On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Peter Geoghegan
peter.geoghega...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2010 19:48, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
I, personally, would expect an empty array output given an empty
input, and a null output
There's already been one rather-long thread on this topic.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.general/121450
In there I argue for the empty array interpretation and Tom goes back
and forth a few times. I'm not sure where that thread ended though.
--
greg
--
Sent via
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:51:36AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
The most prohibitively expensive part is the AtEOXact_Buffers
check of running through all buffers and checking their pin count.
And it makes $app's regression tests take thrice their time...
Have you tried
On 8/11/10 8:31 AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thinking about SQL assertions (check constraints that are independent of
one particular table), do you think it would be reasonable to implement
those on top of constraint triggers? On creation you'd hook up a
trigger to each of the affected
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to
public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 06:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am not sure if there's anything very good we can do about the
problem of pg_regress misidentifying the postmaster it's managed to
connect to. A real solution would probably be much more trouble than
it's worth, anyway.
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 08:31 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thinking about SQL assertions (check constraints that are independent of
one particular table), do you think it would be reasonable to implement
those on top of constraint triggers? On creation you'd hook up a
trigger to each of the
2010/8/11 Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi:
On 8/11/10 8:31 AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thinking about SQL assertions (check constraints that are independent of
one particular table), do you think it would be reasonable to implement
those on top of constraint triggers? On
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Boxuan Zhai bxzhai2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Boxuan Zhai wrote:
I just found that no Assert() works in my codes. I think it is because
the assertion is no enabled. How to enable
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 18:57 -0400, Joseph Adams wrote:
I've been developing it as a contrib module because:
* I'd imagine it's easier than developing it as a built-in datatype
right away (e.g. editing a .sql.in file versus editing pg_type.h ).
* As a module, it has PGXS support, so people can
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM the right is
* Categorized into DEVELOPER_OPTIONS
* The default is DEBUG1
* The context is PGC_SIGHUP
Don't think we should go live with default of DEBUG1.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development,
On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
These days I am considering what else can be done for MERGE, And, I
find inheritance tables in postgres is not supported by our MERGE command
yet.
I played with your latest patch version a bit, and actually, it seems to
me that inherited tables work just
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM the right is
* Categorized into DEVELOPER_OPTIONS
* The default is DEBUG1
* The context is PGC_SIGHUP
Don't think we should go live with default of DEBUG1.
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:15 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
The difficult way is to generate the plans for children table in planner, as
the other commands like UPDATE and DELETE. However, because the structure of
MERGE plan is much more complex than
2010/8/11 Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Peter Geoghegan
peter.geoghega...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2010 19:48, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
I, personally, would expect an empty array output
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 10:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
IMO the UPDATE/DELETE/INSERT actions should fire the respective
statement level triggers, but the MERGE itself should not.
Yes, SQL defines the triggering of triggers as part of the modification
of rows, not as part of any particular
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:54 +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Enforcing that kind of constraints without true serializability seems
impractical.
Yes, but that is being worked on, I understand.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On 8/11/10 1:18 PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:54 +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Enforcing that kind of constraints without true serializability seems
impractical.
Yes, but that is being worked on, I understand.
Correct. But you'd have to somehow make the
On 11/08/10 11:45, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:15 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
The difficult way is to generate the plans for children table in planner, as
the other commands like UPDATE and DELETE. However, because the structure of
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been
On 08/11/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's an interesting buildfarm failure here:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=polecatdt=2010-08-10%2023:46:10
It appears to me that this was caused by the concurrent run of another
buildfarm animal on the same physical machine,
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that Boxuan's suggested difficult approach seems like the
right one.
Right, but you've completely ignored my proposal: lets do this in two
pieces. Get what we have now ready to commit, then add support for
partitioning
Hello!
We have chosen another item from the list:
Allow ALTER TABLE to change constraint deferrability and actions
Is this already done? If yes, can you recommend any task which is
appropriate for beginners in open-source software?
Thanks in advance,
Chris Viktor
2010/8/4 Bruce Momjian
Hi,
ResolveRecoveryConflictWithVirtualXIDs() calls pgstat_report_waiting(),
but it seems useless (though harmless) since the startup process doesn't
have the shared memory entry (i.e., MyBEEntry) for pg_stat_activity.
We should remove it?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
hello all ...
i am bugged with a small issue which is basically like this ...
test=# create table t_test as select x, x % 5 as y from generate_series(1,
100) AS x;
SELECT
test=# create index idx_a on t_test (x) ;
CREATE INDEX
test=# ANALYZE ;
ANALYZE
test=# explain analyze select * from
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Nothing. The only reason to use those forms is in a join against
pg_authid, and the public group doesn't have an entry
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
These days I am considering what else can be done for MERGE, And, I
find inheritance tables in postgres is not supported by our MERGE command
yet.
I played
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 06:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 11/08/10 14:44, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that Boxuan's suggested difficult approach seems like the
right one.
Right, but you've completely ignored my proposal: lets do this in two
pieces. Get what we have now ready to commit,
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 14:21 +0200, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
my question is: is there already a concept out there to make this work
or does anybody know of a patch out there addressing an issue like
that?
some idea is heavily appreciated. it seems our sort key infrastructure
is not enough
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The \e patch definitely needs another read-through. I noticed a number
of comments that were still pretty poor English, and one ---
/* skip header lines */
--- that seems just plain wrong. The actual intent of that
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 06:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Viktor Valy vili0...@gmail.com wrote:
We have chosen another item from the list:
Allow ALTER TABLE to change constraint deferrability and actions
I believe that is not done. What does the TODO list item mean by and actions?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 11/08/10 14:44, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that Boxuan's suggested difficult approach seems like the
right one.
Right, but you've completely ignored my
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What does the TODO list item mean by and actions?
Things like ON DELETE CASCADE versus ON DELETE RESTRICT?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/11/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
... However, it does seem like we ought to be able to
do something about two buildfarm critters defaulting to the same choice
of port number.
Why not just add the configured port (DEF_PGPORT) into the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A look at the code shows that it is merely trying to run psql, and
if psql reports that it can connect to the specified port, then
pg_regress thinks the postmaster started OK. Of course, psql was
really reporting that it could connect to the other
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that RecordTransactionCommit() only needs to WAL-log
shared invalidation messages when wal_level is hot_standby, but I
don't see
Hi,
I just came across the following confusing thing.
zozo=# create table bit_test(i integer);
CREATE TABLE
zozo=# insert into bit_test values (1), (2), (3);
INSERT 0 3
zozo=# select i, i::bit(2), get_bit(i::bit(2), 1) as bit1,
get_bit(i::bit(2), 0) as bit0 from bit_test;
i | i | bit1 | bit0
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A look at the code shows that it is merely trying to run psql, and
if psql reports that it can connect to the specified port, then
pg_regress thinks the postmaster started OK. Of course, psql was
really
On 08/11/2010 09:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/11/2010 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
... However, it does seem like we ought to be able to
do something about two buildfarm critters defaulting to the same choice
of port number.
Why not just add the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that a random number
would offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which
is guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried
about.
Well, in the post I cited, it was you who argued that
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:15 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
The difficult way is to generate the plans for children table in
planner, as
the other commands like UPDATE and
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
So, loading libpqwalreceiver library crashes. It looks like it might be
pthread-related. Perhaps something wrong with our makefiles, causing
libpqwalreceiver to be built with wrong flags? Does
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Boxuan Zhai bxzhai2...@gmail.com wrote:
PS: Since I have taken this project, I will do my best to make it perfect.
I will keep working on MERGE until it is really finished, even after the
gSoC. (unless you guys has other plans).
That is great to hear!
FWIW, I
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that a random number
would offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which
is guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried
about.
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/11/2010 09:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
Why not just add the configured port (DEF_PGPORT) into the calculation
of the port to run on?
No, that would be just about the worst possible choice. It'd be
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/11/2010 09:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
Why not just add the configured port (DEF_PGPORT) into the calculation
of the port to run on?
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Alanoly Andrews alano...@invera.com wrote:
Ok..in response to the questions from Heikki,
1. Yes, contrib/dblink does work. Here's the output from the command used
to make dblink:
postgres:thimar /usr/bin/gmake -C contrib/dblink install
gmake:
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
On 8/11/10 1:18 PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:54 +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Enforcing that kind of constraints without true serializability
seems impractical.
Yes, but that is being worked on, I understand.
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
Ideally you really want string_to_array(array_to_string(x, ':'),':')
to return x. There's no safe return value to pick for the cases where
x=[''] and x=[] that will make this work.
It's easy to see that string_to_array/array_to_string are *not* usable
as
On 11/08/10 16:46, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that RecordTransactionCommit() only needs to WAL-log
shared invalidation messages when
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
There's already been one rather-long thread on this topic.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.general/121450
In there I argue for the empty array interpretation and Tom goes back
and forth a few times. I'm not sure where that thread ended
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 22:09 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
One more thing I want to point out is that, the INSERT is also an
inheritable action in MERGE. For a plain INSERT command, all the
inserted tuples are put in the target table ONLY. It is easy to
understand. We don't want to duplicate all
Ok..in response to the questions from Heikki,
1. Yes, contrib/dblink does work. Here's the output from the command used to
make dblink:
postgres:thimar /usr/bin/gmake -C contrib/dblink install
gmake: Entering directory
`/dinabkp/faouzis/postgresql-9.0beta1/contrib/dblink'
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 8/11/10 8:31 AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thinking about SQL assertions (check constraints that are independent of
one particular table), do you think it would be reasonable to implement
those on top of constraint triggers? On
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
Ideally you really want string_to_array(array_to_string(x, ':'),':')
to return x. There's no safe return value to pick for the cases where
x=[''] and x=[] that will make this work.
It's
On 11/08/10 17:45, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems clear that your work in this area will interfere with the work
on partitioning and insert routing.
Nothing concrete has come out of that work yet. And we should have MERGE
work with inherited tables, regardless of any future work that may
happen
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It clearly rates higher in importance than most of the things on the
open items list of late...
First, I don't think that's true. WALreceiver crashing on AIX, the
backup
Vik Reykja vikrey...@gmail.com writes:
We just put in the possibility to name the client connections. Would it be
interesting to be able to name the server installation itself?
Wouldn't do anything for this problem --- it would just introduce
something else the buildfarm would have to worry
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that Boxuan's suggested difficult approach seems like the
right one.
Right, but you've completely ignored my proposal: lets do this in two
pieces. Get what we have now ready to
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 08:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
Given that Peter is now attending SQL Standards meetings, I would
suggest we leave out my suggestion above, for now. We have time to
raise this at standards meetings and influence the outcome and then
follow later.
I'm not actually
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that Boxuan's suggested difficult approach seems like the
right one.
Right, but you've completely ignored my proposal:
Excerpts from Hans-Jürgen Schönig's message of mié ago 11 08:21:10 -0400 2010:
same with limit ...
test=# explain analyze select * from t_test order by x, y limit 20;
But if you put the limit in a subquery which is ordered by the
known-indexed condition, it is very fast:
alvherre=#
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Well, if we go off chasing this particular goose then we will set
ourselves back at least one commitfest. I'd rather work towards having a
fully committable patch without inheritance sooner than an even bigger
patch
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Hans-Jürgen Schönig's message of mié ago 11 08:21:10 -0400
2010:
test=# explain analyze select * from t_test order by x, y limit 20;
But if you put the limit in a subquery which is ordered by the
known-indexed condition, it
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Or we could do something like
port = 0xC000 ^ (DEF_PGPORT 0x7FFF);
which is absolutely guaranteed not to conflict with DEF_PGPORT, at the
cost of possibly shifting into the
On 08/11/2010 10:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Or we could do something like
port = 0xC000 ^ (DEF_PGPORT 0x7FFF);
which is absolutely guaranteed not to conflict with DEF_PGPORT, at the
cost of possibly shifting into the 32K-48K port number range if you
had set DEF_PGPORT above 48K.
I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Well, if we go off chasing this particular goose then we will set
ourselves back at least one commitfest. I'd rather work towards having a
fully committable patch without
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
One of us is missing something. I didn't say to run the checks using
the
configured port. I had in mind something like:
port = 0xC000 | ((PG_VERSION_NUM + DEF_PGPORT) 0x3FFF);
Oh, I see, modify the DEF_PGPORT don't just use it
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that a random number would
offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which is
guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried about.
In fact, you could implement this off the
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 13:23 +0300, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
But you'd have to somehow make the constraints to be checked
with true serializability, and that part of the original suggestion
seemed to be completely missing. Not sure how hard that would be
though.
I don't think somehow running
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that a random number would
offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which is
guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried about.
2010/8/11 Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at:
Shouldn't it at least be documented in more depth? Say, get_bit(, N)
provides the Nth bit (0-based) counting from the leftmost bit?
I would certainly appreciate a warning spelled out about this
so if you convert a number to bitstring of length N
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I thought the point of ASSERTIONs was that you could write a thing
such as:
CREATE ASSERTION foo CHECK ((SELECT count(*) FROM tbl) = 4);
Enforcing that kind of constraints without true serializability
seems
impractical.
Enforcing
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How about just this:
port = 0xC000 | (DEF_PGPORT 0x3FFF);
The version number was put in there intentionally, for developers who
work on multiple branches at once. That's the whole reason this
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that a random number
would offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID,
which is guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're
worried about.
On 08/11/2010 11:42 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
One of us is missing something. I didn't say to run the checks using
the
configured port. I had in mind something like:
port = 0xC000 | ((PG_VERSION_NUM + DEF_PGPORT) 0x3FFF);
Oh, I
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 11:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How's that help? pg_backend_pid isn't going to return the
postmaster's
PID ... maybe we could add a new function that does return the
postmaster's PID, though.
Hmm, is there a portable way to find the parent PID of some other
process, given
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Why not just compare pg_backend_pid() with postmaster.pid?
See the prior discussion in the archives. We started with that and
found problems, to which Tom suggested a random number as the best
On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I had forgotten that discussion. It looks like we trailed off without
any real consensus: there was about equal sentiment for an array with
zero elements and an array with one empty-string element. We ended
up leaving it alone because (a) that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, at least in the usage in that loop, get_functiondef_dollarquote_tag
seems grossly overdesigned. It would be clearer, shorter, and faster if
you just had a strncmp test for AS
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
So maybe we need to revisit the issue. Pavel was claiming that
switching to a zero-element array result was a no-brainer, but evidently
it isn't so. Is anybody still excited about the alternatives?
%
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, at least in the usage in that loop, get_functiondef_dollarquote_tag
seems grossly overdesigned. It would be
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
So maybe we need to revisit the issue. Pavel was claiming that
switching to a zero-element array result was a no-brainer, but
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On lör, 2010-08-07 at 16:47 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
To be honest I'm happiest with returning a boolean, even if there is
some confusion over
Tom Lane wrote:
Do we really think this is anywhere near committable now?
There's a relatively objective standard for the first thing needed for
commit--does it work?--in the form of the regression tests Simon put
together before development. I just tried the latest merge_v102.patch
Yeah, I think David's examples are talking about the behavior of join,
but we're trying to decide what split should do. I think the main
argument for making it return NULL is that you can then fairly easily
use COALESCE() to get whatever you want. That's a bit more difficult
if you use
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I believe those are all , rather than '' + undef + ''.
If you believe my previous opinion that the design center for these
functions is arrays of numbers, then a zero-entry text[] array is what
you want, because you can successfully cast it to
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, I think David's examples are talking about the behavior of join,
but we're trying to decide what split should do.
Right, sorry about that.
I think the main
argument for making it return NULL is that you can then fairly easily
use
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan
peter.geoghega...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I think David's examples are talking about the behavior of join,
but we're trying to decide what split should do. I think the main
argument for making it return NULL is that you can then fairly easily
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Iterating through an array with plpgsql, for example, is more clunky
than it should be.
Really?
FOR var IN SELECT UNNEST(arr) LOOP ... END LOOP
I mean, doing everything is sort of clunky in PL/pgsql, but this
doesn't seem particularly
On 08/11/2010 01:54 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Iterating through an array with plpgsql, for example, is more clunky
than it should be.
Really?
FOR var IN SELECT UNNEST(arr) LOOP ... END LOOP
I mean, doing everything is sort of clunky in
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
for i in array_lower(myarray,1) .. array_upper(myarray,1) loop ...
works well
for i in select array_subscripts(myarray, 1) loop ...
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 11:53 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The version number was put in there intentionally, for developers
who
work on multiple branches at once. That's the whole reason this
code
exists. Please don't remove it.
Do they run make check by hand simultaneously on
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié ago 11 10:52:24 -0400 2010:
On 11/08/10 17:45, Simon Riggs wrote:
We've seen it time and time again
that big projects that aim to deliver towards end of a release cycle
interfere with dev of other projects and leave loose ends from
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How about just this:
port = 0xC000 | (DEF_PGPORT 0x3FFF);
The version number was put in there intentionally, for developers who
work on
Hello,
I wishing to create real big numbers, but I'm facing some difficulties.
Is possible to setup an integer type of more than 8 bytes (i.e. 16/32/48/64
bytes)?
Can I setup a value as large as I want?
How I should acess them using PG_RETURN_xxx and PG_GETARG_xxx macros?
Thanks in advance,
On 11/08/10 21:19, Daniel Oliveira wrote:
I wishing to create real big numbers, but I'm facing some difficulties.
Is possible to setup an integer type of more than 8 bytes (i.e. 16/32/48/64
bytes)?
No. Not unless you write your own datatype.
Use numeric, it scales up to ridiculously large
On 08/11/2010 01:59 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
for i in array_lower(myarray,1) .. array_upper(myarray,1) loop ...
works well
for i in select array_subscripts(myarray, 1) loop ...
That's not a built-in function AFAIK.
cheers
andrew
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
