(2018/04/07 8:25), Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1]. Patch
0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-6.patch can be applied on top of patch
0001_postgres-fdw-refactoring-6.patch and
0002_copy-from-ch
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-06 19:25:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>> > Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1].
>> > Patch
>> > 0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-6.patch can b
On 2018-04-06 19:25:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> > Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1]. Patch
> > 0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-6.patch can be applied on top of patch
> > 0001_postgres-fdw-refactoring-6.patc
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch set plus the patch in [1]. Patch
> 0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-6.patch can be applied on top of patch
> 0001_postgres-fdw-refactoring-6.patch and
> 0002_copy-from-check-constraint-fix.patch.
Committ
(2018/04/05 16:31), Amit Langote wrote:
Might be a good idea to attach the bug-fix patch here as well, and perhaps
add numbers to the file names like:
0001_postgres-fdw-refactoring-5.patch
0002_BUGFIX-copy-from-check-constraint-fix.patch
0003_foreign-routing-fdwapi-5.patch
OK
Just one minor
On 2018/04/05 16:31, Amit Langote wrote:
> Fuiita-san,
Oops, sorry about misspelling your name here, Fujita-san.
- Amit
Fuiita-san,
On 2018/04/05 15:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/04/05 15:37), Amit Langote wrote:
>> I noticed that the 2nd patch (foreign-routing-fdwapi-5.patch) fails to
>> apply to copy.c:
>
> I forgot to mention this: the second patch is created on top of the first
> patch (postgres-fdw-refacto
(2018/04/05 15:37), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/04/05 15:02, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/04/04 19:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch set:
* As before, patch foreign-routing-fdwapi-4.patch is created on top of
patch postgres-fdw-refactoring-4.patch and the bug-f
Fujita-san,
On 2018/04/05 15:02, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/04/04 19:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version of the patch set:
>> * As before, patch foreign-routing-fdwapi-4.patch is created on top of
>> patch postgres-fdw-refactoring-4.patch and the bug-fix patch [1].
>
> I
(2018/04/04 19:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch set:
* As before, patch foreign-routing-fdwapi-4.patch is created on top of
patch postgres-fdw-refactoring-4.patch and the bug-fix patch [1].
I did a bit of cleanup and comment-rewording to patch
foreign-routi
(2018/04/03 22:01), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch. Patch
foreign-routing-fdwapi-3.patch is created on top of patch
postgres-fdw-refactoring-3.patch and the bug-fix patch [1].
One thing I noticed about patch foreign-routing-fdwapi-3.patch is this
bug: the serv
(2018/04/03 13:59), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/04/02 21:29, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/04/02 18:49), Amit Langote wrote:
I looked at the new patch. It looks good overall, although I have one
question -- IIUC, BeginForeignInsert() performs actions that are
equivalent of performing PlanForeignM
(2018/04/03 13:32), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/04/02 21:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
We wouldn't need that for foreign partitions (When DO NOTHING with an
inference specification or DO UPDATE on a partitioned table containing
foreign partitions, the planner would throw an error before we get to
Exe
Fujita-san,
On 2018/04/02 21:29, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/04/02 18:49), Amit Langote wrote:
>> I looked at the new patch. It looks good overall, although I have one
>> question -- IIUC, BeginForeignInsert() performs actions that are
>> equivalent of performing PlanForeignModify() + BeginForei
On 2018/04/02 21:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/03/30 22:28), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>>> Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
>>> conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
>>> patch so that we keep the former s
(2018/04/02 18:49), Amit Langote wrote:
2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
point of having ri_PartitionIsValid and ExecInitExtraPartitionInfo() is to
avoid possibly-redundantly performing following two steps in
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting() for *reused* parti
(2018/03/30 22:28), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
patch so that we keep the former step in ExecInitPartitionInfo and
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRo
Fujita-san,
Thanks for updating the patch.
On 2018/03/30 21:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I modified the patch to use the existing API ExecForeignInsert instead of
> that API and removed that API including this doc.
OK.
>> 2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
>> po
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
> conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
> patch so that we keep the former step in ExecInitPartitionInfo and
> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting and so that we just init the FD
(2018/03/20 21:31), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Amit Langote wrote:
2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
point of having ri_PartitionIsValid and ExecInitExtraPartitionInfo() is to
avoid possibly-redundantly performing following two steps in
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRout
(2018/03/23 20:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/03/23 4:09), Robert Haas wrote:
1. It still doesn't work for COPY, because COPY isn't going to have a
ModifyTableState. I really think it ought to be possible to come up
with an API that can handle both INSERT and COPY; I don't think it
should be ne
(2018/03/19 20:25), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/27 21:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is a new version of the patch set.
* Comments postgres-fdw-refactoring-1.patch:
1. Just a minor nitpick: wouldn't it be better to call it
create_foreign_modify_state just like its "finish" counterpart
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
>> I think for bulk
>> inserts we'll need an API that says "here's a row, store it or buffer
>> it as you like" and then another API that says "flush any buffered
>> rows to the actual table and perform any necessary cleanup". Or maybe
>> in p
(2018/03/23 21:02), Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the proposed FDW API could be used
for the COPY case as well with some modifications to core. If so, my
question is: should we support COPY into foreign tables
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the proposed FDW API could be used
> for the COPY case as well with some modifications to core. If so, my
> question is: should we support COPY into foreign tables as well? I think
> that if we suppo
(2018/03/23 4:09), Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Etsuro Fujita
Attached is a new version of the patch set.
I took a look at this patch set today but I really don't think we
should commit something so minimal. It's got at least four issues
that I see:
1. It still doesn't
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Changes other than that are:
>
> * Fixed typo and revised code/comments
> * Added more regression tests
> * Added docs
>
> Attached is a new version of the patch set.
I took a look at this patch set today but I really don't think we
should c
Hi,
Amit Langote wrote:
> 2. If I understand the description you provided in [1] correctly, the
> point of having ri_PartitionIsValid and ExecInitExtraPartitionInfo() is to
> avoid possibly-redundantly performing following two steps in
> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting() for *reused* partition Res
Hi Amit,
(2018/03/20 15:57), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/03/19 20:25, Amit Langote wrote:
That's all I have for now.
Will reply to your previous email.
While testing this patch, I noticed a crash when performing EXPLAIN on
update of a partition tree containing foreign partitions. Crash occ
On 2018/03/19 20:25, Amit Langote wrote:
> That's all I have for now.
While testing this patch, I noticed a crash when performing EXPLAIN on
update of a partition tree containing foreign partitions. Crash occurs in
postgresEndForeignRouting() due to the following Assert failing:
Assert(fmstate
Fujita-san,
Thanks for sending the updated patches.
On 2018/02/27 21:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/21 20:54), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> void
>> BeginForeignRouting();
>>
>> Prepare for a tuple-routing operation on a foreign table. This is called
>> from ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting and Exec
(2018/02/21 20:54), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
void
BeginForeignRouting();
Prepare for a tuple-routing operation on a foreign table. This is called
from ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting and ExecInitPartitionInfo.
I modified execPartition.c so that this callback routine is called from
a single functio
(2018/02/23 16:38), Amit Langote wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
This would introduce an asymmetry (we can move tuples from plain partitions
to foreign partitions, but the reverse is not true), but I am thinking that
it would be probably okay to document about that
Fujita-san,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/02/22 11:52), Amit Langote wrote:
>> I wonder why partition_index needs to be made part of this API?
>
> The reason for that is because I think the FDW might want to look at the
> partition info stored in mtstate->mt_partit
(2018/02/22 11:52), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/21 20:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
void
BeginForeignRouting(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
ResultRelInfo *resultRelInfo,
int partition_index);
Prepare for a tuple-routing operation on a foreign table. This is
Fujita-san,
On 2018/02/21 20:54, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/02 19:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/01/25 23:33), Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> I'm afraid a good bit of this patch is now failing to apply. I don't
>>> have much else to say except to echo the performance concern that Amit
>>> Lango
(2018/02/02 19:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/01/25 23:33), Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm afraid a good bit of this patch is now failing to apply. I don't
have much else to say except to echo the performance concern that Amit
Langote raised about expanding the inheritence tree twice.
To address th
(2018/01/25 23:33), Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm afraid a good bit of this patch is now failing to apply. I don't
have much else to say except to echo the performance concern that Amit
Langote raised about expanding the inheritence tree twice.
To address that concern, I'm thinking to redesign the
(2018/02/02 19:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/01/25 23:33), Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm afraid a good bit of this patch is now failing to apply. I don't
have much else to say except to echo the performance concern that Amit
Langote raised about expanding the inheritence tree twice.
To address th
Etsuro,
* Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> (2017/12/18 23:25), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >InitResultRelInfo becomes unintelligible after this patch -- it was
> >straightforward but adding partition_root makes things shaky. Please
> >add a proper comment indicating what each argu
(2017/12/18 23:25), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
InitResultRelInfo becomes unintelligible after this patch -- it was
straightforward but adding partition_root makes things shaky. Please
add a proper comment indicating what each argument is.
I was thiking that the comment I added to the definition of
On 2017/12/18 23:25, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (I wonder why
> this function needs a local variable "partition_check" -- seems
> pointless).
Before 15ce775faa4 [1], there were more than one line where
partition_check was being set, but maybe it still didn't have to be a
separate variable.
Thanks,
A
InitResultRelInfo becomes unintelligible after this patch -- it was
straightforward but adding partition_root makes things shaky. Please
add a proper comment indicating what each argument is. (I wonder why
this function needs a local variable "partition_check" -- seems
pointless).
--
Álvaro Her
(2017/12/18 18:14), Amit Langote wrote:
I noticed that this patch introduces a partition_rels field in
ModifyTable, which contains the RT indexes of *all* leaf partitions in the
partition tree. That means we now expand the partition inheritance tree
in the planner even in the INSERT case, simply
Fujita-san,
On 2017/12/12 21:21, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Hi Maksim,
>
> (2017/12/12 17:57), Maksim Milyutin wrote:
>> Your patch already is not applied on master. Please rebase it.
>
> Done. Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Thanks for sending the updated version of the patc
Hi Maksim,
(2017/12/12 17:57), Maksim Milyutin wrote:
Your patch already is not applied on master. Please rebase it.
Done. Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
*** a/contrib/file_fdw/input/file_fdw.source
--- b/contrib/file_fdw/input/file_fdw.sour
Hi, Fujita-san!
On 24.11.2017 16:03, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2017/10/27 20:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Amit rebased this patch and sent me the rebased version off list.
Thanks for that, Amit!
One thing I noticed I overlooked is about this
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2017/10/27 20:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>> Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
>
>
> Amit rebased this patch and sent me the rebased version off list. Thanks for
> that, Amit!
>
> One thing I noticed I overlooked is abo
(2017/10/27 20:00), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Amit rebased this patch and sent me the rebased version off list.
Thanks for that, Amit!
One thing I noticed I overlooked is about this change I added to
make_modifytable to make a valid-looking p
49 matches
Mail list logo
