On 2016/02/03 3:31, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Done. Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Pushed, thanks.
Thank you!
I kinda wonder why this struct member has a name that doesn't match the
naming convention in the rest of the struct, and also why isn't it
document
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Done. Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Pushed, thanks.
I kinda wonder why this struct member has a name that doesn't match the
naming convention in the rest of the struct, and also why isn't it
documented in the comment above the struct definition. But that's
On 2016/01/28 18:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2016/01/28 12:13, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea. Most of the time, no system
columns will be present, and we'll just be scanning the Bitmapset
twice rather than once. Sure, that doesn't take many extra
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/01/28 12:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> >I don't think this is a good idea. Most of the time, no system
> >columns will be present, and we'll just be scanning the Bitmapset
> >twice rather than once. Sure, that doesn't take many extra cycles,
> >but if the point of all t
On 2016/01/28 12:13, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
On 2016/01/21 7:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On second thought, I noticed that detecting whether we see a system
column
that way needs more cycles in cases where the reltargetlist
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2016/01/21 7:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>>
>>> On second thought, I noticed that detecting whether we see a system
>>> column
>>> that way needs more cycles in cases where the reltargetlist and the
>>> restriction c
On 2016/01/21 7:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On second thought, I noticed that detecting whether we see a system column
that way needs more cycles in cases where the reltargetlist and the
restriction clauses don't contain any system columns. ISTM that such cases
are rather com
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On second thought, I noticed that detecting whether we see a system column
> that way needs more cycles in cases where the reltargetlist and the
> restriction clauses don't contain any system columns. ISTM that such cases
> are rather common, so I'm inclined to keep that co
On 2016/01/15 19:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2016/01/12 18:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2016/01/12 2:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I wonder,
--- 2166,2213
}
/*
! * If rel is a base relation, detect whether any system columns
are
! * requested from the rel. (If rel i
On 2016/01/12 18:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2016/01/12 2:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I wonder,
--- 2166,2213
}
/*
! * If rel is a base relation, detect whether any system columns
are
! * requested from the rel. (If rel is a join relation,
rel->relid will be
!
On 2016/01/12 2:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I wonder,
--- 2166,2213
}
/*
!* If rel is a base relation, detect whether any system columns are
!* requested from the rel. (If rel is a join relation, rel->relid will
be
!* 0, but there can be no Var in t
I wonder,
> --- 2166,2213
> }
>
> /*
> ! * If rel is a base relation, detect whether any system columns are
> ! * requested from the rel. (If rel is a join relation, rel->relid will
> be
> ! * 0, but there can be no Var in the target list with relid 0, so we
>
On 2015/12/23 2:47, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
Moved to next CF because of a lack of reviews.
Thanks, Michael!
I just took a look at this. I think the basic idea of this patch is
good, but the comments need some work, because they don't reall
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
>> On 2015/07/10 18:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
>>> whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base r
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2015/07/10 18:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
>> whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base relation.
>> Also, I revised other code there a little bit.
>
> A
On 2015/07/10 18:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
> whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base relation.
> Also, I revised other code there a little bit.
Attached is an updated version of the patch. The previous vers
On 2015/08/30 13:06, David Rowley wrote:
It's likely not worth changing if there's cases when it'll be slower,
but curiosity got the better of me and I wondered how extreme a case it
would take to actually see a slowdown, and per my benchmark results the
first used column would have to be about a
On 28 August 2015 at 22:20, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2015/07/22 15:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>
>> On 2015/07/10 21:59, David Rowley wrote:
>
> I just glanced at this and noticed that the method for determining if
>>> there's any system columns could be made a bit nicer.
>>>
>>
> /* Now, are any s
On 2015/07/22 15:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2015/07/10 21:59, David Rowley wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 21:40, Etsuro Fujita mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> wrote:
To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
whether any system columns are requested if scan
On 2015/07/10 21:59, David Rowley wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 21:40, Etsuro Fujita mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> wrote:
To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base relation.
Also, I revised oth
On 10 July 2015 at 21:40, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
> whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base relation.
> Also, I revised other code there a little bit.
>
> For ExecInitForeignScan, I simplified the code there
To save cycles, I modified create_foreignscan_plan so that it detects
whether any system columns are requested if scanning a base relation.
Also, I revised other code there a little bit.
For ExecInitForeignScan, I simplified the code there to determine the
scan tuple type, whith seems to me comple
22 matches
Mail list logo
