Re: [HACKERS] Updating psql for features of new FE/BE protocol

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
This is irrelevant to what I'm doing, in any case, and it's not an itch I feel personally. Work on it yourself if you want it ... OK, I figured it out. :-) It's a fairly short patch in 7.3.3, what do I need to do to submit it for 7.4? I also made a minor functional change that may need to

[HACKERS] date parsing

2003-06-26 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Is this deliberate? usa=# select '1-1-2001'::date; date 2001-01-01 (1 row) usa=# select '1-1--2001'::date; date 2001-01-01 (1 row) usa=# select '1-1---2001'::date; date 2001-01-01 (1 row) usa=# select

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like databases, tables and indexes can be put. I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order should be: Databases Tablespaces

[HACKERS] Missing 7.3.3 cvs tag

2003-06-26 Thread Kris Jurka
I don't see a tag for in cvs for the 7.3.3 release. Kris Jurka ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Re: [HACKERS] row description for domain in 7.4

2003-06-26 Thread John DeSoi
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: No, 7.4 intentional change. If you want to argue that this was a bad idea, it's not too late ... but see the archived discussions about it. Hi Tom, Can you give me a pointer on where to find the archived discussions? I have tried all

Re: [HACKERS] recursive queries

2003-06-26 Thread Andrew Overholt
Tom Lane once said: Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew Overholt of Red Hat has been working on this, but is certainly not going to make the Tuesday feature-freeze deadline. I was just wondering who was working on it and what the progress was...? It seemed to me

Re: [HACKERS] date parsing

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is this deliberate? usa=# select '1-1--2001'::date; [works] The guys who might actually be able to tell you whether it was an intended behavior are long gone. But I don't see any particular problem with it. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] row description for domain in 7.4

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
John DeSoi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: No, 7.4 intentional change. If you want to argue that this was a bad idea, it's not too late ... but see the archived discussions about it. Can you give me a pointer on where to find the archived

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
That should be Tablespaces databases schemas objects with each of them implemented as a directory and data files under it. If we could get a quota check propogated in both direction, that would be pretty good, may be a warning when things start getting close to limit. I

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. Just as you can have multiple schemas within one database you can have multiple tablespaces within one database. And the tablespace is irrelevant as far as specifying an object is concerned. A fully qualified object would be:

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Thursday 26 June 2003 20:22, Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. Just as you can have multiple schemas within one database you can have multiple tablespaces within one database. And the tablespace is irrelevant as far as specifying an object is concerned. A fully

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, consider this. Keep in mind that all of them are directories.. I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with schemas... Well, with above proposal, drop database should be as simple. It's just that it would be more

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:29, Tom Lane wrote: Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, consider this. Keep in mind that all of them are directories.. I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with schemas... Moving a multi-hundreds-of-GB table across

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:29, Tom Lane wrote: I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with schemas... Moving a multi-hundreds-of-GB table across schemas would be sooo easy..:-) No, it would be harder.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
Well, with above proposal, drop database should be as simple. It's just that it would be more than one `rm -rf`rather than just one. Right, there would be potentially one per tablespace. The key point here is that the tablespace definitions are known cluster-wide, so a DROP DATABASE x

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this doable within the time frame for the 7.4 feature freeze? Good question. If it gets in 7.4, that would be more than a killer feature to put against 7.4 release, with due respect to all other enhancements in progress.. Shridhar

[HACKERS] ECPG and bytea

2003-06-26 Thread Lee Kindness
Guys, surely some one's done this before? I've tried using PQescapeBytea too, but still get (slightly) different output. If I try and insert \x02\x01\x02\x03\x04hello\x05\x64\x99\x45 I get (int values of chars printed): INSERT: 2 1 2 3 4 104 101 108 108 111 5 100 -103 69 SELECT: 2 1

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Thomas Swan
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Swan writes: Have you considered something similar to the Mozilla tinderbox approach where you have a daemon checkout the cvs, compile, run regression tests, and report a status or be able to report a status? Even

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Being able to zap a database with one or more 'rm -rf' commands assumes that there will be files from just ONE database permitted in any given tablespace, and ONLY files from that database. I said no such thing. Look at the structure again:

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG and bytea

2003-06-26 Thread Joe Conway
Lee Kindness wrote: Guys, surely some one's done this before? I've tried using PQescapeBytea too, but still get (slightly) different output. If I try and insert \x02\x01\x02\x03\x04hello\x05\x64\x99\x45 I get (int values of chars printed): INSERT: 2 1 2 3 4 104 101 108 108 111 5 100 -103

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it possible the sourceforge compile farms could be used for some of the automated testing? I'm not sure how that system works, but it could be worth looking into. The last time I used it (which admittedly was a year or two back), they didn't really

[HACKERS] Table partitioning question.

2003-06-26 Thread Austin Gonyou
I seem to recall that Table partitioning used to be on the *urgent* heading of the ToDo list. Now I see it is under misc. As people who are needing to move away from Oracle due to cost restrictions, I wanted to know how much work, or what the status is of this option. Please respond asap if

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_dump all tables in 7.3.X

2003-06-26 Thread Paul Ramsey
Oh, if it's by design then the pg_dump --help text should be updated correspondingly. The online doco is already correct. Tom Lane wrote: Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are trying to do an all tables dump using the 7.3.3 pg_dump, but are getting no love. The pg_dump command which

Re: [HACKERS] pg_guc

2003-06-26 Thread Josh Berkus
Fernando, We have a server side GUI utility that among other things let us configure GUC variables. We badly need to know what variables exist in the specific backend version, which are the min and max values and if possible a description. The option is to hardwire these things into

Re: [HACKERS] row description for domain in 7.4

2003-06-26 Thread John DeSoi
Tom, Thanks for helping me find the previous discussion. 2) Better support for domains. Currently the jdbc driver is broken with regards to domains (although no one has reported this yet). The driver will treat a datatype that is a domain as an unknown/unsupported datatype. It would be

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this doable within the time frame for the 7.4 feature freeze? Good question. ROTFL... the answer is no. Feature freeze is Tuesday, people. In practice, the time to start coding

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_dump all tables in 7.3.X

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, if it's by design then the pg_dump --help text should be updated correspondingly. The online doco is already correct. Hm. Wait a minute --- I was thinking of 7.4 not 7.3. The * hack does appear to still be there in the 7.3 source code. Are you sure

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_dump all tables in 7.3.X

2003-06-26 Thread Paul Ramsey
Entirely sure: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pg_dump]$ which pg_dump /opt/pgsql73/bin/pg_dump [EMAIL PROTECTED] pg_dump]$ pg_dump -t * pramsey -- -- PostgreSQL database dump -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] pg_dump]$ Tom Lane wrote: Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, if it's by design then the pg_dump --help

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_dump all tables in 7.3.X

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Entirely sure: Hmph. There must be some bug in the 7.3 code for it then. Since we've already ripped out that code for 7.4, I'm not too excited about finding the problem... regards, tom lane ---(end of

[HACKERS] A portable code question

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
In the little fix I came up with for psql last night, I need to be able to ensure that something sent to a pipe (and then to stdout) completes before issuing the prompt directly to stdout. I did this with: system ('sleep 1');, but I'm fairly sure that is not portable nor does it ENSURE

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Thomas Swan
Nigel J. Andrews wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Thomas Swan wrote: Is it possible the sourceforge compile farms could be used for some of the automated testing? I'm not sure how that system works, but it could be worth looking into. Isn't the sourceforge license very scary and along

Re: [HACKERS] A portable code question

2003-06-26 Thread Benjamin Minshall
Assuming you're using file streams to write to the pipe, fflush() will do the trick. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:20 PM To: pgsql hackers list Subject: [HACKERS] A portable code

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Austin Gonyou
I know I'm new to this list, but is OSDL's testing capabilities out of the question? On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 13:48, Thomas Swan wrote: Nigel J. Andrews wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Thomas Swan wrote: Is it possible the sourceforge compile farms could be used for some of the automated

Re: [HACKERS] A portable code question

2003-06-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Or if you want this behaviour all the time, one call of setvbuf(mypipe,(char *)0,_IONBF,0); should do the trick (much easier than remebering to have to call fflush() all the time). If not using streams, and just calling write(), then you probably don't have to worry. andrew BTW,

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 15:00, Austin Gonyou wrote: I know I'm new to this list, but is OSDL's testing capabilities out of the question? From what I've seen, OSDL is only concerned with a very very small set of platforms (Linux in a couple of configurations). -- Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Gonyou, Austin
DOH!. YesYou're right I totally forgot about that. My apologies. I believe though, that there is a HP testing lab that is somewhat like OSDL, in that they offer OSS free services and many platforms to run on. (used to be compaq's developer testdrive sort of program) I believe it still exists.

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Rod Taylor
* clean the source, destination directories * pull latest CVS tip down. Why tip? Lets simply update the current source tree to the most current of whatever branch they had checked out initially. Running it on older stable branches is just as useful. * record environment /

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:09, Gonyou, Austin wrote: DOH!. YesYou're right I totally forgot about that. My apologies. I believe though, that there is a HP testing lab that is somewhat like OSDL, in that they offer OSS free services and many platforms to run on. (used to be compaq's developer

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Gonyou, Austin
-Original Message- From: Rod Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:33 PM To: Gonyou, Austin Cc: Thomas Swan; Nigel J. Andrews; Tom Lane; PostgreSQL Development Subject: RE: Two weeks to feature freeze On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:09, Gonyou, Austin wrote: DOH!.

Re: [HACKERS] A portable code question

2003-06-26 Thread nolan
Assuming you're using file streams to write to the pipe, fflush() will do the trick. The problem is that the pipe (from \o |tee ) is intermingling writes to stdout by tee with direct writes to stdout from within psql. I do issue a fflush, because that's necessary to make the pipe do its

[HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Philip Yarra
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19 am, Philip Yarra wrote: there appears to still be a problem occurring at EXEC SQL DISCONNECT con_name. I'll look into it tonight if I can. I did some more poking around last night, and believe I have found the issue: RedHat Linux 7.3 (the only distro I have access

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Thomas Swan wrote: Of course, these are just ideas and I'm not sure how practical it is to do any of them. I just am really concerned about the uninstall/clean up phase and how that can be done in an orderly fashion. Unless the process can start from a clean state

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Rod Taylor wrote: I think we should replace Bruce's pgtest script with this one -- with an argument to accept the email address to report to for FAILING cases. Success isn't very interesting if it runs regularly. that was why I suggested getting it into the tree ... to at

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Thomas Swan
The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Thomas Swan wrote: Of course, these are just ideas and I'm not sure how practical it is to do any of them. I just am really concerned about the uninstall/clean up phase and how that can be done in an orderly fashion. Unless the process can start

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread AgentM
According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists. pthread_mutexattr_get/settype(...) functions are defined by X/Open XSH5 (Unix98). I would suggest writing a wrapper for OSs that don't implement recursive locks (it's easy enough to make your own implementation- just

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Kevin Brown
The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data they feel comfortable releasing? As a gborg project, it would be separate

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: It doesn't sound like a bad idea ... but, it pretty much comes down to the original thread: are you willing to step up and maintain such a project? Yes, I am (how hard can it be?, he asks himself, knowing all the while that it's a really bad idea to

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: So...would it make sense to create a gborg project to which people who have written their own test suites can contribute whatever code and data they feel comfortable releasing?

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Philip Yarra
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote: According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists. Thanks for the info - useful to know. lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks can be eliminated. Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - the

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
BSD/OS supports: The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c (``POSIX''). How is that different from UNIX98? --- Philip Yarra wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote: According to POSIX

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start. --- Gavin Sherry wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote: The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've not tried, but if PostgreSQL can do an 'out of tree' compile it could make it much easier. Yes it can, following the usual procedure for autoconfiscated trees: just invoke configure from an empty directory, eg mkdir build cd build

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Good question. If it gets in 7.4, that would be more than a killer feature to put against 7.4 release, with due respect to all other enhancements in progress.. It's not going to happen. Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration

2003-06-26 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Tablespaces databases schemas objects with each of them implemented as a directory and data files under it. If we could get a quota check propogated in both direction, that would be pretty good, may be a warning when things start getting close to limit. Database do not

Tablespaces (was Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration )

2003-06-26 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
ROTFL... the answer is no. Feature freeze is Tuesday, people. In practice, the time to start coding new stuff is already long past. Especially major new stuff. If you start now you might have something done for 7.5. Can everyone who is interested in actually coding a tablespaces

Re: [HACKERS] Table partitioning question.

2003-06-26 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
As people who are needing to move away from Oracle due to cost restrictions, I wanted to know how much work, or what the status is of this option. Please respond asap if possible. I have to give my VP info on this relatively soon. A lot of work is needed, and I wouldnt' even guarantee it

Re: [HACKERS] a problem with index and user define type

2003-06-26 Thread Weiping He
Tom Lane wrote: Weiping He [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: because the data type (UUID) is a struct, and the uuid_eq() function accept two pointer to the value of struct uuid, if make it IMMUTABLE, postgresql would think it should not try to run the function, but return the cached value instead when

Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze

2003-06-26 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: See my recent commit of src/tools/pgtest. It might be a good start. Yes this is a good start. This is a little concerning though: pg_ctl stop rm -rf $PGDATA Perhaps a warning is warranted (ie, $PGDATA shouldn't point to your production data

Re: [HACKERS] row description for domain in 7.4

2003-06-26 Thread Tom Lane
John DeSoi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My vote would be to restore the previous behavior and add connection-specific setting for clients that need it. By my count you're in the minority --- there was no one lobbying for reporting domain OIDs in the previous threads, and at least two people

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Michael Meskes
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:45:46AM +1000, Philip Yarra wrote: ECPGget_connection, both of which share a mutex. Would it be okay if we did the following: ... As you know I have never tried using threads, so feel free to go ahead and change this. Either commit to cvs ot send me a patch.

Re: [HACKERS] row description for domain in 7.4

2003-06-26 Thread John DeSoi
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: By my count you're in the minority --- there was no one lobbying for reporting domain OIDs in the previous threads, and at least two people strongly in favor of not doing so. While I don't have a strong opinion about it myself, I don't