On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 10:31:09PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The hexadecimal representation is more natural to me than bit-shifting,
> so I would prefer to use that style too. But maybe I'm trained to it
> because of looking at t_infomask symbols constantly.
If we are going to change all tha
On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 13:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>
> > The attached patch changes definitions like
> > #define FOO 0x01
> > #define BAR 0x02
> > to
> > #define FOO (1 << 0)
> > #define BAR (1 << 1)
> > etc.
>
> > Both styles are currently in u
Thank you Tom and Heikki for your input.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 4:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> >> I can understand why we need EquivalenceClass for UniqueKey, but I can't
> >> understand why we need opfamily here.
>
> > Thinking a bit harder, I guess we don't. Because Eq
On 2020-Dec-05, Stephen Frost wrote:
> So- just to be clear, CHECKPOINTs are more-or-less always happening in
> PG, and running this command might do something or might end up doing
> nothing depending on if a checkpoint is already in progress and this
> request just gets consolidated into an exis
On 2020-Dec-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, personally I'd vote for doing the exact opposite. When you are
> debugging and examining the contents of a bitmask variable, it's easier to
> correlate a value like "0x03" with definitions made in the former style.
> Or at least I think so; maybe others see
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> I can understand why we need EquivalenceClass for UniqueKey, but I can't
>> understand why we need opfamily here.
> Thinking a bit harder, I guess we don't. Because EquivalenceClass
> includes the operator family already, in the ec_opfamilies field.
No. Equivalenc
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01/12/2020 22:21, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 04:42:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> - I'm surprised you need a new index AM function (amskip) for this. Can't
> >> you just restart the scan with index_res
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:59:34AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:24 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > One loose end in this patch is how to check for volatile default
> > expressions.
>
> I think we should be doing all the necessary checks in the planner and
> have a
On 05/12/2020 17:10, Andy Fan wrote:
Actually I can't understand this, could you explain more? Based on my
current
knowledge, when we run "SELECT DISTINCT a FROM t", we never care about
which operator to use for the unique.
SortGroupClause includes 'eqop' field, which determines the opera
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> The attached patch changes definitions like
> #define FOO 0x01
> #define BAR 0x02
> to
> #define FOO (1 << 0)
> #define BAR (1 << 1)
> etc.
> Both styles are currently in use, but the latter style seems more
> readable and easier to update.
FWIW, p
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:59:22PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > > - Does this optimization apply to bitmap index scans?
> >
> > No, from what I understand it doesn't.
>
> Would it be hard to add? Don't need to solve everything in the first
> version of this, but I think in principle you
Greetings,
* Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> On 12/5/20, 6:41 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> > Assuming we actually want to do this, which I still generally don't
> > agree with since it isn't really clear if it'll actually end up doing
> > something, or not, wouldn't it make more se
On 12/5/20, 6:41 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> Assuming we actually want to do this, which I still generally don't
> agree with since it isn't really clear if it'll actually end up doing
> something, or not, wouldn't it make more sense to have a command that
> just sits and waits for the currently
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> Thanks. I'll do some testing/benchmarking once my machines are free, in
> a couple days perhaps. But as I said before, I don't expect this to
> behave very differently from other places that already do prefetching.
Agreed, but wou
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 09:54:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:52:29PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, I worked with Sawada-san and added the attached patch. The updated
> > full patch is at the same URL: :-)
> >
> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/com
The attached patch changes definitions like
#define FOO 0x01
#define BAR 0x02
to
#define FOO (1 << 0)
#define BAR (1 << 1)
etc.
Both styles are currently in use, but the latter style seems more
readable and easier to update.
This change only addresses bitmaps used in memory
Thank you Heikki for your attention.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:20 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 30/11/2020 16:30, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> > On 11/30/20 5:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 26/11/2020 16:58, Andy Fan wrote:
> >>> This patch has stopped moving for a while, any suggest
Thanks for working on the new version.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:41 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> I also
> noticed that the code I'd written to build the cache lookup expression
> included a step to deform the outer tuple. This was unnecessary and
> slowed down the expression evaluation.
>
>
I thou
Greetings,
* Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> This all seems reasonable to me. I've attached a new version of the
> patch.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml
index 2afee6d7b5..2b1e56fbd7 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml
+++
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:52:29PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I worked with Sawada-san and added the attached patch. The updated
> full patch is at the same URL: :-)
>
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/compare/master...bmomjian:key.diff
Oh, I see that you use SHA256 during fir
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 16:55 +0100, I wrote:
> > > Basically, that would change pgStatSessionDisconnectedNormally into
> > > instead being an
> > > enum of reasons, which could be normal disconnect, abnormal disconnect
> > > and admin.
> > > And we'd track all those three as separate numbers in th
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 11:08, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 04:38:14PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If most people approve of this general approach, and the design
> > decisions made, I would like to apply this in the next few weeks, but
> > this brings complications. The syn
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:43 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:07 PM Luc Vlaming wrote:
> >
> > Disclaimer: I have by no means throughly reviewed all the involved parts
> > and am probably missing quite a bit of context so if I understood parts
> > wrong or they have been
23 matches
Mail list logo
