On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > Perhaps a good way to accomplish both goals is to have the set of
> > human-readable views, and to add columns to the system tables/views that
> > conform with the new, more logical naming convention. This way people
> > acc
What are the goals for 8.1?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Greetings,
I would like to submit a new version of src/port/snprintf.c
It passes regression tests on Linux and Win32 and
prints all of %n$ messages finely.
I added printf() function too because --help usage-type
output is printed with printf().
I have no experience with autoconf so I would ask
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to
give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in
pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you
need to maintain it.
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgr
Jim,
> Perhaps a good way to accomplish both goals is to have the set of
> human-readable views, and to add columns to the system tables/views that
> conform with the new, more logical naming convention. This way people
> accessing system information programmatically can use pg_catalog (and
> migr
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:37:28PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > It's a question of if these views will also be used programatically.
> > ISTM that OIDs are the preffered method of refering to things in code
> > (in fact, aren't there some functions that only take OIDs?). If we want
> > t
Jim,
> It's a question of if these views will also be used programatically.
> ISTM that OIDs are the preffered method of refering to things in code
> (in fact, aren't there some functions that only take OIDs?). If we want
> to make names the cannonical way to reference things in code, then I
> agr
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok. Can I get some help defining what the New Truth will look like
> > then? I understand users and groups pretty well but I'm not 100% sure
> > about roles.
>
> I looked through SQL99 a bit (see 4.31 "Basic se
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:14:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Smaller patches are easier to review, for sure. Also, you'll need to
> > coordinate with Alvaro's work on dependencies for global objects.
>
> If you want, I can send you the current patch
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the long term plan to remove OIDs entirely?
No. OIDs will be the real primary keys of most system catalogs for the
foreseeable future. The only discussion that's going on concerns
deprecating their use in user tables.
regar
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name,
> but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go
> back to pg_catalog.
Huh? pg_catalog isn't going away, and none of this discussion has
anything to do with
Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives...
How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in one
statement? Something like a combination of CREATE TRIGGER and CREATE
FUNCTION? Being able to define them seperately is awesome for generic
cases where you can use
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:43:15PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> BTW, People, I really don't see the point in prodiving a dual list -- that
> is,
> a list of OIDs in addition to the list of names provided in the columns of
> each view. The idea of these views is to keep the users *away* from
>
I'm going to reply to 3 emails in one here...
Out of Josh's 4 options, I think a new schema makes the most sense.
Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name,
but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go
back to pg_catalog.
The idea of using a
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:36:10AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Added to TODO based on this discusion:...
> >* Speed up COUNT(*)
>
> One think I think would help lots of people is if the
> documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some
> of the techniques using trigger
Stephan,
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:14:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Smaller patches are easier to review, for sure. Also, you'll need to
> coordinate with Alvaro's work on dependencies for global objects.
If you want, I can send you the current patch so you can see what has
changed in it, mayb
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> 4) ignore backwards compatibility and just re-write the old views. I can
> hear the shouting already ...
>
> So, a choice of annoying options. Does anyone else on the channel have
> opinions?
Isn't it a usefull option to
Troels, Others,
> Generally: Nice. But have you considered if the INFORMATION_SCHEMA could
> be used? Unfortunately, the INFORMATION_SCHEMA currently has a major
> problem in its usefulness in PostgreSQL:
> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/#cli-list_of_tables-postgresql-gotchas
Actually, I did. H
I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part? Is there a
reason why adding a column/field to an existing view should be considered
a bad thing?
As long as we don't remove existing colums that an app could be using,
Tom,
> Any new schemas introduced by PG itself will be named pg_something.
> This is not open to negotiation --- it's what we've promised to users
> to avoid tromping on their schema namespace.
I can see the sense in that. So, there's four ways I can see to do things:
1) leave the existing view
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. Can I get some help defining what the New Truth will look like
> then? I understand users and groups pretty well but I'm not 100% sure
> about roles.
I looked through SQL99 a bit (see 4.31 "Basic security model") and think
I now have some handle on
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
On Sunday 23 January 2005 05:23, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006?
Or something else?
I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would
be really
helpful :)
I really don't
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up.
I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's
the idea behind those? Do you release the loc
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's a proof-of-concept pretty much untested (it compiles) patch
> > against HEAD for review of the general approach I'm taking to
> > merging pg_shadow and pg_group. This is in order to support group
>
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:42 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This time setlocale() was needed to get the behaviour
> > I needed (database initdb'ed to 'C', my order set to 'pl_PL',
> > or whatever locale I need at given moment).
> I would imagine that the performance is spectacularly
On Sunday 23 January 2005 05:23, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006?
> >
> > Or something else?
> >
> > I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would
> > be really
> > helpful :)
>
> I really don't know why
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up.
I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's
the idea behind those? Do you release the locks and then reacquire
them, or do you re
Hello, Kris Jurka!
>
>Perhaps you should look into the refcursor type, which will allow you to
>return anything you want without specifying it. You can't do things like
>a join between to refcursor outputs, but it does allow for more return
>flexibility.
>
>Kris Jurka
>
Can I use DataAdapter.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
Heikki,
What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?.
Here's my TODO on things that need to be done:
* large objects
* guc variables
* notify/listen
Large objects and notify/listen should be quite straightforward. GUC
variables need s
So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006?
Or something else?
I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would
be really
helpful :)
I really don't know why this short dev cycle thing keeps coming back...
People don't want to upgrade their major pro
Heikki,
What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?.
Regards,
Hans
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just de
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Added to TODO based on this discusion:...
* Speed up COUNT(*)
One think I think would help lots of people is if the
documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some
of the techniques using triggers to maintain a count
for tables where this is important.
For every one pers
32 matches
Mail list logo
