On 11.04.2011 23:35, jagan wrote:
Hi,
Suppose I create a table as follows:
CREATE TABLE test2 (name TEXT, age INTEGER) WITH oids;
Now, for every tuple in this table is associated with a unique oid, which I can
retrieve by:
SELECT oid, name, age FROM test2;
which works great. So far so good.
--On 10. April 2011 13:53:52 -0400 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In view of the recently-discovered data loss bug in pg_upgrade,
it seems imperative to push out update releases fixing that as soon
as possible. The core team has therefore decided to wrap back-branch
update releases this
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 22:16, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2011-04-07 at 16:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It sure would be nice if someone would write a doc patch, or at least
a wiki page, explaining all the permutations here... I get the
impression it's not that hard to
On 04/12/2011 08:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 22:16, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2011-04-07 at 16:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It sure would be nice if someone would write a doc patch, or at least
a wiki page, explaining all the permutations
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:51, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 04/12/2011 08:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 22:16, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2011-04-07 at 16:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It sure would be nice if someone would write
Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de writes:
--On 10. April 2011 13:53:52 -0400 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The core team has therefore decided to wrap back-branch
update releases this Thursday for release Monday 4/18.
Hmm, I would like to see the patch for
Hi,
Where is the OID of tuple stored in a WAL record of a
tuple? If not with xl_heap_header, where is it stored? Is it
stored at all?
It's stored in the tuple data portion.
Is the OID also recorded with xl_heap_delete record as well or just the
xl_heaptid? From my reading of the
On 12.04.2011 19:42, jagan wrote:
Where is the OID of tuple stored in a WAL record of a
tuple? If not with xl_heap_header, where is it stored? Is it
stored at all?
It's stored in the tuple data portion.
Is the OID also recorded with xl_heap_delete record as well or just the
I wrote:
So, unless there's a really good reason why fn_collation should be in
FmgrInfo and not FunctionCallInfo, I'm going to see about moving it.
It looks like the single largest PITA involved in this change is that
the FunctionCallN/OidFunctionCallN/DirectFunctionCallN families of
functions
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 08:09:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
1. The existing names with a C appended (eg, OidFunctionCall2C) will
take a collation argument (in particular, this replaces the existing
DirectFunctionCall1WithCollation and DirectFunctionCall2WithCollation,
which seem a bit verbosely
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 08:09:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
1. The existing names with a C appended (eg, OidFunctionCall2C) will
take a collation argument (in particular, this replaces the existing
DirectFunctionCall1WithCollation and
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 09:00:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 08:09:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
1. The existing names with a C appended (eg, OidFunctionCall2C) will
take a collation argument (in particular, this replaces the existing
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 09:00:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Hm, well, you got a better idea? I definitely want it *short*, because
these are going to be in a lot of places.
Not really. Maybe DirectFunctionCall1Coll or even DirectFCall1Coll...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:51:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan
and...@dunslane.net wrote:
that's in the SDK? If not, I still think that should be our primary
option - I certainly don't see how it's obsolete. (and you can,
afaics, still get the platform sdk with the correct version of the
compiler
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Maybe the WAL record you're looking at is a full-page image? A record with a
full-page image includes a verbatim copy of the page, and the individual
tuple is omitted in that case.
It is? I thought
Also add some regression tests for that behaviour.
Found after seing a report about it in IRC by Daniel Grace.
---
src/backend/commands/user.c |3 +-
src/test/regress/expected/privileges.out | 35
src/test/regress/sql/privileges.sql | 37
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Maybe the WAL record you're looking at is a full-page image? A record with a
full-page image includes a verbatim copy of the page, and the individual
tuple is
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 12.04.2011 19:42, jagan wrote:
In general, why is OID of a tuple relegated as just another tuple
data, when it can replace xl_heaptid as a much more stable tuple
identifier.
Possibly. On the other hand, another common
(2011/04/13 8:34), Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu writes:
Doesn't pg_lesslog depend on this?
One hopes not.
AFAIK it's safe because pg_lesslog removes full-page image only when it
has enough information for substitute incremental log.
For example of XLOG_HEAP_INSERT, pg_lesslog
19 matches
Mail list logo
