Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I had the idea that -CF would enlarge the lexer tables quite a bit ---
>> what's the change in executable size?)
> +150 kB
> I've also looked at -CFe, which is supposedly the next slowest level, but
> it doesn't do nearly as well
Tom Lane writes:
> I had the idea that -CF would enlarge the lexer tables quite a bit ---
> what's the change in executable size?)
+150 kB
I've also looked at -CFe, which is supposedly the next slowest level, but
it doesn't do nearly as well.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lincoln Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...By the way, are updates treated the same as selects by the optimizer?
Yeah. The writes must occur in any case, so I see no reason why the
optimizer should worry about them. All it needs to consider are the
cycles used by the various alternatives for
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> I can't think of a reason that [creation of] temp tables should
>> be prevented.
> Maybe to keep hostile users from filling up your disk?
That does come to mind --- but if you've let hostile users into
your
At 10:48 AM 4/18/02 -0400, mlw wrote:
>Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Have you tried reducing 'random_page_cost' in postgresql.conf. That
> > should solve most of your problems if you would like more index scans.
>
>My random page cost is 1 :-)
What happens when you set random page cost to 1? Betw
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Sander Steffann wrote:
> I can't think of a reason that [creation of] temp tables should
> be prevented.
Maybe to keep hostile users from filling up your disk?
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this n
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is already a RenameStmt node which is currently only used to
> rename tables or table column names. Is there any objection to modifying
> it to handle trigger names (and possibly other things in the future) also?
You'd need to add a field so you co
Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah. As of CVS tip, to reshuffle the order of existing triggers you
>> must (a) do a manual UPDATE pg_trigger SET tgname = 'something' ...
>> then (b) restart your backend(s), because the relcache code does not
>> notice that you did that, so it'll ke
John Gray wrote:
>
> and two macros:
>
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(relid);
> AlterTableDoSomething(childrel,...);
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN_END;
>
> (this seems more straightforward than passing the text of the function
> call as a macro parameter).
>
Suggestion:
RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(inh, relid)
John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sequences still seem to work after they've had attributes renamed, but I
> see little value in being able to do this. Is it OK to prohibit the
> renaming of sequence columns?
That seems like an error to me. Setting defaults, constraints, etc on a
sequence
Dear all,
I've been looking at tidying up some of the repeated code which now
resides in tablecmds.c - in particular the ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN
code.
Most of these routines share common code:
1) AccessExclusive Lock on relation.
2) Relation is a table, not a system table, user is owner.
3)
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> COMMENT ON DATABASE db IS 'Comment';
> Now switch databases. Comment is gone.
Yeah, it's not very helpful. I'm not sure why we bothered to implement
that in the first place.
> I suppose in order to add a comment field to pg_database it would need
> to
I said:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> An aclitem[] column on pg_database seems like the most flexible solution
>> to me.
> Yeah, I was afraid you would say that ;-). I'd prefer to avoid it
> because I think we'd need to have a TOAST table for pg_database then.
> And I'm not a
COMMENT ON DATABASE db IS 'Comment';
Now switch databases. Comment is gone.
Of course, adding the comments to template1 will carry comments
forward (in pg_description) to future DBs. Not fatal, but quite
annoying.
I suppose in order to add a comment field to pg_database it would need
to be to
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've used 'flex -8 -CFa' and restructured the code to avoid looping over
> and copying the input string half a dozen times. For instance, instead of
> scanstr(), the escape sequences are resolved as the input is scanned, and
> instead of the myinput(
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Yeah. As of CVS tip, to reshuffle the order of existing triggers you
> must (a) do a manual UPDATE pg_trigger SET tgname = 'something' ...
> then (b) restart your backend(s), because the relcache code does not
> notice that you did that, so it'll keep using the trigger data i
The problem with this is that the existing functionality of LOs allows
you to share a single LO across multiple tables. There may not be a
single source, but multiple. Since LOs just use an OID as a FK to the
LO, you can store that OID in multiple different tables.
--Barry
Mario Weilguni wr
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2001-09/msg00234.php
> Nobody opposed to the idea of name ordering in that thread.
Okay, I've committed the fixes that implement this.
> But note that this is on TODO:
> * Allow user to control trigger firi
I've been poking at the scanner a bit using the large literal test case
from the other day
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-04/msg00811.php
I've been able to reduce the wall-clock run time of that test from 3:37
min to 2:13 min and the base_yylex() per-call time from 137ms to 24
At 12:11 PM +0200 4/19/02, Mario Weilguni wrote:
>would'nt it be much better to expand pg_largeobject to have another column "src_oid"
>(or similar), containing the OID of the referencing table from pg_class, and when
>accessing large objects take the privilieges from the referencing class?
It'
Hi Tom,
> One of the things I'd like this mechanism to do is answer the request
> we've heard so often about preventing users from creating new tables.
> If the DBA revokes write access on the public namespace from a particular
> user, and doesn't create a personal schema for that user, then unde
"Mario Weilguni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would'nt it be much better to expand pg_largeobject to have another
> column "src_oid" (or similar), containing the OID of the referencing
> table from pg_class,
What referencing table? The existing LO implementation has no idea
where you are keepin
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note also that one of the big problems we experienced was with clause
> three of BSD-style licenses (the attribution clause).
Fortunately, Berkeley had already stopped using the advertising clause
when they tossed Postgres over the fence. Our version do
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my understanding we are going to turn on the --enable-syslog
> *configure* option by default (or remove the configuration option
> completely), but not change the syslog option in postgresql.conf
> (currently default to 0: that means not output to sysl
As some may know I will be talking about PostgreSQL on LinuxTag (6th of
June - 9th of June) in Karlsruhe, Germany. In particular I want to
address:
- The functionality of PostgreSQL
- Its stability and capability of handling large databases, ideally by
some case studies.
- Comparison to other p
would'nt it be much better to expand pg_largeobject to have another column "src_oid"
(or similar), containing the OID of the referencing table from pg_class, and when
accessing large objects take the privilieges from the referencing class?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Damon Cokenias [
On 04/18/2002 12:41:15 PM tycho wrote:
> > Don't know if the optimizer takes this into consideration, but a query that
> uses a primary and/or unique key in the where-clause, should always choose to
> use
> > the related indices (assuming the table size is above a certain threshold).
> Since
Hi all,
I see there's a TODO item for large object security, it's a feature I'd really like to
see. I'm willing to put in the time to write a patch, but know far to little about
postgres internals and history to just dive in. Has there been any discussion on this
list about what this feature
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andreas Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
> > licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
> > licence.
> > I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
>
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
> Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
> is like that..."
You would have to ask the Regents of the University of California at
Berkeley, not
30 matches
Mail list logo
