Re: [HACKERS] -head build error report

2008-06-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Linux jd-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic #1 SMP Wed Jun 4 16:35:01 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c ++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr --enable-shared

Re: [HACKERS] Not valid dump [8.2.9, 8.3.1]

2008-06-21 Thread Gaetano Mendola
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: we have faced lately dumps not valid, the bug can be replicated using a 8.2.9 or a 8.3.1 server. These are the steps to create the database that will generate a not valid dump:

Re: [HACKERS] -head build error report

2008-06-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 07:53 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Looks like you do not have the right CVS flags set. You need to use -d when you do a cvs update or you won't pick up new directories. You should really have this set in your .cvsrc file. Sorry, this is the only project I

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Fragments in tsearch2 headline

2008-06-21 Thread Sushant Sinha
I have an attached an updated patch with following changes: 1. Respects ShortWord and MinWords 2. Uses hlCover instead of Cover 3. Does not store norm (or lexeme) for headline marking 4. Removes ts_rank.h 5. Earlier it was counting even NONWORDTOKEN in the headline. Now it only counts the actual

Re: [HACKERS] -head build error report

2008-06-21 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 07:53 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Looks like you do not have the right CVS flags set. You need to use -d when you do a cvs update or you won't pick up new directories. You should really have this set in your .cvsrc file. Sorry, this is

Re: [HACKERS] Not valid dump [8.2.9, 8.3.1]

2008-06-21 Thread Tom Lane
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Of course you realize that referencing any table at all in an immutable function is probably a mortal sin...) Yes Tom I know, in our case that table is a lookup table, noone update,

Re: [HACKERS] Not valid dump [8.2.9, 8.3.1]

2008-06-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Of course you realize that referencing any table at all in an immutable function is probably a mortal sin...) Yes Tom I know, in our case that

Re: [HACKERS] Hash index build patch has *worse* performance at small table sizes

2008-06-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Did we ever do anything about this? --- Tom Lane wrote: I've been reviewing the hash index build patch submitted here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-10/msg00154.php Although it definitely helps on

Re: [HACKERS] Hash index build patch has *worse* performance at small table sizes

2008-06-21 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did we ever do anything about this? Seems to be in there in CVS HEAD: /* * If we just insert the tuples into the index in scan order, then * (assuming their hash codes are pretty random) there will be no locality * of access to the

[HACKERS] PG Pool Party (formerly MomjiCon) date set

2008-06-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian is having a pool party and barbecue at his house on Saturday, August 9, for Postgres community members in the Philadelphia area and nearby states. Families are welcome. Food and drink will be provided, and, of course, swimming is encouraged. Please come anytime between 2pm and 7pm.