Hi
I have to write some filters, and filtering by size is "unfriendly" due
calculation in bytes.
I propose inversion function to pg_size_pretty function - like
pg_human_size.
Usage:
SELECT * FROM pg_class
WHERE pg_table_size(oid) > pg_human_size('2GB');
Ideas, comments?
Regards
Pavel
Hi
2015-11-21 7:09 GMT+01:00 Praveen M :
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to get the schema name of the create function call from the
> parse tree. When I look at the structure of the CreateFunctionStmt , I do
> not see the schemaname information . Can you please help me to understand
> how to extract t
Hi All,
I am trying to get the schema name of the create function call from the
parse tree. When I look at the structure of the CreateFunctionStmt , I do
not see the schemaname information . Can you please help me to understand
how to extract the schema name for the function.
typedef struct Creat
On 2015-11-21 06:52, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 11/20/15 11:12 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote:
Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
January's CF, of course.
I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in
v3, attached.
I t
On 11/19/15 10:47 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
- only superusers?
I would think the owner of the table (index?) should also be able to run
this.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Trebl
On 11/20/15 11:12 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote:
Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
January's CF, of course.
I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in
v3, attached.
I thought there was going to be a not-null
On 11/19/15 7:29 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
Another option is to provide the means for the index scan routines to
>report their progress. Maybe every index AM won't use it, but it'd
>certainly be a lot better than staring at a long_running boolean.
The boolean would be a workaround for sure. I'm al
On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote:
Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
January's CF, of course.
I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in
v3, attached.
.m
*** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
***
*** 182,
On 2015-11-21 06:06, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
January's CF, of course.
What's this do that "count(*) - count(x)" doesn't?
This is sort of a lateral version of count(x); the input is a list of
expressions rather
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
> January's CF, of course.
What's this do that "count(*) - count(x)" doesn't?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make cha
Hello,
Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For
January's CF, of course.
.m
*** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
***
*** 182,188
!Comparison Operators
comparison
--- 182,188
!
Hi Dean,
Here's v2 of the patch. How's this look?
.m
*** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
***
*** 12635,12640 NULL baz(3 rows)
--- 12635,12660
+ single_value
+
+
+ single_value(expression)
+
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > The above two points are for the case if and when extension want to use
> > variable length fields for its private fields.
> > So, nodeAlloc() callback is not a perfect answer for the use case because
> > length of the variable length fi
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> That's what I was asking about. It seemed to me that you were saying
> we could ignore those cases, which doesn't seem to me to be true.
I've been around for long enough to know that there are very few cases
that can be ignored. :-)
>> The
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I would like more opinions on the multipass_warning message. I can
>> write a patch that creates a new system view, detailing how sort were
>> completed, if there is demand.
>
> I thi
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>> I get an error when running pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 9.6-this
>>>
>>> error while copying relation "mediawiki.archive"
>>> ("/
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> The above two points are for the case if and when extension want to use
> variable length fields for its private fields.
> So, nodeAlloc() callback is not a perfect answer for the use case because
> length of the variable length fields shall
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'll now talk about my patch series in general -- the actual
> consequences of not avoiding a single pass merge phase when the master
> branch would have done so.
That's what I was asking about. It seemed to me that you were saying
we cou
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I would like more opinions on the multipass_warning message. I can
> write a patch that creates a new system view, detailing how sort were
> completed, if there is demand.
I think a warning message is a terrible idea, and a system view is
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> As someone pointed out upthread, the final heap truncate phase can take
> arbitrarily long and is outside the scope of lazy_scan_heap() to
> instrument. Perhaps a bool, say, waiting_heap_trunc could be reported for
> the same. Note that, it wo
On 19 November 2015 at 14:57, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On 19 November 2015 at 14:47, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> On 19 November 2015 at 14:18, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Isn't it better to destroy the memory for readers array as that gets
> allocated
> even if there are no workers available for execution?
>
> Attached patch fixes the issue by just destroying readers array.
Well, then you're making ExecGatherS
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> It seems weird to not have a dedicated role for pg_switch_xlog.
> >
> > I didn't add a pg_switch_xlog default role in this patch
Hi Thom,
On 11/18/15 8:54 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 14:41, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:54:59PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
I've certainly had quite the experience as a first-time contributor
working on this patch. Perhaps I bit off more than I should have and I
jan.dirk.zijls...@redwood.com writes:
> [ ALTER COLUMN TYPE leaves inherited constraints in the wrong state ]
Yeah. After perusing this I've become convinced that ALTER TABLE's
approach to rebuilding check constraints is fundamentally misguided.
Rather than using ALTER TABLE ONLY to reconstruct a
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >> Although I'm usually on the side of marking things as extern whenever
> >> we find it convenient, I'm nervous about doing that to
> >> make_canonical_pathkey(), because it has side
> On 2015/11/19 12:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> >> The attached patch is the portion cut from the previous EPQ recheck
> >> patch.
>
> > Thanks, committed.
>
> Thanks, Robert and KaiGai-san.
>
> Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. Here are
On 20 November 2015 at 22:03, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 19 November 2015 at 16:48, konstantin knizhnik <
> k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to use logical replication for implementing multimaster (so all
>> nodes are both sending and receiving changes).
>>
>
> Like http://bd
On 19 November 2015 at 16:48, konstantin knizhnik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to use logical replication for implementing multimaster (so all
> nodes are both sending and receiving changes).
>
Like http://bdr-project.org/ ?
> But there is one "stupid" problem: how to prevent infinite recursion and
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, but I think that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about
> below code in cost_seqscan:
>
> - if (nworkers > 0)
>
> - run_cost = run_cost / (nworkers + 0.5);
>
> + if (path->parallel_degree > 0)
>
> + run_cost = run_cost / (pat
On 2015/11/19 12:32, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
The attached patch is the portion cut from the previous EPQ recheck
patch.
Thanks, committed.
Thanks, Robert and KaiGai-san.
Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. Here are my questions:
* This pa
Hello, KaiGai-san.
Thank you for your reply, and sorry for late response.
I created v3 patch for this feature, and v1 patch for regression tests.
Please find attached.
Reply for your comments is below.
> Overall comments
>
> * I think the enhancement in copyfuncs.c shall be in
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:09:38 -0500
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> wrote:
> > The moving base tranches to shared memory has been discussed many
> > times. The point is using them later in pg_stat_activity and other
> > monitoring views.
>
> I'm not i
Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Drop it?? I think he means "in this initial patch", right Amit L ?
>
> Yes, there was some notion of multi-level partitioning in the earlier
> patch but I removed it from the version I posted on Oct 30. I do
> intend t
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 20 November 2015 at 09:18, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote
>> > wrote:
>> >> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last
>> >>
On 20 November 2015 at 09:18, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last
> >> described though I took a few steps to simplify things. I droppe
On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last
>> described though I took a few steps to simplify things. I dropped the
>> multi-level partitioning bit
>
> Hmm, that doesn't s
On 11/19/15 7:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Of course, something might break if we added a new statement type which
supported RETURNING, but I'm really not worried about that. I'm not dead
set against adding some Assert(IsA()) calls here,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:03:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If SELECT rights are required then apply the SELECT policies, even if
> the actual command is an UPDATE or DELETE. This covers the RETURNING
> case which was discussed previously, so we don't need the explicit check
> for that, and f
39 matches
Mail list logo
