On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
>> On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Based on your patch, I just improved the doc. For example, I added
>>> the f
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me.
>>
>> Based on your patch, I just improved the doc. For example, I added
>> the following note into the doc.
>>
>> +These functions cannot
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Fujii Masao
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
> On 15/01/2
On 27/01/2016 10:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Fujii Masao
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>>> wrote:
On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>> wrote:
>>> On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
>>>
>>> All looks fin
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
>> On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>>> wrote:
>>
>> All looks fine to me, I flag it as ready for committer.
>
> When I compile
On 20/01/2016 15:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> When I compiled the PostgreSQL with the patch, I got the following error.
> ISTM that the inclusion of pg_am.h header file is missing in ginfast.c.
>
> ginfast.c: In function 'gin_clean_pending_list':
> ginfast.c:980: error: 'GIN_AM_OID' undeclared (fir
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
> On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>> wrote:
>>> On 29/12/2015 00:30, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> I'll prepare a patch for cor
On 15/01/2016 22:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
>> On 29/12/2015 00:30, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I'll prepare a patch for core for the January commitfest, and see if
it flies. If not,
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
> On 29/12/2015 00:30, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll prepare a patch for core for the January commitfest, and see if
>>> it flies. If not, there is always the extension to fall back to.
On 29/12/2015 00:30, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> I'll prepare a patch for core for the January commitfest, and see if
>> it flies. If not, there is always the extension to fall back to.
>
> Here is an updated patch. I've added type and permission
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> I'll prepare a patch for core for the January commitfest, and see if
> it flies. If not, there is always the extension to fall back to.
Here is an updated patch. I've added type and permission checks,
docs, and some regression tests.
Cheer
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On 12 August 2015 at 20:19, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> But where does this belong? Core? Its own separate extension?
>>
>
> I will say core. Gin indexes are in core and i don't see why this
> function shouldn't.
> FWIW, brin indexes has a si
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On 21 November 2015 at 03:54, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> 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.
>
> agreed, that makes sense
On 21 November 2015 at 03:54, Jim Nasby wrote:
> 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.
agreed, that makes sense
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Profes
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 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 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.
>>> > It takes the index name and returns the number of pending l
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.
>> > It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages
>> > deleted.
>>
>> I just noticed that your patc
On 12 August 2015 at 20:19, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> But where does this belong? Core? Its own separate extension?
>
I will say core. Gin indexes are in core and i don't see why this
function shouldn't.
FWIW, brin indexes has a similar function brin_summarize_new_values() in core
--
Jaime Casano
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list.
> > It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages
> > deleted.
>
> I just noticed that your patch uses AccessShareLock on the index. Is
> that okay? I wou
Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list.
> It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages
> deleted.
I just noticed that your patch uses AccessShareLock on the index. Is
that okay? I would have assumed that you'd need Shar
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list.
> It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages
> deleted.
>
> # select * from gin_clean_pending_list('foo_text_array_idx');
> gin_clean_pending_li
I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list.
It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages
deleted.
# select * from gin_clean_pending_list('foo_text_array_idx');
gin_clean_pending_list
278
(1 row)
Tim
24 matches
Mail list logo
