Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

Hi , Here is a patch corrected as your feedback except missed tests case because corresponding by clause is implemented on the top of set operation and you can’t do that to set operation without corresponding by clause too Eg postgres=# SELECT 1 a, 2 b, 3 c UNION SELECT 4 a, 5 b, 6 c, 8 d;

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf

On 3/8/17 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote: > This patch looks good to me. committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

Hi, Nikita! I take a look to this patchset. My first notes are following. * 0003-Extract-index_store_orderby_distances-v02.patch Function index_store_orderby_distances doesn't look general enough for its name. GiST supports ordering only by float4 and float8 distances. SP-GiST also goes that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > > I think this patch is already in a good shape. > > I am sorry for introducing this bug. This fix looks good to me as well. I checked this patch too. And it seems good to me as well. Should we mark it as "ready for

Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Rushabh Lathia > wrote: > > Here is another version of patch with the suggested changes. > > Committed. > > Thanks Robert for committing this. My colleague

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Amit, Michael, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Amit Langote > > wrote: > >> On 2017/03/08 16:47, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> Only regular tables are tested as

Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag

Hello, I wanted to review the patch. But the patch is applied with errors. I've rebased the local copy and have done review on it. I'm not sure is it properly to send rebased patch by reviewer, so I haven't sent it to avoid confuses. On 29.01.2017 17:00, Michael Paquier wrote: Attached is

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog

On 3/7/17 11:16, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, if the problem you're trying to solve is "retain WAL for as long > as possible without running out of disk space and having everything go > kablooey", then it would solve that problem, and I think that's a very > reasonable problem to want to solve.

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On 3/8/17 14:22, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 1. will be background session process closed automatically when parent > process is closed? If the communications queue goes away the process will eventually die. This is similar to how a backend process will eventually die if the client goes away. Some

[HACKERS] postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

Greetings, While reviewing Amit Langote's patch to handle partitioned tables properly in various contrib modules (mostly by throwing an error since things like pageinspect aren't going to work on the empty 'parent' table), I went looking through contrib for other modules that do something with

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/17 14:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error

<    1   2   3