2024-01 Commitfest.
Hi, this patch was marked in CF as "Needs Review", but there has been
no activity on this thread for 9+ months.
Since there seems not much interest, I have changed the status to
"Returned with Feedback" [1]. Feel free to propose a stronger use case
for the patch and add an ent
It looks like in November 2022 Tomas Vondra said:
> I did a quick initial review of the v20 patch series.
> I plan to do a
more thorough review over the next couple days, if time permits.
> In
general I think the patch is in pretty good shape.
Following which Antonin Houska updated the patch resp
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 02:59, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> vignesh C wrote:
>
> > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased
> > patch:
And again...
Setting this to Waiting on Author for the moment.
Do you think this patch is likely to be ready for this release or th
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 16:34, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I did a quick initial review of the v20 patch series. I plan to do a
> > more thorough review over the next couple days, if time permits. In
> > general I think the patch is in pretty good shape.
>
> Tha
Hi everyone.
I develop postgresql's extension such as fdw in my work.
I'm interested in using postgresql for OLAP.
I think that this patch is realy useful when using OLAP queries.
Furthermore, I think it would be more useful if this patch works on a foreign
table.
Actually, I changed this patc
On 3/11/21 5:10 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
David Steele wrote:
On 7/3/20 6:07 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 14:39 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
This version now fails to apply to HEAD, with what looks like like a trivial
error in the expected test output. Can you please sub
David Steele wrote:
> On 7/3/20 6:07 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 14:39 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> This version now fails to apply to HEAD, with what looks like like a
> >> trivial
> >> error in the expected test output. Can you please submit a rebased
> >> versi
On 7/3/20 6:07 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 14:39 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
This version now fails to apply to HEAD, with what looks like like a trivial
error in the expected test output. Can you please submit a rebased version so
we can see it run in the patch tester CI?
> On 19 May 2020, at 10:17, Antonin Houska wrote:
> The next version is attached.
This version now fails to apply to HEAD, with what looks like like a trivial
error in the expected test output. Can you please submit a rebased version so
we can see it run in the patch tester CI? I'm marking the
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:10 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
> Andy Fan wrote:
>
> > The more tests on your patch, the more powerful I feel it is!
>
> Thanks for the appreciation. Given the poor progress it's increasingly hard
> for me to find motivation to work on it. I'll try to be more professional
Andy Fan wrote:
> > 1) v14-0001-Introduce-RelInfoList-structure.patch
> > -
> >
> > - I'm not entirely sure why we need this change. We had the list+hash
> > before, so I assume we do this because we need the output functions?
>
> I believe
Andy Fan wrote:
> The more tests on your patch, the more powerful I feel it is!
Thanks for the appreciation. Given the poor progress it's increasingly hard
for me to find motivation to work on it. I'll try to be more professional :-)
> At the same time, I think the most difficult part to unders
>
> > 1) v14-0001-Introduce-RelInfoList-structure.patch
> > -
> >
> > - I'm not entirely sure why we need this change. We had the list+hash
> > before, so I assume we do this because we need the output functions?
>
> I believe that this is what Tom pr
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM Antonin Houska wrote:
> legrand legrand wrote:
>
> > Antonin Houska-2 wrote
>
> > > Right now I recall two problems: 1) is the way I currently store
> > > RelOptInfo for the grouped relations correct?, 2) how should we handle
> > > types for which logical equality
legrand legrand wrote:
> Antonin Houska-2 wrote
> > Right now I recall two problems: 1) is the way I currently store
> > RelOptInfo for the grouped relations correct?, 2) how should we handle
> > types for which logical equality does not imply physical (byte-wise)
> > equality?
> >
> > Fortunat
Antonin Houska-2 wrote
> Alvaro Herrera <
> alvherre@
> > wrote:
>
>> This stuff seems very useful. How come it sits unreviewed for so long?
>
> I think the review is hard for people who are not interested in the
> planner
> very much. And as for further development, there are a few design
> d
legrand legrand wrote:
> set enable_agg_pushdown to true;
> isn't displayed in EXPLAIN (SETTINGS) syntax.
>
>
> The following modification seems to fix that:
>
> src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
>
> {"enable_agg_pushdown", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
>
Hello,
Thank you for this great feature !
I hope this will be reviewed/validated soon ;o)
Just a comment:
set enable_agg_pushdown to true;
isn't displayed in EXPLAIN (SETTINGS) syntax.
The following modification seems to fix that:
src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
{"enable_agg_pu
18 matches
Mail list logo
