Dear hackers Sorry for not replying the patch review. I didn't see the
review until recently as my mail box is full of Postgres mails and I didn't
notice the one for me, my mail box configuration problem. I am still kind
of busy with my university final year project. I shall not have tim
Hi, Dear HackersI need to estimate the hashjoin cost in my research. As the
textbook shows, it is 3(R+S) where R and S are the size of the tablesize of the
two tables, which realistically only considers the cost of IO. But this is
obviously too theoretical. What is the correct way to estimat
> Please add your patch here:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi, Robert
I added it under "Miscellaneous".
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patc
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 05:03:04PM +0800, Qi Huang wrote:
> >> Hi, hackers
> >> I was exporting my project to a patch file. As the patch review
> >> requires,
> >> the patch needs to be in context diff format
> >> (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wik
Hi, hackersI was exporting my project to a patch file. As the patch review
requires, the patch needs to be in context diff format
(http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch). But the git diff exports
in a format similar to unified format. What is everyone doing with patching
now? Is
ct: Re: [HACKERS] Git diff patch in context diff format
> From: robertmh...@gmail.com
> To: huangq...@outlook.com
> CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Qi Huang wrote:
> > Hi, hackers
> > I was exporting my project to a patch file. As t
Hi, hackersI was exporting my project to a patch file. As the patch review
requires, the patch needs to be in context diff format
(http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch). But the git diff exports
in a format similar to unified format. What is everyone doing with patching
curr
Hi,I was doing patch review for patch of "pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks
statistics". https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=885
The mail for the patch work is at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-06/msg01518.php
Following the steps on ht
> [ shrug... ] When you're not showing us exactly what you did, it's hard
> to answer that for sure. But there is some prefiltering logic in
> joinpath.c that you might have to lobotomize too if you want to keep
> known-inferior join paths.
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks, Tom.
Below is what I did
Hi, hackersI modified the code in add_path() a bit so that all the query
path candidates inside pathlist will not be removed and all new path will be
added into the pathlist, thus all path candidates are kept in pathlist. I then
tested a four-relation query. In 9.1.3, I can see thousands of
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:59:51 +0200
> From: s...@keybit.net
> To: robertmh...@gmail.com
> CC: kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov; a...@cybertec.at; j...@agliodbs.com;
> and...@anarazel.de; alvhe...@commandprompt.com;
> heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com; cbbro...@gmail.com;
> neil.con...@gmail.co
Hi, AllThanks for your ideas on the implementation of TABLESAMPLE. I have a
summary below of the high level requirements from the -hacker thread till now.
Please give further comment and if I missed any point, please fell free to add.
1. Build a new type of node, as I should not use SEQSCAN
Thanks for the hackers' support. The discussion on the mailing is quite
encouraging. Expecting to enjoy the 3 months' fun with Postgres. I'm still
under the final period of my university, will participate more after the exams
finish.
Thanks!
Sent from my Windows Phone
__
Hi, Heikki
> 1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
> This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as the
> API, instead of extra SQL syntax.
>
> 2. It's not very useful if it's just a dummy replacement for "WHERE
> random() < ?". It has to be mo
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:45:09 +0300
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample
> From: a...@cybertec.at
> To: cbbro...@gmail.com
> CC: sfr...@snowman.net; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Christopher Browne
> wrote:
> > Well, there may be cases w
> > 2. It's not very useful if it's just a dummy replacement for "WHERE
> > random() < ?". It has to be more advanced than that. Quality of the
> > sample is important, as is performance. There was also an
> > interesting idea of on implementing monetary unit sampling.
>
> In reviewing this, I go
Besides, I saw the Gsoc site editing has been closed. Should I just submit
through this mailing list with attachment?
Best Regards and ThanksHuang Qi VictorComputer Science of National University
of Singapore
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:16:29 +0300
> From: heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com
>
Hi, Heikki Thanks for your advice.I will change my plan accordingly. But
I have a few questions.
> 1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
> This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as the
> API, instead of extra SQL syntax.
>
1. "Th
> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:17:01 -0400
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema
> From: cbbro...@gmail.com
> To: kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
> CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:59 -0400
> From: and...@dunslane.net
> To: alvhe...@commandprompt.com
> CC: t...@sss.pgh.pa.us; robertmh...@gmail.com; huangq...@hotmail.com;
> neil.con...@gmail.com; dan...@heroku.com; j...@agliodbs.com;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gso
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:12:45 -0700> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea
> --- Social Network database schema
> From: neil.con...@gmail.com
> To: huangq...@hotmail.com
> CC: dan...@heroku.com; j...@agliodbs.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> 2012/3/19 Qi
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 3/18/12 8:11 PM, HuangQi wrote:
> >> The implementation seems to be done quite fully. There is even a patch
> >> file. Why is the implementation not added into the release of Postgres? As
> >> so much has already being done, what could
22 matches
Mail list logo
