On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> But if that's what you want, just don't put your data in different
>> databases in the first place. That's what schemas are for.
>
> Sadly, DBAs don't always have the ability to
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of dom jul 10 21:21:19 -0400 2011:
> On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > In short: in my opinion, attoptions and attfdwoptions need to be one
> > thing and the same.
>
> I feel the opposite. In particular, what happens when a future releas
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> But if that's what you want, just don't put your data in different
> databases in the first place. That's what schemas are for.
>
Sadly, DBAs don't always have the ability to put all their data in one
database, even if that is what schemas
Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jul10, 2011, at 06:01 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Can someone help me understand pg_locks? There are three fields related
> > to virtual and real xids:
> >
> > virtualtransaction | text |
> > transactionid | xid |
> > virtualxid | text |
> >
> >
Okay, I finally had time to install a bunch of databases and see what
the "industry" thinks.
I tested the four seemingly most pertinent databases. The ability to
"select for update" with a left outer join is present on these
databases:
* Oracle
* SQL Server (not the same syntax, but does support
On 07/10/2011 11:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Kaigai still has some patches pending review or revision in this
Commitfest. We need to wrap these up.
Joe: will you be able to be able to do more review on security labels?
Unfortunately his 4th patch version came a bit late for me -- I'll try
to m
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> You can't *today*. But it's a very good question whether it wouldn't
> make more sense to solve these problems by extending DO rather than
> adding things into psql. Functionality in DO will be available to
> non-psql clients.
I don't think we're ever goi
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Fujii,
>
>> In the current scheme we restart archiving from the last restartpoint,
>> which exists only on the archive. This new patch improves upon this by
>> keeping the most recent files locally, so we are less expose in the
>> case of archi
On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In short: in my opinion, attoptions and attfdwoptions need to be one
> thing and the same.
I feel the opposite. In particular, what happens when a future release of
PostgreSQL adds an attoption that happens to have the same name as somebody's
On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
>> to accelerate table locks.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>>
>> Here's a new
A few very minor things that I noticed:
1. You use pre-increment in "for" loops (e.g. FastPathGrantLock). The
rest of the code seems to use post-increment in "for" loops, so you
might as well stick to the convention in cases where the two have
identical meaning.
2. Typo in the README: "acquire th
On 11/07/2011 4:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was going through the GetLastError() calls to unify the printf
formats, as discussed, and I stumbled across this:
+ write_stderr("could not write crash dump to %s: error code
%08x\n",
+dumpPath, GetLastEr
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:20:12AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Noah: do either of the leaky views patches look like they're almost
> ready to commit?
The parts 0/1 patch would be ready for committer, but instead it's going to
merge into a combined patch with part 2. I've updated the entry accordi
On Jul 10, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
>>> B. 6. Current behaviour _is intended_ (there is "if" to check node type)
>>> and _"natural"_. In this particular case user ask for text content of some
>>> node, and this content is actually "<".
>>
>> I don't buy that. The che
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't get a lot of comments on my the previous version of my patch
> to accelerate table locks.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00953.php
>
> Here's a new version anyway. In this version, I have:
I am trying
On tor, 2010-12-16 at 15:16 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Found another problem in it: when running with an older version of
> dbghelp.dll (which I was), it simply didn't work. We need to grab the
> version of dbghelp.dll at runtime and pick which things we're going to
> dump based on that.
>
>
Original Message
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches
From: Magnus Hagander
To: Brar Piening
Date: 08.07.2011 11:38
Sorry for the late response - I've been on a wedding this weekend.
Something is strange here. Did you run perltidy with the exact
parameter
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Is this really a good idea? I think the note should still be there in
> 9.1 and beyond (with the version applicability note of course)
I see your point, but it also seems strange to keep such a note
permanently. And it also seems minor en
On 7/3/11 2:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. If there were One True Way to create a UUID, I would probably
> agree that we should push that functionality into core. But there are
> a lot of ways (and the reason for that is that they all suck in one
> fashion or another :-(). Between that and the l
Hackers,
This patch needs a new reviewer, per Cedric. Please help!
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Teodor, Oleg, Heikki,
> My concern is that I am unable to prove to myself simply by reading
> the code that the 24 line chunk deleted from gistFindPath (near ***
> 919,947 ) are no longer needed. My familiarity with the gist code
> is low enough that it is not surprising that I cannot prove t
Hackers,
>> B. 6. Current behaviour _is intended_ (there is "if" to check node type)
>> and _"natural"_. In this particular case user ask for text content of some
>> node, and this content is actually "<".
>
> I don't buy that. The check for the node type is there because
> two different libxm
All,
Merlin volunteered to review this patch and has not turned in a review.
Can someone who is Windows-saavy pitch in and review it ASAP?
> I wrote and attached a patch for the TODO item below (which I proposed).
>
> Allow multiple Postgres clusters running on the same machine to
> distinguish
Fujii,
> In the current scheme we restart archiving from the last restartpoint,
> which exists only on the archive. This new patch improves upon this by
> keeping the most recent files locally, so we are less expose in the
> case of archive unavailability. So this patch already improves things
> a
2011/7/10 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>>> 2011/7/10 Jaime Casanova :
big part of this seems to be (based on the examples on the page,
haven't read the patch) scripting functionality but now that we have
DO, is really a need for that?
>
>> note - a output from DO statement is
All,
Kaigai still has some patches pending review or revision in this
Commitfest. We need to wrap these up.
Joe: will you be able to be able to do more review on security labels?
Noah: do either of the leaky views patches look like they're almost
ready to commit?
Everyone: can someone *please*
Simon, Greg,
This patch[1] is for some reason marked "waiting on Author". But I
can't find that there's been any review of it searching the list.
What's going on with it? Has it been reviewed?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 7/4/11 7:22 PM, Joseph Adams wrote:
> I'll try to submit a revised patch within the next couple days.
So? New patch?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http:
HarmeekSingh Bedi writes:
> Thanks Tom. Here is a example. Just a background of things . I have made
> changes in postgress execution and storage engine to make it a MPP style
> engine - keeping all optimizer intact. Basically take pgress serial plan and
> construct a parallel plan. The query I am
Pavel Stehule writes:
>> 2011/7/10 Jaime Casanova :
>>> big part of this seems to be (based on the examples on the page,
>>> haven't read the patch) scripting functionality but now that we have
>>> DO, is really a need for that?
> note - a output from DO statement is limited to RAISE statement -
On 11-07-07 09:22 PM, Jun Ishiduka wrote:
>> As you proposed, adding new field which stores the backup end location
>> taken from minRecoveryPoint, into pg_control sounds good idea.
> Update patch.
>
Here is a review of the updated patch
This version of the patch adds a field into pg_controldata t
On Jul10, 2011, at 06:01 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Can someone help me understand pg_locks? There are three fields related
> to virtual and real xids:
>
> virtualtransaction | text |
> transactionid | xid |
> virtualxid | text |
>
> Our docs say 'virtualtransaction' is:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> thank you very much for review.
I thank you, too, Hanada-san. I was assigned to review this patch, but you beat
me to it. So now I'll do the follow-up review.
> I cleaned patch and merged your documentation patch
>
> I hope, this is all - a l
On 08/07/11 18:21, Darren Duncan wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 20:56 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
When you create a temporary table, PostgreSQL needs to add rows in
pg_class, pg_attribute, and probably other system catalogs. So
there are
writes, which aren't possible in a read
Thanks Tom. Here is a example. Just a background of things . I have made
changes in postgress execution and storage engine to make it a MPP style
engine - keeping all optimizer intact. Basically take pgress serial plan and
construct a parallel plan. The query I am running is below.
*Query*
# expl
I like Darren's proposal. It is elegant.
> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:38:59 +1200
> From: gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz
> To: dar...@darrenduncan.net
> CC: pg...@j-davis.com; guilla...@lelarge.info; mbee...@hotmail.com;
> pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re:
2011/7/10 Pavel Stehule :
> 2011/7/10 Jaime Casanova :
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:29 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
>> wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> would it be possible to incorporate
>>> http://www.postgres.cz/index.php/Enhanced-psql in core PostgreSQL/psql?
>>>
>>> This patch adds lots of nice functionali
Hello
2011/7/9 Cédric Villemain :
> 2011/7/9 hubert depesz lubaczewski :
>> hi,
>> would it be possible to incorporate
>> http://www.postgres.cz/index.php/Enhanced-psql in core PostgreSQL/psql?
>>
>> This patch adds lots of nice functionalities, which we could definitely
>> use.
>
> Some features
2011/7/10 Jaime Casanova :
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:29 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
> wrote:
>> hi,
>> would it be possible to incorporate
>> http://www.postgres.cz/index.php/Enhanced-psql in core PostgreSQL/psql?
>>
>> This patch adds lots of nice functionalities, which we could definitely
>>
39 matches
Mail list logo
