On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:01 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
>> Thank you for caching this. Fixed in the revision attached.
>>
>> Testing subsets of patchsets in cfbot looks like a good idea to me.
>> However, I'm not sure if we always require subsets to be consistent.
>
>
> Hi, hackers!
>
> I've looked
>
> Thank you for caching this. Fixed in the revision attached.
>
> Testing subsets of patchsets in cfbot looks like a good idea to me.
> However, I'm not sure if we always require subsets to be consistent.
>
Hi, hackers!
I've looked through a new v6 of a patchset and find it ok. When applied
00
Note that 0001+0002 (without the others) incurs warnings:
$ time { make -j4 clean; make -j4; } >/dev/null
tuplesort.c:1883:9: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
tuplesort.c:1955:10: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
tuplesort.c:2026:9: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wu
Hi, John!
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:44 AM John Naylor
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 3:23 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > There are some places, which potentially could cause a slowdown. I'm
> > going to make some experiments with that.
>
> I haven't looked at the patches, so I don't know
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 3:23 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> There are some places, which potentially could cause a slowdown. I'm
> going to make some experiments with that.
I haven't looked at the patches, so I don't know of a specific place to
look for a slowdown, but I thought it might help to
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:45 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > From b06bcb5f3666f0541dfcc27c9c8462af2b5ec9e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Alexander Korotkov
> > > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 21:48:05 +0300
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2 6/6] Split tuplesortops.c
> >
> > I strongly suspect this will
.Hi!
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 6:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think this needs to be evaluated for performance...
Surely, this needs.
> I agree with the nearby comment that the commits need a bit of justification
> at least to review them.
Will do this.
> > From 1d78e271b22d7c6a1557defbe15ea503
Hi,
I think this needs to be evaluated for performance...
I agree with the nearby comment that the commits need a bit of justification
at least to review them.
On 2022-06-23 15:12:27 +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> From 03b78cdade3b86a0e97723721fa1d0bd64d0c7df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alexa
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 14:12, Maxim Orlov wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I've reviewed the patchset and noticed some minor issues:
> - extra semicolon in macro (lead to warnings)
> - comparison of var isWorker should be done in different way
>
> Here is an upgraded version of the patchset.
>
> Overall, I cons
Hi!
Overall patch looks good let's mark it as ready for committer, shall we?
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
Hi, Maxim!
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:12 PM Maxim Orlov wrote:
> I've reviewed the patchset and noticed some minor issues:
> - extra semicolon in macro (lead to warnings)
> - comparison of var isWorker should be done in different way
>
> Here is an upgraded version of the patchset.
Thank you for
Hi, Pavel!
Thank you for your feedback.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:26 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
>> Some PostgreSQL extensions need to sort their pieces of data. Then it
>> worth to re-use our tuplesort. But despite our tuplesort having
>> extensibility, it's hidden inside tuplesort.c. There are at
>
> Some PostgreSQL extensions need to sort their pieces of data. Then it
> worth to re-use our tuplesort. But despite our tuplesort having
> extensibility, it's hidden inside tuplesort.c. There are at least a
> couple of examples of how extensions deal with that.
>
> 1. RUM table access method: ht
I've bumped into this case in RUM extension. The need to build it with
tuplesort changes in different PG versions led me to reluctantly including
different tuplesort.c versions into the extension code. So I totally
support the intention of this patch and I'm planning to invest some time to
review i
14 matches
Mail list logo
