On Tue, 31 May 2022 09:49:40 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 05:08:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Partitions have also some coverage as far as I can see, so I agree
> > that it makes little sense to keep the tests you are removing here.
>
> And done as of 0efa513.
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 05:08:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Partitions have also some coverage as far as I can see, so I agree
> that it makes little sense to keep the tests you are removing here.
And done as of 0efa513.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 05:25:43PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> --- TRUNCATE doesn't work on foreign tables, either directly or recursively
> -TRUNCATE ft2; -- ERROR
> -ERROR: foreign-data wrapper "dummy" has no handler
> -TRUNCATE fd_pt1; -- ERROR
> -ERROR: foreign-data wrapper "dummy" has no h
Hello,
I found that tests for TRUNCATE on foreign tables are left
in the foreign_data regression test. Now TRUNCATE on foreign
tables are allowed, so I think the tests should be removed.
Currently, the results of the test is
"ERROR: foreign-data wrapper "dummy" has no handler",
but it is just
On 2021/04/27 15:02, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:19 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
In docs v4 patch, I think we can combine below two lines into a single line:
+ supported by the foreign data wrapper,
see .
You mean "supported by the foreign data wrapper "?
I was th
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:19 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> > In docs v4 patch, I think we can combine below two lines into a single line:
> > + supported by the foreign data wrapper,
> > see .
>
> You mean "supported by the foreign data wrapper linkend="postgres-fdw"/>"?
>
> I was thinking that
On 2021/04/26 13:52, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:50 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for the review! I fixed this.
Thanks for the updated patches.
In docs v4 patch, I think we can combine below two lines into a single line:
+ supported by the foreign data wrapper,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:50 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for the review! I fixed this.
Thanks for the updated patches.
In docs v4 patch, I think we can combine below two lines into a single line:
+ supported by the foreign data wrapper,
see .
Other than the above minor change, both pat
On 2021/04/23 19:56, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:39 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
+
+ Note that information about ONLY options specified
+ in the original TRUNCATE command is not passed to
I think it is not "information about", no? We just don't pass ONLY
option i
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:39 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> > +
> > + Note that information about ONLY options specified
> > + in the original TRUNCATE command is not passed to
> >
> > I think it is not "information about", no? We just don't pass ONLY
> > option instead we skip it. IMO, we c
On 2021/04/22 20:27, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:06 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
On 2021/04/22 9:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
One comment on truncate_foreign_table_docs_v1.patch:
1) I think it is "to be truncated"
+ rels is a list of Relation
+ data structures for ea
On 2021/04/22 17:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:36:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
index 553524553b..69aa66e73e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
@@ -1076,27
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:41:06AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > > > + Note that ONLY option specified in
> > >
> > > add "the" to say: "the ONLY"
> >
> > +1.
>
> Since 'the only option' is legitimate English phrase, I think the following
> would be clearer:
>
> Note that the option ONLY ...
I t
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:39 AM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:26 PM Justin Pryzby
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:36:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhand
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 05:09:02PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > should it say "specified" instead of requested ?
> > Or should it say "requested the RESTART IDENTITY behavior" ?
> >
> > Also, I think it should say "..otherwise, the CONTINUE IDENTITY behavior was
> > requested".
>
> The orig
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:26 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:36:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> > index 553524553b..69aa66e73e 100644
> > --- a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/f
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:06 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> On 2021/04/22 9:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > One comment on truncate_foreign_table_docs_v1.patch:
> > 1) I think it is "to be truncated"
> > + rels is a list of Relation
> > + data structures for each foreign table to truncated.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 03:36:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> index 553524553b..69aa66e73e 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml
> @@ -1076,27 +1076,25 @@ ExecForeignTruncate(List
On 2021/04/22 9:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
One comment on truncate_foreign_table_docs_v1.patch:
1) I think it is "to be truncated"
+ rels is a list of Relation
+ data structures for each foreign table to truncated.
Fixed. Thanks!
How about a slightly changed phrasing like below?
+
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:31 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> Applied. Attached is the updated version of the patch
> (truncate_foreign_table_dont_pass_only_clause_v2.patch).
> This patch includes the patch that Horiguchi-san posted upthead.
> I'm thinking to commit this patch at first.
+1.
> > 2) Instea
On 2021/04/16 15:13, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:24 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
We are still discussing whether RESTRICT option should be pushed down to
a foreign data wrapper. But ISTM at least we could reach the consensus about
the drop of extra information for each foreign
On 2021/04/16 14:20, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:54:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
On 2021/04/16 9:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:19 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
On 2021/04/14 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
IMHO, we can push all the TRUNCATE options
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:24 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> We are still discussing whether RESTRICT option should be pushed down to
> a foreign data wrapper. But ISTM at least we could reach the consensus about
> the drop of extra information for each foreign table. So what about applying
> the attached
At Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:54:16 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> On 2021/04/16 9:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:19 PM Fujii Masao
> > wrote:
> >> On 2021/04/14 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >>> IMHO, we can push all the TRUNCATE options (ONLY, RESTRICTED, CASCADE,
> >>
On 2021/04/16 9:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:19 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/14 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
IMHO, we can push all the TRUNCATE options (ONLY, RESTRICTED, CASCADE,
RESTART/CONTINUE IDENTITY), because it doesn't have any major
challenge(impleme
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:19 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/14 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > IMHO, we can push all the TRUNCATE options (ONLY, RESTRICTED, CASCADE,
> > RESTART/CONTINUE IDENTITY), because it doesn't have any major
> > challenge(implementation wise) unlike pushing some cla
On 2021/04/14 13:41, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:17:55 +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote in
Please assume the internal heap data is managed by PostgreSQL core, and
external data source is managed by postgres_fdw (or other FDW driver).
TRUNCATE command requires these object manage
On 2021/04/14 12:54, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
IMHO, we can push all the TRUNCATE options (ONLY, RESTRICTED, CASCADE,
RESTART/CONTINUE IDENTITY), because it doesn't have any major
challenge(implementation wise) unlike pushing some clauses in
SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE and we already do this on the ma
At Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:17:55 +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote in
> 2021年4月14日(水) 0:00 Fujii Masao :
> >
> > On 2021/04/13 23:25, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > > 2021年4月13日(火) 21:03 Bharath Rupireddy
> > > :
> > >> Yeah, ONLY clause is not pushed to the remote server in case of SELECT
> > >> commands. This is
2021年4月14日(水) 0:00 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/13 23:25, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > 2021年4月13日(火) 21:03 Bharath Rupireddy
> > :
> >> Yeah, ONLY clause is not pushed to the remote server in case of SELECT
> >> commands. This is also true for DELETE and UPDATE commands on foreign
> >> tables.
>
> This
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:30 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/13 23:25, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > 2021年4月13日(火) 21:03 Bharath Rupireddy
> > :
> >> Yeah, ONLY clause is not pushed to the remote server in case of SELECT
> >> commands. This is also true for DELETE and UPDATE commands on foreign
> >>
On 2021/04/13 23:25, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2021年4月13日(火) 21:03 Bharath Rupireddy :
Yeah, ONLY clause is not pushed to the remote server in case of SELECT
commands. This is also true for DELETE and UPDATE commands on foreign
tables.
This sounds reasonable reason why ONLY should be ignored in T
2021年4月13日(火) 21:03 Bharath Rupireddy :
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:37 PM Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Here are two points to discuss.
> >
> > Regarding to the FDW-APIs, yes, nobody can deny someone want to implement
> > their own FDW module that adds special handling when its foreign table
> > is sp
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:37 PM Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Here are two points to discuss.
>
> Regarding to the FDW-APIs, yes, nobody can deny someone want to implement
> their own FDW module that adds special handling when its foreign table
> is specified
> with ONLY-clause, even if we usually ignore.
2021年4月13日(火) 16:17 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/13 14:22, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Let me remind the discussion at the design level.
> >
> > If postgres_fdw (and other FDW drivers) needs to consider whether
> > ONLY-clause is given
> > on the foreign tables of them, what does a foreign table repres
At Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:17:12 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
>
> On 2021/04/13 14:22, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Let me remind the discussion at the design level.
> > If postgres_fdw (and other FDW drivers) needs to consider whether
> > ONLY-clause is given
> > on the foreign tables of them, what d
On 2021/04/13 14:22, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Let me remind the discussion at the design level.
If postgres_fdw (and other FDW drivers) needs to consider whether
ONLY-clause is given
on the foreign tables of them, what does a foreign table represent in
PostgreSQL system?
My assumption is, a forei
On 2021/04/13 12:46, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:38:35PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
+ Relation data structures for each
+ foreign tables to be truncated.
"foreign tables" should be "foreign table" because it follows "each"?
Yes, you're right.
+
+ behavi
2021年4月9日(金) 23:49 Kohei KaiGai :
>
> 2021年4月9日(金) 22:51 Fujii Masao :
> >
> > On 2021/04/09 12:33, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > > 2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao :
> > >>
> > >> On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still
> > >>>
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:38:35PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + Relation data structures for each
> + foreign tables to be truncated.
>
> "foreign tables" should be "foreign table" because it follows "each"?
Yes, you're right.
> +
> + behavior is either
> + DROP_RESTRICT or
On 2021/04/13 10:21, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
I agree to convert to bits and pass it as int value which is
extensible i.e. we can pass more extra parameters across if required.
Looks good to me.
Also I'm not in favour of removing relids_extra altogether, we might
need this to send some in
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:27 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 03:45:36PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:47 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Also, you currently test:
> > > > + if (extra & TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY)
> > >
> > > but TRUNCAT
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 03:45:36PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:47 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Also, you currently test:
> > > + if (extra & TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY)
> >
> > but TRUNCATE_REL_ aren't indepedent bits, so shouldn't be tested with "&".
>
>
On 2021/04/09 23:10, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:06 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> 4. Tab-completion for TRUNCATE should be updated so that also foreign
tables are displayed.
It will be good to have.
Patch attached.
Tab completion patch LGTM and it works as ex
On 2021/04/11 19:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:47 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
Find attached language fixes.
Thanks for the patches.
Thanks for the patches!
0001 patch basically looks good to me.
+ behavior must be specified as
+ DROP_RESTRICT or DROP_CASCAD
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:47 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Find attached language fixes.
Thanks for the patches.
> I'm also proposing to convert an if/else to an switch(), since I don't like
> "if/else if" without an "else", and since the compiler can warn about missing
> enum values in switch cases
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:14:17PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > > Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based
> > > on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still
> > > passed to FDW. What about c
2021年4月9日(金) 22:51 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/09 12:33, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > 2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao :
> >>
> >> On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still
> based on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is,
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:06 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > 2. Currently when the same foreign table is specified multiple times
> > in the command, the extra information only for the foreign table found
> > first is collected. For example, when "TRUNCATE ft, ONLY ft" is executed,
> > TRUNCATE
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:06 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > 4. Tab-completion for TRUNCATE should be updated so that also
> > foreign tables are displayed.
> >
> > It will be good to have.
>
> Patch attached.
Tab completion patch LGTM and it works as expected.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupired
On 2021/04/09 12:33, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao :
On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on
the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still passed
to FDW. What about
On 2021/04/09 11:05, Zhihong Yu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy mailto:bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:44 PM Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote:
> The followings are the open items and discussion po
2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based
> >> on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still
> >> passed to FDW. What about committing this version at fir
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:44 PM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > The followings are the open items and discussion points that I'm
> thinking of.
> >
> > 1. Currently the extra information (TRUNCATE_REL_CONT
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:44 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> The followings are the open items and discussion points that I'm thinking of.
>
> 1. Currently the extra information (TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL,
> TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY or TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING) about how a
> foreign table was sp
Fujii-san,
> >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based
> >> on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still
> >> passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can
> >> continue the discussion and change the behav
On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on
the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still passed
to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can continue the
discussion and cha
2021年4月8日(木) 18:25 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/08 15:48, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > 2021年4月8日(木) 15:04 Fujii Masao :
> >>
> >> On 2021/04/08 13:43, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> >>> In case when a local table (with no children) has same contents,
> >>> TRUNCATE command
> >>> witll remove the entire table con
On 2021/04/08 18:25, Fujii Masao wrote:
Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on
the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still passed
to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can continue the
discussion and chan
On 2021/04/08 15:48, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2021年4月8日(木) 15:04 Fujii Masao :
On 2021/04/08 13:43, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
In case when a local table (with no children) has same contents,
TRUNCATE command
witll remove the entire table contents.
But if there are local child tables that inherit the
2021年4月8日(木) 15:04 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/08 13:43, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > In case when a local table (with no children) has same contents,
> > TRUNCATE command
> > witll remove the entire table contents.
>
> But if there are local child tables that inherit the local parent table, and
> TRU
On 2021/04/08 13:43, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
In case when a local table (with no children) has same contents,
TRUNCATE command
witll remove the entire table contents.
But if there are local child tables that inherit the local parent table, and TRUNCATE
ONLY is executed, only the contents in th
2021年4月8日(木) 11:44 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/08 10:56, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > 2021年4月8日(木) 4:19 Fujii Masao :
> >>
> >> On 2021/04/06 21:06, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> >>> Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
> >>>
> 1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are settin
On 2021/04/08 10:56, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2021年4月8日(木) 4:19 Fujii Masao :
On 2021/04/06 21:06, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are setting them
but we only use TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY. If not use
2021年4月8日(木) 4:19 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/06 21:06, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> > Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
> >
> >> 1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are setting them
> >> but we only use TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY. If not used, can we remove
> >> them?
>
On 2021/04/06 21:06, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are setting them
but we only use TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY. If not used, can we remove
them?
These may be needed for the foreign data handler ot
> One minor thing - I think "mixtured" is not the
> correct word in "+-- partition table mixtured by table and foreign
> table". How about something like "+-- partitioned table with both
> local and foreign table as partitions"?
Sure. I've fixed this.
> The v15 patch basically looks good to me. I
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:15 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> I've checked v15 patch with "make check-world" and confirmed this passed.
Thanks for the patch. One minor thing - I think "mixtured" is not the
correct word in "+-- partition table mixtured by table and foreign
table". How about something l
I've attached v15.
> I still feel that the above bunch of code is duplicate of what
> do_sql_command function already has. I would recommend that we just
> make that function non-static(it's easy to do) and keep the
> declaration in postgres_fdw.h and use it in the
> postgresExecForeignTruncate.
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:36 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
>
> Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
cfbot failure on v14 - https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4772360931770368.
Looks like it is not related to this patch, please re-confirm it.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http:/
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:36 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
>
> Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
>
> > 1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are setting them
> > but we only use TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY. If not used, can we remove
> > them?
>
> These may be needed for the
Thank you for checking v13, and here is v14 patch.
> 1) Are we using all of these macros? I see that we are setting them
> but we only use TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY. If not used, can we remove
> them?
These may be needed for the foreign data handler other than postgres_fdw.
> 2) Why is this chan
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:47 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
>
> > Did you check that hash_destroy is not reachable when an error occurs
> > on the remote server while executing truncate command?
>
> I've checked it and hash_destroy doesn't work on error.
>
> I just adding elog() to check this:
> + elog(
> Did you check that hash_destroy is not reachable when an error occurs
> on the remote server while executing truncate command?
I've checked it and hash_destroy doesn't work on error.
I just adding elog() to check this:
+ elog(NOTICE,"destroyed");
+ hash_destroy(ft_htab);
Then I've checked by t
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 7:38 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> > 3) I think we need truncatable behaviour that is consistent with updatable.
>
> It's not correct. "truncatable" option works the same as "updatable".
> I've confirmed that the table can be truncated with the combination:
> truncatable on th
Thank you for your comments.
I've attached v13.
> Here are some more comments on the v12 patch:
> I still don't understand why we need sum(id), not count(*). Am I
> missing something here?
The value of "id" is used for checking whether correct records are
truncated or not.
For instance, on "trunc
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 10:23 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> Sure. I've replaced with the test command "SELECT * FROM ..." to
> "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ..."
> However, for example, the "id" column is used to check after running
> TRUNCATE with ONLY clause to the inherited table.
> Thus, I use "sum(id)"
Thank you for checking v11!
I've updated it and attached v12.
> I usually follow these steps:
> 1) write code 2) git diff --check (will give if there are any white
> space or indentation errors) 3) git add -u 4) git commit (will enter a
> commit message) 5) git format-patch -1 <> -v
> <> 6) to app
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 12:00 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> > 5) Can't we use do_sql_command function after making it non static? We
> > could go extra mile, that is we could make do_sql_command little more
> > generic by passing some enum for each of PQsendQuery,
> > PQsendQueryParams, PQsendQueryPr
Oops... sorry.
I haven't merged my working git branch with remote master branch.
Please check this v11.
2021年4月4日(日) 23:56 Bharath Rupireddy :
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 12:48 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> >
> > v9 has also typo because I haven't checked about doc... sorry.
>
> I think v9 has some
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 12:48 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
>
> v9 has also typo because I haven't checked about doc... sorry.
I think v9 has some changes not related to the foreign table truncate
feature. If yes, please remove those changes and provide a proper
patch.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/p
2021年4月4日(日) 13:07 Bharath Rupireddy :
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that
> > the search would be more efficient:
>
> Generally, sequential search would be slower if there are many entries
> in a list.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu wrote:
> w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that the
> search would be more efficient:
Generally, sequential search would be slower if there are many entries
in a list. Here, the use case is to store all the foreign tabl
Continuing previous review...
+ relids_extra = lappend_int(relids_extra,
TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__CASCADED);
I wonder if TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING is better
than TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__CASCADED. Note the removal of the extra
underscore.
In English, we say: truncation cascading to f
Hi,
+ TRUNCATE for each foreign server being involved
+ in one TRUNCATE command (note that invocations
The 'being' in above sentence can be omitted.
+ the context where the foreign-tables are truncated. It is a list of
integers and same length with
There should be a verb between 'and
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 7:16 PM Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
>
> Sorry but I found the v7 patch has typo and it can't be built...
> I attached fixed one(v8).
Thanks for the patch. Here are some comments on v8 patch:
1) We usually have the struct name after "+typedef struct
ForeignTruncateInfo", please r
Sorry but I found the v7 patch has typo and it can't be built...
I attached fixed one(v8).
2021年4月3日(土) 9:53 Kazutaka Onishi :
>
> All,
>
> Thank you for discussion.
> I've updated the patch (v6->v7) according to the conclusion.
>
> I'll show the modified points:
> 1. Comments for ExecuteTuncate()
All,
Thank you for discussion.
I've updated the patch (v6->v7) according to the conclusion.
I'll show the modified points:
1. Comments for ExecuteTuncate()
2. Replacing extra value in frels_extra with integer to label.
3. Skipping XLOG_HEAP_TRUNCATE on foreign table
Regards,
2021年4月2日(金) 11:44
On 2021/04/02 9:37, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
It is fair enough for me to reverse the order of actual truncation.
How about the updated comments below?
This is a multi-relation truncate. We first open and grab exclusive
lock on all relations involved, checking permissions (local databas
2021年4月1日(木) 18:53 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/04/01 0:09, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > What does the "permission checks" mean in this context?
> > The permission checks on the foreign tables involved are already checked
> > at truncate_check_rel(), by PostgreSQL's standard access control.
>
> I meant tha
On 2021/04/01 0:09, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
What does the "permission checks" mean in this context?
The permission checks on the foreign tables involved are already checked
at truncate_check_rel(), by PostgreSQL's standard access control.
I meant that's the permission check that happens in the r
2021年3月30日(火) 2:53 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/03/28 2:37, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> > Fujii-san,
> >
> > Thank you for your review!
> > Now I prepare v5 patch and I'll answer to your each comment. please
> > check this again.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> > 5. For example, we can easily do that by truncate f
On 2021/03/30 10:11, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2021年3月30日(火) 3:45 Fujii Masao :
On 2021/03/28 2:37, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
Fujii-san,
Thank you for your review!
Now I prepare v5 patch and I'll answer to your each comment. please
check this again.
m(_ _)m
1. In postgres-fdw.sgml, "and truncatabl
2021年3月30日(火) 3:45 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/03/28 2:37, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
> > Fujii-san,
> >
> > Thank you for your review!
> > Now I prepare v5 patch and I'll answer to your each comment. please
> > check this again.
> > m(_ _)m
> >
> > 1. In postgres-fdw.sgml, "and truncatable" should be ap
2021年3月30日(火) 2:54 Fujii Masao :
>
> On 2021/03/29 13:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:53:14AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> I understand the motivation of this. But the other DMLs like UPDATE also
> >> do the same thing for foreign tables? That is, when those DML commands
On 2021/03/28 2:37, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
Fujii-san,
Thank you for your review!
Now I prepare v5 patch and I'll answer to your each comment. please
check this again.
m(_ _)m
1. In postgres-fdw.sgml, "and truncatable" should be appended into the
above first description?
2. truncate.sgml shou
On 2021/03/29 13:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:53:14AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I understand the motivation of this. But the other DMLs like UPDATE also
do the same thing for foreign tables? That is, when those DML commands
are executed on foreign tables, their change
On 2021/03/28 2:37, Kazutaka Onishi wrote:
Fujii-san,
Thank you for your review!
Now I prepare v5 patch and I'll answer to your each comment. please
check this again.
Thanks a lot!
5. For example, we can easily do that by truncate foreign tables
before local ones. Thought?
Umm... yeah, I
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:53:14AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I understand the motivation of this. But the other DMLs like UPDATE also
> do the same thing for foreign tables? That is, when those DML commands
> are executed on foreign tables, their changes are WAL-logged in a publisher
> side,
> e
On 2021/03/29 9:31, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Fujii-san,
XLOG_HEAP_TRUNCATE record is written even for the truncation of
a foreign table. Why is this necessary?
Foreign-tables are often used to access local data structure, like
columnar data files
on filesystem, not only remote accesses like pos
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
