On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:56 PM Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> > > psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option 11
> > > Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
> > >
> > > This got committed and reverted once already. I have to be
> > > suspicious of whether this is a good desig
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:12:49AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 03:14:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Here's what I found, along with some commentary about each one.
> >
> > Patch Age in CFs
> >
> > Protect syscache from bloating with negative
On 10/5/21 4:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Fair. My concern here is mostly that we not just keep kicking the
>>> can down the road. If we see that a patch has been hanging around
>>> thi
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 7:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> It sounds like Peter is willing to take point on the executor end
> of things (b-tree in particular). If he can explain what a reasonable
> cost model would look like, I'm willing to see about making that happen
> in the planner.
I would be happy
Stephen Frost writes:
> Entirely agree with this. Index skip scan is actually *ridiculously*
> useful in terms of an improvement, and we need to get the right people
> together to work on it and get it implemented. I'd love to see this
> done for v15, in particular. Who do we need to coordinate
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Fair. My concern here is mostly that we not just keep kicking the
> > can down the road. If we see that a patch has been hanging around
> > this long without reaching commit, we should either
Op 04-10-2021 om 14:19 schreef Andrew Dunstan:
On 10/3/21 3:56 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
Patch Age in CFs
May I
On 10/3/21 16:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Index Skip Scan 16
Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot
Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress.
This feature is definitely useful. My pet theory is that it hasn't
made more progress because it requi
Hi,
On 10/3/21 16:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Index Skip Scan 16
Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot
Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress.
This feature is definitely useful. My pet theory is that it hasn't
made more progress because it
On 10/3/21 3:56 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
>> As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
>> oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
>> on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
>> sho
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 03:14:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
[...]
>
> Here's what I found, along with some commentary about each one.
>
> Patch Age in CFs
>
> Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries23
> Last substantive discussion 2021-01, currently passing cfb
Hello Tom,
As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
should stop pushing them forward to the next CF.
psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS opt
ne 3. 10. 2021 v 22:16 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Erik Rijkers writes:
> > Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
> >> I looked at entries that are at least 10 CFs old, as indicated by
> >> the handy sort field. That's a pretty small population: 16 items
> >> out of the 317 listed in the 2
Hi
schema variables, LET command 18
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
>
> Seems to be actively worked on, but is it ever going to get
> committed?
>
>
This patch was originally very dirty with a strange design - something
between command and q
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, perhaps. You're right that the classification might be slippery.
> I do feel it's useful to distinguish "this is a bad idea overall,
> we don't want to see follow-on patches" from "this needs work, please
> send a follow-on patch when you've do
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps we should create a new closure state?
> I'd rather go in the opposite direction here: merge "Rejected" and
> "Returned with Feedback" into a single "Patch Returned" category
> (without adding a third category).
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> An important note to make here is that we don't have any explicit
> mechanism for saying "sorry, this patch is perhaps useful but it
> seems that nobody is going to take an interest in it". Closing
> such a patch as "rejected" seems harsh, but R-W
Erik Rijkers writes:
> Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
>> I looked at entries that are at least 10 CFs old, as indicated by
>> the handy sort field. That's a pretty small population: 16 items
>> out of the 317 listed in the 2021-09 CF. A quick look in recent
>> CFs shows that it's very
Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
should stop pushing them forward to the next CF.
An impo
As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
should stop pushing them forward to the next CF.
An important note to make here is that we don't ha
20 matches
Mail list logo
