On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
First of all, what if cast(timestamp as int) was already defined? Which
cast then would you expect to be invoked here?
'1800-01-01 00:00:00'::int
i will expect an error in that case... what you're doing there is
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
First of all, what if cast(timestamp as int) was already defined? Which
cast then would you expect to be invoked here?
'1800-01-01 00:00:00'::int
i will expect an error in that case... what
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
('1800-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp)::int
Now, since all values of a DOMAIN are also values of the base type the
DOMAIN is defined as being a subset of, then the sub-expression within the
parenthesis denotes a value
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Would that risk be substantially worse than it currently is? If a
backend goes into the tank while holding access shared locks, it will
still block access exclusive locks until it recovers. And those
queued access
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think that all the complexity with CRCs etc. is unlikely to lead anywhere
too, and those two issues are not completely unrelated. The simplest,
safest thing here is the right way to approach this, not the most
On 5/12/11 7:19 PM, Lou Picciano wrote:
Josh My Man! How are you?!!
Is this the one?: http://planetdrizzle.org/
Since that's their blog feed, here's some durable links:
Testing tool:
http://docs.drizzle.org/testing/dbqp.html
Random query generator:
https://launchpad.net/randgen
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Obviously it should run the cast from timestamp to int, why it will
run a cast from a domain?
So let's think about some harder scenarios.
Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
and a
2011/5/15 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think that all the complexity with CRCs etc. is unlikely to lead anywhere
too, and those two issues are not completely unrelated. The simplest,
safest thing here is the right
I need to be Unsubscribed! ign...@verizon.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Gelman ign...@verizon.net wrote:
I need to be Unsubscribed! ign...@verizon.net
There's a link for that here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via
Hello
cache estimation and cache access cost are currently not accounted
explicitly: they have a cost associated with but no constants (other
than effective_cache_size but it has a very limited usage).
Every IO cost is build with a derivation of the seq_page_cost,
random_page_cost and the number
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
would allowing it harm anything at this point?
Adding it for the sake of upgrades seems very far fetched.
Adding
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So let's think about some harder scenarios.
Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
and a cast from a value of type D1 to type D2, then:
ok. a few fair questions, thanks
(1) If there is
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
created casts...
at least, we should document that casts on domains are ignored and
that we should use the base types instead, maybe even a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Okay, how we add a revision key to the control file and extrevision to
the pg_extension catalog. Its type can be TEXT and is optional for use
by extensions.
How would
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
created casts...
at least, we should document that casts on domains are
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring
Cédric Villemain wrote:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/c2main/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/analyze_cache
This rebases easily to make Cedric's changes move to the end; I just
pushed a version with that change to
I've committed a bunch of changes both in the Postgres code and the
buildfarm code to enable running the isolation checks under MSVC.
There's one hurdle that I haven't overcome: the code tries to call
./isolationtester and Windows barfs on it. I think we need to remove
that way of doing
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
would allowing it harm anything at
20 matches
Mail list logo
