Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > Is there more substance here than meets the eye?
> >
>
> No, you about summed it up. We need a way to init libssl and libcrypto
> in any combo. Along the way, PQinit() was discussed which may have
> muddied the waters.
>
> I prefer leaving
Robert Haas wrote:
Is there more substance here than meets the eye?
No, you about summed it up. We need a way to init libssl and libcrypto
in any combo. Along the way, PQinit() was discussed which may have
muddied the waters.
I prefer leaving the PQinitSSL function alone, thus my patch
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>> > The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
>> > for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
>> >
>> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>> The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
>> for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
>>
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
>>
>> So what is the p
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Well, we are not the "Make Merlin Happy club". ;-)
>
> Merlin and Andrew were the ones complaining initially. If they feel
> that a proposed patch doesn't fix the problem, then I'd say that it
> isn't fixing the problem
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Do we want to give a more informative error message, like "not supported
> > on this platform?"
>
> > The trick will be to fit this into the GUC framework.
>
> You could do it by enforcing the limit in an assign hook, but
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Guillaume Smet wrote:
> >> - "Add -M (query mode) to /contrib/pgbench (ITAGAKI Takahiro)"
> >> ->Itagaki san's name inconsistent with other mentions of his name
> >
> > Above all fixed, thanks.
>
> I think you fixed
Hi,
Le 27 mars 09 à 21:42, Sam Mason a écrit :
OK, that's turned out to be a good point. I've now written five
different versions and they don't seem to give the results I'm
expecting
at all!
If you're that much willing to have a good concurrent load simulator
client for postgresql, my t
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > This is just a rehash of one of the patches that was discussed earlier.
>> > There wasn't consensus for it then, and there's not now.
>> >
>>
>> I am personally out of ideas. It feels like this i
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > This is just a rehash of one of the patches that was discussed earlier.
> > There wasn't consensus for it then, and there's not now.
> >
>
> I am personally out of ideas. It feels like this issue has been beaten
> to death. There are only a few ways
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
> > The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
> > for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
> >
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
> >
> > So what is the proposal? Have U/S/A flags f
Tom Lane wrote:
This is just a rehash of one of the patches that was discussed earlier.
There wasn't consensus for it then, and there's not now.
I am personally out of ideas. It feels like this issue has been beaten
to death. There are only a few ways to do it and I believe they have
all b
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Well, we are not the "Make Merlin Happy club". ;-)
Merlin and Andrew were the ones complaining initially. If they feel
that a proposed patch doesn't fix the problem, then I'd say that it
isn't fixing the problem.
> My personal opinion is that adding #defines to PQinitSS
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce, Simon,
>
> > I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle
> > of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer
> > debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as
> > a todo item yet.
>
> I agree.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom, you mentioned this should be a TODO item. Do we put it on our main
> > TODO, and if so, in what section?
>
> Optimizer/executor I guess. It's a pretty vague TODO though. We need
> some way to consider alternative join orders for joins that do no
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But having said that, there isn't any real harm in fixing the OID
> >> counter to match what it was. You need to run pg_resetxlog to set the
> >> WAL position and XID counter anyway, and it can set the OID counter too.
>
> > FYI, I
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> It is still a bug in the sense that it is impossible to properly
> initialize crypto features in some scenarios. A doc patch (which I
> argued is the best way to go for 8.4) fails to properly raise the
> seriousness of the issue and also fails to suggest a workaround.
>
>
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
> The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
> for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
>
> So what is the proposal? Have U/S/A flags for all commands and have
> different system d
Bruce, Simon,
I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle
of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer
debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as
a todo item yet.
I agree. We don't have consensus on the TODO.
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 15:35 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Jeff" == Jeff Davis writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
> >> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.
I wrote:
> After reviewing this thread and the one that led up to the 8.3 behavior,
> it seems clear that we failed to draw a distinction between getopt and
> getopt_long when we should have. We don't like Solaris' getopt but
> there seems no reason not to use Solaris' getopt_long. So Zdenek's
>
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Both of those things are related to 8.4 feature changes, so we should
>>> either do them now or decide we won't do them.
>
>> Well, "Should we have a LOCALE option in C
Hitoshi Harada writes:
> So I tried pass EState.es_tupleTables to tuplestore_begin_heap() to
> trace those TupleTableSlots. Note that if you pass NULL the behavior
> is as before so nothing's broken. Regression passes but I'm not quite
> sure EState.es_tupleTable is only place that holds TupleTabl
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But having said that, there isn't any real harm in fixing the OID
>> counter to match what it was. You need to run pg_resetxlog to set the
>> WAL position and XID counter anyway, and it can set the OID counter too.
> FYI, I decided against restoring the
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom, you mentioned this should be a TODO item. Do we put it on our main
> TODO, and if so, in what section?
Optimizer/executor I guess. It's a pretty vague TODO though. We need
some way to consider alternative join orders for joins that do not
semantically commute. Whe
"Tao Ma" writes:
> CREATE TABLE "t" (c1 CHAR(5) DEFAULT 'abc',
> c2 CHAR(5) DEFAULT 'abc'::CHAR(5));
> SELECT pg_get_expr(adbin, adrelid)
> FROM pg_attrdef
> WHERE adrelid = (SELECT oid FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 't');
> pg_get_expr
> -
> 'a
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Both of those things are related to 8.4 feature changes, so we should
>> either do them now or decide we won't do them.
> Well, "Should we have a LOCALE option in CREATE DATABASE?" has to do
> with making:
> CREATE DATAB
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> and the first two items from the "questions" category, which
>> don't seem important enough to worry about at this stage of the game.
>
> Both of those things are related to 8.4 feature changes, so we should
> either do them now or decide we won
> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian writes:
>> 1) select ... from foo, unnest(foo.bar); -- UNNEST is implicitly LATERAL
[...]
>> It's point (1) that's the killer - without it, unnest() is just a
>> trivial shorthand for stuff that can be done anyway; it doesn't
>> actually add any functionality
> "Jeff" == Jeff Davis writes:
> On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
>> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.
Jeff> I think it's missing the ORDER BY clause.
Hm, yeah, so i
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.
I think it's missing the ORDER BY clause. This is not as important for
PostgreSQL because we can do ORDER BY
Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> >> The unnest() implementation is largely unrelated to the standard
> >> one, which is impossible to provide without LATERAL.
>
> Bruce> I removed the duplicate item; we can add more details about
> Bruce> what additional func
> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian writes:
>> The unnest() implementation is largely unrelated to the standard
>> one, which is impossible to provide without LATERAL.
Bruce> I removed the duplicate item; we can add more details about
Bruce> what additional functionality we need once we get user
> "Martijn" == Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>> The nature of the problem is this: if gist_box_picksplit doesn't
>> find a good disposition on the first try, then it tries to split
>> the data again based on the positions of the box centers. But
>> there's a problem here with floating-po
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Thanks, text updated:
> >
> > While semi-joins merely replace existing IN joins, anti-joins
> > are a new capability for NOT EXISTS clauses (Tom) This improves
> > optimization possibilities.
>
> I
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration
> > > > of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful
> > > > than I was in providin
Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Jaime" == Jaime Casanova writes:
>
> Jaime> In the TODO list there is an item "[D] Completed itemAdd
> Jaime> array_agg() and UNNEST functions for arrays " marked as done
> Jaime> but 5 items below there is: "Add SQL-standard array_agg() and
> Jaime> unnest() arr
Hi,
Recently, I am reading the postgres codes, and I have a question about the
deparsing some expressions which is contains Const node. The following SQL
will retrieve the definition stored by postgres database for table "t":
CREATE TABLE "t" (c1 CHAR(5) DEFAULT 'abc',
c2 CHAR(5
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> It is still a bug in the sense that it is impossible to properly
> initialize crypto features in some scenarios. A doc patch (which I
Meant to say: 'your doc patch"
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have applied the attached patch which does several things:
>
> o documents that libssl _and_ libcrypto initialization is
> turned off by PQinitSSL(0)
> o clarified cases where this behavior is important
> o
> "Jaime" == Jaime Casanova writes:
Jaime> In the TODO list there is an item "[D] Completed itemAdd
Jaime> array_agg() and UNNEST functions for arrays " marked as done
Jaime> but 5 items below there is: "Add SQL-standard array_agg() and
Jaime> unnest() array functions " it's the same item
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:39:05PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> A user on IRC reported a crash (backend segfault) in GiST insertion
> (in 8.3.5 but I can reproduce this in today's HEAD) that turns out
> to be due to misbehaviour of gist_box_picksplit.
>
> The nature of the problem is this: if gis
As we are moving very close to 8.4 beta, please join us for testing 8.4
release.
I just released new RPM sets, which is based on Mar 27 CVS snapshot.
Please note that these packages are **not** production ready. They are
for Fedora 9,10 and RHEL/CentOS 5. I have no intention to push 8.4
developme
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Josh Berkus wrote:
These bugs strike me as especially pernicious and to need fixing before 8.4
release (but NOT before Beta):
* GiST picksplit (maybe GIN too?) can fail
we have patch for recent problem raised by Sergey Konoplev (thanks Andrew for
the test case), whic
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> > > Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration
> > > of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful
> > > than I was in providing some scenarios that would cause
45 matches
Mail list logo
