"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand we could just put the onus for this on the patch
> submitters themselves. That is, make a policy "If you submit a patch
> which resolves a Todo item, please mark the Todo item as done if/when
> that patch is committed." Maybe they for
Here is a contrib version of auto-explain.
I'd like to add it the next commit-fest in September.
I set a high value on logging, not on interactive responce because
I think it's enough if we use EXPLAIN ANALYZE directly in psql or
set min_client_messages to LOG.
The module consists of one contrib
I've attached a patch that allows the generation of code coverage
statistics. To test it, apply the patch, then:
autoconf
./configure --enable-coverage
make
make check (or execute any other application against the database to see
the coverage of that app)
make coverage
make coverage_out
You w
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, it would be nice to have a test case that shows it's worth messing with
> that.
At a guess the parser would be a good place to look. Perhaps a
benchmark of a parsing a very large query?
One thi
Tom Lane wrote:
> I considered that one, but since part of my argument is that inlining
> this is a waste of code space, it seems like a better inlining
> technology isn't really the answer.
The compiler presumably has the intelligence and the command-line options to
control how much inlining one
Tom Lane wrote:
I'll have a go at this later ... unless you want to do it?
Nah, I don't care enough.
BTW, it would be nice to have a test case that shows it's worth messing
with that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing lis
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> For example, Common Table Expressions is both on the TODO list and on
>> September's Commitfest. They should probably point to each other so
>> long as such a relationship exists.
>
> (Actually
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, we could still have the MemSetTest outside the function, and
> evaluated at compile-time, if we provided an aligned and unaligned
> version of newNode:
Yeah, that should work fine, since we expect MemSetTest to reduce to
a compile-time con
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Note that the MemSetLoop macro used in palloc0fast is supposed to be
evaluated at compile time,
Oooh, good point, I had forgotten about that little detail. Yeah,
we'll lose that optimization if we move the code out-of-line.
We
Hello,
daveg wrote:
I created a patch to set the role to a specified name just after the db
connection.
I was going to do this, but you have beat me to it. You will want to update
the sgml documentation, and pg_dumpall as well.
-dg
Ok, here is the next one.
pg_dumpall now just pass
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I happened to be looking at nodes.h and started wondering just how
>> sane this coding really is:
> Note that the MemSetLoop macro used in palloc0fast is supposed to be
> evaluated at compile time,
Oooh, good point, I had forg
Tom Lane wrote:
I happened to be looking at nodes.h and started wondering just how
sane this coding really is:
extern PGDLLIMPORT Node *newNodeMacroHolder;
#define newNode(size, tag) \
( \
AssertMacro((size) >= sizeof(Node)),/* need the tag, at least */ \
newNodeMacroHolder = (N
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The advantages of doing this would be (a) reduce the number of places
>> to look in when implementing a new node type; (b) eliminate some
>> cross-subsystem #inclusions that weaken modularity of the back
David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:40:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Huh, what's a bidirectional link in this context?
> >
> > I think both the Commitfest and Todo are just ordered collections of
> > pointers to the archives,
>
> For example, Common Table Expressions is both
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 12:45 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
> > put it in a file called selfuncs_ts.c so it is similar to the existing
> > filename?
>
> I followed the pattern of ts_parse.c, ts_utils.c and so on.
> Also, I see geo_selfuncs.c. No big deal, though, I can move it.
No don't worry. You'r
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The advantages of doing this would be (a) reduce the number of places
> to look in when implementing a new node type; (b) eliminate some
> cross-subsystem #inclusions that weaken modularity of the backend.
Are we doing either of those things i
Hi Euler,
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Grant Finnemore escreveu:
Invoking pg_stat_activity after the SET ROLE is changed will however
leave the usename unchanged.
You're right. Because, as you spotted, usename is synonym of session
usename.
>
The one problem with this mapping is that per
Jan Urbański wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
put it in a file called selfuncs_ts.c so it is similar to the existing
filename?
I followed the pattern of ts_parse.c, ts_utils.c and so on.
Also, I see geo_selfuncs.c. No big
Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
put it in a file called selfuncs_ts.c so it is similar to the existing
filename?
I followed the pattern of ts_parse.c, ts_utils.c and so on.
Also, I see geo_selfuncs.c. No big deal, though, I can
19 matches
Mail list logo
