On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> Patch is switched to "ready for committer".
>
> Committed, thank you
Thanks.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
Patch is switched to "ready for committer".
Committed, thank you
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> Attached the test case I used; removing a batch of old rows from a table
> through an index. Best out of three runs, I get 13.1 seconds versus 15.0
> seconds, which should amount to an improvement of around 12.7%.
Thanks for the test case.
On 2015-11-16 08:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Attached is a patch for being able to do $SUBJECT without a CTE. The
reasons this is better than a CTE version are:
1) It's not obvious why a CTE version works but a plain one doesn't
2) Th
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 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, but I don't see the point.
gram.y has a
On 11/19/15 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Further, if someone's going to add new stuff to PreparableStmt, she should
probably think about whether it would make sense to add it to COPY and CTEs
from day one, too, and in that case not split
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> This was discussed in 2010 when CTEs got the same treatment, and I agree
> with what was decided back then. If someone needs to make PreparableStmt
> different from what COPY and CTEs support, we can split them up. But
> they're completely
On 2015-11-16 08:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Attached is a patch for being able to do $SUBJECT without a CTE. The
reasons this is better than a CTE version are:
1) It's not obvious why a CTE version works but a plain one doesn't
2) Th
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> Attached is a patch for being able to do $SUBJECT without a CTE. The
> reasons this is better than a CTE version are:
>
> 1) It's not obvious why a CTE version works but a plain one doesn't
> 2) This one has less overhead (I measured a ~
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> I can't add this to November's commit fest, but I'm posting this anyway in
> case someone is thinking about implementing this feature.
Note: this one has been added to CF:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/414/
--
Michael
--
Sent via pg
Hi,
Attached is a patch for being able to do $SUBJECT without a CTE. The
reasons this is better than a CTE version are:
1) It's not obvious why a CTE version works but a plain one doesn't
2) This one has less overhead (I measured a ~12% improvement on a
not-too-unreasonable test case)
12 matches
Mail list logo
