Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
> > immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
> > only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
> > siginificant case(typical updatable views).
>
> I would like to devise a co
> It is my experience that most other free software projects take
> standards compliance more seriously than PostgreSQL, and my strong
> opinion that both the project and its users (not to mention the
> whole SQL database industry, eventually) would benefit from better
> support for the SQL standa
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA023283/PostgreSQLe.html
>
> Mentions cygwin, am I misunderstanding?
Are you talking about following in the page?
* Notice: Based upon the GNU-cygwin, there is a version that
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
> immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
> only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
> siginificant case(typical updatable views).
I would like to devise a complete solution *before* we con
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, If I understood the proposals correctly, I think that means that
> > this implementation argues for, or at least would work well with,
> > Hiroshi's solution, since yours, Tom, would return a false zero in
> > certain (per
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows
user will
> > ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
>
> With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even know we
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From a PgSQL Project standpoint, pgaccess has always been included as a
> > way of increasing the overall distribution of the package as a valid GUI
> > interface ... all that has ever happened in the past i
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just now I was looking for a way to propagate the necessary information
> to call ExecutorEnd() from ExecEndFunctionScan() in the case that fmgr
> doesn't. It looks like I might be able to add a member to the
> ExprContext struct for this purpose. Does t
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From a PgSQL Project standpoint, pgaccess has always been included as a
> way of increasing the overall distribution of the package as a valid GUI
> interface ... all that has ever happened in the past is that when a new
> release came out from Teo,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>With the current SRF patch, in certain circumstances selecting from a
>>VIEW produces "Buffer Leak" warnings, while selecting from the function
>>itself does not. Also the VIEW returns only one of the two expected
>>rows.
>
> The bu
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With the current SRF patch, in certain circumstances selecting from a
> VIEW produces "Buffer Leak" warnings, while selecting from the function
> itself does not. Also the VIEW returns only one of the two expected
> rows.
The buffer leak suggests failur
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> Thanks Ross,
>
> This sounds like a resolution.
>
> > I'd suggest keeping a copy of pgaccess in the main tree, as well, and
> > pushing versions from the development CVS over on a regular basis.
>
> I am not a cvs expert. We will check this with Stanisl
Dann Corbit wrote:
> I am not enrolled in the CVS project, and don't even know how to use it.
> We use "Visual Source Safe" here -- really an icky tool but at least
> everyone here knows it.
Source Safe? Yikes. I haven't used that in a long time.
>
> There is some debate here as to whether to k
> -Original Message-
> From: mlw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:34 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: Issues tangential to win32 support
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA023283/PostgreSQLe.html
>
> Men
Dann Corbit wrote:
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA023283/PostgreSQLe.html
Mentions cygwin, am I misunderstanding?
Does not matter, the issue is that you guys said you did it. OK, have you been
able to bring the changed back into the main source tree? (Are you not trying?)
> -Original Message-
> From: mlw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:56 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: Issues tangential to win32 support
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > Our package avoids Cygwin altogether. We wrote our own
> POSI
On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 02:33, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> It took a few hundred man hours to do it.
About 2-8 weeks for one full time programmer ?
> I see the whole Win32 port as
> a non issue. Several parties have already completed it (including the
> place where I work -- CONNX Solutions Inc.).
> -Original Message-
> From: mlw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:56 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: Issues tangential to win32 support
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > Our package avoids Cygwin altogether. We wrote our own
> POSI
Dann Corbit wrote:
> Our package avoids Cygwin altogether. We wrote our own POSIX layer from
> scratch, and we junked fork() for CreateProcess() {and inserted copious:
> #ifdef ICKY_WIN32_KLUDGE
> /* our code goes here */
> #else
> /* Standard UNIX code goes here */
> #endif
OK, what sorts of th
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows user will
> > ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
>
> With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even
> -Original Message-
> From: mlw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:41 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: Issues tangential to win32 support
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > It took a few hundred man hours to do it. I see the whole
> W
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a little patch that actually allows SPI_prepare() to
> use UNKNOWN_OID in the passed in parameter type array and
> put's the choosen datatypes Oid back into there.
> The parser treats those parameters like single quoted
Dann Corbit wrote:
> It took a few hundred man hours to do it. I see the whole Win32 port as
> a non issue. Several parties have already completed it (including the
> place where I work -- CONNX Solutions Inc.). If we did not do it or all
> parties who already did it were hit by a comet or some
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannu Krosing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: Jan Wieck
> Cc: Scott Marlowe; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Issues tangential to win32 support
>
>
> On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:51, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Sc
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:23, mlw wrote:
> Lee Kindness wrote:
>
> >
> > Sure It'd be nice to have a native PostgreSQL on XP Server (I don't
> > see the point in consumer level Microsoft OSs) but how high is the
> > demand? What's the prize? What are the current limitations - fork,
> > semaphores
On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 00:09, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:51, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > There are some issues that the whole idea of a win32 port should bring up.
> > > One of them is whether or not postgresql should be rewritten as a
> > > multi-threaded a
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:36, mlw wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > note
> > > that many Unixes prefer multi-threaded models as well (Solaris comes to
> > > mind) so there's the possibility that a multi-threaded postgresql could
> > > enjoy better performance on more
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:51, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > There are some issues that the whole idea of a win32 port should bring up.
> > One of them is whether or not postgresql should be rewritten as a
> > multi-threaded app.
>
> Please, don't add this one to it.
>
> I'm
Thanks Ross,
This sounds like a resolution.
> I'd suggest keeping a copy of pgaccess in the main tree, as well, and
> pushing versions from the development CVS over on a regular basis.
I am not a cvs expert. We will check this with Stanislav - our system
administrator, when he is back from holi
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:36, mlw wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > note
> > that many Unixes prefer multi-threaded models as well (Solaris comes to
> > mind) so there's the possibility that a multi-threaded postgresql could
> > enjoy better performance on more than just windows.
>
> The isolatio
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > nconway=> prepare q2 as select $1;
> > ERROR: Parameter '$1' is out of range
>
> > (You'll see the same parse error with simply "select $1;")
>
> You need to tell the parser the number of parameters to expect and their
> datatypes. Th
Valentine Zaretsky wrote:
> just_fun=# select * from fun(1) as fun limit 1;
> WARNING: Buffer Leak: [050] (freeNext=-3, freePrev=-3, rel=16570/16587,
> blockNum=0, flags=0x85, refcount=1 2)
> i | v
> ---+-
> 1 | one
> (1 row)
>
> And there is no warning with "ORDER BY"
>
> just_fun=#
Hello everybody,
The last message of Chris helped me a lot.
Let me give a short summary why do we (www.pgaccess.org) do what we do.
What are the motives behind and what is the goal.
My company needed pgaccess exactly because of the nice visual 'schema'. The
'schema', however, did not behave we
Hello, Joe!
JC> With the current SRF patch, in certain circumstances selecting from
JC> a
JC> VIEW produces "Buffer Leak" warnings, while selecting from the
JC> function itself does not. Also the VIEW returns only one of the two
Selecting from the function produces such a warning when using
Barry Lind wrote:
> I have found this whole thread very interesting (I'm still not sure
> where it is going though :-). But let me throw in some of my thoughts.
>
> A windows version of postgres (whether native of cygwin based) is
> important. I have many developers with windows as their desktop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> >> If
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are confusing client behavior (by which I meant application)
> with library behavior. In libpq terms, an application that's sent
> an INSERT command might expect to be able to retrieve an OID with
> PQoidValue(). Whether the library avoids core-dumping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> >>
On Thursday 09 May 2002 07:51 am, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > 3) If (2) is the case, then development could continue under the BSD
> > > license, since developers could use the BSD-original code for their
> > > development work. So there is no risk of "bac
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > If postgresql IS going to eventually be multi-threaded, then the whole
> > win32 port should probably be delayed until then, since it would solve
> > many of the issues of fork() versus createprocess().
>
> If multi-threading is the plan, then there i
From: "Jan Wieck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joel Burton wrote:
> > Certainly, we don't need all of cygwin (eg bison, gcc, perl, et al).
We'd
> > need the dll, sh, rm, and few other things. I'm not sure if it would
need to
> > be in the standard cygwin file structure; I know that you can
reconfigure
>
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> There are some issues that the whole idea of a win32 port should bring up.
> One of them is whether or not postgresql should be rewritten as a
> multi-threaded app.
Please, don't add this one to it.
I'm all for the native Windows port, yes, but I've discussed
Le Jeudi 9 Mai 2002 17:35, Ross J. Reedstrom a écrit :
> That's a different installer over a Unixoid operating system, so it doesn't
> really prove that the only problem is the installer, does it?
There are three different issues :
1- package installer providing a minimal Cygwin version (other th
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
>>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
>>> we should write a real Win32 version.
>>
>> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you
With the current SRF patch, in certain circumstances selecting from a
VIEW produces "Buffer Leak" warnings, while selecting from the function
itself does not. Also the VIEW returns only one of the two expected
rows. The same SQL function when declared as "... getfoo(int) RETURNS
int AS ..." in
Le Jeudi 9 Mai 2002 16:55, mlw a écrit :
> Can a cygwin version of PostgreSQL see the native file system, like: C:\My
> Database, D:\postgres?
You have the choice to keep Windows or Unix paths. Both are supported.
/Jean-Michel POURE
---(end of broadcast)--
Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> There are some issues that the whole idea of a win32 port should bring up.
> One of them is whether or not postgresql should be rewritten as a
> multi-threaded app.
Perhaps.
>
> If postgresql will never be rewritten as a multi-threaded app, then
> performance under Win
Joel Burton wrote:
> Certainly, we don't need all of cygwin (eg bison, gcc, perl, et al). We'd
> need the dll, sh, rm, and few other things. I'm not sure if it would need to
> be in the standard cygwin file structure; I know that you can reconfigure
> this when you use cygwin (I used to). In any e
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > No matter what steps you take, cygwin will not be seen by Windows users as
> > anything but a sloppy/messy/horrible hack. It is a fact of life. You are
> > welcome to disagree, but I assure you it is true.
>
> Just to clarify here: is it confirmed that havin
Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If the client is expecting to get back "INSERT m n" and actually
>> gets back "UPDATE n", isn't that client likely to break?
> Perhaps. How many clients are checking that the string returned
> matches the q
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > It is not important where it is - it is important (for us) to put a small
> > organization around the thing that can make collecting all patches possible.
>
> pgaccess is currently in the pgsql cvs tree, and is welcome to stay
> there. Some of
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> If "fixing" PostgreSQL to "work" on Win32 caused a whole lot of
> breakage on the Unix side, that would _not_ be a "win." It might
> do well on Win32, but breakage could lead to a LOSS of interest
> on Unix, as people decided to take the point of view that the
> dev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
> > that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
> > write a real Win32 version.
>
> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _yo
> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
> that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
> write a real Win32 version.
The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real Win32
version. Th
54 matches
Mail list logo
