Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error,
anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening.
Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item:
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for 9.0
would mean changing the behavior of
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I
would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is
attempted
where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice
On ons, 2010-03-24 at 14:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Actually, I have come to the conclusion that the biggest problem in
this
area is that we accept XML documents with a leading DOCTYPE node at
all.
Our docs state:
The xml type can store well-formed documents, as defined by the
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Our version of SQL/XML support references SQL:2003 which references XML
1.0, where omitting the XMLDecl is legal. You can't omit the XMLDecl in
XML 1.1, because you need it to communicate the fact that it's version
1.1.
Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error,
anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening.
I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better.
As far as the patch itself is concerned, the
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error,
anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening.
I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better.
As far as the
Bruce,
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
+1 for that approach.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I
would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is
attempted
where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be
low.
Right. Can you
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
OK, I will do this once Josh is done with his modifications.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Josh Berkus wrote:
In hindsight I could have loaded the ASCII release notes into a wiki and
people could have modified, them, and later I could have converted them
to SGML,
That was, in fact, *exactly* what you said you'd do 3 months ago when we
discussed this.
I now remember
On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I can
identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the release
notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so manually merging in the
changes isn't a problem.
So there are 2 large
On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yeah, maybe. According to
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html the only
legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a
DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType node. So we could probably
On mån, 2010-03-22 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
So there are 2 large problems I have with the SGML version, let's see if
we can deal with them separately:
(1) re-arranging and regrouping the items: the stuff in the release
notes should end up in 7-8 clear categories, with items
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:18:04PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I
can identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the
release notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so manually
Uh why? Open the file with a text editor, cut and paste the lines
elsewhere.
... because even one edit by anyone else is a merge conflict. And CVS
isn't too good with merge conflicts. Also few of the people whom I'd
want to ask for help are committers -- the release notes are as much
about
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 23:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Uh why? Open the file with a text editor, cut and paste the lines
elsewhere.
... because even one edit by anyone else is a merge conflict. And CVS
isn't too good with merge conflicts. Also few of the people whom I'd
want
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4
release notes contained 314 items.
Is the following pg_dump change covered by the release notes? I
couldn't find it. It was the last committed patch from
Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4
release notes contained 314 items.
Is the following pg_dump change covered by the release notes? I
couldn't find it. It was
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I can
identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the release
notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so manually merging in the
changes isn't a problem.
Uh, are you saying you want to remove the exiting release note
subcategories and put everything into 7-8 long lists? That hardly seems
like an improvement, or are you talking about make a user-focused list
that is shorter with 7-8 categories?
I'm talking about adjusting which subcategories
Bruce,
BTW, I didn't say it before, but thanks for getting this draft out
*now*. It's a lot more time than we've had in the past.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
Josh Berkus wrote:
Uh, are you saying you want to remove the exiting release note
subcategories and put everything into 7-8 long lists? That hardly seems
like an improvement, or are you talking about make a user-focused list
that is shorter with 7-8 categories?
I'm talking about
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
BTW, I didn't say it before, but thanks for getting this draft out
*now*. It's a lot more time than we've had in the past.
Sure. For some reason it was easier/faster this time; possible causes:
o I am getting better because I have done it before
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yeah, maybe. According to
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html the only
legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a
DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType
Uh, I did adjust the subcategories based on what we completed for 9.0.
You will find many added/removed ones compared to 8.4
warranted. Also, within each subcategory, items should be arranged in
descending order according to how much impact we expect them to have on
users.
I think I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
There is an additional incompatibilitiy in pg_largeobject catalog.
We need to rewrite queries to test existences of large objests
from SELECT
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't
think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make
sure it is well-formed before we return,
That
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't
think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make
sure it is
bruce wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want
to compare them with
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
bruce wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release
In hindsight I could have loaded the ASCII release notes into a wiki and
people could have modified, them, and later I could have converted them
to SGML,
That was, in fact, *exactly* what you said you'd do 3 months ago when we
discussed this.
Yeah, I don't think that would have been
2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window
function's frame.
- Change BETWEEN from TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD from
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want
to compare them with the release
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window
function's frame.
- Change BETWEEN
Robert Haas wrote:
Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4
release notes contained 314 items. ?Of course we will be adding a few
more 9.0 items before 9.0 final, but not a lot. ?The only explanation I
can think of is that we were more focused during this
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4
release notes contained 314 items. Of course we will be adding a few
more 9.0 items
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think we need you and Tom and other senior community members to
weigh in a little more overtly on which of the remaining open items
should get fixed prior to 9.0beta.
Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is nothing
that either us see on the 9.0 Bugs open items list that would delay a
beta:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on
On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want
to compare them with the release notes I did, and because the
Tom, Bruce,
I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in
flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and
10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha.
--
-- Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in
flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and
10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha.
Well, the reason they are willing to try a beta is that it's
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want
to compare them with the release notes I
2010/3/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in
flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and
10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha.
Well, the reason they
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in
flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and
10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha.
Well, the reason they are willing to try a
2010/3/21 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/3/21 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I wonder if we need note a minor
I have completed the 9.0 release notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html
I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want
to compare them with the release notes I did, and because the
introductory text will be needed for the next
50 matches
Mail list logo
