Hi,
I am attaching the updated patch, rebased to 820c03.
On 09.10.2017 13:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Commit c7a9fa399 has added another test on mergeopfamilies. I think
your patch will need to take care of that test.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
As
Hi Alexander,
Commit c7a9fa399 has added another test on mergeopfamilies. I think
your patch will need to take care of that test.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> As discussed earlier, I changed the way we work with mergeopfamilies. I use
> the "is_equality" flag to in
As discussed earlier, I changed the way we work with mergeopfamilies. I
use the "is_equality" flag to indicate whether the clause is an equality
one, and fill mergeopfamilies for both equality and inequality operators.
The updated patch is attached (rebased to 20b6552242).
--
Alexander Kuzmenko
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Jeff, I'm copying you because this is relevant to our discussion about what
> to do with mergeopfamilies when adding new merge join types.
>
> You have renamed RestrictInfo member mergeopfamil
Hi Ashutosh,
Thanks for the review.
*Jeff*, I'm copying you because this is relevant to our discussion about
what to do with mergeopfamilies when adding new merge join types.
You have renamed RestrictInfo member mergeopfamilies as
equivopfamilies. I don't think that's a good name; it doesn't
> On 19 Sep 2017, at 15:18, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
> wrote:
>> Here is a new version of the patch, rebased to 749c7c41 and with some
>> cosmetic changes.
>>
>
> I looked at this patch briefly. This is a useful feature. This isn't a
>
Hi Alexander,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> Here is a new version of the patch, rebased to 749c7c41 and with some
> cosmetic changes.
>
I looked at this patch briefly. This is a useful feature. This isn't a
design level review of the patch. I may get back to that
Here is a new version of the patch, rebased to 749c7c41 and with some
cosmetic changes.
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c b/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c
index d77c2a70e4..
On 16.05.2017 18:57, Robert Haas wrote:
Interesting. I suggest adding this to the next CommitFest.
Thank you, added: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1141/
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> As you know, at this time Postgres cannot perform a full join on a
> comparison clause. For example, if we have two tables with numeric columns
> and run a query like 'select * from t1 full join t2 on t1.a > t2.a', we get
> an error: "F
Hi hackers,
As you know, at this time Postgres cannot perform a full join on a
comparison clause. For example, if we have two tables with numeric
columns and run a query like 'select * from t1 full join t2 on t1.a >
t2.a', we get an error: "FULL JOIN is only supported with merge-joinable
or h
11 matches
Mail list logo
