> 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 b
Peter Eisentraut 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 time. T
Amit Gupta 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 Database Systems).
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 selin
Peter Eisentraut 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 updates on th
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan 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 wr
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Stephen Frost 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 outstanding
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
is
Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua Brindle writes:
http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=115762285013528&w=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 look through that thre
Dave Page 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 options. One of th
* 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 d
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Dienstag, Januar 27, 2009 14:04:05 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
> 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 updata
* 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, 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 t
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> 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
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.
Amit Gupta 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 work_mem not effective
Dave Page writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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, bu
Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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
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
> Manufacture
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
solutio
On 1/27/09, Zdenek Kotala 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 in-place upgrade 8.
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 u
Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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 r
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM, 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:
Correction: feature freeze is long past.
> 1) Space reservation
> http://archives.postgresql.org/p
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 conver
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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 given that we made a poin
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 h
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 se
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 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 wi
> 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 d
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 ca
Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> 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 earlier without hot standb
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 th
Sorry for the attachment; here's the patch inline.
timo
From a4d5b489f462ad31b62774ec98af08f184cb0754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Timo Savola
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:02:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] log_duration_sample config option
When used with the log_duration or the log_min_duration_s
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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 patches that
have
(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 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 o
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 mea
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 a
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 inser
On 1/27/09, Alvaro Herrera 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
> > "commitfest", "patc
Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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
--On Dienstag, Januar 27, 2009 14:04:05 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
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 pe
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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 be speccing it to meet t
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
This
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
> "pat
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 foll
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:
>> -
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
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
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 typ
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 ma
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.
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 27 January 2009 00:21:08 Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bernd Helmle writes:
> >> > Or what about
> >> > CREATE [OR REPLACE] [UPDATABLE] VIEW ... ?
> >> > This looks closer to TEMP|TEMPORARY VIEW, which we already
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 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
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Magnus Hagander 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), but the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, 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 on
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_HA
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
* 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'
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
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 logical grouping of processes
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
(JOB
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 wrote:
Josh Berkus 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.
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
(JOB_OBJECT_UILIMIT_HAN
--On Montag, Januar 26, 2009 20:03:41 -0800 Josh Berkus
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 already created
view)
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus 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 wh
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
Hi Emmanuel,
On 1/26/09, Emmanuel Cecchet 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 hard to suppo
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus 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
> would like an in-core repl
201 - 274 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
