I wrote:
> In the meantime, we could fix execCurrent.c so that it throws
> FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED rather than the current failure if the slot it's
> looking at doesn't contain a physical tuple.
Concretely, I think we should do the attached, so as to cover any other
situations where the scan type do
Yugo Nagata writes:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:56:24 -0400
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I took a quick look at this, but I'm concerned about a couple of points:
> In addition, this patch fixes only nbtree indexes, but the simillar problem
> will occur also on GIST indexes which support index-only scan. If
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:56:24 -0400
Tom Lane wrote:
> Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> > [ return_heaptuple_in_btree_indexonlyscan_v2.patch ]
>
> I took a quick look at this, but I'm concerned about a couple of points:
>
> 1. What's the performance penalty of forming (and then deforming) the
> a
Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> [ return_heaptuple_in_btree_indexonlyscan_v2.patch ]
I took a quick look at this, but I'm concerned about a couple of points:
1. What's the performance penalty of forming (and then deforming) the
added heap tuple? We'd be paying it for every index-only scan, whet
20.02.2018 12:52, Aleksander Alekseev:
Hi Anastasia,
I'd like to propose the patch that fixes the issue.
We already have a way to return heaptuple from IndexOnlyScan,
but it was not applied to b-tree for some reason.
Attached patch solves the reported bug.
Moreover, it will come in handy for "
Hi Anastasia,
> I'd like to propose the patch that fixes the issue.
> We already have a way to return heaptuple from IndexOnlyScan,
> but it was not applied to b-tree for some reason.
>
> Attached patch solves the reported bug.
> Moreover, it will come in handy for "index with included attributes
01.02.2018 05:12, Tom Lane:
Yugo Nagata writes:
I'm sorry the patch attached in the previous mail is broken and
not raises a compile error. I attached the fixed patch.
This patch is almost certainly wrong: you can't assume that the scan-level
state matches the tuple we are currently processing
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:12:51 -0500
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yugo Nagata writes:
> > I'm sorry the patch attached in the previous mail is broken and
> > not raises a compile error. I attached the fixed patch.
>
> This patch is almost certainly wrong: you can't assume that the scan-level
> state matches
Yugo Nagata writes:
> I'm sorry the patch attached in the previous mail is broken and
> not raises a compile error. I attached the fixed patch.
This patch is almost certainly wrong: you can't assume that the scan-level
state matches the tuple we are currently processing at top level. Any
sort of
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 01:33:49 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
I'm sorry the patch attached in the previous mail is broken and
not raises a compile error. I attached the fixed patch.
Regards,
> Hi,
>
> I found that updating a cursor by using CURRENT OF causes the
> following error when the query is exec
Hi,
I found that updating a cursor by using CURRENT OF causes the
following error when the query is executed by IndexOnlyScan.
ERROR: cannot extract system attribute from virtual tuple
IndexOnlyScan returns a virtual tuple that doesn't have system
column, so we can not get ctid in the same wa
11 matches
Mail list logo
