2011/7/23 Yeb Havinga :
> On 2011-07-22 16:17, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> :(
>> I updated the patch. Could you try attached once more? The "issafe"
>> switch seems wrong.
>
> Works like a charm :-). However, now there is always a copyObject of a
> subquery even when the subquery is not safe for qu
On 2011-07-22 16:17, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
:(
I updated the patch. Could you try attached once more? The "issafe"
switch seems wrong.
Works like a charm :-). However, now there is always a copyObject of a
subquery even when the subquery is not safe for qual pushdown. The
problem with the previ
2011/7/22 Yeb Havinga :
> On 2011-07-02 10:02, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>>> Although I still need to think about suitable regression test case,
>>> the patch itself can be reviewed again. You may want to try some
>>> additional tests as you imagine after finding my test case gets
>>> quicker.
>
> H
On 2011-07-02 10:02, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
Although I still need to think about suitable regression test case,
the patch itself can be reviewed again. You may want to try some
additional tests as you imagine after finding my test case gets
quicker.
Hello Hitoshi-san,
I took a look at your la
On 2011-07-09 16:23, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2011/7/5 Hitoshi Harada:
2011/7/5 Yeb Havinga:
Hello Hitosh, list,
Attached is revised version.
I failed to attached the patch. I'm trying again.
I'm currently unable to test, since on holiday. I'm happy to continue
testing once returned but it ma
2011/7/5 Hitoshi Harada :
> 2011/7/5 Yeb Havinga :
>> Hello Hitosh, list,
>>
>>> >
>>> > Attached is revised version.
>>>
>>> I failed to attached the patch. I'm trying again.
>>>
>> I'm currently unable to test, since on holiday. I'm happy to continue
>> testing once returned but it may not be wit
2011/7/5 Yeb Havinga :
> Hello Hitosh, list,
>
>> >
>> > Attached is revised version.
>>
>> I failed to attached the patch. I'm trying again.
>>
> I'm currently unable to test, since on holiday. I'm happy to continue
> testing once returned but it may not be within the bounds of the current
> commi
Hello Hitosh, list,
>
> > Attached is revised version.
>
> I failed to attached the patch. I'm trying again.
>
> I'm currently unable to test, since on holiday. I'm happy to continue
testing once returned but it may not be within the bounds of the current
commitfest, sorry.
> >> 5) Regression te
2011/7/2 Hitoshi Harada :
> 2011/6/29 Yeb Havinga :
>>
>> On 2011-06-17 09:54, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>>
>>> While reviewing the gist/box patch, I found some planner APIs that can
>>> replace parts in my patch. Also, comments in includes wasn't updated
>>> appropriately. Revised patch attached.
>>
2011/6/29 Yeb Havinga :
>
> On 2011-06-17 09:54, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> While reviewing the gist/box patch, I found some planner APIs that can
>> replace parts in my patch. Also, comments in includes wasn't updated
>> appropriately. Revised patch attached.
>
> Hello Hitoshi-san,
>
> I read you
2011/6/30 Yeb Havinga :
> On 2011-06-29 19:22, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> Other things are all good points. Thanks for elaborate review!
>> More than anything, I'm going to fix the 6) issue, at least to find the
>> cause.
>>
> Some more questions:
> 8) why are cheapest start path and cheapest tota
On 2011-06-29 19:22, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
Other things are all good points. Thanks for elaborate review!
More than anything, I'm going to fix the 6) issue, at least to find the cause.
Some more questions:
8) why are cheapest start path and cheapest total path in
best_inner_subqueryscan the sa
2011/6/29 Yeb Havinga :
>
> On 2011-06-17 09:54, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> While reviewing the gist/box patch, I found some planner APIs that can
>> replace parts in my patch. Also, comments in includes wasn't updated
>> appropriately. Revised patch attached.
>
> Hello Hitoshi-san,
Hi Yeb,
> I
On 2011-06-17 09:54, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
While reviewing the gist/box patch, I found some planner APIs that can
replace parts in my patch. Also, comments in includes wasn't updated
appropriately. Revised patch attached.
Hello Hitoshi-san,
I read your latest patch implementing parameterizing
2011/6/10 Hitoshi Harada :
> 2011/6/9 Robert Haas :
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>> BTW, as I changed title and design from the previous post, should I
>>> throw away the old commit fest entry and make the new one?
>>
>> Nah, just edit the existing entry and change the
2011/6/9 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> BTW, as I changed title and design from the previous post, should I
>> throw away the old commit fest entry and make the new one?
>
> Nah, just edit the existing entry and change the title.
>
> Also add a link to the
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> BTW, as I changed title and design from the previous post, should I
> throw away the old commit fest entry and make the new one?
Nah, just edit the existing entry and change the title.
Also add a link to the new patch, of course.
--
Rober
Purpose & Goal
--
Allow planner to create NestLoop with parameterized aggregate subquery
just like inner IndexScan pattern. This helps to avoid unnecessary
aggregate process that would be filtered at the stage of upper join
filter in such case:
create table size_m as select i as id, re
18 matches
Mail list logo
