Attached fixes a typo:
/* the extra unit accounts for the autovacuum launcher */
MaxBackends = MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1 +
- +max_worker_processes;
+ max_worker_processes;
Thanks,
Amit
typo.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers maili
Hi Ildar,
On 2016/02/29 7:14, Ildar Musin wrote:
> 16/02/16 07:46, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/02/16 11:41, Josh berkus wrote:
>>> We're not going to use CE for the new partitioning long-term, are we? This
>>> is just the first version, right?
>> Ye
Hi Thomas,
On 2016/02/29 15:20, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks for looking at the patch! Here is a new version with the
> following changes:
>
> 1. Some draft user documentation has been added, as requested.
Just to clarify, in:
+ servers. A transaction that is run with
causal_reads s
Hi,
On 2016/02/29 18:05, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> + servers. A transaction that is run with
>> causal_reads set
>> + to on is guaranteed either to see the effects of all
>> + completed tran
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:28 AM, wrote:
>> Thank you for your comments.
>> Please find attached patch addressing following comments.
>
> I'm positive I've said this at least once before while reviewing this
> patch, and I think more than once:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> So, I took the Vinayak's latest patch and rewrote it a little
...
> I broke it into two:
>
> 0001-Provide-a-way-for-utility-commands-to-report-progres.patch
> 0002-Implement-progress-reporting-for-VACUUM-command.patch
Oo
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks a lot for taking a look!
On 2016/03/07 13:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:41:29 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> So, I took the Vinayak's latest patch and rewrote it a littl
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks for a quick reply, :)
On 2016/03/07 18:18, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:16:30 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/03/07 13:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>> The 0001-P.. adds the following interface functions.
>>>
>>&
On 2016/03/07 19:11, Amit Langote wrote:
> we should re-introduce[1] a fixed-size char st_progress_message[] field.
Sorry, that [1] does not refer to anything, just a leftover from my draft.
I thought I had a link handy for an email where some sort of
justification was given as to
Hi Corey,
Sorry for replying so late.
On 2016/02/25 3:31, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
[ ... ]
> So I would assume that we'd use a syntax that presumed the columns were in
> a composite range type.
>
> Which means your creates would look like (following Robert Haas's implied
> suggestion that we l
On 2016/03/07 23:48, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> The 0001-P.. adds the following interface functions.
>>
>> +extern void pgstat_progress_set_command(BackendCommandType cmdtype);
>> +extern void pgstat_progress_set_command_target(Oid objid);
>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This patch has been worked on by so many people and reviewed by so
> many people that I can't keep track of who should be credited when it
> gets committed. Could someone provide a list of author(s) and
> reviewer(s)?
Original authors are Rah
Hi,
On 2016/03/09 9:17, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for replying so late.
> No worries! We have jobs to do aside from this.
Thanks!
>> Everything seemed to go dandy until I tried FOR VALUES (blah , blah],
>> where psql wouldn't send the command string without accepting the closing
>> paren
On 2016/03/09 0:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Updated versions attached.
>>
>> * changed st_progress_param to int64 and so did the argument of
>> pgstat_progress_update_param(). Likewise changed param1..param10 o
and, ah, I forgot to add myself as a
> reviewer. I have also reviewed this for last few CFs.
>
> So, as looking into CF app, it seems not so inconsistent with the
> persons who appears in this thread for thses three CFs.
>
> Authors: Vinayak Pokale, Rahila Syed, Amit Langote
&g
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks for the review!
On 2016/03/08 18:19, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> Updated versions attached.
>>
>> * changed st_progress_param to int64 and so did the argument of
>> pgstat_progress_update_param(). Likewise changed param1..param10 of
>> pg_stat_get_progress_info()'s output
> On 2016/03/08 18:19, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> + WHEN 0 THEN 100::numeric(5, 2)
>> + ELSE ((S.param3 + 1)::numeric / S.param2 *
>> 100)::numeric(5, 2)
>>
>> This usage of numeric seems overkill to me.
>
> Hmm, how could this rather be written?
OK, ag
On 2016/03/09 10:11, Amit Langote wrote:
> The attached revision addresses above and one of Horiguchi-san's comments
> in his email yesterday.
I fixed one more issue in 0002 per Horiguchi-san's comment. Sorry about
so many versions.
Thanks,
Amit
>From 9473230af72e0a0e3b60a
On 2016/03/10 2:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/03/09 10:11, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> The attached revision addresses above and one of Horiguchi-san's comments
>>> in his email yesterday.
>>
>&g
On 2016/03/10 14:29, Amit Langote wrote:
> I rebased remainder patches (attached).
>
> 0001 is a small patch to fix issues reported by Tomas and Vinayak. 0002
> and 0003 are WIP patches to implement progress reporting for vacuum.
Oops, in 0002, I wrongly joined with pg_class in th
Hi Vinayak,
Thanks for the quick review!
On 2016/03/10 16:22, poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
>> On 2016/03/10 14:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Updated patches attached.
> In 0002-
[ snip ]
> I think we need to use datid instead of datname.
> Robert added datid in pg_stat_ge
Hi,
Thanks for the report.
On 2016/03/10 18:05, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hello
>
> I noticed:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b6fb6471f6afaf649e52f38269fd8c5c60647669
>
> ... that comments for procedures pgstat_progress_update_param and
> pgstat_progr
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:42 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> The one reason that I asked about force_parallel_mode was that I
>> assumed there was some buildfarm member running somewhere that
>> switches this on and runs the regression tests. I
On 2016/03/10 23:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Hi Vinayak,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick review!
>
> Committed 0001 earlier this morning.
Thanks!
> On 0002:
>
> + /* total_index_blks */
>
On 2016/03/11 13:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> So, from what I understand here, we should not put total count of index
>> pages into st_progress_param; rather, have the client (reading
>> pg_stat_progress_vacuum) derive
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2016/03/11 13:16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> So, from what I understand here, we should not put total count of index
>>> pages into st_progress_param;
On 2016/03/14 10:54, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi
>
> I guess pg_stat_get_progress_info should either be strict (see
> attached) or check for NULL.
Thanks a lot for reporting and the patch. I think that's an oversight.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres
Hi,
Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While I am still looking at this WIP patch, I had one suggestion.
>
> Instead of making changes in the index AM API can we have a call to update
> the shared state using pgstat_progress* A
On 2016/03/15 3:41, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Instead, the attached patch adds a IndexBulkDeleteProgressCallback
>> which AMs should call for every block that's read (say, right before a
>> call to ReadBufferExtended)
On 2016/03/12 6:31, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> I've looked at this patch today, mostly to educate myself, so this
>> probably should not count as a full review. Anyway, the patch seems in
>> excellent shape - it'd be great if all patches (inc
Hi Peter,
On 2016/03/15 16:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Dunno about that. It's defining characteristic is that it checks child
>>> pages against their parent IMV. Things are not often defined in terms
>
On 2016/03/15 16:42, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> By the way, one request (as a non-native speaker of English language, who
>> ends up looking up quite a few words regularly) -
>>
>> Could we use "conform&q
On 2016/03/16 2:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/03/15 3:41, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, I think you need to study the index AMs and figure this out.
>>
>> OK. I tried to put calls to the callback in ap
Attached fixes a minor typo as follows:
s/index vacuums cycles/index vacuum cycles/g
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
index 7055c37..cb22afb 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
@@ -2594,7 +2594,7 @@ SELE
Hi Alexander,
Thanks a lot for taking a look!
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I tried to apply your patch. It still applies, but has some duplicate oids.
Actually, a reworked version I will post hopefully early next week
will have fixed this.
> After fixing dupli
On 2016/03/22 4:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, the last patch on this thread was posted on February 17th, and the
> CF entry was marked Waiting on Author on March 2nd. Even if we had a
> new patch in hand at this point, I don't think there's any real chance
> of being able to get this done for 9.6;
On 2016/03/23 9:19, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
> - Regarding GSoC: it looks to me that we failed to submit in time. Is this
> what happened, or we weren't selected? If the former (and no criticism
> here, just realizing a fact) what can we do next year to avoid this
> happening again? Is anyon
On 2016/03/24 22:01, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>>
>> - values[i+3] =
>> UInt32GetDatum(beentry->st_progress_param[i]);
>> + values[i+3] =
>> Int64GetDatum(beentry->st_progress_param[i]);
>>
>
On 2016/03/28 17:50, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> # LISPers don't hesitate to dive into Sea of Parens.
Sorry in advance to be off-topic: https://xkcd.com/297 :)
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://ww
Hi,
On 2016/03/25 23:49, Onder Kalaci wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> As it's documented in the source code, systable_beginscan() could be used
> to on non-system tables as well. My question is that, is it possible to
> write a C code with systable_beginscan(), systable_getnext() and ScanKeys
> which i
On 2016/03/30 15:16, Harshal Dhumal wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> While I was working on constraints node in pgadmin4 I came across this
> scenario. Please let me know if it's correct behaviour or a bug.
>
> *Scenario:*
>
> If we create two different type of constrains (lets say primary key and
> forei
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Amit Langote writes:
>>> destdb=# ALTER TABLE c ADD CONSTRAINT p_a_check CHECK (a IN ('a', 'b',
>>> 'c'));
>>> destdb=# \d c
>>> ...
>>> Check con
On 2016/01/12 11:28, Vinayak Pokale wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2016 11:22 AM, "Amit Langote"
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016/01/12 10:30, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I'm slightly concerned that the latest patch doesn't incorporate any
>>> revisions to t
Why does the argument include_notnull argument exist if
get_relation_constraints() is being called from only one place? Perhaps we
could remove it and add the IS NOT NULL test expression unconditionally if
there are any NOT NULL columns.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
On 2016/01/14 23:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> Why does the argument include_notnull argument exist if
>> get_relation_constraints() is being called from only one place? Perhaps we
>> could remove it and add the IS NOT NULL test expression unconditionally if
Hi,
Attached fixes what looks like a thinko in a comment: It is the child
relations that are "non-local" temp tables that are skipped from being
included the inheritance set. The comment in question as it stands,
doesn't note that.
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/prep/prepunion.c
itful) code review could be done. Please feel free to post your
thoughts about design, syntax, etc.
On 2015/12/22 10:51, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2015/12/18 3:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Syntax to create a partitioned t
Hi!
On 2016/01/21 18:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>> Then, suppose we add a function bool ExecStartAsync(PlanState *target,
>>> ExecCallback callback, PlanState *cb_planstate, void *cb_context).
>>> For non-async-aware plan nodes, this just returns false. async-aware
>>> plan nodes should initi
Hi,
On 2016/01/17 9:47, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> If we have a CREATE statement for each partition, how do we generalize
>> that to partitions at different levels? For example, if we use something
>> like the following to create a partition of parent_name:
>>
>> CREATE PARTITION partition_name OF p
Hi,
On 2016/01/23 3:42, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> So for now, you create an empty partitioned table specifying all the
>> partition keys without being able to define any partitions in the same
>> statement. Partitions (and partitions thereof, if any) will be created
>> using CREATE PARTITION state
Hi Vinayak,
On 2016/01/25 20:58, Vinayak Pokale wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached updated patch with an updated interface.
>
Thanks for updating the patch.
> I added the below interface to update the
> scanned_heap_pages,scanned_index_pages and index_scan_count only.
> void pgstat_report_
Hi Tomas,
Thanks for your comments and sorry for replying so late.
On 2016/01/22 22:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> thanks for working on this. Seems the last version of the patch was
> submitted more than 2 months ago and I believe large parts of it will get
> reworked based on the extensive discussi
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>>+if(!scan_all)
>>+scanned_heap_pages = scanned_heap_pages +
>>next_not_all_visible_block;
>
>>I don't want to be too much of a stickler for details here, but it
>>seems to me that this is an outright lie
On Friday, 29 January 2016, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> I read
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting and
> would like to say thanks for such nice review of meeting.
>
+many
Thanks,
Amit
On 2016/01/28 23:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Or keep scanned_heap_pages as is and add a skipped_pages (or
>> skipped_heap_pages). I guess the latter would be updated not only for
>> all visible skipped pages but also pin s
On 2016/01/29 21:02, Rahila Syed wrote:
>> Okay, I agree that reporting just the current blkno is simple and good
>> enough. How about numbers of what we're going to report as the "Vacuuming
>> Index and Heap" phase? I guess we can still keep the scanned_index_pages
>> and index_scan_count So we ha
KaiGai-san,
On 2016/02/01 10:38, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> As an aside, background of my motivation is the slide below:
> http://www.slideshare.net/kaigai/sqlgpussd-english
> (LT slides in JPUG conference last Dec)
>
> I'm under investigation of SSD-to-GPU direct feature on top of
> the custom-scan
Attached patch removes an extraneous word in the comment above
SyncRepReleaseWaiters() in syncrep.c
- * Other policies are possible, which would change what we do here and what
+ * Other policies are possible, which would change what we do here and
* perhaps also which information we store as we
On 2016/02/03 17:50, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached patch removes an extraneous word in the comment above
I kept reading and found one place in a comment within the function where
a word is most probably missing, Attached fixes it.
/*
* If this WALSender is serving a standby that
Hi Thomas,
On 2016/01/20 13:12, Thomas Munro wrote:
> That one conflicts with b1a9bad9e744857291c7d5516080527da8219854, so
> here is a new version.
-if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_REP_WAIT_WRITE] < MyWalSnd->write)
+if (is_highest_priority_sync_standby)
[ ... ]
-if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_RE
Hi Vinayak,
Thanks for updating the patch, a couple of comments:
On 2016/02/05 17:15, poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find attached updated patch.
>> The point of having pgstat_report_progress_update_counter() is so that
>> you can efficiently update a single counter withou
On 2016/02/09 6:46, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I just closed the last few remaining items in the commitfest. This is
>> the final summary:
>>
>> Committed: 32.
>> Moved to next CF: 32.
>> Rejected: 2.
>> Returned
Hi Suraj,
On 2016/02/09 12:16, kharagesuraj wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>>> I agree with first version, and attached the updated patch which are
>>> modified so that it supports simple multiple sync replication you
>>> suggested.
>>> (but test cases are not included yet.)
>
> I have tried for some bas
Hi Corey,
On 2016/02/16 5:15, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>
>> The individual patches have commit messages that describe code changes.
>> This is registered in the upcoming CF. Feedback and review is greatly
>> welcomed!
>>
> We have a current system that is currently a mix of tables, each of which
> i
Hello,
On 2016/02/15 20:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:37:17 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/02/05 17:15, poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
>>> Please find attached updated patch.
[ ... ]
>>
>> Instead of passing the array of char *'
Hi Josh,
On 2016/02/16 11:41, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 02/15/2016 04:28 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Also, you won't see any optimizer and executor changes. Queries will still
>> use the same plans as existing inheritance-based partitioned tables,
>> although as I menti
On 2016/02/15 10:55, Amit Langote wrote:
> required. There is also basic planner support but no support yet to enable
> constraint exclusion on partitions (which will be fulfilled shortly by
> installing equivalent check constraints on partitions).
Just to follow up on this - attached
Hi,
On 2016/02/17 14:34, Regina Obe wrote:
> I'm guessing this is by design but just wanted to confirm that since it
> makes this feature not as useful for us.
>
> It also wasn't absolutely clear to me from the documentation.
>
> We are running PostgreSQL 9.5.1 and if we do something like:
>
Hi Shubham,
On 2016/02/17 16:27, Shubham Barai wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am currently pursuing my bachelor of engineering in computer science
> at Maharashtra
> Institute of Technology, Pune ,India. I am very excited about contributing
> to postgres through google summer of code program.
>
Hi,
On 2016/02/16 18:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:39:27 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/02/15 20:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>> CREATE FUNCTION
>>> pg_stat_get_command_progress(IN cmdtype integer)
>>> RETURNS SETOF integ
On 2016/02/16 21:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> If we have a CREATE statement for each partition, how do we generalize
>> that to partitions at different levels? For example, if we use something
>> like the following
On 2016/02/18 16:38, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I should resurrect Abhijit's patch to allow the isolationtester to talk to
> multiple servers. We'll want that when we're doing tests like "assert that
> this change isn't visible on the replica before it becomes visible on the
> master". (Well, except we
On 2016/02/18 22:44, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I didn't find for 2016 but here is the PostgreSQL wiki page for the last
>> year's GSoC page: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2015#Project_Ideas
>
>
&g
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/16/16 9:56 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> From now on, instead of attaching multiple files like in the previous
>> message, I will send a single tar.gz which will contain patches created by
>> git-format-patch.
>
On 2016/02/20 5:06, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> START [ EXCL ] (startval) END [ INCL ] (endval)
>>
>> That is, in range type notation, '[startval, endval)' is the default
>> behavior. So for each pa
On 2016/02/23 22:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Some might think that writing potentially the same PARTITION BY clause 100
>> times for 100 level-1 partitions could be cumbersome. That is what
>> SUBPARTITION BY notation may b
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 2016/02/26 0:43, Jean-Pierre Pelletier wrote:
> Why not based it on "Exclusion Constraint" ?
>
> Most discussions as of late seems to focus on Range overlaps which appeal
> (I would think) is that it supports both "equality" and "overlaps", two
> popular partiti
Hi Vinayak,
Thanks for updating the patch! A quick comment:
On 2016/02/26 17:28, poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
>> CREATE VIEW pg_stat_vacuum_progress AS
>> SELECT S.s[1] as pid,
>> S.s[2] as relid,
>> CASE S.s[3]
>>WHEN 1 THEN 'Scanning Heap'
>>
On 2016/07/25 17:18, Amit Langote wrote:
> The comment seems to have been copied from ATExecAddColumn, which says:
>
> /*
> * If we are told not to recurse, there had better not be any
> - * child tables; else the addition would put them out of step.
>
> For ATExecV
On 2016/08/19 5:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2016/07/25 17:18, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> The comment seems to have been copied from ATExecAddColumn, which says:
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * If we are
On 2016/08/22 13:51, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> The parent-child relationship of multi-level partitioned tables is not
> retained when creating the AppendRelInfo nodes. We create RelOptInfo nodes
> for all the leaf and intermediate tables. The AppendRelInfo nodes created
> for these RelOptInfos set th
On 2016/08/18 5:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I am slightly tempted to eliminate the pg_partition catalog and associated
>> syscache altogether and add a column to pg_class as Robert suggested.
>> That way, all relid_i
On 2016/08/29 20:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> We do take a lock on the parent because we would be changing its partition
>> descriptor (relcache). I changed MergeAttributes() such that an
>> Access
On 2016/08/31 16:17, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> What I was trying to understand is why this would not be possible
>> with a design where partition bound is stored in the catalog as a property
>> of individual partitions inst
On 2016/08/31 16:42, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2016-08-31 9:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>>> It is pity - lot of performance issues are related to this missing
>> feature.
>>
>> I don't think you are being very clear about what feature you
On 2016/08/25 16:15, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> b)
>> when accumulating append subpaths, do not flatten a subpath that is itself
>> an append when ((AppendPath *) subpath)->path.parent is a RelOptInfo with
>> non
Hi Fabien,
On 2016/07/16 1:33, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Here is a v2 with more or less this approach, although \into does not end
> the query, but applies to the current or last sql command. A query is
> still terminated with a ";".
This patch needs to be rebased because of commit 64710452 (on 201
On 2016/09/02 14:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Here's something I observed with your set of patches posted in June. I have
> not checked the latest set of patches. So, if it's something fixed, please
> ignore the mail and sorry for me being lazy.
>
> prt1 is partitioned table and it shows following
On 2016/09/02 15:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2. A combination of constraints on the partitions should be applicable to
>>> the parent. We aren't doing that.
>>
>> How about on seeing that a RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL is partitioned parent
>> table, we can have get_relation_constraints() includ
On 2016/09/02 15:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Getting rid of the parent table in the append list by other means may be a
>> way to go. We know that the table is empty and safe to just drop.
>>
> Ok. Does a constraint (
Hi,
Some minor comments.
+
+
+ Autocommit cannot be set on inside a transaction, the ongoing
+ transaction has to be ended by entering COMMIT or
+ ROLLBACK before setting autocommit on.
+
+
I guess: "cannot be set *to* on" and likewise for
Hi Corey,
Here are some comments and a review of the patch.
On 2016/06/03 5:48, Corey Huinker wrote:
> A while back, there was a push to make COPY gzip-aware. That didn't happen,
> but COPY FROM PROGRAM did, and it scratches the same itch.
>
> I have a similar need, but with file_fdw foreign tab
Hi Fabien,
On 2016/09/03 2:47, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> This patch needs to be rebased because of commit 64710452 (on 2016-08-19).
>
> Here it is!
Thanks for sending the updated patch. Here are some (mostly cosmetic)
comments. Before the comments, let me confirm whether the following
result is
Attached fixes a typo in header comment in libpq-be.h.
s/libpq_be.h/libpq-be.h/g
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/include/libpq/libpq-be.h b/src/include/libpq/libpq-be.h
index ecdfbc6..b91eca5 100644
--- a/src/include/libpq/libpq-be.h
+++ b/src/include/libpq/libpq-be.h
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/*---
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have applied updated patches given by you, and observe below.
>
> here in the given example, t6_p3 partition is not allowed to have null, but
> I am able to insert it, causing two nulls in the table.
>
> --create a partit
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> However, it seems a lot better to make it a property of the parent
>>> from a performance point of view. Suppose there are 1000 partitions.
>>> Readi
On 2016/09/07 3:12, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I am not familiar with win32 stuff too, so I don't have much to say about
>> that. Maybe someone else can chime in to help with that.
>
> The regressions basically *can
On 2016/09/07 12:29, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> OK.
> Well...maybe not, depending on what Craig and other can do to educate me
> about the TAP tests.
Sure.
>>> Changing table-level options requires superuser privileges,
Hi,
On 2016/09/07 17:56, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a query regarding list partitioning,
>
> For example if I want to store employee data in a table, with "IT" dept
> employee in emp_p1 partition, "HR" dept employee in emp_p2 partition and if
> employee belongs to other than t
On 2016/09/08 21:38, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/09/07 17:56, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
>>>
>>> In this case not sure how to create partition table. Do we have something
>>> like we have UNBOUNDE
1 - 100 of 1334 matches
Mail list logo
