop fetching if produced more than X MiB of response
data".
For small table (4 int4 fields), having decent fetchSize (~1000) makes
result
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:31:42 -0500, Corey Huinker
> wrote in
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Have you got numbers showing any actual performance win for postgres_fdw?
>
> For JDBC purposes, it would be nice to have an ability of asking
> backend "to stop fetching if produced more than X MiB of
>and fetch a number of rows that, by its estimation, would fit in the memory
>available
What's wrong with having size limit in the first place? It seems to
make much more sense.
Vladimir
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 12/23/15 12:15 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>> That's fair. I'm still at a loss for how to show that the fetch size was
>> respected by the remote server, suggestions welcome!
>>
>
> A combination of repeat() and
Hello,
At Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:31:42 -0500, Corey Huinker
wrote in
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Attached is the patch / diff against current master.
I have moved this patch to next CF, there is a new patch, but no reviews.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> > Attached is the patch / diff against current master.
>
> I have moved this patch to next CF, there is a new patch, but no
On 12/23/15 12:15 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
That's fair. I'm still at a loss for how to show that the fetch size was
respected by the remote server, suggestions welcome!
A combination of repeat() and generate_series()?
I'm guessing it's not that obvious and that I'm missing something; can
you
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > > @@ -915,6 +933,23 @@ postgresBeginForeignScan(ForeignScanState *node,
> > > int eflags)
> ...
> > > > + def = get_option(table->options, "fetch_size");
> >
> > > I don't think it's a
Hello,
> > > @@ -915,6 +933,23 @@ postgresBeginForeignScan(ForeignScanState *node,
> > int eflags)
...
> > > + def = get_option(table->options, "fetch_size");
>
> > I don't think it's a good idea to make such checks at runtime - and
> > either way it's somethign that should be reported back
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 13:50:22 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > +static DefElem*
> > +get_option(List *options, char *optname)
> > +{
> > + ListCell *lc;
> > +
> > + foreach(lc, options)
> > + {
> > +
On 2015-02-27 13:50:22 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> +static DefElem*
> +get_option(List *options, char *optname)
> +{
> + ListCell *lc;
> +
> + foreach(lc, options)
> + {
> + DefElem *def = (DefElem *) lfirst(lc);
> +
> + if (strcmp(def->defname, optname) == 0)
Attached is a diff containing the original (working) patch from my
(incomplete) patch, plus regression test changes and documentation changes.
While it's easy to regression-test the persistence of the fetch_size
options, I am confounded as to how we would show that the fetch_size
setting was
Hello,
Redshift has a table, stv_inflight, which serves about the same purpose as
pg_stat_activity. Redshift seems to perform better with very high fetch
sizes (10,000 is a good start), so the default foreign data wrapper didn't
perform so well.
I agree with you.
I was able to confirm that
I applied this patch to REL9_4_STABLE, and I was able to connect to a
foreign database (redshift, actually).
the basic outline of the test is below, names changed to protect my
employment.
create extension if not exists postgres_fdw;
create server redshift_server foreign data wrapper
Hmm, somehow I removed some recipients, especially the
list. Sorry for the duplicate.
-
Sorry, I've been back. Thank you for the comment.
Do you have any insight into where I would pass the custom row fetches from
the table struct to the scan struct?
Yeah it's one simple way to tune it,
Thank you for the comment.
The automatic way to determin the fetch_size looks become too
much for the purpose. An example of non-automatic way is a new
foreign table option like 'fetch_size' but this exposes the
inside too much... Which do you think is preferable?
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:17:52
Last year I was working on a patch to postgres_fdw where the fetch_size
could be set at the table level and the server level.
I was able to get the settings parsed and they would show up in
pg_foreign_table
and pg_foreign_servers. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with how
foreign data
Hello, as the discuttion on async fetching on postgres_fdw, FETCH
with data-size limitation would be useful to get memory usage
stability of postgres_fdw.
Is such a feature and syntax could be allowed to be added?
==
Postgres_fdw fetches tuples from remote servers using cursor. The
transfer
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Hello, as the discuttion on async fetching on postgres_fdw, FETCH
with data-size limitation would be useful to get memory usage
stability of postgres_fdw.
Is such a feature and syntax could be allowed to be added?
This seems like a
36 matches
Mail list logo