Thread: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov.
I have completed my work on the patch for commit fest. [Design Doc] http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/design.html [Patch itself] http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/window_functions.patch.20081031.gz [Git repository] http://git.postgresql.org/git/~davidfetter/window_functions/.git All compiler warnings, bison conflicts and known crashes are fixed. The sgml documentation including keyword (non-)reserved tables is updated. Test cases are brushed up. A few improvements around APIs are done and row_number()/rank() cases are optimized not to store all the rows contained in the partition. I hope it will come to 8.4. Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada
Hitoshi Harada escribió: > [Patch itself] > http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/window_functions.patch.20081031.gz Please send the patch to the pgsql-hackers list too. That way we will have the patch around, even if the site above goes away in a few years. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:00:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hitoshi Harada escribió: > > > [Patch itself] > > http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/window_functions.patch.20081031.gz > > Please send the patch to the pgsql-hackers list too. That way we will > have the patch around, even if the site above goes away in a few years. Here's a bzip2 version, which I hope will get through, as it's over 100kB. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Attachment
2008/11/1 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:00:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Hitoshi Harada escribió: >> >> > [Patch itself] >> > http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/window_functions.patch.20081031.gz >> >> Please send the patch to the pgsql-hackers list too. That way we will >> have the patch around, even if the site above goes away in a few years. > > Here's a bzip2 version, which I hope will get through, as it's over > 100kB. > > Cheers, > David. > -- > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ > Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter > Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com > > Remember to vote! > Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it better to split the patch than send an external link? Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada
"Hitoshi Harada" <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes: > 2008/11/1 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:00:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Hitoshi Harada escribió: >>> >>> > [Patch itself] >>> > http://umitanuki.net/pgsql/wfv08/window_functions.patch.20081031.gz >>> >>> Please send the patch to the pgsql-hackers list too. That way we will >>> have the patch around, even if the site above goes away in a few years. >> >> Here's a bzip2 version, which I hope will get through, as it's over >> 100kB. >> > I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the > limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it > better to split the patch than send an external link? I suppose you could upload the patch to the wiki which just gives a warning but lets you go ahead. Isn't this like the third time we've run into this and said we were going to raise/erase the limit? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/11/1 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>:
>> I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the
>> limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it
>> better to split the patch than send an external link?
I'd suggest splitting the patch into sections if necessary. A patch
that's over 100K zipped is likely to be unmanageable from a reviewing
standpoint anyhow --- it would be better to think about how to factor
it into separate patches ...
But in any case, Alvaro is correct to complain about external links.
We want the patch to be in the list archives.
> Isn't this like the third time we've run into this and said we were going to
> raise/erase the limit?
Uh, we did. You'll notice David's 140K email got through.
regards, tom lane
2008/11/1 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes: >>> 2008/11/1 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>: >>> I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the >>> limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it >>> better to split the patch than send an external link? > > I'd suggest splitting the patch into sections if necessary. A patch > that's over 100K zipped is likely to be unmanageable from a reviewing > standpoint anyhow --- it would be better to think about how to factor > it into separate patches ... OK, but a half of my patch is based on pg_proc.h so reviewing is not so complexing as its size. > But in any case, Alvaro is correct to complain about external links. > We want the patch to be in the list archives. Agree. So I suppose the limitation can be bigger up to 500k or so. Nowadays, network and mail clients wouldn't be annoyed with that size. But I will follow the current rule. Next time, I'll try split patch. -- Hitoshi Harada