On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> In my opinion, for the very limited ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING + no
>> inference specification case, the implementation should not care about
>> the presence or absence of unique indexes
Hi Fabien,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:07 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Please find attached a new version which fixes these two points.
Indeed it does. Marking the patch ready for a committer.
Thanks,
♜
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes t
Hi Fabien,
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Find attached a new version:
> - fix dropped percent computation in the final report
> - simplify progress report code
I have reviewed this patch.
Is the patch in a patch format which has context?
Yes.
Does it apply cleanly
Greetings,
Based on the feedback on my previous patch, I've separated only the
LIMIT part into its own feature. This version plays nicely with
inheritance. The intended use is splitting up big UPDATEs and DELETEs
into batches more easily and efficiently.
♜
*** a/doc/src/sgml/ref/delete.sgml
--
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> IMHO this needs to work with inheritance if we are to accept it. It would be
> a rather strange limitation for no apparent reason, other than that we
> didn't bother to implement it. It doesn't seem very difficult in theory to
> add the
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The $64 question is whether we'd accept an implementation that fails
> if the target table has children (ie, is partitioned). That seems
> to me to not be up to the project's usual quality expectations, but
> maybe if there's enough demand for a
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Tom Lane has explained these problems in a very clear manner
>> in his below mail and shared his opinion about this feature as
>> well.
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26819.1291133...@sss
Oops. Of course shouldn't try and change how INSERT works. Latest version
attached.
♜
update_delete_order_by_limit_v2.diff
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref
Hi,
Here's an updated patch. I had to push the LIMIT processing into ModifyTable
to make the behaviour sane in parallel scenarios. As usual, please ignore if
you're busy with 9.4. I will work on better docs and more tests from now on
and am preparing to make a solid case for adding this.
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:57:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
I think you should describe what the patch does, why you believe the
feature is necessary, and perhaps how it compares to other, similar
things. You have documentation changes here, but that doesn't really
tell us why this is imp
Hello hackers,
I know you're busy wrapping up the 9.4 release, so please ignore this patch.
♜
update_delete_order_by_limit_v0.diff
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
