On 20/06/18 16:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:32:58PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
Just a minor nit in the last sentence:
"have to be from" -> "must be from / must belong to"
I think that both have the same meaning, but I am no native speaker so I
may be missing a nuance o
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:32:58PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Just a minor nit in the last sentence:
>
> "have to be from" -> "must be from / must belong to"
I think that both have the same meaning, but I am no native speaker so I
may be missing a nuance of some kind.
--
Michael
signature.asc
On 2018/06/20 10:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:26:56PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I was under the impression that this was implied in the precious
>>> phrasing but you guys visibly don't match with my impres
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:26:56PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I was under the impression that this was implied in the precious
>> phrasing but you guys visibly don't match with my impression. So I
>> would suggest this paragraph at th
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that this was implied in the precious
> phrasing but you guys visibly don't match with my impression. So I
> would suggest this paragraph at the end:
> "Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same part
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:50:44PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> +
> +
> +
> + Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree
> + is not allowed. Hence, if the root partitioned table is permanent,
>
> Do we want to mention "root" explicitly here?
Yes,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:27:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Looking at what changed from my patch:
>>
>> -One cannot have both temporary and permanent relations in a given
>> -partition tree. That is, if the root partitioned t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:27:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Looking at what changed from my patch:
>
> -One cannot have both temporary and permanent relations in a given
> -partition tree. That is, if the root partitioned table is permanent,
> -so must be its partitions at all lev
On 2018/06/19 14:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:56:49AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/06/18 15:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Those tests should be upper-case I think to keep consistency with the
>>> surrounding code.
>>
>> As you may have seen in the changed code,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:56:49AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/06/18 15:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Those tests should be upper-case I think to keep consistency with the
>> surrounding code.
>
> As you may have seen in the changed code, the guard in MergeAttributes
> really just checks
Hello.
On 2018/06/18 15:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:27:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/06/17 22:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Which checks do you think are missing other than those added by the
>> proposed patch?
>
> I was just wondering how this reacted if
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:27:51PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/06/17 22:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Which checks do you think are missing other than those added by the
> proposed patch?
I was just wondering how this reacted if trying to attach a foreign
table to a partition tree which is
Hi.
On 2018/06/17 22:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:38:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Rowley writes:
>>> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
in which all the rels are temp tables of
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:38:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
>>> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
>>> have to disallow is
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
>> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
>> have to disallow is (a) temp/permanent mixes and (b) temp tables from
>> different s
On 15 June 2018 at 02:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
> in which all the rels are temp tables of the current session. What we
> have to disallow is (a) temp/permanent mixes and (b) temp tables from
> different sessions.
So, this used to w
On 2018/06/14 22:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
>> I'm attaching a patch here to forbid adding a temporary table as partition
>> of permanent table. I didn't however touch the feature that allows *all*
>> members in a partition tree to be temporary tables
On 2018/06/14 23:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>> If I am reading Tom's reply upthread correctly, we should not allow
>> creating a temporary partitioned table as well as temporary partitions
>> altogether.
>
> I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
> i
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> If I am reading Tom's reply upthread correctly, we should not allow
> creating a temporary partitioned table as well as temporary partitions
> altogether.
I think that if possible, we should still allow a partitioned table
in which all the rels are temp tables of the curr
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2018/06/14 11:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:25:23PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 8:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Even if you want to argue that there's a use case for these situations,
it se
On 2018/06/13 21:06, David Rowley wrote:
> There's also something pretty weird around the removal of the temp
> relation from the partition bound. I've had cases where the session
> that attached the temp table is long gone, but \d+ shows the table is
> still there and I can't attach another partit
On 2018/06/14 11:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:25:23PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 8:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Even if you want to argue that there's a use case for these situations,
>>> it seems far too late in the release cycle to be trying to fix al
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:25:23PM +0530, amul sul wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 8:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Even if you want to argue that there's a use case for these situations,
>> it seems far too late in the release cycle to be trying to fix all these
>> issues. I think we need to forbid the
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 8:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> > [ lots o' problems with $subject ]
>
> > But a larger question is what use such temporary partitions are?
> > Should we just prohibit adding temporary partitions to a permanant
> > partitioned table? We should allow addin
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> [ lots o' problems with $subject ]
> But a larger question is what use such temporary partitions are?
> Should we just prohibit adding temporary partitions to a permanant
> partitioned table? We should allow adding temporary partitions to a
> temporary partitioned table i
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:36 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems temp tables with partitioned tables is not working correctly.
> 9140cf8269b0c has not considered that in build_simple_rel() an
> AppendRelInfo could be missing due to it having been skipped in
> expand_partitioned_rtentry()
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
