Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> >As for the contrib module, I think it could use a lot more function
> >header comments! Also, it would be great if it could be used separately
> >from tsearch, i.e. that it provided a function unaccent(text) returns
> >text that unaccented arbitrary strings (I guess it wou
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I have posted a new version of this patch on a separate thread; do you
>> have time to re-review?
> Yes, I have seen
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Dimitri
Fontaine wrote:
> I failed to have 0 to allow for analyze to compute a value again, as shown
> in the raw notes in attachement:
I'm lost. I think you're getting the new column attdistinct mixed up
with the existing column stadistinct. attdistinct is alwa
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
>
> Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
>
> regards, tom lane
Awesome, congrats.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgs
Stephen Frost wrote:
>> For example:
>> void pg_security_alter_table(Oid relid)
>> {
>> if (!pg_class_ownercheck(relid, GetUserId())
>> aclcheck_error(...);
>>
>> if (!sepgsqlCheckTableSetattr(relid))
>> selinux_error(...);
>> }
>
> Right, something along thes
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Mark
Kirkwood wrote:
With respect to the sum of wait times being not very granular, yes -
quite
true. I was thinking it is useful to be able to answer the question
'where
is my wait time being spent' - but it hides c
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
> As I noted in the reply to Stephen Frost, "what should be controled"
> (e.g, ALTER TABLE) and "how to check it" (e.g, ownership based control)
> are different things.
>
> If we go on the direction to restructure the current aclcheck mechanism
> and to i
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
> It seems to me your suggestion is similar to the idea of PGACE framework.
It is, but it's being done as incremental changes to the existing
structures, and working with them, instead of ignoring that they exist.
> Let's consider the matter mo
Robert Haas wrote:
FWIW, pretty much +1 from me on everything in here; I think this is
definitely going in the right direction. It's not the size of the
patches that matter; it's the complexity and difficulty of verifying
that they don't break anything. And it's not cumulative: three easy
patch
Stephen Frost wrote:
> KaiGai,
>
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> Strategy for code changes:
>>> Patch #1: Move permissions checks currently implemented in other parts
>>> of the code (eg: tablecmds.c:ATExecChangeOwner()) into
>>>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> KaiGai,
>
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Strategy for code changes:
>> > Patch #1: Move permissions checks currently implemented in other parts
>> > of the code (eg: tablecmds.c:ATExecC
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am quite happy that the annoyance over a patch of mine "helped" you starting
> to work on this ;-)
> Thanks for all the work.
You're welcome, thanks for all your reviewing. For the record, I
wasn't annoyed BY the patch; I was annoyed by th
On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > One part where I find the code flow ugly is 'did_boilerplate' in
> > report_triggers/its callsites.
> > I can see why it is done that way, but its not exactly obvious to read
> > when you
Hi Robert,
On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I have posted a new version of this patch on a separate thread; do you
> have time to re-review?
Yes, I have seen it. I plan to spent some time on it tonight and/or tomorrow.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> One part where I find the code flow ugly is 'did_boilerplate' in
> report_triggers/its callsites.
> I can see why it is done that way, but its not exactly obvious to read when
> you want to find out how the format looks.
Suggestions?
> Anot
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Strategy for code changes:
> > Patch #1: Move permissions checks currently implemented in other parts
> > of the code (eg: tablecmds.c:ATExecChangeOwner()) into
> > aclchk.c.
> > Patc
daveg writes:
> Will the patch apply to a vanilla 8.4.0?
Yeah, it should. The line numbers in the version I just posted might
be off a little bit for 8.4.0, but patch should cope.
Be sure to "make clean" and recompile all of src/bin/pg_dump, else you
might have some issues.
Fujii Masao writes:
> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.o
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:29:34PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I think we've pretty much established that it doesn't make things
> > *worse*, so I'm sort of inclined to go ahead and apply it. The
> > theoretical advantage of eliminating O(N^2) search behavior seems
> >
> > %t LOG: received fast shutdown request
> > %t LOG: aborting any active transactions
> > %t LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting down
> > %t LOG: shutting down
> > %t LOG: database system is shut down
> >
> > That's the entire file. Attempting to start the service,
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 19:52, Kevin Field
> wrote:
> > On Win2k3 Std SP2, the service won't start once I've applied the
> > patch. In the log, I get:
> >
> > %t LOG: CreateProcess call failed: A blocking operation was
> > interrupted by a call to WSACancelBlockingCall.
>
> Now, that's just str
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 19:29, Kevin Field wrote:
>> > %t LOG: received fast shutdown request
>> > %t LOG: aborting any active transactions
>> > %t LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting down
>> > %t LOG: shutting down
>> > %t LOG: database system is shut down
>> >
>> >
Fujii Masao writes:
> But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify
> interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we
> cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should
> newly add backend ID field into pg_listener?
H
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Rebased to correct for pg_indent changes.
>
> Thanks for doing that.
No problem. I think I still owe you a few. :-)
> Attached is a further small improvement that gets rid of the
> find_ready_items() scans. After re-reading the patch I realiz
On 7/31/2009, "Marko Tiikkaja" wrote:
> ..
I seem to be having problems with my email client. The patch should be
attached this time. Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
patch3
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make cha
On 7/19/2009, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> The way that I think this should be approached is
> (1) a code-refactoring patch that moves INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE control
> into plan nodes; then
> (2) a feature patch that makes use of that to expose RETURNING in CTEs.
I've been working on this and here's a patc
I've noticed that every so often eukaryote reports a regression failure
with just this one diff:
***
/data/markwkm/local/pgfarmbuild-cell/HEAD/pgsql.4654/src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out
Fri Jul 31 04:00:51 2009
---
/data/markwkm/local/pgfarmbuild-cell/HEAD/pgsql.4654/src/test/regress/res
Stephen Frost wrote:
> KaiGai,
>
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> For the recent a few days, I've worked to write and edit
>> the specification (partially copied from the draft of user
>> documentation) for the development purpose.
>>
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreS
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Rebased to correct for pg_indent changes.
Thanks for doing that. Attached is a further small improvement that
gets rid of the find_ready_items() scans. After re-reading the patch
I realized that it wasn't *really* avoiding O(N^2) behavior ... but
this version does.
Hi,
Finally some update on the patch.
Le 18 juil. 09 à 20:55, Robert Haas a écrit :
This is one of the things that I hate about the requirement to post
context diffs: filterdiff, at least for me, strips out the git tags
that indicate the base rev of the patch.
Yes, and as I didn't have the ti
PFC writes:
> - for short strings (average 12 bytes), sort is CPU-bound in strcoll()
> - for longer strings (average 120 bytes), sort is even more CPU-bound in
> strcoll()
No news there. If you are limited by the speed of text comparisons,
consider using C locale.
rega
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> For the recent a few days, I've worked to write and edit
> the specification (partially copied from the draft of user
> documentation) for the development purpose.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL_Development
Thanks for doin
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 14:41, Kevin Field wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 19:52, Kevin Field
>> wrote:
>> > On Win2k3 Std SP2, the service won't start once I've applied the
>> > patch. In the log, I get:
>> >
>> > %t LOG: CreateProcess call failed: A blocking operation was
>> > interrupted by
2009/7/31 Bernd Helmle :
> --On Montag, Juli 27, 2009 15:24:12 +0200 Bernd Helmle
> wrote:
>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I sending a little bit modified version - I removed my forgotten
>>> comment in gram.y
>>
>> Thanks, i'll look on it asap.
>
> Looks good now.
>
> Here is a slightly edited reviewed patch v
There was a thread some time ago about sorting... it kind of died...
I did some tests on a desktop (Postgres 8.3.7, kubuntu, Core 2 dual core,
4GB RAM, RAID1 of 2 SATA disks)
Quick conclusions :
- grabbing the stuff to sort can be IO bound of course (not here)
- for short strings (average 12
Michael Meskes írta:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:58:21PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>
>> Attached is the short example I can reproduce with.
>> The version I used was final PostgreSQL 8.4.0, without our
>> extensions posted already. I added an indication to ecpg_type_name():
>>
>> [z...@d
Nobody may remember, I also proposed a patch to support access
controls on largeobject.
It was suggested that largeobject stores its contents on the TOAST
relations and provides interfaces to read/write them partially.
For example:
> == lo_xxx() interfaces ==
>
> A new version of loread() and low
37 matches
Mail list logo
