Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8

Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
From: Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-13 09:51:22
Message-ID: 44DEF61A.5070208@sun.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

This patch is for the following TODO item.

SQL command:
-/Change LIMIT/OFFSET and FETCH/MOVE to use int8

/Since the limit/offset patch is already applied,
this patch is meant for Fetch/Move query.
I have tested the patch and it works for int64 values.
Please verify this.

Thanks
Dhanaraj
/
/

Attachment Content-Type Size
FetchMove_int8.patch text/x-patch 27.4 KB

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-13 22:19:40
Message-ID: 20060813221939.GA14441@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Dhanaraj M wrote:

I had a quick look:

> ***************
> *** 209,215 ****
>
> /* Return command status if wanted */
> if (completionTag)
> ! snprintf(completionTag, COMPLETION_TAG_BUFSIZE, "%s %ld",
> stmt->ismove ? "MOVE" : "FETCH",
> nprocessed);
> }
> --- 209,215 ----
>
> /* Return command status if wanted */
> if (completionTag)
> ! snprintf(completionTag, COMPLETION_TAG_BUFSIZE, "%s %lld",
> stmt->ismove ? "MOVE" : "FETCH",
> nprocessed);
> }

You shouldn't be using %lld as it breaks on some platforms.
Use INT64_FORMAT instead.

> --- ./src/backend/parser/gram.y Sun Aug 13 00:06:28 2006
> ***************
> *** 116,122 ****
>
> %union
> {
> ! int ival;
> char chr;
> char *str;
> const char *keyword;
> --- 116,122 ----
>
> %union
> {
> ! int64 ival;
> char chr;
> char *str;
> const char *keyword;

I don't think this is the right approach. Maybe it would be reasonable
to add another arm to the %union instead, not sure. The problem is the
amount of ugly casts you have to use below. The scanner code seems to
think that a constant larger than the biggest int4 should be treated as
float, so I'm not sure why this would work anyway.

> ***************
> *** 767,773 ****
> /*
> * Force the queryDesc destination to the right thing. This supports
> * MOVE, for example, which will pass in dest = DestNone. This is okay to
> ! * change as long as we do it on every fetch. (The Executor must not
> * assume that dest never changes.)
> */
> if (queryDesc)
> --- 767,773 ----
> /*
> * Force the queryDesc destination to the right thing. This supports
> * MOVE, for example, which will pass in dest = DestNone. This is okay to
> ! * change as int64 as we do it on every fetch. (The Executor must not
> * assume that dest never changes.)
> */
> if (queryDesc)

Too enthusiastic about the search'n replace I think.

I stopped reading at this point.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-13 23:12:07
Message-ID: 8630.1155510727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think this is the right approach. Maybe it would be reasonable
> to add another arm to the %union instead, not sure. The problem is the
> amount of ugly casts you have to use below. The scanner code seems to
> think that a constant larger than the biggest int4 should be treated as
> float, so I'm not sure why this would work anyway.

I'm not sure that I see the point of this at all. ISTM the entire
reason for using a cursor is that you're going to fetch the results
in bite-size pieces. I don't see the current Postgres source code
surviving into the era where >2G rows is considered bite-size ;-)

I thought the int8-LIMIT patch was equally pointless, btw, but at
least it was not very invasive. This one is not passing the minimum
usefulness-to-ugliness ratio for me.

regards, tom lane


From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-14 02:05:18
Message-ID: 200608140205.k7E25Iq24870@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think this is the right approach. Maybe it would be reasonable
> > to add another arm to the %union instead, not sure. The problem is the
> > amount of ugly casts you have to use below. The scanner code seems to
> > think that a constant larger than the biggest int4 should be treated as
> > float, so I'm not sure why this would work anyway.
>
> I'm not sure that I see the point of this at all. ISTM the entire
> reason for using a cursor is that you're going to fetch the results
> in bite-size pieces. I don't see the current Postgres source code
> surviving into the era where >2G rows is considered bite-size ;-)

Think MOVE to a specific section of the cursor > 2gig. I can see that
happening.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-14 02:09:04
Message-ID: 11877.1155521344@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure that I see the point of this at all. ISTM the entire
>> reason for using a cursor is that you're going to fetch the results
>> in bite-size pieces. I don't see the current Postgres source code
>> surviving into the era where >2G rows is considered bite-size ;-)

> Think MOVE to a specific section of the cursor > 2gig. I can see that
> happening.

Yeah, and by the time it happens you'll have gotten bored and found
something else to do. With no support in the system for random access
to a cursor result, this is just about as useless as the FETCH case.

In any case I agree with Alvaro's comment: the way to support int8 in
a FETCH/MOVE command is not to try to convert the entire rest of the
grammar to int8 instead of int4 as its native datatype.

regards, tom lane


From: Dhanaraj M <Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-08-19 08:22:24
Message-ID: 44E6CA40.4090401@sun.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Hi Alvaro

Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
I made the changes as suggested earlier.
Please review again and comment on this.
I like to make changes if it is required.

Attachment Content-Type Size
patch.patch text/x-patch 20.3 KB

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Dhanaraj(dot)M(at)Sun(dot)COM
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Date: 2006-09-02 18:18:42
Message-ID: 200609021818.k82IIgw05509@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


Patch applied. Thanks.

I had to convert a lot of whitespace to tabs. It wasn't just the
whitespace, but whitespace that was 8 spaces. I assume you are reading
our code using an 8-space tab. Please see the developer's FAQ and try
to use tabs in future patches. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dhanaraj M wrote:
> Hi Alvaro
>
> Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
> I made the changes as suggested earlier.
> Please review again and comment on this.
> I like to make changes if it is required.

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +