Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities)

2009-05-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Moreover, I guess you don't even need to buffer tuples to aggregate by different keys. What you have to do is only to prepare more than one hash tables (, or set up sort order if the plan detects hash table is too

Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE vs inheritance

2009-05-13 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 21:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:  However, he can do that anyway via ALTER TABLE, which will happily take out AccessExclusiveLock before it checks any permissions.  So I'm not seeing the point of risking unsafe behavior in LOCK TABLE. I would rather fix ALTER

Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE vs inheritance

2009-05-13 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 14:40, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: Hrm on second thought I think your right.  They only get the lock until the permission check, and I have a hard time seeing how someone can take real advantage of that.  The owner that is trying to lock table should get the

Re: [HACKERS] display previous query string of idle-in-transaction

2009-05-13 Thread Asko Oja
After taking look at our monitoring system i think some hint about previous SQL might be useful. dbadb70db_nameWARNING1long transactions, duration 2690min user=postgres pid=7887 waiting=False query=IDLE in transaction Currently i have no idea what exactly did i kill without

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Fujii Masao wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: This is getting complicated, though. I guess it would be enough to document

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Here's another idea: Let's modify xlog.c so that when the server asks for WAL file X, and restore_command returns not found, the server will not ask for any WAL files = X again (in

[HACKERS] Problem with estimating pages for a table

2009-05-13 Thread Cristina M
Hello, I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies. Therefore, I am trying this list now, hopefully this is the right mailing list for this type of questions. I am trying to compute the no of pages of a table. I am using the formula : pages = ( columns width + 28) * no.

[HACKERS] how to insure libpq(dll/so) for thread-safety?

2009-05-13 Thread wjzeng
Hi, In pgsql/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c, there are two variables: - static int static_client_encoding = PG_SQL_ASCII; static bool static_std_strings = false; If enable_thread_safety is no, how to insure libpq(dll/so) for thread-safety? thanks wjzeng -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities)

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: But that leads me to a question - does the existing HashAggregate code make any attempt to obey work_mem? No. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE vs inheritance

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes: FWIW i just tested this with ~100 clients doing begin; ALTER TABLE test_lock ADD COLUMN commit; here is the timing. Is there some other concern that im not seeing? The situation where someone quickly acquires the lock isn't much of an issue, because

Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5

2009-05-13 Thread Hans-Juergen Schoenig
hello everybody, from my side the goal of this discussion is to extract a consensus so that we can go ahead and implement this issue for 8.5. our customer here needs a solution to this problem and we have to come up with something which can then make it into PostgreSQL core. how shall we

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities)

2009-05-13 Thread Joshua Tolley
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: this patch has some bugs but it is good prototype (it's more stable than old patch): I'm not sure if you're at the

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities)

2009-05-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: this patch has some bugs but it is good prototype (it's more stable than old

[HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Kev
Hi, I have a script that automatically generates the SQL to create some views. I'd like it to check whether its generated SQL matches the SQL returned by select definition from pg_views where I've guessed most of the rules just by looking at the output, but I was surprised to find that some

Re: [HACKERS] Windows installation service

2009-05-13 Thread aftertaf
Hi, I'm having 'service' issues too: Windows XP SP3 user account used for service is not a member of admin group. Errors starting service, but dbengine is started and available. If i try to stop/start with the pgctl batch files created during install, same type of problem... PC had 8.2-5.1

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Kevin Field
On May 13, 11:31 am, Kev kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have a script that automatically generates the SQL to create some views. I'd like it to check whether its generated SQL matches the SQL returned by select definition from pg_views where I've guessed most of the rules just

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Field kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com wrote: One other thing I'm just curious about, != gets replaced with ...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised that that would be the official/preferred reconstruct) is the SQL standard operator. != is a PostgreSQL extension,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Kevin Field wrote: One other thing I'm just curious about, != gets replaced with ...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised that that would be the official/preferred reconstruct) is the official SQL standard notation for not equals, AFAIK. != is not. cheers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Kev kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com writes: ... I was surprised to find that some of my views of the form: select.from b left join a on a.id=b.id ...were being translated to this: SELECT..FROM (B LEFT JOIN a ON ((a.id = b.id))) ...before being stored in the table pg_views is

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that. I think we should

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed many methods and there's

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I will set-up pg_standby as an external module and we can change it from there. No more discussions-for-8.4 and I can update as required to support each release. So let's just remove it from contrib and be done. Huh? The proposed fix involves a

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Simon Riggs wrote: I will set-up pg_standby as an external module and we can change it from there. No more discussions-for-8.4 and I can update as required to support each release. So let's just remove it from contrib and be done. Counterthoughts? We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that. I

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed if it were to get pulled.

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities)

2009-05-13 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:12:51PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: this patch

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 21:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I think we should fix it for 8.4. Agreed. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that? No, not if there is a likelihood the work would be wasted. There always is. (I would've wrote

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Andreas Pflug
Andrew Dunstan wrote: We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking stuff like that. Beta testers will be justifiably very annoyed. Please calm down. pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident about

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. My suggestion was designed to provide this. A misunderstanding. And its existence as a standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident about recommending people to

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature than a bug fix. This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature. It's

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At least for this release: If we get more integrated replication options in 8.5, that

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At least for this release: If we get more integrated replication

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature than a bug fix. This

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature than a bug

Re: [HACKERS] GEQO: ERX

2009-05-13 Thread Tobias Zahn
Hello, thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try. As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source, many important parts are already there. For example, we can calculate the costs

Re: [HACKERS] libxml incompatibility

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: It seems that if you load libxml into a backend for whatever reason (say you create a table with a column of type xml) and then create a plperlu function that use XML::LibXML, we get a segmentation fault. I've applied a patch for this in HEAD.

Re: [HACKERS] GEQO: ERX

2009-05-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn tobias-z...@arcor.de wrote: Hello, thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try. As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Frankly, if anything it should move from contrib to the core proper. I regard it as an essential utility, not an optional extra. I like that idea. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 21:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature. recovery.conf will contain a new optional parameter: recovery_end_command (string) This parameter specifies a shell command that will be executed once only at the end of

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: recovery_end_command is performed *after* the UpdateControlFile() once the we are DB_IN_PRODUCTION. Hmm, shouldn't it be after the last checkpoint but before we go to DB_IN_PRODUCTION? I have to admit I've not been following this closely though, so I

Re: [HACKERS] New trigger option of pg_standby

2009-05-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: recovery_end_command is performed *after* the UpdateControlFile() once the we are DB_IN_PRODUCTION. Hmm, shouldn't it be after the last checkpoint Definitely. but before we go to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Kevin Field
On May 13, 12:41 pm, kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov (Kevin Grittner) wrote: Kevin Field kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com wrote: One other thing I'm just curious about, != gets replaced with ...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised that that would be the official/preferred

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Kevin Field
On May 13, 12:52 pm, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) wrote: Kev kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com writes: ... I was surprised to find that some of my views of the form: select.from b left join a on a.id=b.id ...were being translated to this: SELECT..FROM (B LEFT JOIN a ON ((a.id =

Re: [HACKERS] pg_views definition format

2009-05-13 Thread Greg Smith
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kevin Field wrote: Or would the only way to do this be to actually create a view and then call pg_get_viewdef() and then delete the view? Just make it a temporary view and then it drops when the session ends. Here's a working shell example that transforms a view into the

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with estimating pages for a table

2009-05-13 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Cristina M escreveu: - for table t2(l_orderkey int, l_partkey int, l_quantiy, l_tax, l_extendedprice, l_discount) I got an error of 42 %. I suspect you have NULLs in your table; they're stored as bitmaps, so they use little space. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/ --

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with estimating pages for a table

2009-05-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Cristina M wrote: I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies. Therefore, I am trying this list now, hopefully this is the right mailing list for this type of questions. I am trying to compute the no of pages of a table. I am using the formula : pages = ( columns width +

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with estimating pages for a table

2009-05-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Cristina M cristina.ma...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies. Therefore, I am trying this list now, hopefully this is the right mailing list for this type of questions. I am trying to compute the no of pages of

[HACKERS] PATCH to fix two little typo in charset.sgml

2009-05-13 Thread Dickson S. Guedes
Hi all, Attached is a patch to fix a command line example in charset.sgml. I hope it is correct. []s -- Dickson S. Guedes mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br fix_typo_lc_collatein_charset_sgml.patch.bz2 Description: