On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 04:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, if we're to start taking joins on TID seriously, we should also
> add the missing hash opclass for TID, so that you can do hash joins
> when dealing with a lot of rows.
>
> (In principle this also enables things like hash aggregation, though
>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 03:14:36PM +, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Here's a patch that does this (and in passing alphabetises the list of
>> options).
>
> Cool, thanks. The position of the option list is fine. However
> list_TABLEOPTIONS is not a name consist
Hi,
I have added it to the commitfest now:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/21/1944/
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 08:28:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:16:16PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It adds an (now mandatory) --action parameter that takes either verify,
> >
> It is far from a premature optimization IMO, it is super useful and something
> I was hoping would happen ever since I heard about transition tables being
> worked on.
Me too. Never-ending DELETEs are a common pain point especially for
people migrated from MySQL which creates indexes for fore
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 04:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, if we're to start taking joins on TID seriously, we should also
>> add the missing hash opclass for TID, so that you can do hash joins
>> when dealing with a lot of rows.
> I don't think we are trying to do TID joins mor
John Naylor writes:
> Using a single file also gave me another idea: Take value and category
> out of ScanKeyword, and replace them with an index into another array
> containing those, which will only be accessed in the event of a hit.
> That would shrink ScanKeyword to 4 bytes (offset, index), fu
Hi,
On 2018-12-22 12:20:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Naylor writes:
> > Using a single file also gave me another idea: Take value and category
> > out of ScanKeyword, and replace them with an index into another array
> > containing those, which will only be accessed in the event of a hit.
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-12-22 12:20:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I like that idea a *lot*, actually, because it offers the opportunity
>> to decouple this mechanism from all assumptions about what the
>> auxiliary data for a keyword is.
> OTOH, it doubles or triples the number of cachelin
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 16:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm thinking about in this thread is joins on TID, which we have only
> very weak support for today --- you'll basically always wind up with a
> mergejoin, which requires full-table scan and sort of its inputs. Still,
> that's better than a n
On 14/12/2018 20:20, John Naylor wrote:
I signed up to be a reviewer, and I will be busy next month, so I went
ahead and fixed the typo in the patch that broke assert-enabled
builds. While at it, I standardized on the spelling "start_ptr" in a
few places to match the rest of the file. It's a bit
On 14/12/2018 23:40, John Naylor wrote:
I just noticed that the contrib/citext test fails. I've set the status
to waiting on author.
Hmm, it works for me. What failure did you see?
- Heikki
On 23/12/2018 02:28, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14/12/2018 23:40, John Naylor wrote:
I just noticed that the contrib/citext test fails. I've set the status
to waiting on author.
Hmm, it works for me. What failure did you see?
Never mind, I'm seeing it now, with assertions enabled. Thanks,
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 01:33:23PM +, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> The CREATE and ALTER TABLE documentation calls them storage parameters,
> so I've gone for table_storage_parameters in the attached v2 patch.
Sold. And committed.
>> Reordering them is a good idea, log_autovacuum_min_dur
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 08:28:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> There are two discussion points which deserve attention here:
>> 1) Do we want to rename pg_verify_checksums to something else, like
>> pg_checksums. I like a lot if
On 23/12/2018 02:32, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 23/12/2018 02:28, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14/12/2018 23:40, John Naylor wrote:
I just noticed that the contrib/citext test fails. I've set the status
to waiting on author.
Hmm, it works for me. What failure did you see?
Never mind, I'm
After running a testing server out of storage, I tried to track down why it
was so hard to get it back up again. (Rather than what I usually do which
is just throwing it away and making the test be smaller).
I couldn't start a backend because it couldn't write the relcache init file.
I found thi
Hi,
On 2018-12-22 20:49:58 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> After running a testing server out of storage, I tried to track down why it
> was so hard to get it back up again. (Rather than what I usually do which
> is just throwing it away and making the test be smaller).
>
> I couldn't start a backend
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 8:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-12-22 20:49:58 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > After running a testing server out of storage, I tried to track down why
> it
> > was so hard to get it back up again. (Rather than what I usually do
> which
> > is just throwing it
18 matches
Mail list logo
