Hi,
On 2018-04-13 15:08:30 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think this is a good improvement. On top of that, I propose a new
> file partitioning/partdefs.h with the following approximate contents.
> This reduces cross-inclusion of headers to the minimum. I'm dealing
> with the fallout from this
I think this is a good improvement. On top of that, I propose a new
file partitioning/partdefs.h with the following approximate contents.
This reduces cross-inclusion of headers to the minimum. I'm dealing
with the fallout from this now, will post a complete patch shortly.
/*---
Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/04/13 6:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > After going over your patch, I think you went slightly overboard here.
> > Or maybe not, but this patch is so large that it's hard to form an
> > opinion about it.
>
> It's mostly code movement, but there are some other changes a
On 2018/04/13 3:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> I'm dealing with this now -- will push shortly. The sane thing to do is
>> backpatch my previous memcxt fixes, since your patch introduces a
>> problem that we discussed with that other patch, namely that you would
>> leak the
I wonder what prompted people to #include "catalog/partition.h" in
executor.h.
Amit Langote wrote:
> Anyway, after reading your replies, I thought of taking a stab at unifying
> the partitioning information that's cached by relcache.c.
After going over your patch, I think you went slightly overb
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Amit Langote wrote:
> >> Anyway, after reading your replies, I thought of taking a stab at unifying
> >> the partitioning information that's cached by relcache.c.
> >
> > Wow. Now that's one large patch. I'm going
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm dealing with this now -- will push shortly. The sane thing to do is
> backpatch my previous memcxt fixes, since your patch introduces a
> problem that we discussed with that other patch, namely that you would
> leak the whole memory context if there is a problem while
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> Anyway, after reading your replies, I thought of taking a stab at unifying
>> the partitioning information that's cached by relcache.c.
>
> Wow. Now that's one large patch. I'm going to run with this for HEAD,
> but
Amit Langote wrote:
> Since this bug also exists in the released PG 10 branch, I also created a
> patch for that. It's slightly different than the one for PG 11dev,
> because there were some changes recently to how the memory context is
> manipulated in RelationBuildPartitionKey. That's
> v1-PG1
Amit Langote wrote:
> Anyway, after reading your replies, I thought of taking a stab at unifying
> the partitioning information that's cached by relcache.c.
Wow. Now that's one large patch. I'm going to run with this for HEAD,
but I think we should do a minimal fix for PG10. Did you detect any
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Attached fixes it. It teaches RelationBuildPartitionKey() to use
>>> fmgr_info_cxt and pass rd_partkeycxt to it.
>> The patch is using partkeycxt and not rd_partkeycxt. Probably a typo
Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached fixes it. It teaches RelationBuildPartitionKey() to use
> > fmgr_info_cxt and pass rd_partkeycxt to it.
>
> The patch is using partkeycxt and not rd_partkeycxt. Probably a typo
> in the mail. But a wi
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>
> Attached fixes it. It teaches RelationBuildPartitionKey() to use
> fmgr_info_cxt and pass rd_partkeycxt to it.
The patch is using partkeycxt and not rd_partkeycxt. Probably a typo
in the mail. But a wider question, why that context? I gues
I have added this in the Older Bugs section of open items page.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_11_Open_Items#Older_Bugs
Thanks,
Amit
Hi.
I noticed that RelationBuildPartitionKey() is not doing the right thing
with respect to which context it passes to fmgr.c to set a the (cached)
partition support function's FmgrInfo's fn_mcxt.
I noticed a crash while trying to change partition pruning tests to use
manually created hash operat
15 matches
Mail list logo
