On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 02:35, Tomas Vondra
wrote
>
> I think that was the topic of *this* thread as started by Tom, but I now
> realize Andrey steered it in the direction to allow re-using remote
> stats. Which seems useful too, but it confused me a bit.
>
I didn't realize that the nearby thread
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:55:09PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:27, Tomas Vondra
wrote
4) I wonder if we actually want/need to simply output pg_statistic data
verbatim like this. Is postgres_fdw actually going to benefit from it? I
kinda doubt that, and my assumption
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:27, Tomas Vondra
wrote
>
>
> 4) I wonder if we actually want/need to simply output pg_statistic data
> verbatim like this. Is postgres_fdw actually going to benefit from it? I
> kinda doubt that, and my assumption was that we'd return only a small
> subset of the data, ne
On 9/4/20 6:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Andrey V. Lepikhov
mailto:a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
On 8/31/20 6:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
> mailto:a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
>>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:14:41AM +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
On 8/31/20 6:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
Thanks for this helpful feedback.
I think the patch has some other problems like it works only for
regular tables on foreign
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 8/31/20 6:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for this helpful feedback.
> > I think the patch has some other problems like it works only for
> > regular tables
On 8/31/20 6:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
Thanks for this helpful feedback.
I think the patch has some other problems like it works only for
regular tables on foreign server but a foreign table can be pointing
to any relation like a ma
On 8/31/20 6:19 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
I agreed that this task needs to implement an API for
serialization/deserialization of statistics:
pg_load_relation_statistics(json_string text);
pg_get_relation_statistics(relname text);
We can
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:46:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > Feature work either requires changes to pg_dump, or not. I agree that
> > > features which don't require pg_dump changes are definitionally le
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Feature work either requires changes to pg_dump, or not. I agree that
> > features which don't require pg_dump changes are definitionally less
> > work than features which do (presuming the rest of the feature i
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 01:26:59PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > I actually don't know which statement above is correct, because of the
> > "forever" maintenance.
>
> I can understand not being sure which is correct, and we can all have
> different poi
Stephen Frost writes:
> Feature work either requires changes to pg_dump, or not. I agree that
> features which don't require pg_dump changes are definitionally less
> work than features which do (presuming the rest of the feature is the
> same in both cases) but that isn't a justification to not
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:56:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The point I was making was that it has value and people did realize it
> > but there's only so many resources to go around when it comes to hacking
> > on PG and therefore it s
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:56:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> The point I was making was that it has value and people did realize it
> but there's only so many resources to go around when it comes to hacking
> on PG and therefore it simply
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:19:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > > I don't think there was enough value to do statistics migration just for
> > > pg_upgrade, but doing it for pg_upgrade and FDWs
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:19:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > I don't think there was enough value to do statistics migration just for
> > pg_upgrade, but doing it for pg_upgrade and FDWs seems like it might
> > have enough demand to justify the requ
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 12:50:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > Isn't this going to create a version dependency that we'll need to deal
> > > with..? What if a newer major version has some kind of improved ANALYZE
>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 12:50:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Isn't this going to create a version dependency that we'll need to deal
> > with..? What if a newer major version has some kind of improved ANALYZE
> > command, in terms of what it looks at or stores, and it's t
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
wrote:
>
> Thanks for this helpful feedback.
>
> I found several threads related to the problem [1-3].
> I agreed that this task needs to implement an API for
> serialization/deserialization of statistics:
> pg_load_relation_statistics(json_string
On 8/29/20 9:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Years ago (when I was still at Salesforce, IIRC, so ~5 years) we had
some discussions about making it possible for pg_dump and/or pg_upgrade
to propagate stats data forward to the new database. There is at least
one POC patch in the archives for doing that by
On 8/29/20 9:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I implemented some FDW + pg core machinery to reduce weight of the problem.
The ANALYZE command on foreign table executes query on foreign server that
extracts statistics tuple, serializes it into json-formatted string and
returns to the caller. The c
Stephen Frost writes:
> Isn't this going to create a version dependency that we'll need to deal
> with..? What if a newer major version has some kind of improved ANALYZE
> command, in terms of what it looks at or stores, and it's talking to an
> older server?
Yeah, this proposal is a nonstarter
Greetings,
* Andrey Lepikhov (a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> During the implementation of sharding related improvements i noticed that if
> we use a lot of foreign partitions, we have bad plans because of vacuum
> don't update statistics of foreign tables.This is done by the ANALYZE
> command
On 7/14/20 6:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Yeah, thinking about it as a function that inspects partial planner
results, it might be useful for other purposes besides postgres_fdw.
As I said before, I don't think this necessarily has
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:28:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Yeah, thinking about it as a function that inspects partial planner
> > results, it might be useful for other purposes besides postgres_fdw.
> > As I said before, I don't think this necessarily has to be bundled as
> > part of postg
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Per postgres_fdw's get_remote_estimate(), the only data we use right now
> >> is the startup_cost, total_cost, rows and width estimates from the
> >> top-level Plan node. Tha
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Per postgres_fdw's get_remote_estimate(), the only data we use right now
>> is the startup_cost, total_cost, rows and width estimates from the
>> top-level Plan node. That's available immediately from the Plan tree,
>> meaning that
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> 2. Wedging this into EXPLAIN would be quite ugly, because (at least
> >> as I envision it) the output would have just about nothing to do with
> >> any existing EXPLAIN output
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> 2. Wedging this into EXPLAIN would be quite ugly, because (at least
>> as I envision it) the output would have just about nothing to do with
>> any existing EXPLAIN output.
> This is a better argument for not making it part of EXPL
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> * Rather than adding a core-server feature, the remote-end part of the new
> >> API should be a function installed by an extension (either postgres_fdw
> >> itself, or a new e
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> * Rather than adding a core-server feature, the remote-end part of the new
>> API should be a function installed by an extension (either postgres_fdw
>> itself, or a new extension "postgres_fdw_remote" or the like).
> I'm trying to
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In <1116564.1593813...@sss.pgh.pa.us> I wrote:
> > I wonder whether someday we ought to invent a new API that's more
> > suited to postgres_fdw's needs than EXPLAIN is. It's not like the
> > remote planner doesn't know the number we want; it jus
32 matches
Mail list logo
