Hi Peter,
On 2019/01/26 17:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 25/01/2019 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> committed
>>
>> Some of the buildfarm members are having sort-ordering problems
>> with this. Looks like you could work around it with different
>> partition names (don't
On 25/01/2019 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> committed
>
> Some of the buildfarm members are having sort-ordering problems
> with this. Looks like you could work around it with different
> partition names (don't assume the relative sort order of
> letters and digits).
Fixe
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:14:33PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> The describe lines are there just to show that the stored expessions are
> not verbatim same as the input expressions, so it seemed an overkill to add
> them for all of the partitions.
I see, so per 7c079d7 this is the reason why show
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:01 Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 03:14:51AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > How about replacing \d+ list_parted with couple of \d on individual
> > partitions, like in the attached?
>
> That would make it. Why just part_1 and part_3 though? It
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 03:14:51AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> How about replacing \d+ list_parted with couple of \d on individual
> partitions, like in the attached?
That would make it. Why just part_1 and part_3 though? It looks more
complete to add part_null and part_2 as well.
--
Michael
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:19 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > committed
>
> Some of the buildfarm members are having sort-ordering problems
> with this. Looks like you could work around it with different
> partition names (don't assume the relative sort order of
> letters and d
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> committed
Some of the buildfarm members are having sort-ordering problems
with this. Looks like you could work around it with different
partition names (don't assume the relative sort order of
letters and digits).
regards, tom lane
On 24/01/2019 13:57, Amit Langote wrote:
> The if (contain_var_clause(value)) block is new code, but I agree its
> ereport should have parser_errposition just like other ereports in that
> function. Fixed that in the attached.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.co
Hi,
Thanks for looking.
On 2019/01/24 21:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why did you lose the parser_errposition in parse_utilcmd.c line 3854?
>
>> -/* Fail if we don't have a constant (i.e., non-immutable coercion) */
>> -if (!IsA(value, Const))
>> +/* Make sure the expression does not
Why did you lose the parser_errposition in parse_utilcmd.c line 3854?
> - /* Fail if we don't have a constant (i.e., non-immutable coercion) */
> - if (!IsA(value, Const))
> + /* Make sure the expression does not refer to any vars. */
> + if (contain_var_clause(value))
>
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks for checking.
On 2019/01/24 19:03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:50:56 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2019/01/18 16:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
How about the following note in the documentation:
+ Although volatile expressions such a
Hello.
At Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:50:56 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> On 2019/01/18 16:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> How about the following note in the documentation:
> >>
> >> + Although volatile expressions such as
> >> + CURRENT_TIMESTAMP can be
> >
Thanks for the comments.
On 2019/01/18 16:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> How about the following note in the documentation:
>>
>> + Although volatile expressions such as
>> + CURRENT_TIMESTAMP can be used
>> + for this, be careful when using them, because
>> + PostgreSQL will e
On 16/01/2019 08:41, Amit Langote wrote:
> OK, will change it back to partition_bound_expr. Removing "bound" from it
> makes the term ambiguous?
Yeah, let's leave it in.
> How about the following note in the documentation:
>
> + Although volatile expressions such as
> + CURRENT_TIMEST
Thanks for the review.
On 2019/01/15 22:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 15/01/2019 07:31, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Is "partition bound" the right term? For list partitioning, it's not
>>> really a bound. Maybe it's OK.
>>
>> Hmm, maybe "partition bound value"? Just want to stress that the
>> ex
On 15/01/2019 07:31, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Is "partition bound" the right term? For list partitioning, it's not
>> really a bound. Maybe it's OK.
>
> Hmm, maybe "partition bound value"? Just want to stress that the
> expression specifies "bounding" value of a partition.
I was more concerned a
Thanks for the review and sorry it took me a while to reply.
On 2019/01/02 22:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 26/11/2018 05:58, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/11/09 14:38, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Rebased due to change in addRangeTableEntryForRelation's API.
>>
>> Rebased again due to changes in p
On 26/11/2018 05:58, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/11/09 14:38, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Rebased due to change in addRangeTableEntryForRelation's API.
>
> Rebased again due to changes in psql's describe output for partitioned tables.
Review:
Is "partition bound" the right term? For list partition
On 2018/11/09 14:38, Amit Langote wrote:
> Rebased due to change in addRangeTableEntryForRelation's API.
Rebased again due to changes in psql's describe output for partitioned tables.
Thanks,
Amit
>From 999aa53b459a6fc0fe899e613406f0e0035aca94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Dat
Rebased due to change in addRangeTableEntryForRelation's API.
Thanks,
Amit
>From 2c9bd7d17abea93001c923ac200c560417cd39a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:05:22 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v6] Allow generalized expression syntax for partition bounds
Authors: Ky
Horiguchi-san,
On 2018/07/06 14:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hello.
>
> cf-bot compained on this but I wondered why it got so many
> errors. At the first look I found a spare semicolon before a bare
> then calause:p
>
>> -if (!IsA(value, Const));
>> +if (!IsA(value, Const))
>>
Hello.
cf-bot compained on this but I wondered why it got so many
errors. At the first look I found a spare semicolon before a bare
then calause:p
> - if (!IsA(value, Const));
> + if (!IsA(value, Const))
> elog(ERROR, "could not evaluate partition bound expression");
The at
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks a lot for the review and sorry it took me a while to reply.
Thought I'd refresh the patch as it's in the July CF.
On 2018/04/24 18:08, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Thanks. I have almost missed this.
>
> At Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:44:14 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/04/23
Thanks. I have almost missed this.
At Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:44:14 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2018/04/23 11:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I tried to update the patch to do things that way. I'm going to create a
> > new entry in the next CF titled "generalized expression syntax for
> > parti
On 2018/04/23 11:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> I tried to update the patch to do things that way. I'm going to create a
> new entry in the next CF titled "generalized expression syntax for
> partition bounds" and add the patch there.
Tweaked the commit message to credit all the authors.
Thanks,
Amit
(patch and discussion for PG 12)
On 2018/04/22 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> [ v8-0001-Allow-generalized-expression-syntax-for-partition.patch ]
>
> I find what you did to a_expr here to be pretty horrid.
Thanks for the review.
> I think what you should do is lose the partboun
26 matches
Mail list logo
