On 27 April 2017 at 01:31, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> committed
Great. Thanks!
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
On 4/26/17 04:32, David Rowley wrote:
>> For backpatching to 9.6, I came up with the attached reduced version.
>> Since we don't have add_foreign_grouping_paths() in 9.6, we can omit the
>> refactoring and keep the changes much simpler. Does that make sense?
>
> That makes sense to me. It fixes t
On 26 April 2017 at 02:12, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/24/17 22:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>>> backported to 9.6 as well. Atta
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/24/17 22:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>>> backported to 9.6 as well
On 4/24/17 22:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>> backported to 9.6 as well. Attached is the patch (_96) for 9.6,
>> created by rebasing on
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>> backported to 9.6 as well. Attached is the patch (_96) for 9.6,
>> create
On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
> backported to 9.6 as well. Attached is the patch (_96) for 9.6,
> created by rebasing on 9.6 branch and removing conflict. _v6 is
> appl
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:35 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 13 April 2017 at 11:22, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Is this patch considered ready for review as a backpatch candidate?
>
> Yes, however, the v5 patch is based on master. The v4 patch should
> apply to 9.6. Diffing the two patches I see a
On 13 April 2017 at 11:22, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Is this patch considered ready for review as a backpatch candidate?
Yes, however, the v5 patch is based on master. The v4 patch should
apply to 9.6. Diffing the two patches I see another tiny change to a
comment, of which I think needs re-worde
Is this patch considered ready for review as a backpatch candidate?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
Sorry, here's the right one.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 12 April 2017 at 21:45, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
>>> wrote:
Yes and I also forgot to update the f
On 12 April 2017 at 21:45, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> Yes and I also forgot to update the function prologue to refer to the
>>> fpinfo_o/i instead of inner and outer relations. Attache
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> Yes and I also forgot to update the function prologue to refer to the
>> fpinfo_o/i instead of inner and outer relations. Attached patch
>> corrects it.
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> This seems to
On 10 March 2017 at 17:33, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Yes and I also forgot to update the function prologue to refer to the
> fpinfo_o/i instead of inner and outer relations. Attached patch
> corrects it.
Hi Ashutosh,
This seems to have conflicted with 28b04787. Do you want to rebase, or should I?
Added this to 2017/07 commitfest.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>>>
>>> The new name merge_fdw_options() is shorter than the one I chose, but
>>> we are not exactly merging options for an upper relation since there
>>> isn't the other fpinfo to merge from. But I think we
>>
>> The new name merge_fdw_options() is shorter than the one I chose, but
>> we are not exactly merging options for an upper relation since there
>> isn't the other fpinfo to merge from. But I think we can live with
>> merge_fdw_options().
>
> Perhaps "combine" is a better word? I didn't really s
On 9 March 2017 at 18:06, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the patch attached.
>>
>> Agreed. It seems like a good idea to keep that logic in a single location
>
> Ok.
>
>>
>> I've beaten your patch around a bit and come up with the attached.
>
> The new name merge_fdw_options() is shorter than
>>
>> Here's the patch attached.
>
> Agreed. It seems like a good idea to keep that logic in a single location
Ok.
>
> I've beaten your patch around a bit and come up with the attached.
The new name merge_fdw_options() is shorter than the one I chose, but
we are not exactly merging options for a
On 7 March 2017 at 01:22, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
>> It seems like a much better idea to keep the server option processing
>> in one location, whic
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 21:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita
>>> wrote:
On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
>>>
>>> I looked over yours
On 2017/03/06 21:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
I looked over yours and was surprised to see:
+ /* is_foreign_expr might need server and shippable-extension
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
>>> The attached patch, based on 9.6, fixes the problem by properly
>>> processing the foreign server options in
>>> postgresGetForeignJoinPaths().
>>
On 6 March 2017 at 18:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached patch, based on 9.6, fixes the problem by properly
>> processing the foreign server options in
>> postgresGetForeignJoinPaths().
>
> I think the fix would work well, but another way I think i
On 2017/03/06 11:05, David Rowley wrote:
I've been asked to investigate a case of a foreign join not occurring
on the foreign server as would have been expected.
The attached patch, based on 9.6, fixes the problem by properly
processing the foreign server options in
postgresGetForeignJoinPath
24 matches
Mail list logo
