http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc has them all listed .. not sure how to
get there from the Web site ... Vince?
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
> Are mailing list archives of various postgresql mailing list available
> anywhere?
>
> I know they were some time ago but I couldn't
Are mailing list archives of various postgresql mailing list available
anywhere?
I know they were some time ago but I couldn't find any link on
www.postgresql.org now. I subscribed to a list mainly because I want to
monitor the progress but the amount of messages kills my inbox. It would
be reall
Is there any way to get libpq built with -lsocket on the unixware (and
probably other SVR4's) to get the network stuff required ?
(other SVR4's prolly need -lsocket -lnsl)
Larry
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: [EMAIL
"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
> > > > I've wondered why AccessShareLock is a short term lock.
> > >
> > > MUST BE. AccessShare-/Exclusive-Locks are *data* locks.
> > > If one want to protect schema then new schema share/excl locks
> > > must be inroduced. There is no conflict between data and
> > > sc
I believe these TODO items can now be marked "done":
* SELECT foo UNION SELECT foo is incorrectly simplified to SELECT foo
* Be smarter about promoting types when UNION merges different data types
[ actually UNION is now exactly as smart as CASE, which is still
not good enough,
Peter,
As of current sources, large objects no longer occupy tables named
'xinv' nor indexes named 'xinx'. Therefore, it'd be appropriate
to remove the special tests that exclude tables/indices named that way
from the tests in DatabaseMetaData.java. I have not done this because
I'm no
Thanks. Changes made. That's a lot of stuff.
> I believe these TODO items can now be marked "done":
>
> * SELECT foo UNION SELECT foo is incorrectly simplified to SELECT foo
> * Be smarter about promoting types when UNION merges different data types
>
> [ actually UNION is now exactly
> > > I've wondered why AccessShareLock is a short term lock.
> >
> > MUST BE. AccessShare-/Exclusive-Locks are *data* locks.
> > If one want to protect schema then new schema share/excl locks
> > must be inroduced. There is no conflict between data and
> > schema locks - they are orthogonal.
> >
>
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> > > in general. What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > > table until the first xact commits.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with you.
>
> I don't know. We discussed this issue just after
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> > > > What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > > > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > > > table until the first xact commits.
> > >
> > > No, this would mean too many locks, and would leave the dba with hardl
Philip Warner wrote:
> At 15:29 23/10/00 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> >If we have a mechanism to acquire a share lock on a tuple,we
> >could use it for managing system info generally. However the
> >only allowed lock on a tuple is exclusive. Access(Share/Exclusive)
> >Lock on tables would
> Btw, the concept of checksumming rows is kinda new to me.
> I needed this to store passwords on a table, so sorry if I
> cant be more help. But I am a litte bit curious, why is it
> needed? Simple checksumming (crc32/md5) does not help malicious
> changing of data, only hardware failures, but
> Using Dirty transaction removing/updating PK could see that concurrent
> xaction attempts to update/insert FK and so would wait for its
commit/abort.
Of course this will require some function that would take tid as one of
arguments, fetch row and check if someone is updating it.
> Jus
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Speaking of error messages, one idea for 7.2 might be to prepended
> > numbers to the error messages.
>
> Isn't that long since on the TODO list? I know we've had long
> discussions about a thoroughgoing revision of error reporting.
Yes, yes, yes!
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:53:48 -0400
> From: Ned Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [GENERAL] Great Bridge is hiring!
But for what? :)
--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khaz
All,
Apologies for the nature of this post - I think/hope this will be of
general interest to the PostgreSQL community:
Great Bridge is hiring. Big time.
We're particularly interested in what we're calling "knowledge
engineers" - the people who will work with paying Great Bridge customers
t
"Kevin O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pg_backup_custom.c: In function `_DoDeflate':
> pg_backup_custom.c:846: `z_streamp' undeclared (first use in this function)
> pg_backup_custom.c:846: parse error before `zp'
> pg_backup_custom.c:849: `ctx' undeclared (first use in this function)
> pg_
Marten Feldtmann wrote:
> > You'll still have to do 6 queries in postgres because it does not return
> > fields in sub-classes.
>
> Practically this is not such a big problem as one might think.
> WHEN you have a persistance framework you tell your framework,
> that every attribut is located
> > though constraint triggers should use SnapshotDirty instead of
> > SELECT FOR UPDATE anyway.
> >
> > Did you consider this, Jan?
>
> Whenever the checks are done, the transaction inserting a new
> reference to the key must ensure that this key cannot get
> deleted until it is d
Chris schrieb:
>
> > The point is: this is classic, but noone does it
> > like this if your really have a larger hierarchy of
> > classes. You'll not get any good performance, when
> > solving an association in your oo
> > program, because the framework has to query against
> > each table: 6 t
OK, removing the second --with-CXX got us past configure, and gmake
ran a long while, but MAXBUFSIZE didn't get defined such that
fe-connect.c died:
gmake -C doc all
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/home/ler/pg-dev/pgsql-snap/doc'
gmake[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
gmake[1]: Leaving directory
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Speaking of error messages, one idea for 7.2 might be to prepended
> > > > numbers to the error messages.
> > >
> > > Isn't that long since on the TODO list? I know we've had long
> > > discussions about a thoroug
When I migrated to the 7.1 tree, I brought with me my 7.0.2 database.
It's fair sized (6GB) but the problems I had seem to be in the
system stuff.
I'm not even sure if the database is correctly loaded now, and that's
gotta be something no DBA would like. I'm not even all that happy
about the one
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Speaking of error messages, one idea for 7.2 might be to prepended
> > > numbers to the error messages.
> >
> > Isn't that long since on the TODO list? I know we've had long
> > discussions about a thoroughgoing revision
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > my question is whether i should change the function to use the new fmgr
> > type of definition or if it's only for internal functions.
>
> Up to you. If you need any of the new features (like clean handling
> of NULLs) then convert.
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For pass by reference datatypes setting the reference to a null pointer
> for a NULL value imho would be a fine thing in addition to the indicator,
> no ?
At the moment it generally will be, but that's not certain to be true
forever. I believ
>> Actually, given your description of the problem, I'm half inclined
>> to revert the whole patch and instead make configure's test for
>> availability of first include , so
>> that that configure test will succeed on IRIX etc.
Pete,
After looking at this I'm confused again. The configure te
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
my question is whether i should change the function to use the new fmgr
type of definition or if it's only for internal functions.
>>
>> Up to you. If you need any of the new features (
One thing my testing gave SCO was the fact that cc needs to know about
the -R option to ld. It will change before release to know that -R
takes an argument.
Just keep that in mind
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: [E
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure about the use of AccessShareLock in parse-analyze-
> optimize phase however.
That's something we'll have to clean up while fixing this. Currently
the system may acquire and release AccessShareLock multiple times while
parsing/rewriting/pla
> > Modified Files:
> ...
> > Some small polishing of Mark Hollomon's cleanup of DROP command: might
> > as well allow DROP multiple INDEX, RULE, TYPE as well. Add missing
> > CommandCounterIncrement to DROP loop, which could cause trouble otherwise
> > with multiple DROP of items affecting same
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Kevin O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's odd. I had already tried "8 Oct 2000 10:00:00 PDT" on one system
> > (RedHat Linux 6.1), and it had worked. Today I'm building on a
> > Caldera 2.3 system, and both the 00:00 and 10:00 builds fail.
>
> Hm. Portability b
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001023 09:15]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, so why didn't my regression outputs post?
> > Marc?
>
> How big were they? I think the default configuration for majordomo
> is that posts over 50K or so don't go through until hand-approved by
At 10:10 23/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>I consider that behavior *far* safer than allowing schema changes to
>be seen mid-transaction. Consider the following example:
>
> Session 1 Session 2
>
> begin;
>
> INSERT INTO foo ...;
>
>
> > As for locks,weak locks doesn't pass intensive locks. Dba
> > seems to be able to alter a table at any time.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Tom suggested placing a shared
lock on
> any table that is accessed until end of tx. Noone can alter table until
all users have
> closed the
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, wouldn't the answer depend on the isolation level of session
> 1? For serializable TX, then constraint would not apply; 'read committed'
> would mean the constraint was visible on the second insert and at the commit.
The important issue he
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only slightly; one interpretation of a table lock is that it locks all of
> the data in the table; and a lock on the pg_class row locks the metadata. I
> must admit that I am having a little difficulty thinking of a case where
> the distinction would be
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, and holding a row exclusive lock must imho at least grab a shared
> table lock
As indeed it does. Our disagreement seems to be just on the point of
whether it's safe to allow a read-only transaction to release its
AccessShareLock locks p
Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> Try this for both FK tables:
>
> create table tmp2(idx2 int4, col2 int4, constraint
> tmpcon2 foreign key(col2) references tmp1(idx) INITIALLY DEFERRED);
>
> This will defer constraint checks till transaction commit...
> though constraint triggers should use SnapshotDirty i
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Kevin O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > so I tried going back to '7 Oct 2000 10:00:00 PST' and it's better,
> > but regression tests fail on the rule system. It makes the server
> > die. Since rules are what I want, this won't do.
>
> Details? AFAIK, the system wa
> > in general. What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > table until the first xact commits.
> >
>
> I agree with you.
I don't know. We discussed this issue just after 6.5 and decided to
allow concurrent s
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, so why didn't my regression outputs post?
> Marc?
How big were they? I think the default configuration for majordomo
is that posts over 50K or so don't go through until hand-approved by
moderator. Marc tends to clean out that inbox every few da
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Speaking of error messages, one idea for 7.2 might be to prepended
> > numbers to the error messages.
>
> Isn't that long since on the TODO list? I know we've had long
> discussions about a thoroughgoing revision of error reporting.
Yes. We have:
> > You were talking about the "select only" case (and no for update eighter).
> > I think that select statements need a shared lock for the duration of their
> > execution only.
>
> You seem to think that locks on individual tuples conflict with
> table-wide locks.
Yes, very much so. Any oth
Here is some regression stuff. CVS as of about an hour or so ago
(right after Tom answered my note...)
=== Notes... =
postmaster must already be running for the regression tests to succeed.
The time zone is set to PST8PDT for these test
xti.h portion of patch has been backed out.
> Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've done bit more research. was the correct place to find
> > TCP_NODELAY in UNIX98/SUSv2. However in the Austin Group draft of the
> > next version of POSIX and UNIX0x/SUSv3, XTI has been dropped and
>
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> plpgsql regress tests seem a tad out of date ... repair bit rot.
> What's the relation of this test suite to the "plpgsql" test in the
> regression tests? From the comments surrounding it it seems they're
> related.
I think it m
Tom Lane writes:
> plpgsql regress tests seem a tad out of date ... repair bit rot.
What's the relation of this test suite to the "plpgsql" test in the
regression tests? From the comments surrounding it it seems they're
related.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/p
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
> > Bridge.
>
> Whatever happened to this:
>
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ross J. Reedstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: P
At 10:45 23/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Don't we have this ability? What about taking a RowShare lock on the
>> pg_class tuple whenever you read from the table; then requiring schema
>> updates take a RowExclusive lock on the pg_class tuple?
>
>How is
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't we have this ability? What about taking a RowShare lock on the
> pg_class tuple whenever you read from the table; then requiring schema
> updates take a RowExclusive lock on the pg_class tuple?
How is that different from taking locks on the table
Hiroshi Inoue schrieb:
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > It's pretty clear to me that an inherited index should be only one
> > index. There may be a case for optional non-inherited indexes (CREATE
> > INDEX ON ONLY foobar), but if the index is inherited, it is just one
> > index.
> >
> > At the end of t
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, the above is not a valid example, because Session 2 won't
> get the exclusive lock until Session 1 commits, since Session 1 already
> holds a lock on foo (for the inserted row).
> You were talking about the "select only" case (and no for
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As for locks,weak locks doesn't pass intensive locks. Dba
>> seems to be able to alter a table at any time.
> Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Tom suggested placing a
> shared lock on any table that is accessed until end of tx. Noone
At 15:29 23/10/00 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
>If we have a mechanism to acquire a share lock on a tuple,we
>could use it for managing system info generally. However the
>only allowed lock on a tuple is exclusive. Access(Share/Exclusive)
>Lock on tables would give us a restricted solution about
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking of error messages, one idea for 7.2 might be to prepended
> numbers to the error messages.
Isn't that long since on the TODO list? I know we've had long
discussions about a thoroughgoing revision of error reporting.
re
> Until existing xacts using that table have closed, yes. But I believe
> the lock manager has some precedence rules that will allow the pending
> request for AccessExclusiveLock to take precedence over new requests
> for lesser locks. So you're only held off for a long time if you have
> long-
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 01:48:39PM -0700, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>> Did you run make distclean? I've run regtests before committing changes.
> Just made sure - different computer - fresh cvs update/distclean/configure/make
> same coredump
> #1 0x807f4b
Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've done bit more research. was the correct place to find
> TCP_NODELAY in UNIX98/SUSv2. However in the Austin Group draft of the
> next version of POSIX and UNIX0x/SUSv3, XTI has been dropped and
> officially included.
OK, thanks for following up o
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 01:48:39PM -0700, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> Did you run make distclean? I've run regtests before committing changes.
Just made sure - different computer - fresh cvs update/distclean/configure/make
cd src/test/regress
gmake clean
gmake all
gmake runcheck
same coredump
#1 0x
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> > What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > table until the first xact commits.
>
> No, this would mean too many locks, and would leave the dba with hardly a
> chance to alte
> > > What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > > table until the first xact commits.
> >
> > No, this would mean too many locks, and would leave the dba with hardly a
> > chance to alter a table.
> >
>
>
Ok, so why didn't my regression outputs post?
Marc?
LER
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001023 04:32]:
>
> I posted some regression failures twice, and never saw them on the
> list or in the newsgroup. This is a test.
> --
> Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~l
I posted some regression failures twice, and never saw them on the
list or in the newsgroup. This is a test.
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
> What do other DBs do with their output variables if there is
> an embedded SQL
> query resulting in a NULL return value? What I mean is:
>
> exec sql select text into :txt:ind from ...
>
> If text is NULL, ind will be set, but does txt change?
>
> I was just told Informix blanks txt.
No, i
> What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> table until the first xact commits.
No, this would mean too many locks, and would leave the dba with hardly a
chance to alter a table.
If I recall correctly the ANS
> And the --with-CXX option is honored, but only if you don't
> override it in the template file. :)
Is this the precedence we want ?
I would have thought that commandline is preferred over template.
Andreas
> (Also, if you do want to check for a NULL input in current sources,
> looking for a NULL pointer is the wrong way to code it anyway;
> PG_ARGISNULL(n) is the right way.)
For pass by reference datatypes setting the reference to a null pointer
for a NULL value imho would be a fine thing in addit
{retry of message sent Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:04:16 +0100 (BST)]
Tom Lane writes:
> Pete Forman wrote:
> > The basic problem is that is a BSD header. The
> > correct header for TCP internals such as TCP_NODELAY on a UNIX
> > system is . By UNIX I mean UNIX95 (aka XPG4v2 or SUSv1)
> > or late
69 matches
Mail list logo
