Robert Haas writes:
> Well, on second thought, I'm no longer sure that this approach makes
> sense. I mean, it's obviously wrong for constraint-merging to change
> the validity marking on a constraint, but that does not necessarily
> imply that we shouldn't merge the constraints, does it? I see
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2016/07/22 0:38, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
>>> parent which is then merged with a child table's *not valid* co
At Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:51:53 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> > So, how about splitting the original equalTupleDescs into
> > equalTupleDescs and equalTupleConstraints ?
>
> Actually TupleConstr is *part* of the TupleDesc struct, which the
> relcache.c tries to preserve in *whole* across a relca
Hello,
On 2016/07/26 11:05, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:21:27 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> So, apparently RelationClearRelation() does intend to discard a cached
>> TupleDesc if ccvalid changed in a transaction. Whereas,
>> acquire_inherited_sample_rows() does not seem
Hello,
At Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:21:27 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
<96fb8bca-57f5-e5a8-9630-79d4fc5b2...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2016/07/25 17:18, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >
> > - Remove ccvalid condition from equalTupleDescs() to reduce
> >unnecessary cache invalidation or tup
Hello,
On 2016/07/25 17:18, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> - Remove ccvalid condition from equalTupleDescs() to reduce
>unnecessary cache invalidation or tuple rebuilding.
The following commit introduced the ccvalid check:
"""
commit c31305de5f5a4880b0ba2f5983025ef0210a3b2a
Author: Noah Mis
Hello,
At Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:57:00 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2016/07/25 12:44, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:35:48 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 2016/07/22 17:06, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >>
> >>> By the way I have one question.
> >>>
> >>> Is it an expect
Hello,
On 2016/07/25 12:44, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:35:48 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/07/22 17:06, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>
>>> By the way I have one question.
>>>
>>> Is it an expected configuration where tables in an inheritance
>>> tree has different vali
Hello,
At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:35:48 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
<9733fae3-c32f-b150-e368-a8f87d546...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> On 2016/07/22 17:06, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:10:48 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 2016/07/22 0:38, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 201
Hello,
On 2016/07/22 17:06, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:10:48 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/07/22 0:38, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
pare
Hello,
At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:10:48 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2016/07/22 0:38, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >> Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
> >> parent which is then merged with a child ta
On 2016/07/22 0:38, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
>> parent which is then merged with a child table's *not valid* constraint
>> during inheritance recursion. If merged, the co
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
> parent which is then merged with a child table's *not valid* constraint
> during inheritance recursion. If merged, the constraint is not checked
> for the child data e
On 7/13/16 4:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
parent which is then merged with a child table's *not valid* constraint
during inheritance recursion. If merged, the constraint is not checked
for the child data even though it may ha
14 matches
Mail list logo
