Hi
2015-12-26 21:44 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
> Hi
>
> 2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
>> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to. This is my first patch trying to do anything
>> with numerics, so please be gentle. I'm sure it's full
>and fetch a number of rows that, by its estimation, would fit in the memory
>available
What's wrong with having size limit in the first place? It seems to
make much more sense.
Vladimir
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Artur Zakirov
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> PostgreSQL has a contrib module named pg_trgm. It is used to the fuzzy text
> search. It provides some functions and operators for determining the
> similarity of the given texts using trigram matching.
>
> At the moment, in pg_tr
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> And the dblink contrib module fails its make check.
Ignore the dblink complaint. It seems to have been some wonky build
issue that is not reproducible.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> What do you think about the attached?
>
> Don't like that as-is, because dropping and re-acquiring the index lock
> presents a race condition: the checks you made m
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> In looking at the exposing pg_controldata as function patch again, it
> struck me that the following output seems wrong:
>
> --
> Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTs: 20257
> Latest checkpoint's newestCommitTs: 84159
> --
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> Finally, completed patch "covering_unique_3.0.patch" is here.
> It includes the functionality discussed above in the thread, regression
> tests and docs update.
> I think it's quite ready for review.
Thanks for the patch.
I get a com
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Have you got numbers showing any actual performance win for postgres_fdw?
>
> For JDBC purposes, it would be nice to have an ability of asking
> backend "to stop fetching if produced more than X MiB of resp
In looking at the exposing pg_controldata as function patch again, it
struck me that the following output seems wrong:
--
Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTs: 20257
Latest checkpoint's newestCommitTs: 84159
--
Those numbers are XIDs, not timestamps. Shouldn't we either
Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> >> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >>> brin_summarize_new_values() does not check that it is called on the
> >>> correct type of index, nor does it check permissions.
> >
> >>
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> brin_summarize_new_values() does not check that it is called on the
>>> correct type of index, nor does it check permissions.
>
>> Yeah, it should have those sanit
Hi
2015-11-19 3:58 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja :
> Hi,
>
> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in
> 5643125e.1030...@joh.to. This is my first patch trying to do anything
> with numerics, so please be gentle. I'm sure it's full of stupid.
>
> January's commit fest, feedback welcome, ya
On 12/23/2015 04:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 05:45 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yeah, the last version of the patch dates of August, and there is
visibly agreement that the information of pg_controldata provided at
>>>
This is great. I got a question, is it possible make btree index to support OR
as well? Is btree supports more invasive, in the sense that we need to do
enhance ScanKey to supports an array of values?
Btree now works by follow: find the max/min tuple which satisfies condtions and
then executes
Hi, Teodor,
This is great. I got a question, is it possible make btree index to
support OR as well? Is btree supports more invasive, in the sense that we
need to do enhance ScanKey to supports an array of values?
Thanks,
Feng
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> I'd like
I wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> Any specific reason why it doesn't spell out typmods in the above detail
>> message?
> * There's a rough policy in the parser to prefer TypeNameToString
> when complaining about a TypeName input, rather than reconstructing
> the type name from the OID. The reas
I'd like to present OR-clause support for indexes. Although OR-clauses could be
supported by bitmapOR index scan it isn't very effective and such scan lost any
order existing in index. We (with Alexander Korotkov) presented results on
Vienna's conference this year. In short, it provides performa
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> brin_summarize_new_values() does not check that it is called on the
>> correct type of index, nor does it check permissions.
> Yeah, it should have those sanity checks...
Yeah, that is absolutely a must-fix.
> What
Andres Freund writes:
> A unportable and easy version of this, actually making sense this time,
> would be to use prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGQUIT). That'd send SIGQUIT to
> backends whenever postmaster dies. Obviously that's not portable
> either - doing this for linux only wouldn't be all that k
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> brin_summarize_new_values() does not check that it is called on the
> correct type of index, nor does it check permissions.
Yeah, it should have those sanity checks... On top of that this is not
a really user-friendly message:
=# select brin_su
On 2015-12-26 12:22:48 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 3) Replace the postmaster_alive_fds socketpair by some other signalling
> > >mechanism. E.g. sending a procsignal to each backend, which sets the
> > >latch and a special flag in the latch structure.
> >
> > And what would send the s
On 2015-12-25 16:29:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > There's a couple solutions I can think of to that problem:
> > 1) Use epoll()/kqueue, or other similar interfaces that don't require
> >re-registering fds at every invocation. My guess is that that'd be
> >desirable
>Have you got numbers showing any actual performance win for postgres_fdw?
For JDBC purposes, it would be nice to have an ability of asking
backend "to stop fetching if produced more than X MiB of response
data".
For small table (4 int4 fields), having decent fetchSize (~1000) makes
result process
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:31:42 -0500, Corey Huinker
> wrote in fh+zueykccdu8p0pproyywlep5obrjkce5o7swqdf...@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Jim Nasby
> wrote:
> >
> > >
Hi
2015-12-23 21:36 GMT+01:00 Daniel Verite :
>Hi,
>
> Here's an updated patch that replaces sorted arrays by AVL binary trees
> when gathering distinct values for the columns involved in the pivot.
> The change is essential for large resultsets. For instance,
> it allows to process a query l
25 matches
Mail list logo
