Re: [HACKERS] Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?

2004-02-29 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 22:13, Stephen wrote: > Hi, > > Recently, I ran a huge update on an Integer column affecting 100 million > rows in my database. What happened was my disk space increased in size and > my IO load was very high. It appears that MVCC wants to rewrite each row > (each row wa

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > C. BZ does not have any PG support in its default branch, and the RH port is > currently unmaintained. I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of people who regularly use

Re: [HACKERS] Check Constraints and pg_dump

2004-02-29 Thread Jonathan Scott
Tom, I have another instance of a possible function being used as a check constraint: a function that makes sure there is one row, and only one row in a table. At table creation, and the creation of the constraint, there are no rows in the table. So, even if the constraint is a valid one to ha

Re: [HACKERS] Server Side PL support

2004-02-29 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Yes. I am looking at a few of these things (preloading, intra-perl calling, array and tuple return), and I understand that CommandPrompt is doing some plperl work too. They already have a plperl which does triggers. My question was not "what functionality do we need from PLs?" but rather "what

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Neil Conway wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge. > > I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over > to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't > strike me as a good idea, a

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, Re: moving the main project to GForge/whatever: we're not considering that at this time. The way the discussion got entangled is that a few people mentioned wanting a better bug tracker than then one offered with GForge, and that we are considering using a Bug Tracker for the main proje

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Neil Conway wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge. I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't strike me as a good idea, at least initially.) You a

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Josh Berkus
Neil, > Frankly, I think the PostgreSQL project would be sending "the wrong > message" if we chose our tools on any basis other than functionality. > We ought to use what works, whether it supports PG or not. Whether the > bug tracker tool uses PostgreSQL, flat files or MS Access to store > da

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Neil Conway
Josh Berkus wrote: D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge. I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't strike me as a good idea, at least initially.) I think that the PostgreSQL proj

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > A. GF-Tr does not support e-mail interaction at all. Just curious, but: 1. how much work would be involved in adding that? 2. would the gforge developers be willing to integrate it in? The reason I ask is that we have several PHP develop

Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

2004-02-29 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, I thought that I would give everyone a summary of the current discussion of collaboration tools and bug-trackers for our project as I read them. I think that we are quite close to a consensus. Please comment if I've missed something. GBorg-->GForge migration: so far, nobody has obj

[HACKERS] Server Side PL support

2004-02-29 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I have been taking a brief look at pltcl, and particularly its ability to preload modules. By comparison with most of the core product this seems to be somewhat out of date and unpolished (e.g. hardcoded path to libpgtcl.so, no use of schemas for the supporting tables, lack of comments). Since

[HACKERS] pgAdmin

2004-02-29 Thread Hammer
Quick one: Anyone know how to use Putty to open a connection up under SSH which will allow pgAdmin III to connect to a postgresql database ie. Only access to server postgresql is on is via ssh. Thanks Hammer ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't for

Re: [HACKERS] anoncvs problem

2004-02-29 Thread Marc G. Fournier
odd, nothing has changed there in months now ... the readers file contains anoncvs and *it* hasn't changed since Aug of '01 ... what are you trying to use for a passwd? I just tried two random ones, and they both connected fine ... On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Oliver Elphick wrote: > Following instruc

[HACKERS] anoncvs problem

2004-02-29 Thread Oliver Elphick
Following instructions on http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/cvs.html does not currently work: $ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/projects/cvsroot login Logging in to :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:2401/projects/cvsroot CVS password: cvs login: authorization failed: server anoncvs.postgre

Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] Schema comparisons

2004-02-29 Thread Robert Treat
On Saturday 28 February 2004 21:23, Alex J. Avriette wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:39:40AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Have you tried diffing pg_dump output? It's not the greatest tool but > > >> it's helpful. > > > > > > Yes, I did. It was quite cumbersome. Especially since the OIDs and

Re: [HACKERS] 7.3.6 for Monday ... still a go?

2004-02-29 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAIK we are good to go in terms of the code --- there are no open > issues that I'd want to back-patch to 7.3. We just need release notes. > But I don't have time this weekend to do the release notes either... 'k, once you or Bruce get a sec to do the rele

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?

2004-02-29 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jon Jensen wrote: >> How would you do a rollback if an error occurred mid-query? How would you >> keep your table from being a big pile of junk if a power failure happened >> during the query? > As most non-MVCC database do: by writing WAL records. > In t

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?

2004-02-29 Thread Neil Conway
Jon Jensen wrote: How would you do a rollback if an error occurred mid-query? How would you keep your table from being a big pile of junk if a power failure happened during the query? As most non-MVCC database do: by writing WAL records. In theory, it seems to me that we could implement an overwri

Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] Schema comparisons

2004-02-29 Thread Richard Huxton
On Sunday 29 February 2004 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: > Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've been looking at storing $REVISION$ in comments for each object, so > > my install scripts can halt if there is a problem. Not wanting to use my > > only comment slot for this I was thinking about