anly
on top of current master.
Thanks,
Ilya Gladyshev
On 01.11.2021 13:30, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Peter Eisentraut писал 2021-11-01 12:47:
On 21.10.21 12:55, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Now aggregates with internal states can be pushed down, if they are
marked as pushdown safe (this flag is set to true for min/max/sum),
have internal states and a
> 14 марта 2023 г., в 18:34, Justin Pryzby написал(а):
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:42:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Justin Pryzby writes:
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 06:25:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I agree that adding such a field to IndexStmt would be a very bad idea.
However
> 16 марта 2023 г., в 04:07, Justin Pryzby написал(а):
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:58:14PM +0400, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
>>> The only change from the current patch is (3). (1) still calls
>>> count_leaf_partitions(), but only once. I'd prefer that to rearra
> Could you check what I've written as a counter-proposal ?
I think that this might be a good solution to start with, it gives us the
opportunity to improve the granularity later without any surprising changes for
the end user. We could use this patch for previous versions and make more
granul
On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 22:43 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:39:23PM +0400, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
> >
> > > Could you check what I've written as a counter-proposal ?
> >
> > I think that this might be a good solution to start with,
partitioned tables" patch,
> which I think is otherwise done.
I suggest that we move on with the IndexStmt patch and see what the
committers have to say about it. I have brushed the patch up a bit,
fixing TODOs and adding docs as per our discussion above.
From 490d8afa7cb952e5b3947d8
Hi,
I used backtrace_functions to debug one of my ideas and found its behavior
counter-intuitive and contradictory to it own docs. I think the GUC is supposed
to be used to dump backtrace only on elog(ERROR) (should it also be done for
higher levels? not sure about this), but, in fact, it does t
and understand,
whether this is a welcome feature, before proceeding with all of the
abovementioned.
Thanks,
Ilya Gladyshev
From 2cb72df03ed94d55cf51531a2d21a7d3369ae27b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 17:47:49 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] postgres_fdw libpq binar
> 22 нояб. 2022 г., в 17:10, Ashutosh Bapat
> написал(а):
>
> Hi Illya,
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:50 PM Ilya Gladyshev
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I have made a patch that introduces support for libpq binary protocol
>> in
ink that fixing
this problem requires some heavy code rewrite and I'm not quite sure
how to go about it, if you have any ideas, I will be happy to try them
out.
Thanks,
Ilya
From 8eb9fd7ce7d34c5c323c47b60a7f883f360ef090 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 18:20
On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 13:09 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> This beavior is fixed. I re-factored and re-implented to use
> DefineIndex() for building indexes concurrently rather than
> reindexing.
> That makes the patch smaller, actually, and has the added benefit of
> splitting off the "Concurre
rrent behaviour to report the total number of partitions in
the inheritance tree and fixed recursion in the attached patch. I used
a static variable to keep the counter to avoid ABI breakage of
DefineIndex, so that we could backpatch this to previous versions.
Thanks,
Ilya Gladyshev
> 17 янв. 2023 г., в 23:44, Tomas Vondra
> написал(а):
> Do we actually need the new parts_done field? I mean, we already do
> track the value - at PROGRESS_CREATEIDX_PARTITIONS_DONE index in the
> st_progress_param array. Can't we simply read it from there? Then we
> would not have ABI issues w
> 1 февр. 2023 г., в 08:29, Justin Pryzby написал(а):
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:32:20PM +0400, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
>>> 17 янв. 2023 г., в 23:44, Tomas Vondra
>>> написал(а):
>>> Do we actually need the new parts_done field? I mean, we
> 1 февр. 2023 г., в 16:01, Alvaro Herrera написал(а):
>
> Hmm, count_leaf_partitions has to scan pg_inherits and do a syscache
> lookup for every single element therein ... this sounds slow.
>
> In one of the callsites, we already have the partition descriptor
> available. We could just scan
> 1 февр. 2023 г., в 20:27, Matthias van de Meent
> написал(а):
>
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 16:53, Justin Pryzby <mailto:pry...@telsasoft.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:21:35PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Feb
On Sun, 2022-10-30 at 16:52 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-28, ilya.v.gladys...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This will cause a segfault or raise an assert, because inserting
> > into
> > foreign tables via logical replication is not possible. The
> > solution I
> > propose is to add recursiv
ted
>
>
> Regards,
> Shi yu
I have verified that the current patch handles the attaching of new
partitions to the target partitioned table by throwing an error on
attempt to insert into a foreign table inside the logical replication
worker. I have refactored the code to minimize cache l
n
the previous patch, I think we can just use it. Attached a separate
patch with the refactoring.
From 004c63a8eba777be739f062cdc9b7ddcf2eac253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 11:39:24 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] Delay namespace and relname lookups until error
---
ate should be replaced with
a foreign delete + local/foreign insert. In addition, a direct
update should be forbidden when the query modifies the partition
key. I’m probably missing a lot of details (feel free to point out), but is the general idea correct? I will be grateful for any
now
what the community thinks about the patch.
Regards,
Ilya Gladyshev
>From 3ffbe071480672189c2e03d7e54707c77ba58b0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:37:31 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] adds per query FDW network usage stats
Adds means for collecting network
On 24.08.2021 12:19, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
However I'm not sure that having a new "network" option is the best
way for that. It seems confusing as IIUC it won't be catching all
network activity (like fe/be activity, or network disk...) but only
FDW activity. I think it would be better to have
On 28.05.2024 07:05, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Ilya Gladyshev писал(а) 2024-05-28 02:52:
Also I'd like to note that in new patch version there's a strange
wording in documentation:
"This can be very convenient as not only will all existing
partitions be
indexed, but any fu
On 15.06.2024 20:40, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:14:57PM +0100, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
Hi,
I think it's well worth the effort to revive the patch, so I rebased it on
master, updated it and will return it back to the commitfest. Alexander,
Justin feel free to add yours
counters.
> 11 июля 2024 г., в 13:31, Justin Pryzby написал(а):
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 07:56:38PM +0100, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
>> In addition, I noticed that progress tracking is once again broken for
>> partitioned tables, while looking at REINDEX implementation, attachin
ge-id/55cfae76-2ffa-43ed-a7e7-901bffbebee4%40gmail.com
From 18baa028e1cc5c39347b9126ec1a96eb99e8e3e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:48:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] make REINDEX track partition progress
---
src/backend/catalog/index.c | 11 --
src/ba
last version of the relevant patch here
to avoid any confusion.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b72f2d89-820a-4fa2-9058-b155cf646f4f%40gmail.com
From acf5cf5d4a984c0f8635a25e03c23409601c0c93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 18:13:41 +0100
Subject
ba70febc32017bc04c0a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Gladyshev
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 18:13:41 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] Allow CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned table
---
doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml | 7 +-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml | 14 +-
src/backe
On 24.05.2024 10:04, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Ilya Gladyshev писал(а) 2024-05-24 00:14:
Hi,
Hi.
I think it's well worth the effort to revive the patch, so I rebased
it on master, updated it and will return it back to the commitfest.
Alexander, Justin feel free to add yourselv
LGTM in general, but here are some final nitpicks:
+ if (maxFd != 0)
+ (void) select(maxFd + 1, &input_mask, &output_mask,
&except_mask, NULL);
It’s a good idea to check for the return value of select, in case it returns
any errors.
+ dbs_complete++;
+
On 01.09.2024 22:05, Nathan Bossart wrote:
I think we can actually just use PQstatus() here. But furthermore, I think
the way I was initiating connections was completely bogus. IIUC before
calling PQconnectPoll() the first time, we should wait for a write
indicator from select(), and then we s
19 июля 2024 г., в 04:17, Michael Paquier
написал(а):
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:07:49PM +0100, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
While working on CIC for partitioned tables [1], I noticed that
REINDEX for
partitioned tables is not tracking keeping progress of partitioned
tables,
so I'm creat
Gladyshev написал(а):19 июля 2024 г., в 04:17, Michael Paquier написал(а):On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:07:49PM +0100, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:While working on CIC for partitioned tables [1], I noticed that REINDEX forpartitioned tables is not tracking keeping progress of partitioned tables,so I'm creat
>
Hi,
Thank you for addressing this issue!
The patch needs to be rebased as it doesn’t apply on master anymore, but here
are some thoughts on the patch in general without testing:
1. Regarding the approach to force a checkpoint on every restartpoint record, I
wonder if it has any performan
25 июля 2024 г., в 09:55, Michael Paquier
написал(а):
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 11:41:43AM +0100, Ilya Gladyshev wrote:
Forgot to update partition_relid in reindex_index in the second
patch. Fixed in attachment.
relid oid
- OID of the table on which the index is
On 22.07.2024 21:07, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
However, while looking into this, I noticed that only one get_query
callback (get_db_subscription_count()) actually customizes the generated
query using information in the provided DbInfo
On 01.08.2024 22:41, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Here is a new patch set. Besides rebasing, I've added the recursive call
to process_slot() mentioned in the quoted text, and I've added quite a bit
of commentary to async.c.
That's much better now, thanks! Here's my code review, note that I
haven't t
38 matches
Mail list logo
