Thread: merge command - GSoC progress
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/7/26
Subject: Re: GSoC progress
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
From: Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/7/26
Subject: Re: GSoC progress
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Hi,
I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the standard merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are some bugs when we try to evaluate the quals which make the system quit. I will fix it soon.
The merge actions are packed in ModifyTable nodes now. This can benefit the coding if we want to implement MERGE ... RETURNING ...
Please find the patch file in attachment.
2010/7/24 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote:Hmm, that might work.
> I my current implementation, the overall merge command plan is still a
> single ModifyTable node. And the main query of merge command is in the field
> of ModifyTable.plans. I add a new "List * mergeActPstates" field in the
> structure of ModifyTableState. When apply the ExecInitModifyTable() function
> on a ModifyTable node of a merge command, the function will do an extra work
> to init all the merge actions and put the result into the
> list of mergeActPstates. (in previous design, I put the list in
> PlannedStmt, but that makes the code a little bit ugly).I'm not real familiar with this part of the code; that would be a good
> I now put all merge-command-related functions in the file of
> nodeModifyTable.c. and I have fixed something that I missed in the init
> process for merge command, such as set the junkfiler attribute for ctid.
> However, I still cannot run ExecProject over the tuple slot returned by main
> query.
>
> In fact, I am not sure how ExecProject () works exactly. It totally depends
> on the correctness of the input ProjectionInfo, in which we have a
> "ExprContext *pi_exprContext" parameter. The expression context should
> contains all the tuple slot needed for the projection. I
> init ProjectionInfo correctly, but the expression context is empty when
> initialized. Could you tell me WHEN does the system fill the tuple slots
> (the ecxt_scantuple, ecxt_innertuple, ecxt_outertuple) in the expression
> context of the ProjectionInfo structure?
question to ask on pgsql-hackers. But I believe the answer is that
the individual node types initialize the expression context at the
appropriate time. For example, if you grep for ecxt_innertuple,
you'll find that it's set in the hash, merge, and nestloop nodes;
whereas the scan tuple is set by the scan, bitmap heap, and index scan
nodes.
--
Attachment
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote: > I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the standard > merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we > cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are some bugs when we > try to evaluate the quals which make the system quit. I will fix it soon. This patch doesn't compile. You're using zbxprint() from a bunch of places where it's not defined. I get compile warnings for all of those files and then a link failure at the end. You might find it useful to create src/Makefile.custom in your local tree and put COPT=-Werror in there; it tends to prevent problems of this kind. Undefined symbols: "_zbxprint", referenced from: _transformStmt in analyze.o _ExecInitMergeAction in nodeModifyTable.o _ExecModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o _ExecInitModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o _merge_action_plannerin planner.o Not that it's as high-priority as getting this fully working, but you should revert the useless changes in this patch - e.g. the one-line change to heaptuple.c is obvious debugging leftovers, and all of the changes to execQual.c and execUtil.c are whitespace-only. You should also try to make your code and comments conform to project style guidelines. In general, you'll find it easier to keep track of your changes (and you'll have fewer spurious changes) if you use git diff master...yourbranch instead of marking comments, etc. with ZBX or similar. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
2010/7/28 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote:This patch doesn't compile. You're using zbxprint() from a bunch of
> I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the standard
> merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we
> cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are some bugs when we
> try to evaluate the quals which make the system quit. I will fix it soon.
places where it's not defined. I get compile warnings for all of
those files and then a link failure at the end. You might find it
useful to create src/Makefile.custom in your local tree and put
COPT=-Werror in there; it tends to prevent problems of this kind.
Undefined symbols:
"_zbxprint", referenced from:
_transformStmt in analyze.o
_ExecInitMergeAction in nodeModifyTable.o
_ExecModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o
_ExecInitModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o
_merge_action_planner in planner.o
Sorry, this is a debug function defined by me. It may not be included in the patch. I add a line of "#define zbxprint printf" somewhere in the system.
Not that it's as high-priority as getting this fully working, but you
should revert the useless changes in this patch - e.g. the one-line
change to heaptuple.c is obvious debugging leftovers, and all of the
changes to execQual.c and execUtil.c are whitespace-only. You should
also try to make your code and comments conform to project style
guidelines. In general, you'll find it easier to keep track of your
changes (and you'll have fewer spurious changes) if you use git diff
master...yourbranch instead of marking comments, etc. with ZBX or
similar.
I will clean all these in my next patch.
I am now very confused with the failure of action qualification. I look through the whole process of a query, from parser to executor. In my opinion, the qualification transformed in analyzer, will be processed by prepsocess_qual_condition() in planner, and then by the ExecInitExpr() function in excutor start phase (in InitPlan() function). Then the qual is ready to be used in ExecQual(). Am I correct?
I have done these on the merge action qual, but when I pass them into ExecQual(), the server just closed abnormally. I don't know if I missed any steps on preparing the qual expressions.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I have get a edition that the merge command can run. It accept the >> > standard >> > merge command and can do UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE actions now. But we >> > cannot put additional qualification for actions. There are some bugs >> > when we >> > try to evaluate the quals which make the system quit. I will fix it >> > soon. >> >> This patch doesn't compile. You're using zbxprint() from a bunch of >> places where it's not defined. I get compile warnings for all of >> those files and then a link failure at the end. You might find it >> useful to create src/Makefile.custom in your local tree and put >> COPT=-Werror in there; it tends to prevent problems of this kind. >> >> Undefined symbols: >> "_zbxprint", referenced from: >> _transformStmt in analyze.o >> _ExecInitMergeAction in nodeModifyTable.o >> _ExecModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o >> _ExecInitModifyTable in nodeModifyTable.o >> _merge_action_planner in planner.o >> > Sorry, this is a debug function defined by me. It may not be included in the > patch. I add a line of "#define zbxprint printf" somewhere in the system. Yeah, but it's not included in all the places that are needed to make everything compile. You might move this to postgres.h or something. >> Not that it's as high-priority as getting this fully working, but you >> should revert the useless changes in this patch - e.g. the one-line >> change to heaptuple.c is obvious debugging leftovers, and all of the >> changes to execQual.c and execUtil.c are whitespace-only. You should >> also try to make your code and comments conform to project style >> guidelines. In general, you'll find it easier to keep track of your >> changes (and you'll have fewer spurious changes) if you use git diff >> master...yourbranch instead of marking comments, etc. with ZBX or >> similar. > > I will clean all these in my next patch. > > I am now very confused with the failure of action qualification. I look > through the whole process of a query, from parser to executor. In my > opinion, the qualification transformed in analyzer, will be processed by > prepsocess_qual_condition() in planner, and then by the ExecInitExpr() > function in excutor start phase (in InitPlan() function). Then the qual is > ready to be used in ExecQual(). Am I correct? I'm not sure, sorry. > I have done these on the merge action qual, but when I pass them into > ExecQual(), the server just closed abnormally. I don't know if I missed any > steps on preparing the qual expressions. Have you tried attaching a debugger? Try "SELECT pg_backend_pid()" and then use "gdb -p the_pid" from another window. Hit "continue". Then do whatever it is that's crashing. That way you can get a stack backtrace, and poke around at the data structures. Using pprint() on node-type data structures, either in debugging code or actually straight from the debugger via "call", is also very helpful, often-times. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Hi,
I have fixed the action qual problem. Now the system can run merge command, with quals.
I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment.
Please try this new command if you have interest.
Boxuan
Attachment
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote: > I have fixed the action qual problem. Now the system can run merge command, > with quals. > > I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment. > > Please try this new command if you have interest. So, I tried this today, but: - I got some compiler warnings in analyze.c, and - when tried to run 'make check' with the patch applied, initdb failed. So you still need to do some more bug-squashing on this... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Boxuan Zhai wrote: > I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment. Some general coding feedback for you on this. It's not obvious to people who might want to try this out what exactly they are supposed to do. Particularly for complicated patches like this, where only a subset of the final feature might actually be implemented, some sort of reviewer guide suggesting what should and shouldn't work would be extremely helpful. I recall there was some sort of patch design guide in an earlier version of this patch; it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Don't remember if that had any examples in it. Ultimately, the examples of working behavior for this patch will need to be put into code. The way that happens is by adding working examples into the regression tests for the database. If you had those done for this patch, I wouldn't have to ask for code examples; I could just look at the source to the regression output and see how to use it against the standard database the regression samples create, and then execute against. This at least lets you avoid having to generate some test data, because there will already be some in the regression database for you to use. There is an intro this topic at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Regression_test_authoring Another common way to generate test data is to run pgbench which creates 4 tables and populates them with data. As far as the patch itself goes, you have some work left on cleaning that up still you'll need to do eventually. What I would suggest is actually reading the patch itself; don't just generate it and send it, read through the whole thing like someone new to it would do. One way you can improve what you've done already is to find places where you have introduced changes to the code structure just through editing. Here's an example of what I'm talking about, from line 499 of your patch: - break; + break; This happened because you added two invisible tabs to the end of this line. This makes the patch larger for no good reason and tends to infuriate people who work on the code. There's quite a bit of extra lines added in here too that should go. You should consider reducing the ultimate size of the patch in terms of lines a worthwhile use of your time, even if it doesn't change how things work. There's lots of examples in this one where you put two or three lines between two statements when a single one would match the look of the code in that file. A round of reading the diff looking for that sort of problem would be useful. Another thing you should do is limit how long each line is when practical. You have lots of seriously wide comment lines here right now in particular. While there are some longer lines in the PostgreSQL code right now, that's code, not comments. And when you have a long line and a long comment, don't tack the comment onto the end. Put it on the line above instead. Also, don't use "//" in the middle of comments the way you've done in a few places here. Getting some examples sorted out and starting on regression tests is more important than the coding style parts I think, just wanted to pass those along while I noticed them reading the patch, so you could start looking out for them more as you continue to work on it. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > If you had those done for this patch, I > wouldn't have to ask for code examples; I could just look at the source to > the regression output and see how to use it against the standard database > the regression samples create, and then execute against. I agree. While not every feature needs regression tests, something this complex certainly does. Also, running the regression tests (frequently!) can help you realize when you've broken the existing code before too much time goes by and it's no longer easy to figure out which change is responsible for the breakage. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Friday 30 July 2010 18:21:49 Greg Smith wrote: > - break; > + break; > > This happened because you added two invisible tabs to the end of this > line. This makes the patch larger for no good reason and tends to If you want to remove changes like this using: "git checkout -p HEAD" is very useful if youre using git. It allows you to selectively revert hunks of not-checked-in changes... Andres
2010/7/31 Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Boxuan Zhai wrote:Some general coding feedback for you on this.I create a clean patch file (no debug clauses). See the attachment.
Thanks for your consideration!
It's not obvious to people who might want to try this out what exactly they are supposed to do. Particularly for complicated patches like this, where only a subset of the final feature might actually be implemented, some sort of reviewer guide suggesting what should and shouldn't work would be extremely helpful. I recall there was some sort of patch design guide in an earlier version of this patch; it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Don't remember if that had any examples in it.
I am now working on fixing a bug which makes the system unable to initdb. I will update my page in postgres Wiki with a detailed instruction of my implementation and testing examples soon, with my next patch file.
Ultimately, the examples of working behavior for this patch will need to be put into code. The way that happens is by adding working examples into the regression tests for the database. If you had those done for this patch, I wouldn't have to ask for code examples; I could just look at the source to the regression output and see how to use it against the standard database the regression samples create, and then execute against. This at least lets you avoid having to generate some test data, because there will already be some in the regression database for you to use. There is an intro this topic at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Regression_test_authoring Another common way to generate test data is to run pgbench which creates 4 tables and populates them with data.
I will try to add my testing examples to the gregression folder.
As far as the patch itself goes, you have some work left on cleaning that up still you'll need to do eventually. What I would suggest is actually reading the patch itself; don't just generate it and send it, read through the whole thing like someone new to it would do. One way you can improve what you've done already is to find places where you have introduced changes to the code structure just through editing. Here's an example of what I'm talking about, from line 499 of your patch:
- break;
+ break;
This happened because you added two invisible tabs to the end of this line. This makes the patch larger for no good reason and tends to infuriate people who work on the code. There's quite a bit of extra lines added in here too that should go. You should consider reducing the ultimate size of the patch in terms of lines a worthwhile use of your time, even if it doesn't change how things work. There's lots of examples in this one where you put two or three lines between two statements when a single one would match the look of the code in that file. A round of reading the diff looking for that sort of problem would be useful.
Another thing you should do is limit how long each line is when practical. You have lots of seriously wide comment lines here right now in particular. While there are some longer lines in the PostgreSQL code right now, that's code, not comments. And when you have a long line and a long comment, don't tack the comment onto the end. Put it on the line above instead. Also, don't use "//" in the middle of comments the way you've done in a few places here.
Sorry for these mistakes, again. I promise that the same thing will not happen in my next patch.
Getting some examples sorted out and starting on regression tests is more important than the coding style parts I think, just wanted to pass those along while I noticed them reading the patch, so you could start looking out for them more as you continue to work on it.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
Dear Robert,
I have finished the tested edition of my code.
I think there are no redundant lines in this time's patch file.
And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files, because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package. But, I have written web pages in Postgres Wiki. I explain the details of my implementation and a set of testing examples.
Please refer to the following pages if you are interested.
Thanks!
Yours Boxuan
Attachment
> And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different
> situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files,
> because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package. But, I
> have written web pages in Postgres Wiki. I explain the details of my
> implementation and a set of testing examples.
Can someone help Boxuan with how to write regression tests?
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Implementation_detalis > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Test_examples These pages were confusingly named, so I just moved them: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeImplementationDetails -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:14:02PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different > > situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files, > > because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package. > > But, I have written web pages in Postgres Wiki. I explain the > > details of my implementation and a set of testing examples. > > Can someone help Boxuan with how to write regression tests? Happy to. I'll start this evening PDT or tomorrow :) 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 iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Boxuan Zhai wrote: > I think there are no redundant lines in this time's patch file. It is much better. There are still more blank likes around the new code you've added than are needed in many places, but that doesn't interfere with reading the patch. The main code formatting issue left you'll need to address eventually are all the really long comments in there. > And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different > situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files, > because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package. git add <filename> ? The tests you've put in there are the right general sort of things to try out. The one example you gave does show an UPSERT being emulated by MERGE, which is the #1 thing people are looking for initially. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
2010/8/4 Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Boxuan Zhai wrote:It is much better. There are still more blank likes around the new code you've added than are needed in many places, but that doesn't interfere with reading the patch.I think there are no redundant lines in this time's patch file.
Sorry, it is my personal habit of leaving blanks around codes. I will chage this if it doesn't follow the pgsql coding style.
The main code formatting issue left you'll need to address eventually are all the really long comments in there.
I will correct the long comments in the next patch.
git add <filename> ?And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different situations. I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files, because I am not sure how to add new files in the git package.
The tests you've put in there are the right general sort of things to try out. The one example you gave does show an UPSERT being emulated by MERGE, which is the #1 thing people are looking for initially.
In fact, I have created a merge.sql with simple merge example. I put it in the folder of /src/test/regress/sql/ and modified the serial_schedule file to add a line of : test: merge
Is this correct?
But, I don't know how to run regress to test this sql file. My "make check" fails when install the db. I think this is because I do it under a MinGW environment and some parameters are not matched with the default setting of postgres.
I can configure, make install , initdb and do sql query in psql successfully in my machine. So the source code itself should be correct.
I put my merge.sql in attachment, in case anyone want to have a look.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
Attachment
Dear Robert,
I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation.
Now,I am thinking that maybe we should keep the replaced actions in action list, and just mark them to be "invalid". If one join tuple from the main plan fits the condition of this action, we will do nothing on it.
This strategy is a little bit different with the current one. If we delete an action, the tuples that meet it condition will be caught by other actions. If we keep it, the tuples that match it will be skipped.
I think the new design is more logical, and I wonder your opinion on this problem.
Yours Boxuan
On 04/08/10 07:55, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> 2010/8/4 Greg Smith<greg@2ndquadrant.com>
>> Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>>> And, I have tested the running of MERGE command with different situations.
>>> I am sorry that I didn't create regression test files, because I am not sure
>>> how to add new files in the git package.
>>
>> git add<filename> ?
Yep. I believe Boxuan is using git in a simplistic way, doing just "git
diff" to create patches. For adding new files, you need to do "git add
<filename>", but note that this adds the new file to "staging area". To
view all changes in the staging area, use "git diff --cached", but that
won't show any modifications to existing files that you haven't also
"git add"ed. So to generate a patch you need to "git add" all modified
and added files ("git add -u" will add all modified files
automatically), and then use "git diff --cached" to generate the diff.
> In fact, I have created a merge.sql with simple merge example. I put it in
> the folder of /src/test/regress/sql/ and modified the serial_schedule file
> to add a line of : test: merge
> Is this correct?
Yep. You also need to add it to parallel_schedule, "make check" and
"make installcheck-parallel" use parallel_schedule and "make
installcheck" uses serial_schedule.
> But, I don't know how to run regress to test this sql file. My "make check"
> fails when install the db. I think this is because I do it under a MinGW
> environment and some parameters are not matched with the default setting of
> postgres.
> I can configure, make install , initdb and do sql query in psql successfully
> in my machine. So the source code itself should be correct.
Hmm, I don't know much about MinGW, but "make check" should work. But
since you can install and run postgres normally, you can use "make
installcheck" instead. That runs the regression suite against an already
running instance of postgres.
> I put my merge.sql in attachment, in case anyone want to have a look.
Thanks, that helps a lot.
Here's a combined patch which includes the latest code patch from
"tested_merge.tar", with the merge.sql test case, the corresponding
expected output file, and the required changes to the schedule files.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
On 04/08/10 12:23, Boxuan Zhai wrote: > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my rule > rewriting strategy of MERGE actions. > > In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is > replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type from > the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from the > beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation. > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules > > Now,I am thinking that maybe we should keep the replaced actions in action > list, and just mark them to be "invalid". If one join tuple from the main > plan fits the condition of this action, we will do nothing on it. > > This strategy is a little bit different with the current one. If we delete > an action, the tuples that meet it condition will be caught by other > actions. If we keep it, the tuples that match it will be skipped. > > I think the new design is more logical, and I wonder your opinion on this > problem. So if I understood correctly, in the instead rule example you have at the wiki page, the stock table should contain one row, with the same balance it had before running the MERGE? Yeah, agreed, that's much more logical. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 14:09:51 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yep. I believe Boxuan is using git in a simplistic way, doing just "git
> diff" to create patches. For adding new files, you need to do "git add
> <filename>", but note that this adds the new file to "staging area". To
> view all changes in the staging area, use "git diff --cached", but that
> won't show any modifications to existing files that you haven't also
> "git add"ed. So to generate a patch you need to "git add" all modified
> and added files ("git add -u" will add all modified files
> automatically), and then use "git diff --cached" to generate the diff.
Or use git add --intent--to-add (or -N). That adds the file but not the actual
changes.
Andres
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote: > Dear Robert, > > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my > rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions. > > In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is > replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type > from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from > the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation. > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules It seems sensible to use the test files that I wrote for MERGE in 2008, published to -hackers at that time. The tests were a complete output from a MERGE test script. Developing new tests when we already have code makes little sense, plus its a good way of objectively testing that the spec has been implemented correctly in these patches. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my > > rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions. > > > > In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is > > replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type > > from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from > > the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation. > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules > > It seems sensible to use the test files that I wrote for MERGE in 2008, > published to -hackers at that time. Even more sensible for me to include it as a patch, with the files in the right places and the schedules updated. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services