On 2018/03/03 13:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-02-22 11:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
Attached is an updated version for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating the patch.
>>
>> Committed with a few changes. The big one was that I g
On 2018/03/03 13:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-22 11:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
Attached is an updated version for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating the patch.
>>
>> Committed with a few changes. The big one was
On 2018-02-22 11:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> Attached is an updated version for that.
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> Committed with a few changes. The big one was that I got rid of the
> local variable is_update in Exe
Hi,
On 2018-02-22 11:10:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> Attached is an updated version for that.
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> Committed with a few changes. The big one was that I got rid of the
> local variable is_update i
On 2018/02/23 1:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Attached is an updated version for that.
>>
>> Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> Committed with a few changes. The big one was that I got rid of the
> local variable is_update in ExecSetupPartiti
On 2018/02/23 1:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
Attached is an updated version for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating the patch.
>>
>> Committed with a few changes.
>
> I propose to tweak a few comments to PartitionTupl
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> >> Attached is an updated version for that.
>> >
>> > Thanks for updating the patch.
>>
>> Committed with a few changes.
>
> I propose to tweak a few comments
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> Attached is an updated version for that.
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> Committed with a few changes.
I propose to tweak a few comments to PartitionTupleRouting, as attached.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version for that.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
Committed with a few changes. The big one was that I got rid of the
local variable is_update in ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting. That
saved a level of indentation o
Fujita-san,
On 2018/02/20 19:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/19 13:19), Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached rebased patch.
>
> Thanks for the rebased patch!
>
> One thing I noticed while updating the
> tuple-routing-for-foreign-partitions patch on top of this is: we should
> switch into the per-
(2018/02/19 13:19), Amit Langote wrote:
Attached rebased patch.
Thanks for the rebased patch!
One thing I noticed while updating the
tuple-routing-for-foreign-partitions patch on top of this is: we should
switch into the per-query memory context in ExecInitPartitionInfo.
Attached is an upda
Fujita-san,
On 2018/02/16 19:50, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/16 18:23), Amit Langote wrote:
>> Good idea. Done.
> Thanks. I fixed a typo (s/Converti/Convert/) and adjusted these comments
> a bit further to match the preceding code/comments. Attached is the
> updated version.
Thank you for
(2018/02/16 18:23), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/16 18:12, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
In the patch you added the comments:
+ wcoList = linitial(node->withCheckOptionLists);
+
+ /*
+* Convert Vars in it to contain this partition's attribute numbers.
+* Use the WITH CHECK
Fujita-san,
Thanks for the review.
On 2018/02/16 18:12, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/16 13:42), Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached v9. Thanks a for the review!
>
> Thanks for the updated patch! In the patch you added the comments:
>
> + wcoList = linitial(node->withCheckOptionLists);
>
(2018/02/16 13:42), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/16 12:41, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/16 10:49), Amit Langote wrote:
I think you're right. If node->returningLists is non-NULL at all,
ExecInitModifyTable() would've initialized the needed slot and expression
context. I added Assert()s to t
On 2018/02/16 12:41, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/16 10:49), Amit Langote wrote:
>> I think you're right. If node->returningLists is non-NULL at all,
>> ExecInitModifyTable() would've initialized the needed slot and expression
>> context. I added Assert()s to that affect.
>
> OK, but one thin
(2018/02/16 10:49), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/15 21:10, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
here are some minor comments:
o On changes to ExecCleanupTupleRouting:
- ExecCloseIndices(resultRelInfo);
- heap_close(resultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc, NoLock);
+ if (resultRelInfo)
+ {
+
Fujita-san,
Thanks for the review.
On 2018/02/15 21:10, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/13 10:12), Amit Langote wrote:
>> Updated patch is attached.
>
> Thanks, here are some minor comments:
>
> o On changes to ExecCleanupTupleRouting:
>
> - ExecCloseIndices(resultRelInfo);
> - hea
(2018/02/13 10:12), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/09 21:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
* Please add a brief decsription about partition_oids to the comments for
this struct.
@@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
{
PartitionDispatch *partition_dispatch_info;
int
Fujita-san,
Thanks for the review.
On 2018/02/09 21:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> * Please add a brief decsription about partition_oids to the comments for
>>> this struct.
>>>
>>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
>>> {
>>> PartitionDispatch *partition_dispatch_info;
>
(2018/02/09 14:32), Amit Langote wrote:
I had mistakenly tagged these patches v24, but they were actually supposed
to be v5. So the attached updated patch is tagged v6.
OK.
On 2018/02/07 19:36, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
The code in tupconv_map_for_subplan
(2018/02/08 23:21), Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
if (resultRelInfo == NULL);
{
/* Initialize partition info. */
resultRelInfo = ExecInitPartitionInfo(mtstate,
saved_resultRelIn
Fujita-san,
Thanks a lot for the review.
I had mistakenly tagged these patches v24, but they were actually supposed
to be v5. So the attached updated patch is tagged v6.
On 2018/02/07 19:36, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
>>> The code in tupconv_map_for_subplan(
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> if (resultRelInfo == NULL);
> {
> /* Initialize partition info. */
> resultRelInfo = ExecInitPartitionInfo(mtstate,
> saved_resultRelInfo,
>
(2018/02/07 19:36), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 19:43), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
Here is the updated version that contains two patches as described
above.
Here are some minor comments:
o On changes to ExecInsert
* This might be just my taste, but I t
(2018/02/05 19:43), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
The code in tupconv_map_for_subplan() currently assumes that it can rely
on all leaf partitions having been initialized.
On reflection I noticed this analysis is not 100% correct; I think what
that function actua
On 2018/02/05 19:43, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/02/02 19:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> * In ExecInitPartitionResultRelInfo:
>>> + /*
>>> + * Note that the entries in this list appear in no predetermined
>>> + * order as result of ini
(2018/02/05 14:34), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/02/02 19:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
* ExecInitPartitionResultRelInfo is called from ExecFindPartition, but we
could call that another way; in ExecInsert/CopyFrom we call that after
ExecFindPartition if the partition chosen by ExecFindPartition has no
Fujita-san,
Thank you for the review.
On 2018/02/02 19:56, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/01/30 18:52), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/01/30 18:39), Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Will wait for your comments before sending a new version then.
>>
>> Ok, I'll post my comments as soon as possible.
>
> * Exec
(2018/01/30 18:52), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/01/30 18:39), Amit Langote wrote:
Will wait for your comments before sending a new version then.
Ok, I'll post my comments as soon as possible.
* ExecInitPartitionResultRelInfo is called from ExecFindPartition, but
we could call that another wa
(2018/01/30 18:39), Amit Langote wrote:
Will wait for your comments before sending a new version then.
Ok, I'll post my comments as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Fujita-san,
On 2018/01/30 18:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/01/25 18:52), Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/01/25 18:30, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> The patches apply cleanly and compile successfully, but make check fails
>>> in an assert-enabled build.
>>
>> Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce the failure
(2018/01/25 18:52), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/01/25 18:30, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
The patches apply cleanly and compile successfully, but make check fails
in an assert-enabled build.
Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce the failure with v4 patches I posted
earlier today.
Can you please post the e
(2018/01/25 18:52), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/01/25 18:30, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
The patches apply cleanly and compile successfully, but make check fails
in an assert-enabled build.
Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce the failure with v4 patches I posted
earlier today.
===
A
Fujita-san,
Thanks for the review.
On 2018/01/25 18:30, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/01/25 11:11), Amit Langote wrote:
>> Rebased again.
>
> Thanks for the rebased patch!
>
> The patches apply cleanly and compile successfully, but make check fails
> in an assert-enabled build.
Hmm, I can't see
(2018/01/25 11:11), Amit Langote wrote:
Rebased again.
Thanks for the rebased patch!
The patches apply cleanly and compile successfully, but make check fails
in an assert-enabled build.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
On 2018/01/24 17:25, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/20 7:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I rebased the patches, since they started conflicting with a recently
>>> committed patch [1].
>>
>> I think that my latest commit has managed to break this
On 2018/01/20 7:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I rebased the patches, since they started conflicting with a recently
>> committed patch [1].
>
> I think that my latest commit has managed to break this pretty thoroughly.
I rebased it. Here are
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I rebased the patches, since they started conflicting with a recently
> committed patch [1].
I think that my latest commit has managed to break this pretty thoroughly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise
On 2017/12/19 19:06, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have a patch that rearranges the code around partition tuple-routing,
> such that allocation of per-partition objects (ResultRelInfo,
> TupleConversionMap, etc.) is delayed until a given partition is actually
> inserted into (i.e., a tuple is ro
Hi Ashutosh.
On 2017/12/19 19:12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>
>> * Bulk-inserting 100,000 rows using COPY:
>>
>> copy t1 from '/tmp/t1.csv' csv;
>>
>> * Times in milliseconds:
>>
>> #parts HEADPatched
>>
>> 8458.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>
> * Bulk-inserting 100,000 rows using COPY:
>
> copy t1 from '/tmp/t1.csv' csv;
>
> * Times in milliseconds:
>
> #parts HEADPatched
>
> 8458.301450.875
> 16409.271510.723
> 32
Hi.
I have a patch that rearranges the code around partition tuple-routing,
such that allocation of per-partition objects (ResultRelInfo,
TupleConversionMap, etc.) is delayed until a given partition is actually
inserted into (i.e., a tuple is routed to it). I can see good win for
non-bulk inserts
43 matches
Mail list logo
