On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:59 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:53:41PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > What is XXX supposed to be?
> > >
> > > The rest of patch looks good to me.
> >
> > I've pushed the pa
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:53:41PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > What is XXX supposed to be?
> >
> > The rest of patch looks good to me.
>
> I've pushed the patch excepts XXX. Thank you.
> You're welcome to clarify XXX and/or
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> What is XXX supposed to be?
>
> The rest of patch looks good to me.
I've pushed the patch excepts XXX. Thank you.
You're welcome to clarify XXX and/or do additional corrections.
--
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:44 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:05:51PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 AM Nikita Glukhov
> > wrote:
> > > Attached new version of reordered patches.
> >
> > I'm going to push this if no objections.
>
> Find atta
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:05:51PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 AM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> > Attached new version of reordered patches.
>
> I'm going to push this if no objections.
Find attached patch with editorial corrections to docs for this commit.
--wo
Attached new version of reordered patches.
Questionable patches for AM-specific per-attribute options were moved to
the end, so they can be skipped now.
On 16.03.2020 18:22, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi!
I took a look on this patchset. There is a first set of questions.
* Patchset badly nee
Hi!
I took a look on this patchset. There is a first set of questions.
* Patchset badly needs comments. I've to literally reverse engineer
to get what's going on. But I still don't understand many things.
* I'm curious about what local_relopts.base field means.
void
extend_local_reloptions(l
Attached new version of the patches.
On 12.09.2019 3:16, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:44:28AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
2. New AM method amattoptions().
amattopt
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not
> the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required
> or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting
> at 1
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:44:28AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
2. New AM method amattoptions().
amattoptions() is used to specify per-column AM-specific options.
The example is signat
On 11.09.2019 1:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
2. New AM method amattoptions().
amattoptions() is used to specify per-column AM-specific options.
The example is signature length for bloom indexes (patch #3).
I'm somewhat confused
On 11.09.2019 1:14, Tomas Vondra wrote:
BTW, is there a place where we actually verify the signature of the
new am
proc? Because I only see code like this:
+ case OPCLASS_OPTIONS_PROC:
+ ok = true;
+ break;
in all "validate" functions.
See assignProcTypes() at src/backe
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 04.09.2019 1:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For
example the gtsvecto
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:30:41AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 04.09.2019 1:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For
example the gtsvector_options does this:
I think this is part of what Nikolay's pa
On 2019-Jun-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 1) We need a better infrastructure to parse opclass parameters. For
> example the gtsvector_options does this:
I think this is part of what Nikolay's patch series was supposed to
address. But that one has been going way too slow. I agree we need
something b
Hi,
while rebasing the patch series [1] adding bloom/multi-minmax BRIN
opclasses, I've decided to also rebase it on top of this patch, because it
needs the opclass parameters. So I had to rebase this too - it went mostly
fine, with reasonably limited bitrot. The rebased patch series is attached.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> How about saying that you must give an opclass name if you want to
> specify options, ie the syntax is
>
> [ opclass_name [ ( options... ) ] ]
>
> I'm not necessarily wedded to that, but it seems worth throwing
> out the idea.
Agreed, that
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:58 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>> "opclass (options)" looks the most natural to me. But we still need some
>> keyword before the parentheses when the opclass is not specified since we
>> can't distinguish "func_name (func_params)" and "col_name (opclass
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:58 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> I agree that we should distinguish per-index and per-column options, but they
> can also be AM-specific and opclass-specific.
True, but an index is bound to a single AM, and a column is bound to a
single opclass which is bound to a single AM.
Attached 3rd version of the patches.
On 20.11.2018 14:15, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
Attached 2nd version of the patches. Nothing has changed since March,
this is just a rebased version.
CREATE INDEX syntax and parameters sto
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:46 AM Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> 1. I've seen you've added a new attribute into pg_index. Why??!!
> As far as I can get, if have index built on several columns (A1, A2, A3) you
> can set, own opclass for each column. And set individual options for each
> opclass if we are s
В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
> Attached 2nd version of the patches. Nothing has changed since March,
> this is just a rebased version.
>
> CREATE INDEX syntax and parameters storage method still need discussion.
I've played around a bit with you patch a
В письме от 15 ноября 2018 18:26:43 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
> >> But since it is now "Rejected with feedback", let's wait till autumn.
> >
> > We don't want to wait that long. But now we only need to сome to an
> > agreement
> > about CREATE INDEX syntax and where to store the opcla
On 02.03.2018 19:12, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал:
2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my
prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for
intarray. May be you should do the same
В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал:
> > 2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my
> > prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for
> > intarray. May be you should do the same. (Use my example it will be more
>
On 3/1/18 3:50 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> Any objections to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it
>> to the next CF as is.
>
> I think that Returned with Feedback would be good. We will continue
> discussion in -hackers.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
>> В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
>>
>>> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters.
>>>
>>> This feature was recently p
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> Concerning the patch that you've provided. I've just have a short look. But I
> already have some question.
>
> 1. I've seen you've added a new attribute into pg_index. Why??!!
> As far as I can get, if have index built on several columns
Hi Nikita,
On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
>
>> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters.
>>
>> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru:
>> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgr
В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters.
>
> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru:
> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/opclass_pgconf.ru-2018.pdf
>
> A analogous work was
30 matches
Mail list logo
