On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Based on mentions of his name in previous release notes, you are
correct; change committed.
Thanks Bruce.
--
Guillaume
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Hello
I am sending samples of transformation hook modules. One module is
JSON support:.
From these modules only JSON support has general usage - so only JSON
should be integrated to core.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
=== README ===
JSON generating functions - this module contains functions, that
2009/3/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com 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
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2009/3/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
... What might be a bit saner is to remember the slot last passed to
tuplestore_gettupleslot for each read pointer. The implication would be
that we'd be assuming only one slot is used to fetch from any one
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think you should reconsider your non-buying of that argument. That
would be really, really annoying for me. Most of the time I want to
look at a user object. But every now and then I want to look at a
system object.
I still think that this
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Adding PQinitSSL(new_value) seem reasonable to me. My only complaint
has been that the API user has no way of knowing if the function
understood their request.
I think doing PQinitSSL(new_value) is probably the least invasive
Tom Lane wrote:
I personally would be happy with the two-argument function solution.
The patch I submitted pretty much does this, except it uses a flags argument
instead of 2 fixed arguments. It can be easily changed to support the 2
argument idea:
1. Change prototype to: void
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Adding PQinitSSL(new_value) seem reasonable to me. My only complaint
has been that the API user has no way of knowing if the function
understood their request.
I think doing PQinitSSL(new_value) is
In CVS HEAD, try this in an assert-enabled build:
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE tree(
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
parent_id INTEGER REFERENCES tree(id)
);
INSERT INTO tree
VALUES (1, NULL), (2, 1), (3,1), (4,2), (5,2), (6,2), (7,3), (8,3),
(9,4),
Tom Lane wrote:
I actually was expecting the above example to show me the user function,
which I was then going to rant about being a lie. But the actual
behavior is even worse than that.
There is not anything that is not broken about HEAD's behavior,
and the sooner we admit that the
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom What is happening is that ExecProject fetches the Datum value of
Tom t2.path from a TupleTableSlot that contains a minimal tuple
Tom fetched from the tuplestore associated with the CTE t. Then,
Tom it fetches the value of the whole-row variable
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom In principle there ought to be a whole lot of bugs around this
Tom area, because ExecFetchSlotTuple, ExecFetchSlotMinimalTuple, and
Tom ExecFetchSlotTupleDatum all are potentially destructive of
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
For example, given some function foo(out a text, out b text) returning
setof record, the query select t.a, t from foo() t; follows the
sequence of events you describe, but it doesn't fail because
slot- tts_shouldFree is false, so the original
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom Yeah, good point. However I think that you could still get a
Tom failure. The cases where a slot might contain a minimal tuple
Tom are generally where we are reading out of a tuplestore or
Tom tuplesort object, and all you have to do to get it
Folks,
Robert Treat brought this up.
I create a table with something to partition by, and some meaningless
junk. I'm trying to get a random ordering inside each window:
CREATE TABLE foo(i, t) AS
SELECT i, md5((i*generate_series(1,10))::text) /* Nonsense text */
FROM generate_series(10,1) i;
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Yup, fails the same way on an --enable-cassert build of 8.3.7.
Do you have a quick test case? I just finished coding up my plan-C
fix, and I need some test cases ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Yup, fails the same way on an --enable-cassert build of 8.3.7.
Tom Do you have a quick test case? I just finished coding up my
Tom plan-C fix, and I need some test cases ...
This is the one
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yea, this is beyond the detail we normally put in the TODO list. If we
want to add this I am afraid we will need to document other optimizer
items as well.
FWIW you could just add all that text to a subpage of Todo, and point to
it from the regular TODO item. For
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Uh oh, that's going to be quite tricky with signals. Remember that
pg_standby is called for each file. A trigger file persists until it's
deleted, but a signal will only be received by the
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Yup, fails the same way on an --enable-cassert build of 8.3.7.
And on 8.2.13.
Tom Do you have a quick test case? I just finished coding up my
Tom plan-C fix, and I need some test cases ...
Andrew This is the one I've been using:
This one is
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
This one is simpler and works on 8.2 as well:
Yeah, I had just finished making the same adjustment to get an
8.2-compatible test case. 8.1 and before should be okay because
they haven't got the MinimalTuple business.
Due to budget constraints, Google needed to cut 50 projects from the
Summer of Code this year. We were one of the projects cut (although we
can re-apply next year).
Leslie at Google has asked me to clarify this. We *also* made a mistake
on our application which disqualified us.
--Josh
--
On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Due to budget constraints, Google needed to cut 50 projects from the
Summer of Code this year. We were one of the projects cut (although
we
can re-apply next year).
Leslie at Google has asked me to clarify this. We *also* made a
mistake
23 matches
Mail list logo
