On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> In get_useful_ecs_for_relation(), while checking whether to use left or
> right argument of a mergejoinable operator, the arguments to bms_is_subset()
> are passed in reverse order. bms_is_subset() checks whether the first
> argument in subse
Thanks.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic
> >> cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this
> >> version, but let me know w
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic
>> cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this
>> version, but let me know what you think. Of course, feedback from
>> others is more than welcome al
>
> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic
> cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this
> version, but let me know what you think. Of course, feedback from
> others is more than welcome also.
>
>
Attached patch with some cosmetic changes (listed
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia <
> rushabh.lat...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Thanks Ashutosh.
> >> >
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks Ashutosh.
>> >
>> > Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch
>> > looks good to me.
>>
>> Thi
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
> > Thanks Ashutosh.
> >
> > Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch
> > looks good to me.
>
> This patch needs a rebase.
>
Done.
>
> It's not going to work to
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Thanks Ashutosh.
>
> Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch
> looks good to me.
This patch needs a rebase.
It's not going to work to say this is a patch proposed for commit when
it's still got a TODO comment in it th
Thanks Ashutosh.
Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch
looks good to me.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Thanks Rushabh for your review and comments.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote
Thanks Rushabh for your review and comments.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Rushabh Lathia
wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> I reviewed your latest version of patch and over all the implementation
> and other details look good to me.
>
> Here are few cosmetic issues which I found:
>
> 1) Patch not get
Hi Ashutosh,
I reviewed your latest version of patch and over all the implementation
and other details look good to me.
Here are few cosmetic issues which I found:
1) Patch not getting applied cleanly - white space warning
2)
-List *usable_pathkeys = NIL;
+List*useful_pat
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >> Although I'm usually on the side of marking things as extern whenever
> >> we find it convenient, I'm nervous about doing that to
> >> make_canonical_pathkey(), because it has side
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>> Although I'm usually on the side of marking things as extern whenever
>> we find it convenient, I'm nervous about doing that to
>> make_canonical_pathkey(), because it has side effects. Searching the
>> list of canonical pathkeys for the o
Thanks Robert for your comments. Please see my replies inlined. Updated
patch is attached.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I think this approach is generally reasonable, but I suggested parts
> of it, so may be biased. I would be interested in hearing the
> opinions of o
On 16 November 2015 at 17:47, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> collations arising from a foreign table's var are considered to be safer
> (FDW_COLLATE_SAFE) to push down to the foreign server , since they are
> either local default collation or are assumed to be same o
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of
> > the merge join have different implementations of the same collation
> > name? Is there anything we should do to de
On 2015/11/10 0:56, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Corey Huinker
> wrote:
>> Sorry to barge in late, but I was wondering if what we've learned with this
>> patch can be applied to the case of asserting a sort order on a query
>> returning from dblink().
>
> Nope.
>
> Sorr
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of
> the merge join have different implementations of the same collation
> name? Is there anything we should do to defend against the
> problem?
The issue of FDWs vs. collations
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw)
>> according to the pathkeys useful for merge join.
>
> An idle thought. There are going to be a lot of cases where di
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Sorry to barge in late, but I was wondering if what we've learned with this
> patch can be applied to the case of asserting a sort order on a query
> returning from dblink().
Nope.
Sorry to the bearer of bad news, but that would be a differ
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw)
> according to the pathkeys useful for merge join.
An idle thought. There are going to be a lot of cases where different
software systems actually disagree about collation
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw)
> > according to the pathkeys useful for merge join.
> >
> > For a given base relation (extendable to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 10:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this approach is generally reasonable, but I suggested
> parts of it, so may be biased. I would be interested in hearing
> the opinions of others.
Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of
the merge join
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Hi All,
> PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw)
> according to the pathkeys useful for merge join.
>
> For a given base relation (extendable to join when that becomes available in
> postgres_fdw), the patch trie
Hi All,
PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw)
according to the pathkeys useful for merge join.
For a given base relation (extendable to join when that becomes available
in postgres_fdw), the patch tries to find merge joinable clauses. It then
adds paths with pathkeys
25 matches
Mail list logo