The following list of patches are the latest SE-PostgreSQL (r1819).
http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-01-sysatt-8.4beta1-r1819.patch
http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-02-core-8.4beta1-r1819.patch
http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-03-writable-8.4beta1-r1819.patch
http:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> Currently, the ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE privilege is defined as an alias
>> of ACL_UPDATE as follows:
>>
>> at src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h:
>>:
>> /* Currently, SELECT ... FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE requires UPDATE privileges */
>> #def
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Currently, the ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE privilege is defined as an alias
> of ACL_UPDATE as follows:
>
> at src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h:
>:
> /* Currently, SELECT ... FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE requires UPDATE privileges */
> #define ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE ACL_UP
Joshua Tolley writes:
> It then does some work to determine whether the result in "function" is
> valid or not. So I got to wondering, what's the lifetime of the
> FunctionCallInfoinfo object passed to the call handler function?
Query lifespan, usually. There are counterexamples on both sides,
b
Currently, the ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE privilege is defined as an alias
of ACL_UPDATE as follows:
at src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h:
:
/* Currently, SELECT ... FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE requires UPDATE privileges */
#define ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE ACL_UPDATE
:
It is unconfort
I was browsing PL/pgSQL source, and saw this line (pl_comp.c:151):
function = (PLpgSQL_function *) fcinfo->flinfo->fn_extra
It then does some work to determine whether the result in "function" is
valid or not. So I got to wondering, what's the lifetime of the
FunctionCallInfoinfo object passed to
> If HashAggregate is faster, then the question is can you make it better
> by avoiding building the hash structure twice. I haven't considered all
> the possibilities, but the situation you have used as an example, an IN
> query, seems workable. Instead of translating to a hash
> aggregate/hash/
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Upon further review, it appears that a big part of this problem is
>> that cost_hashjoin() doesn't understand that it needs cost semi-joins
>> differently from inner or left joins.
>
> Yeah, I have a note to look into that
Robert Haas writes:
> Upon further review, it appears that a big part of this problem is
> that cost_hashjoin() doesn't understand that it needs cost semi-joins
> differently from inner or left joins.
Yeah, I have a note to look into that before 8.4 final. The same is
true for nestloops: stoppin
> Upon further review, it appears that a big part of this problem is
> that cost_hashjoin() doesn't understand that it needs cost semi-joins
> differently from inner or left joins. The bogus logic looks to be
> right here:
> startup_cost += hash_qual_cost.startup;
> run_cost += hash_qual_c
FYI,
compiles on OpenSuSE 11.1
client works against 8.3.7
more information as soon as i will migrate date.
-- kofeman
On 4/16/09, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:58PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > Seems I'm bad at communicating in english,
>
>
> I hope you're not saying this because of my misunderstandings!
>
>
> > so here is C variant of
> > my proposal to bring \u escaping into extended stri
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:04:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Sam Mason wrote:
> >Are you sure that this handling of surrogates is correct? The best
> >answer I've managed to find on the Unicode consortium's site is:
> >
> > http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#utf16-7
> >
> >it says:
> >
> >
Sam Mason wrote:
Are you sure that this handling of surrogates is correct? The best
answer I've managed to find on the Unicode consortium's site is:
http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#utf16-7
it says:
They are invalid in interchange, but may be freely used internal to an
implementati
On 16 Apr 2009, at 19:41, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Is that because of how the output is formatted though, or because the
concepts are difficult to express? (I agree though, json is better
especially for structures that are possibly highly nested).
What I mean is that what postgresql displays curre
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:58PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> Seems I'm bad at communicating in english,
I hope you're not saying this because of my misunderstandings!
> so here is C variant of
> my proposal to bring \u escaping into extended strings. Reasons:
>
> - More people are familiar wi
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
wrote:
>
> On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:21, David Fetter wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:12:10AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the way to do this is to introduce plan output in XML
>>
>> If we're going with a serialization, which I t
On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:21, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:12:10AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think the way to do this is to introduce plan output in XML
If we're going with a serialization, which I think would be an
excellent idea, how about one that's light-weight and human
Seems I'm bad at communicating in english, so here is C variant of
my proposal to bring \u escaping into extended strings. Reasons:
- More people are familiar with \u escaping, as it's standard
in Java/C#/Python, probably more..
- U& strings will not work when stdstr=off.
Syntax:
\u
Sam Mason writes:
> I've failed to keep up with the discussion so I'm not sure where this
> conversation has got to! Is the consensus for 8.4 to enable SQL2003
> style U&lit escaped literals if and only if standard_conforming_strings
> is set?
That was Peter's proposal, and no one's shot a hole
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:34:06PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> Which hints that you can aswell enter the pairs directly: \uxx\uxx.
> If I'd be language designer, I would not see any reason to disallow it.
>
> And anyway, at least mono seems to support it:
>
> using System;
> public class HelloWor
Robert Haas writes:
> I think XML explain output is a good idea, but I don't think it's a
> substitute for better options to control the human-readable form.
Yeah. I think a well-designed XML output format for EXPLAIN is a fine
thing to work on, but I don't believe it would make the "create a
pl
On 4/16/09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason writes:
> > I'd never heard of UTF-16 surrogate pairs before this discussion and
> > hence didn't realise that it's valid to have a surrogate pair in place
> > of a single code point. The docs say that corresponds to
> > U+10302, Python would appear t
By table structure i mean table definition options.
Kevin Field wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:14 am, mito wrote:
Hi,
i have built an SQL interface using rule system which supports row
versioning and i would like to test it against Postgres SQL specification.
Is there something like test cases for post
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> If we're going with a serialization, which I think would be an
> excellent idea, how about one that's light-weight and human-readable
> like JSON?
Wow, that's a great idea for another option to EXPLAIN. Wouldn't it
be nice if EXPLAIN suppor
Tom Lane wrote:
Sam Mason writes:
I'd never heard of UTF-16 surrogate pairs before this discussion and
hence didn't realise that it's valid to have a surrogate pair in place
of a single code point. The docs say that corresponds to
U+10302, Python would appear to follow my intuitions in t
On 4/16/09, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:47:20PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 4/16/09, Sam Mason wrote:
> > > Microsoft have also gone this way in C#, named code points are not
> > > supported however.
> >
> > And it handles also non-BMP codepoints with \u escape similarl
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:54:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason writes:
> > I'd never heard of UTF-16 surrogate pairs before this discussion and
> > hence didn't realise that it's valid to have a surrogate pair in place
> > of a single code point. The docs say that corresponds to
> > U+103
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:12:10AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > EXPLAIN (option_name, ...) query
> >
> > Or maybe:
> >
> > EXPLAIN (option_name = value, ...) query
> >
> > It may or may not be the case that generating a useful regression
> > test suite for the planner is too much work for
Sam Mason writes:
> I'd never heard of UTF-16 surrogate pairs before this discussion and
> hence didn't realise that it's valid to have a surrogate pair in place
> of a single code point. The docs say that corresponds to
> U+10302, Python would appear to follow my intuitions in that:
> ord(u'
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:47:20PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 4/16/09, Sam Mason wrote:
> > Microsoft have also gone this way in C#, named code points are not
> > supported however.
>
> And it handles also non-BMP codepoints with \u escape similarly:
>
> http://en.csharp-online.net/ECMA-33
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 18:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Any ideas what might have caused it?
>
> QEMU screwing up the handling of floating-point traps, perhaps?
Probably. Let me dig it.
Thanks.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:51 AM, pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote:
Considered unexpected behavior, or at least in its undocumented form.
If value given to NOTIFY seems schema-qualified, the schema
qualification is eroded by the time it is presented to the listener
--
See:
http://archi
On Apr 16, 3:14 am, mito wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i have built an SQL interface using rule system which supports row
> versioning and i would like to test it against Postgres SQL specification.
>
> Is there something like test cases for postgres SQL interface?
>
> Or do you have any ideas how to build a g
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I could live with either. Wikipedia says: "The characters outside the
first plane usually have very specialized or rare use." For years we
rejected all characters beyond the first plane, and while that's fixed
now, the volume of complaints wasn't huge.
I you mean "
On 4/16/09, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:19:42PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 4/15/09, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > Given Martijn's complaint about more-than-16-bit code points, I think
> > > the \u proposal is not mature enough to go into 8.4. We can think
> > > about some
2009/4/16 Simon Riggs :
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > The output of EXPLAIN is nowhere near stable enough to use within the
>> > current exact-match regression test framework. I'm not sure it would
>> > be stable e
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:19:42PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 4/15/09, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Given Martijn's complaint about more-than-16-bit code points, I think
> > the \u proposal is not mature enough to go into 8.4. We can think
> > about some version of that later, if there's enough inte
Hi,
i have built an SQL interface using rule system which supports row
versioning and i would like to test it against Postgres SQL specification.
Is there something like test cases for postgres SQL interface?
Or do you have any ideas how to build a group of all possible cases of
table struct
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the comments!
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 17:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > I'd like to propose another simple idea; pg_standby deletes the
>> > trigger file *whene
40 matches
Mail list logo
