Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> At Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:45:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote
> in <20180925234509.3hrrf6tmvy5tf...@alap3.anarazel.de>
>> On 2018-09-04 18:35:34 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>>> Pack the boolean members in TupleTableSlot into a 16 bit tts_flags.
>>> This reduces the size of
Hi Marina,
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:00:33PM +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote:
> Here there's a 9-th version of the patches for the precalculation of stable
> or immutable functions, stable or immutable operators and other nonvolatile
> expressions. This is a try to execute cached expressions as PAR
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:49:06PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There doesn't seem to have been any progress since this email.
Indeed, none. I am marking it as returned with feedback... The patch
has rotten quite some time ago as well.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 02:21:27AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Attached 18th version of the patches rebased onto the current master.
Nikita, this version fails to apply, as 0004 has conflicts with some
regression tests. Could you rebase? I am moving the patch to CF
2018-11, waiting for your i
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
> tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
> being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
> other database.
I
Hi Tomas,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:14:20AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> OK, here is a version tweaked to use floor()/ceil() instead of round().
> Let's see if the Windows machine likes that more.
The latest patch set does not apply cleanly. Could you rebase it? I
have moved the patch to CF 20
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:00:54PM +0900, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi wrote:
> The libpmem's pmem_map_file() supported 2M/1G(the size of huge page)
> alignment, since it could reduce the number of page faults.
> In addition, libpmem's pmem_memcpy_nodrain() is the function
> to copy data using single instru
Hi John,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:59:03PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> I've attached v4, which is a rebase plus some comment revisions.
v4 does not apply anymore. I am moving this patch to next commit fest,
waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:19:27PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> [ removal of latest arguments ]
> +1, if we could do that.
The patch seems to have stuck a bit, so I am marking it as returned with
feedback because of no activity.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 04:20:15PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> However it would be far better to have a startup parameter which indicated
> that we wanted to connect to a read only database. At that point
> pools could redirect to a secondary. Given the proliferation of cloud based
> implementation
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > I think if we do Analyze on the table after populating rows, it should
> > use just one worker and that should be sufficient to hit the case
> > being discussed. I would like to change the test so that it uses just
> > on
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I believe
>> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
>> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
>> value multiple times. As against that, there's a hazard
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:50 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I looked at this patches. The latest patch can build without any
> > errors and warnings and pass all regression tests. I don't see
> > critical bugs but there are random comments.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, I believe
> >> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
> >> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I think we could drop the savepoint
>> too, no?)
> One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
> explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this
> test.
They'll go away anyway at
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:11 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:53:14PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I agree. Can we fix this simply by the attached patch?
>
> Thanks for sending a patch.
>
> +/* autovacuum cannot be anti-wraparound and not aggressive vacuum */
> +
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (I think we could drop the savepoint
> >> too, no?)
>
> > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
> > explicitly drop the objects which we have c
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:43:09AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Looks like this qual is considered for choosing optimal path before it is
> removed from list of quals in set_append_rel_size.
Hm... The latest reviews have not been addressed yet, so I have marked
this as returned with feedba
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:11:57PM +0300, Michail Nikolaev wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your feedback. I'll try to update patch in few days
> (currently stuck at small performance regression in unknown place).
Okay, it has been more than a couple of days and the patch has not been
updated, so I am ma
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
>> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests
>> later in that script.)
> The function name and statement name seems okay to me. How about
> changing the
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:35:57PM +0800, Haozhou Wang wrote:
> +1, I also think that we may not change the previous behavior of plpython.
> @Nikita Glukhov maybe we just check the
> whether pyobject is int or long only in related conversion functions, and
> fallback otherwise?
This patch was aro
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 09:30:25PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> BTW this commit shows why do this patch is important: 857f9c36 adds new
> option
> for b-tree indexes. But thanks to the StdRdOptions this option will exist for
> no practical use in all heaps that has just any option set to non-
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:00:49AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I might be missing something but I think the setting either 0 or
> negative values to it solves this problem. Since the upto_nchanges is
> int32 we cannot build if somebody reverted
> 0ab9d1c4b31622e9176472b4276f3e9831e3d6ba.
I don
(2018/10/01 21:54), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/10/01 19:42), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I used perform instead of execute since the later is usually
associated with local operation. I added "foreign" in the name of the
function to indi
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:52:40PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, that's due to fd1a421fe66 which changed columns in pg_proc.h.
> Attached is a rebased patch, fixing this.
The latest patch set does not apply anymore, and had no activity for the
last two months, so I am marking it as returned w
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 06:16:17PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> That was the right thing to do, thank you!
This patch has been waiting on author for a couple of months and does
not apply anymore, so I am marking as returned with feedback. If you
can rebase, please feel free to resubmit.
--
Michae
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 01:39:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The point about the header matching mentioned upthread is quite
> interesting as it could make the proposed feature way more useful, and
> it has not really been discussed. As far as I can see this adds more
> sanity checks in Nex
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 05:20:57AM +0200, Mark Rofail wrote:
> I am still having problems rebasing this patch. I can not figure it out on
> my own.
Okay, it's been a couple of months since this last email, and nothing
has happened, so I am marking it as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
signatu
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:50:46PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to add the pointer for [1]:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRfcgwsHRmpvoOK-GUQi-n8MgAS%2BOxcQo%3DaBDn1COywmcg%40mail.gmail.com
OK, thanks for your update!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 01:25:49PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> I'm interested in this feature, so I've signed up to help review.
> Given the above, I thought it appropriate to mark the patch Waiting on
> Author.
I find this feature interesting as well. The patch has been waiting on
author input f
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 08:21:20PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Oh, is that all it does? That's disappointing, because that's a lot less
> powerful than how I understand chained transactions. And at the same time
> relieving, because that's a lot simpler to implement :-).
>
> In Gray & Reute
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:07:33PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> This patch looks good to me. +1; Álvaro, please update the CF entry
> when you're also satisfied.
The patch set does not apply anymore, so I have moved it to next CF,
waiting on author.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:37 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> The other patches in this tarball are all as posted already, but are
> now rebased and assembled in one place. Also pushed to
> https://github.com/macdice/postgres/tree/fsyncgate .
Here is a new version that fixes an assertion failure during
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (But it might be worth choosing slightly less
> >> generic object names, to avoid a conflict against other sub-tests
> >> later in that script.)
>
> > The function name
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 05:52:24PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I attached the updated version patch as the previous versions conflict
> with the current HEAD.
Please note that the latest patch set does not apply anymore, so this
patch is moved to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael
signat
Hi,
The naming around partition related tuple conversions is imo worthy of
improvement.
For building tuple conversion maps we have:
- convert_tuples_by_name
- convert_tuples_by_name_map
- convert_tuples_by_position
- ExecSetupChildParentMapForLeaf
- TupConvMapForLeaf
- free_conversion_map
I've a
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:03:17AM -0300, Matheus de Oliveira wrote:
> You are correct. I have made a test that tries all combinations of ALTER
> CONSTRAINT ON UPDATE/DELETE ACTION, but it caused a really huge output. I
> have changed that to a simple DO block, and still trying all possibilities
>
Bonjour Michaël,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I re-attached the v19 for a check on the list.
You are marked as the committer of this patch in the CF app since last
April and this patch is marked as ready for committer. Are you planning
to look at it soon?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:06:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The ideal scope would be to track all referenced collation versions on
> every index, and only update them at CREATE INDEX or REINDEX time
> (also, as discussed in some other thread, CHECK constraints and
> partition keys might be inva
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:50:23PM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We are already in September, hence it is time to move on with the 2nd
> commit fest for v12. As usual, there are many patches waiting for
> review and integration:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/19/
> With a couple of days of
Hello.
> Okay, it has been more than a couple of days and the patch has not been
> updated, so I am marking as returned with feedback.
Yes, it is more than couple of days passed, but also there is almost no
feedback since 20 Mar after patch design was changed :)
But seriously - I still working on
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:18:01PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'm not sure both styles would be appropriate style in the postgres
> code so I would rather add elog(ERROR) instead. Thought?
My brain is rather fried for the rest of the day... But we could just
be looking at using USE_ASSERT_CH
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
