Another email which went into the wilderness when I sent it to pgsql-patches.
Regards,
Nikhils
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nikhil Sontakke
Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Subject: row estimation off the mark when generate_series calls are involved
To: pgsql-patc...@postgres
Guess no-one got to read this email. I sent it to pgsql-patches
without realizing that it is a dead-list. Shouldn't we atleast bounce
emails back to senders if they send an email to pgsql-patches?
Regards,
NIkhils
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nikhil Sontakke
Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sep 6, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... But now that we have a plan for a less obviously broken costing
>>> approach, maybe we should open the floodgates and allow
>>> materialization
>>> to be considered for
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 17:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
> I will change the error message.
I gave a good deal of t
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> But I'm unsure how that would work. We're talking about the output of
> localeconv(), right? I don't see a version of localeconv() that does
> wide chars anywhere. (You can't just set LC_CTYPE and use the regular
> function - Windows has a separate set of functions for d
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 17:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> > I will change the error message.
>>>
>>> I gave a good deal of thought to trying to figure out a cleaner
>>> solution to this
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> As for updating the size recommendations, the text at
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server has been
> beaten into the status quo by a number of people.
A few other random thoughts on this document:
1. The section on
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Here's a patch to add enable_material, per previous discussion. I
>> still think we should add enable_joinremoval also, but there wasn't a
>> clear consensus for that.
>
>> I'd appreciate it if someone could check this ove
Now I've tested almost all WAL record, including CLOG_TRUNCATE and all
the GIST and GIN-related WALs.
I'm still struggling to find how to have XLOG_HEAP_INIT_PAGE and
XLOG_BTREE_INSERT_META. I'm trying to find how to have these WAL
records but it's a great help if anyone suggests me how.
Thank
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 13:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>> You get a segfault as we try to SvREFCNT_dec(...);
>
> Hmm. I don't see a segfault on my machine, but I agree that this looks
> bogus. I changed it to this order instead:
> [ ... ]
> so as to keep the "state restore" oper
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:22:21PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 13:16 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrot
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 13:16 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Simon Riggs writes:
> > > > > What I'm not clear on is wh
Robert Haas writes:
> Here's a patch to add enable_material, per previous discussion. I
> still think we should add enable_joinremoval also, but there wasn't a
> clear consensus for that.
> I'd appreciate it if someone could check this over for sanity - like,
> did I get all the places where mat
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs writes:
> > > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere
> > > > when only weak-memory
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> If you do:
> # DO $do$ 1; $do$ LANGUAGE plperlu;
> # DO $do$ 1; $do$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> You get a segfault as we try to SvREFCNT_dec(...); for the wrong
> interpreter. To fix push down the restore_context() so that we do the
> above on the correct perl interpreter.
Hmm.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Josh - you may want to add your patch here:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
Added, thanks!
Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
h
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> You know, I've never really understood the difference between these
>> two types of things, or why we need to support both. Which may be
>> just because I'm slow?
>
> Unique constraints are defined by the SQL standard, an
Robert Haas writes:
> You know, I've never really understood the difference between these
> two types of things, or why we need to support both. Which may be
> just because I'm slow?
Unique constraints are defined by the SQL standard, and have a syntax
that can't support a lot of the extensions
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Addressing TODO item "Distinguish between unique indexes and unique
> constraints in \d+" for psql, and picking up from thread:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/8780.1271187...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Attached is a simple patch which
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs writes:
> > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only
> > > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect
> > > mac
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only
> > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect
> > macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i
21 matches
Mail list logo
