On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
So, some feedback to make this decision more difficult:
Users: care about HS more than anything else in the world.
I don't think this is correct. There are certainly a lot of users who
Hi Emmanuel,
On 1/26/09, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@frogthinker.org wrote:
Hi Amit,
I overlooked the fact that you dropped composite partitions and
subpartitions template from the proposal presented in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php.
Is it because this is too
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
expend any real effort.
I've spent some time looking at it and have made all the comments I
wished to
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
So, some feedback to make this decision more difficult:
Users: care about HS more than anything else in the world.
I don't think this is correct.
--On Montag, Januar 26, 2009 20:03:41 -0800 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
wrote:
Jaime, Bernd,
having said that, i don't think that inventing new syntax is the way
to go... a reloption seems better (thinking a little more, it could be
a problem if the user changes the reloptions of an
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:41 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
So, some feedback to make this decision more difficult:
Users: care about HS more than anything else in the
Dave Page wrote:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security options. One of these
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
SEPostgres seems qualitatively different to me, though. I think PG
people have avoided reviewing it because (a) they weren't interested in
it and (b) they knew they were unqualified to review it.
Meanwhile it's emerging that the selinux people don't
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HANDLES on earlier OSs.
Doesn't
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids theporblem by only setting
JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HANDLES on
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment), but the patch avoids
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 12:34:56 Dave Page wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what has change in the SCM to cause this yet
(Windows 7 documentation is somewhat thin on the ground at the
moment),
On Saturday 24 January 2009 02:17:13 Tom Lane wrote:
2. You don't want those rules, so you delete them, leaving you with the
traditional behavior where attempted inserts etc on the view fail.
This was never meant to be supported. If you don't want updates on the rules
to succeed, don't grant
I attached second version of space reservation patch. You can see first
version here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00886.php
I thought about Heikki'es comments and I removed all catalog changes,
because there are not necessary to be in pg_class. Instead of
pg_preugrade
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 18:30:22 Tom Lane wrote:
Arguably, pg_dump from an older version should make sure that the auto
rules should NOT get created, else it is failing to preserve an older
view's behavior.
We extend properties of objects all the time. That is why we make new
releases.
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
expend any real effort.
I've spent some time looking at it and have made all
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 05:39:48 Jaime Casanova wrote:
a view should be updatable by default if the query expression is
updatable... what we need is something to make a view READ ONLY even
if it should be updatable by spec...
A view is read-only if you don't grant any write permissions on
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 00:21:08 Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
Or what about
CREATE [OR REPLACE] [UPDATABLE] VIEW ... ?
This looks closer to TEMP|TEMPORARY
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Here is a patch to surpress compiler warnings in pg_locale.c and pg_regress.c.
There are following warnings if nls is enabled:
pg_locale.c: In function `pg_perm_setlocale':
pg_locale.c:161: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer
target type
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 00:42:32 Ron Mayer wrote:
If it were just as easy for us to pull from a
all 'pending-patches' for-commit-fest-nov that pass regression tests
branch, I'd happily pull from that instead.
Considering that most patches don't come with regression tests, this would
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Something happened about 80 hours ago that caused my mingw buildfarm
member (gcc 3.4.2 on Win XP Pro SP2) to hang at the check stage. It
looks like it's hung in initdb.
I wonder if it could be this commit:
Log Message:
---
Make
Hello. The attached patch has made it more feasible for us to gather
profiling data on a production system for analysis with pgFouine. It
has been written against PostgreSQL 8.3.5 and tested on Linux. Comments
welcome.
timo
From a4d5b489f462ad31b62774ec98af08f184cb0754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 14:07:26 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 18:30:22 Tom Lane wrote:
Arguably, pg_dump from an older version should make sure that the auto
rules should NOT get created, else it is failing to preserve an older
view's behavior.
We extend
While trying to figure out an appropriate cost expression function for
Thick indexes, i learned that we are using Mackert and Lohman formula
(described in their paper Index Scans Using a Finite LRU Buffer: A
Validated I/O Model, ACM Transactions on Database Systems).
The paper's result is as
Robert Haas escribió:
I think that it would probably be pretty easy to write a webapp to
replace the CommitFest web page that basically did the same thing but
with a bit more structure around it - with database tables like
commitfest, patch, patch_version, patch_comment, and
patch_review. I
The current project is not in good shape. Feature freeze is coming and
nothing is committed. Currently there are three patches in the game:
1) Space reservation
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00886.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg02031.php
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
As for somewhere to host it, we certainly have some servers; not tons,
but probably enough. Some of them even have Postgres running on it.
We can certainly host an app under postgresql.org. The bigger issue
will
--On Dienstag, Januar 27, 2009 14:04:05 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
pete...@gmx.net wrote:
a view should be updatable by default if the query expression is
updatable... what we need is something to make a view READ ONLY even
if it should be updatable by spec...
A view is read-only if you don't
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
As for somewhere to host it, we certainly have some servers; not tons,
but probably enough. Some of them even have Postgres running on it.
We can certainly host an app under postgresql.org.
On 1/27/09, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
I think that it would probably be pretty easy to write a webapp to
replace the CommitFest web page that basically did the same thing but
with a bit more structure around it - with database tables like
Regarding this comment:
+ /*
+* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery.
+* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter
+* to perform it. This then frees the Startup process to complete so we can
+* allow transactions and WAL
On Sunday 25 January 2009 19:06:50 Tom Lane wrote:
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
I'm also feeling that we are
Bruce Momjian píše v po 26. 01. 2009 v 23:02 -0500:
OK, time for me to chime in.
I think the outstanding commit-fest items can be broken down into four
sections:
o Log streaming
o Hot standby
o SE-PostgreSQL
o Others
You omit pg_upgrade. Does it mean that
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 02:21:41 Tom Lane wrote:
Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
expend any real effort. But this patch is far too large and invasive
to accept on the basis that only
(replying to a very old message, since I just bumped into this in review)
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 14:14 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
--- 5716,5725
CheckpointStats.ckpt_sync_end_t,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large
Sorry for the attachment; here's the patch inline.
timo
From a4d5b489f462ad31b62774ec98af08f184cb0754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Timo Savola timo.sav...@dynamoid.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:02:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] log_duration_sample config option
When used with the log_duration
Simon Riggs wrote:
The process works like this: software gets developed, then it gets
certified. If its not certified, then Undercover Elephant will not be
used by the secret people. We can't answer the will it be certified?
question objectively yet. If we have someone willing to write the
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
will obviously prefer to release
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
The current project is not in good shape. Feature freeze is coming and
nothing is committed. Currently there are three patches in the game:
[...]
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for
I have started some very trivial work around this a while ago with the
intent to get something simple up and working before too much bike
shedding is done. I'll contact Robert off-list to discuss that. If
somebody else - who actively works with what we have now!! - is
interested in that
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 00:42:32 Ron Mayer wrote:
If it were just as easy for us to pull from a
all 'pending-patches' for-commit-fest-nov that pass regression tests
branch, I'd happily pull from that instead.
Considering that most patches don't come with
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade. It will be useful while we will not have better
solution. Disadvantage is that it is
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
As one of the earlier reviewers, I think the design is OK, but the way the
implementation is presented was not acceptable, and very little has been
accomplished in terms of reacting to our comments. For example, where is the
SQL row
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade. It will be useful while we will not have better
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if you want in-place upgrade;
actually it looks a very reasonable one.
There are installers for it, but
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:39:50AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
The current project is not in good shape. Feature freeze is coming and
nothing is committed. Currently there are three patches in the game:
Correction: feature freeze is long past.
1) Space reservation
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade.
What's the reason this script uses a postmaster? It seems it would be
easier to control if you used a
On 1/27/09, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
This patch is mandatory for page online conversion and MUST TO be part
of postgreSQL 8.4. if not ... then we will be at the beginning next
year.
Just to clarify, does that mean that your patch has to be in for there
to be any chance of
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade. It will be useful while we will not have better
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 06:20:41AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
For what it's worth, we can see that there are indeed
Postgres forks on the Common Criteria certified list.
http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/products_DB.html
PostgreSQL Certified Version V8.1.5 for Linux
Manufacturer
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if you want in-place upgrade;
actually it looks a very reasonable one.
There are
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if you want in-place upgrade;
actually it looks a very reasonable
Amit Gupta amit.pc.gu...@gmail.com writes:
Upon taking a cursory look at the cost functions of other operators, I
realized that available memory (effective_cache_size) is not
considered for estimating the costs of hash/sort/NLjoin/etc. Why is
that the case?
The relevant number for those is
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade. It will be useful while we
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Regarding this comment:
+ /*
+* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery.
+* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter
+* to perform it. This then frees the
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
Either way, there's no point to discuss that in detail until there
actually is a working implementation out there... perl will do fine
until then. Once we have that, we can discuss if doing it in C will be
worthwhile, or if we're just going to
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On Dienstag, Januar 27, 2009 14:04:05 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
pete...@gmx.net wrote:
a view should be updatable by default if the query expression is
updatable... what we need is something to make a view READ ONLY even
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
[pg_upgrade...]
Why is the deadline different than anything else?
err, isn't it because it'd be kind of difficult to do an upgrade script
with large catalog-changing patches outstanding..? I thought some
leeway was given for pg_upgrade specifically
Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua Brindle met...@manicmethod.com writes:
http://marc.info/?l=selinuxm=115762285013528w=2
Is the original discussion thread for the security model used in the
sepostgresql work. Hopefully you'll see some of the evidence you speak of there.
Thanks for the link. I took a
Robert Haas wrote:
Do we REALLY think there are people out there who are writing INSERT
or UPDATE actions on views on which they haven't installed rules and
counting on the fact that those operations fail for correctness?
Personally, I usually write my code so it inserts into something that
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
[pg_upgrade...]
Why is the deadline different than anything else?
err, isn't it because it'd be kind of difficult to do an upgrade script
with large catalog-changing patches
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Do we REALLY think there are people out there who are writing INSERT
or UPDATE actions on views on which they haven't installed rules and
counting on the fact that those operations fail for correctness?
Personally, I
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 02:17:13 Tom Lane wrote:
2. You don't want those rules, so you delete them, leaving you with the
traditional behavior where attempted inserts etc on the view fail.
This was never meant to be supported. If you don't want
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
SEPostgres seems qualitatively different to me, though. I think PG
people have avoided reviewing it because (a) they weren't interested in
it and (b) they knew they were unqualified to review it.
Meanwhile it's emerging that the
Amit Gupta amit.pc.gu...@gmail.com writes:
While trying to figure out an appropriate cost expression function for
Thick indexes, i learned that we are using Mackert and Lohman formula
(described in their paper Index Scans Using a Finite LRU Buffer: A
Validated I/O Model, ACM Transactions on
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 18:30:22 Tom Lane wrote:
Arguably, pg_dump from an older version should make sure that the auto
rules should NOT get created, else it is failing to preserve an older
view's behavior.
We extend properties of objects all the
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if you want in-place upgrade;
actually it looks a very reasonable one.
Much more reasonable than Korn shell in any case (or any shell for that
matter; I think anything is going to be
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply various security
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
The attached patch adds support for the Windows 7 beta which we've had
a few reports of incompatibility with. When we startup using pg_ctl on
Windows, we create a job object (a logical grouping of processes on
Windows) to which we apply
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have started some very trivial work around this a while ago with the
intent to get something simple up and working before too much bike
shedding is done. I'll contact Robert off-list to discuss that. If
somebody else -
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Have you managed to get gdb running on that box, and if so, can you try
to grab a stacktrace? If not, try a stacktrace from process explorer. It
doesn't actually work with mingw, but it gives you a hint based on DLL
exports...
I'll see what I can do. By the
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 18:30:22 Tom Lane wrote:
Arguably, pg_dump from an older version should make sure that the auto
rules should NOT get created, else it is failing to preserve an older
view's behavior.
We extend
I think it's possible to skip the roll our own step in all of this
and just move on to using a ready-made solution. In reality our
requirements are very simple. Writing a low-fi version of the wiki
would be pretty easy, but just dropping the patch data we already have
into a patch tracker
Hi
I have had a very brief look at this. Translation to perl doesn't look
difficult. I'll see what I can do during the next week or so.
Perhaps I can lend you a hand if you need help with this.
--
Med venlig hilsen
Kaare Rasmussen, Jasonic
Jasonic Telefon: +45 3816 2582
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 06:40 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
8.4-stable
8.4-experimental
stable is everything that stable is. PostgreSQL at its best.
I dislike this idea - it's same like short processed 8.5 -
Actually it isn't because we wouldn't accept features into
8.4-experimental.
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Do we REALLY think there are people out there who are writing INSERT
or UPDATE actions on views on which they haven't installed rules and
counting on the fact that those operations fail for
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 00:58 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
so it could be released. 8.5 should be implemented in shorted
cycle - only one commitfest, that is enough (+3 month) for well
completing SE and
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Have you managed to get gdb running on that box, and if so, can you try
to grab a stacktrace? If not, try a stacktrace from process explorer. It
doesn't actually work with mingw, but it gives you a hint based on DLL
exports...
I'll
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
(replying to a very old message, since I just bumped into this in review)
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The new message is not translatable, the original was.
Doesn't really matter since it's an elog(), not ereport().
... which is wrong
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 03:12:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
So, some feedback to make this decision more difficult:
Users: care about HS more than anything else in the world.
I don't think this is correct.
I do.
People literally grab my shoulder and
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It would be good to understand what the problem actually is and what are
the risks of running without this flag. I assume we put it in there
for a reason.
The risks are pretty low imho. Not having the flag means that the
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work -
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to install Perl on Windows actually. It
doesn't sound too onerous a requirement if you want in-place upgrade;
actually it looks a very reasonable one.
Much more reasonable than Korn shell in any case (or any shell for that
matter; I think
Alvaro Herrera píše v út 27. 01. 2009 v 11:47 -0300:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
2) pg_upgrade.sh
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00248.php
Pg_upgrade.sh is shell script for catalog conversion. It works for
8.3-8.4 upgrade.
What's the reason this script uses a
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
appropriate timeframe,
I already pointed out some pretty
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Users: care about HS more than anything else in the world.
I don't think this is correct. There are certainly a lot of users who
would like an
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 09:48 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We don't require perl for any other feature, do we? Seems like a
pretty onerous requireemnt for Windows in particular. We do use perl
in the build scripts, but that's only required if you want to compile
from source.
Well,
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Regarding this comment:
+ /*
+* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery.
+* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter
+* to perform it. This then
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 22:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Silently filtering out rows according to an arbitrary security policy
can break a bunch of fundamental SQL semantics, the most obvious being
foreign key constraints
That was exactly my reaction when I read the way it worked and I was
ready
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 09:48 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We don't require perl for any other feature, do we? Seems like a
pretty onerous requireemnt for Windows in particular. We do use perl
in the build scripts, but that's only required if you want to compile
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 15:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
After the COMMIT succeeds, the locks from Session1 are released.
Session2 acquires its update lock and reads row 2, finds that it
doesn't match its update criteria, downgrades the lock to shared,
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:51 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted.
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
