Hi,
On 07/10/2015 10:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in most
cases, because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as explained
in this comment:
...
I've done a bunch of tests, and I do see small (hardly noticeable)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-01 23:32:23 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > We'd need to be triply confident that we know better than the DBA before
> > removing flexibility in back branches.
> > +1 for just changing the default.
>
> I think we do. But I also think
On 2015-07-11 21:09:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Something like the patches attached
Thanks for that!
> could be considered, one is for master
> and REL9_5_STABLE to remove ssl_renegotiation_limit, the second one for
> ~REL9_4_STABLE to change the default to 0.
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/
Hi,
While working on the "IOS with partial indexes" patch, I've noticed a
bit strange plan. It's unrelated to that particular patch (reproducible
on master), so I'm starting a new thread for it.
To reproduce it, all you have to do is this (on a new cluster, all
settings on default):
CREA
On 2015-07-11 14:31:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> While working on the "IOS with partial indexes" patch, I've noticed a bit
> strange plan. It's unrelated to that particular patch (reproducible on
> master), so I'm starting a new thread for it.
>
> To reproduce it, all you have to do is this (on
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>> Well, one could call it premature pessimization due to dynamic call
>> overhead.
>>
>> IMO, the fact that json_out_init_context() sets the value callback to
>> json_out_value is an implementation detail, the other parts of code should
>>
2015-07-11 18:02 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr
:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Well, one could call it premature pessimization due to dynamic call
>>> overhead.
>>>
>>> IMO, the fact that json_out_init_context() sets the value callback to
>>> json_out_value is
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-07-11 14:31:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> While working on the "IOS with partial indexes" patch, I've noticed a bit
>> strange plan. It's unrelated to that particular patch (reproducible on
>> master), so I'm starting a new thread for it.
> It's indeed interesti
On Jul 11, 2015 6:19 PM, "Pavel Stehule" wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-07-11 18:02 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <
oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
Well, one could call it premature pessimization due to dynamic call
overhead.
2015-07-11 19:57 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr
:
> On Jul 11, 2015 6:19 PM, "Pavel Stehule" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015-07-11 18:02 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <
> oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
>
> Well, one cou
The two contrib modules this patch added are nowhere near fit for public
consumption. They cannot clean up after themselves when dropped:
regression=# create extension tsm_system_rows;
CREATE EXTENSION
regression=# create table big as select i, random() as x from
generate_series(1,100) i;
SE
On 07/11/2015 06:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
...
Presumably, this is happening because the numbers of rows actually
satisfying the index predicates are so small that it's a matter of
luck whether any of them are included in ANALYZE's sample.
Given this bad data for the index sizes, it's not totally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2015 06:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:08:53PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 07/03/2015 10:03 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> (1) CreatePolicy() and AlterPolicy() omit to call
>>> assign_expr_collations() on the node trees.
>
Tomas Vondra writes:
> So I think the predicate proofing is a better approach, but of course
> the planning cost may be an issue. But maybe we can make this cheaper by
> some clever tricks? For example, given two predicates A and B, it seems
> that if A => B, then selectivity(A) <= selectivity(
Hi,
On 07/11/2015 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
So I think the predicate proofing is a better approach, but of
course the planning cost may be an issue. But maybe we can make
this cheaper by some clever tricks? For example, given two
predicates A and B, it seems that if A => B
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>> > On 6/22/15 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> Currently, the only time we report a pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
