I said
One such possible caller is EvalPlanQual. It could go to sleep using
XactLockTableWait() on the SnapshotDirty's xmax. But the tuple has
something strange in its xmax -- it's the tuple's cmin actually.
Leaving this would be probably a bug.
However, if the tuple is new, then
The right way to do this at the C level would be to use the same
infrastructure as nextval() does to accept arguments like 'foo' and
'Foo.Bar'. There's no reason to restrict the two-argument form
to the current search_path.
Is it possible to do that in SQL? eg. is there anything you can do
Carl E. McMillin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...That's one of the reasons I wrote Pl/Java.
More power too you! I'd really like to hear more about this project. Is
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pljava/projdisplay.php
your URL?
Yes, it is.
I'm now in complete agreement: app-server
If typTup is of type Form_pg_type, is this use of ObjectIdGetDatum legal?
tuple = SearchSysCache(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(typTup-typrelid),
0, 0, 0);
If not, how do I turn -typrelid into an Oid type for safe passage
through ObjectIdGetDatum?
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:40:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
When DELETE a happens, we remove the xmin=1 from the tuple header and
replace it with xmin=3. xid=3 will be marked as committed if xid2
aborts, and will be marked as aborted if xid3 commits.
So, if
Tom doesn't like returning the server's logfile using a pgsql function
unless logfile rotation is implemented, so here it is.
This proposal doesn't include a daemon that triggers pg_logfile_rotate
when appropriate (timestamp and/or length dependent), pg_autovacuum
might be a good place to do
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom doesn't like returning the server's logfile using a pgsql function
unless logfile rotation is implemented, so here it is.
I'll repeat what I said in response to your other posting:
This uses a shared memory area with no lock, which seems a bad
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just built from a fresh cvs checkout (7.4 stable) and get these warnings:
OK, this looks to be the same issue Oliver Elphick reported a couple
weeks ago against CVS tip. I've backpatched his fix into 7.4 branch
(there was a warning in ecpg too, according
Tom Lane wrote:
I'll repeat what I said in response to your other posting:
Hm? I never posted something with shared mem usage before, what do you mean?
This uses a shared memory area with no lock, which seems a bad design;
AFAICS there should be no lock necessary.
We agreed long ago that
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure how to fix this -- I'm not even sure what the exact problem is,
because it's trying to insert the oid of a toast table in
pg_class_oid_index during the first ALTER TABLE ... CREATE TOAST TABLE.
Why would it see an old tuple with the same value,
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to avoid doing it in C as it seems like it would be a pita.
I think it would be simpler in C than this mess in SQL is ;-). You
would not of course implement it in any way that would look like the
SQL query ... but there are existing
Andreas Pflug wrote:
We agreed long ago that the
postmaster should never depend on the correctness of any shared memory
data structure; but this patch would make it do so.
I understand that, so what's the suggested way to store data common
for all backends?
Answering my own question, the
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if we could clean up those lost files on database recovery or
vacuum.
There is a TODO for this, but it seems exceedingly low priority to me.
Are you sure? I read through the TODO list but couldn't
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if we could clean up those lost files on database recovery or
vacuum.
There is a TODO for this, but it seems exceedingly low priority to me.
Are you
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to mark a GiST index as lossy using the RECHECK operator as
part of some work on PostGIS, but what happens is that the original
operator function is never reapplied to the results of the index scan.
The operator class and operator definitions looks like this:
CREATE
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Removing README.CVS from the tarball is something Marc handles, as
far as I know. I just added it to CVS and never worked on having it
removed from the tarballs.
I've added a rule to remove README.CVS when making a distribution. But
I seem to be missing any rules to
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Anyone else, please test the tar ball for any bug/nits ...
specifically, Peter, can you check that I've built/included the right
documentation?
Try reading the list of supported platforms at the bottom of the INSTALL
file...
---(end of
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Removing README.CVS from the tarball is something Marc handles, as
far as I know. I just added it to CVS and never worked on having it
removed from the tarballs.
I've added a rule to remove README.CVS when making a distribution.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 01:22:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure how to fix this -- I'm not even sure what the exact problem is,
because it's trying to insert the oid of a toast table in
pg_class_oid_index during the first ALTER TABLE ... CREATE
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to mark a GiST index as lossy using the RECHECK operator as
part of some work on PostGIS, but what happens is that the original
operator function is never reapplied to the results of the index scan.
You sure? I'm pretty sure that a number
Where are we on this?
That's a good question.
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include and there are a couple bugs he is
concered it.
I'm pretty agnostic about the syntax, but I wouldn't get overly worried
about the metaphor presented either.
include='...' doesn't bother me at all, but some
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running
those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not,
I'll
be happy to tell them so.
You know, it makes you wonder.
Hi Tom,
As far as I can tell this is the case. What I've done to test this is to
put an elog(NOTICE, .) in geometry_overlap() so I can tell when
it's being called and this is the result I get:
shapefile=# select * from tgr1 where the_geom
GeometryFromText('BOX3D(1000 10
0, 2000
[ Thread moved to hackers and win32.]
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. My pthread book says pthread_mutex_init() should be called
only
once, and we have to guarantee that. If the Windows implentation
allows
it to be called multiple times, just create a function to
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I can tell this is the case. What I've done to test this is to
put an elog(NOTICE, .) in geometry_overlap()
Well, I can easily prove that CVS tip does call the operator function
and honor its result.
regression=# create table foo (f1
Dear Tom,
I'll try my best. Also, I'll try to describe the situation more precisely,
in case it may give you another idea.
INSERT INTO p_items;
- p_items before: INSERT, UPDATE and/or DELETE other tuples in p_items
- p_items after: UPDATE p SET touch_time, toucher;
p after: INSERT INTO p_ny
Dear Tom,
You did it again! The all-amazing-Tom-Lane-clearsight ;)
I could reproduce this. I can imagine this practically as:
(session 1) someone shutting down one of our Windows clients, while
(session 2) another one did the INSERT at the very same moment.
This thing caused session 2 to abort.
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if we could clean up those lost files on database recovery or
vacuum.
There is a TODO for this, but it seems exceedingly low
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are we on this?
That's a good question.
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include and there are a couple bugs he is
concered it.
I'm pretty agnostic about the syntax, but I wouldn't get overly worried
about the metaphor presented either.
include='...'
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(viz, log at the instant of file creation, and the replayer would have
to keep track of whether it sees the creating transaction commit and
delete the file if not).
I don't see how we could WAL log it because we don't fsync the WAL until
our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Thread moved to hackers and win32.]
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. My pthread book says pthread_mutex_init() should be called
only
once, and we have to guarantee that. If the Windows implentation
allows
it to be called
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include
I said more than once that I didn't care about the syntax; it's the
implementation I was objecting to.
However, given that we are going to push it into guc-file.l, it'll
be easier all around if we choose a syntax that doesn't look exactly
like a variable
Tom Lane wrote:
I've applied the patch you sent in for this, with some editorializations
--- you were being too aggressive about substituting constants, with the
net effect that the plan was not still parameterized as it was supposed
to be.
Thanks. This should make my JDBC driver changes easier to
Oliver Jowett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At execution time the executor can cache the results of expressions
flagged as constant at execution, assuming there's somewhere safe to
cache the result for just that execution (ExprState?).
That would be the problem; there isn't anyplace appropriate.
Just for the few changes that went in today docs related ... will build
the release on in the morning, but this gives a few hours for ppl to see
if anything appears to b emissing ..
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Anyone else, please test the tar ball for any bug/nits ...
specifically, Peter, can you check that I've built/included the right
documentation?
Try reading the list of supported platforms at the bottom of the INSTALL
file...
k,
OK, perhaps application server is not an appropriate name, but what should
we call it?
Two issues:
(1) We should get this off hackers, but to where?
(2)My vision for this thing is that it is more than just PostgreSQL, it is
PG plus a lot of the popular add-ons and some new ones, sample code, all
Tom Lane wrote:
Oliver Jowett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At execution time the executor can cache the results of expressions
flagged as constant at execution, assuming there's somewhere safe to
cache the result for just that execution (ExprState?).
That would be the problem; there isn't anyplace
Is there any reason for this behaviour:
test=# select 1::bit;
bit
-
0
(1 row)
test=# select '1'::bit;
bit
-
1
(1 row)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
What about these?
test=# select B'1' 4;
?column?
--
0
(1 row)
test=# select B'1'::bit varying 4;
?column?
--
0
(1 row)
test=# select '1'::bit varying 4;
?column?
--
0
(1 row)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't
The "PostgreSQL Enhanced Server" (How's that name? Maybe we call it Zerver
and use PEZ?) idea is how to take the excellent core of PostgreSQL and
productize it in much the same way distributions take the Linux kernel and
may a GNU/Linux system.
It would seem to me that this is more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the recommended way to create mutex objects (CreateMutex) from
Win32 libraries? There must be a clean way like there is in pthreads.
A mutex is inherently a global object. CreateMutex(NULL, FALSE, NULL) will
return a handle to an unowned mutex.
That's not
42 matches
Mail list logo
