On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 13:48 +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
This patch adds basic support of arrays in foreign keys, by allowing to
define a referencing column as an array of elements having the same type
as the referenced column in the referenced table.
Every NOT NULL element in the
On 17 June 2012 08:26, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
(1) In backend_read_statsfile, make an initial attempt to read the stats
file and then read GetCurrentTimestamp after that. If the local clock
reading is less than the stats file's timestamp, we know that some sort
of clock skew or
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's not obvious to me that we actually *need* anything except the
ability to recognize that a null-encrypted
On 16 June 2012 23:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Now, looking at the problem with some perspective, the solution
is obvious: when in single-row mode, the PQgetResult() must return
proper PGresult for that single row. And everything else follows
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com wrote:
So my preference would be to simply remove the callback API
but keep the processing and provide PQgetRowData() instead.
This is implemented in attached patch. It also
converts dblink to use single-row API.
The patch should
IMO, both approaches make sense...
From temporal point no doubt, referencing should be contained by
referenced table
From other side could be useful if in master table are elements with
simple data type, but for some set of elements there could be common
properties in another table.. What
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I prefer the description of Marko's API than the one we have now.
Adopting one API in 9.2 and another in 9.3 would be fairly bad.
Perhaps we can have both?
I see no reason the keep the (public) callback API around,
On 17 June 2012 19:37, Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I prefer the description of Marko's API than the one we have now.
Adopting one API in 9.2 and another in 9.3 would be fairly bad.
Perhaps we can have both?
I
On 17 June 2012 19:16, Misa Simic misa.si...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, both approaches make sense...
Agreed.
It's also a good reason to do as Peter suggests and come up with a
better description than just EACH.
Do we need something like Exclusion FKs? i.e. the FK partner of
Exclusion Constraints?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
This is copied from the old documentation. It used to say It is not
necessary to be concerned about the amount of time elapsed between
pg_start_backup and the start of
Simon Riggs wrote:
Misa Simic wrote:
IMO, both approaches make sense...
Agreed.
Can someone provide a practical example of a foreign key with array
use case? The only situations I'm able to think of right now are the
same cases where you would now use a table with primary keys of two
2012/6/17 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
Do we need something like Exclusion FKs? i.e. the FK partner of
Exclusion Constraints?
+1
Definatelly it would be something usefull... Today's workaround to achieve
that with additional table, and additional column in Key is a bit
awkward...
2012/6/17 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
Can someone provide a practical example of a foreign key with array
use case? The only situations I'm able to think of right now are the
same cases where you would now use a table with primary keys of two
tables to provide a many-to-many
The fly in the ointment for strxfrm() adoption may be the need to be
consistent with this earlier behaviour:
commit 656beff59033ccc5261a615802e1a85da68e8fad
Author: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Date: Thu Dec 22 22:50:00 2005 +
Adjust string comparison so that only bitwise-equal strings
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Fine, but please log this as a WARNING system time skew detected, so
we can actually see it has happened rather than just silently
accepting the situation.
I think elog(LOG) is more appropriate, same as we have for the existing
messages for related
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
mirroring ssl_ciphers?
Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the cipher negotiation process
looks like or which side has the freedom to choose.
That, or just have DEFAULT as being
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
mirroring ssl_ciphers?
Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the cipher negotiation process
looks like or which
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
mirroring ssl_ciphers?
Dunno, do we need
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
The fly in the ointment for strxfrm() adoption may be the need to be
consistent with this earlier behaviour:
if strcoll claims two strings are equal, check it with strcmp, and
sort according to strcmp if not identical.
I'm not sure I
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:58:17AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Misa Simic wrote:
IMO, both approaches make sense...
Agreed.
Can someone provide a practical example of a foreign key with array
use case? The only situations I'm able to think of right now are
On Jun16, 2012, at 17:15 , Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's not obvious to me that we actually *need* anything except the
ability to recognize that a null-encrypted SSL connection probably
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
Would we still tell openssl to only negotiate ciphers in the configured
list of available ciphers + NULL? If not, what happens if a connection
happens to use a cipher that is actually stronger than any cipher on
the list of acceptable ciphers list? The DBA
On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this decision; why should we presume to know
better than the glibc locale what constitutes equality?
The killer reason why it must be like that is that you can't use hash
methods on text if text equality is
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The killer reason why it must be like that is that you can't use hash
methods on text if text equality is some unknown condition subtly
different from bitwise equality.
Fair enough, but I
On 17-06-2012 12:42, Tom Lane wrote:
If our default isn't the same as the underlying default, I have to
question why not. But are you sure this ! notation will work with
all openssl versions?
What is all for you? It seems we don't claim support for an specific version
or later in docs or
On 17-06-2012 12:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Uh. We have the ! notation in our default *now*. What openssl also
supports is the text DEFAULT, which is currently the equivalent of
ALL!aNULL!eNULL. The question, which is valid of course, should be
if DEFAULT works with all openssl versions.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.comwrote:
Then in HEAD:
EXPLAIN ANALYSE UPDATE fk_table SET b=b+1, c=c+1, d=d+1;
QUERY PLAN
On 17-06-2012 12:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
mirroring ssl_ciphers?
Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Dean Rasheed wrote:
in HEAD:
... (actual time=1390.037..1390.037 rows=0 loops=1)
Trigger for constraint fk_table_e_fkey: time=210.184 calls=9
Total runtime: 1607.626 ms
With this patch:
... (actual time=1489.640..1489.640 rows=0 loops=1)
[no triggers fired]
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 21:10 +0800, Simon Riggs wrote:
Do we need something like Exclusion FKs? i.e. the FK partner of
Exclusion Constraints?
Yes, Inclusion Constraints. I've known we need something like that
since I did Exclusion Constraints, but I haven't gotten further than
that.
Regards,
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.comwrote:
I find it interesting that 'actual time' for top level 'Update on fk_table'
is always higher in patched versions, and yet the 'Total runtime' is lower
for the patched
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
I figured that the trigger time was counted separately.
Yeah, it is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Jun 17, 2012 5:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
How exactly do you plan to shoehorn that into SQL? You could invent
some nonstandard equivalence operator I suppose, but what
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM, nik9...@gmail.com wrote:
I've always used -1-f - file.sql. It is confusing that -1 doesn't warn you
when it wont work though.
Yeah, I just got bitten by that one. Definitely violates the POLA.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Simon,
The major limitation was solved by repmgr close to 2 years ago now.
So while you're correct that the patch to fix that assumed that
archiving worked as well, it has been possible to operate happily
without it.
repmgr is not able to remaster using only streaming replication. It
also
Instead of using re-synchronization (e.g. repmgr in its relation to
rsync), I intend to proxy and also inspect the streaming replication
traffic and then quiesce all standbys and figure out what node is
farthest ahead. Once I figure out the node that is farthest ahead, if
it is not a node
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Right, most people won't care. You may or may not want a new
Operator for equivalency. The regular operator for equality doesn't have to
and shouldn't change. It is both useful and conceptually clean to not
guarantee that a compator can be relied
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Instead of using re-synchronization (e.g. repmgr in its relation to
rsync), I intend to proxy and also inspect the streaming replication
traffic and then quiesce all standbys and figure out what node is
farthest ahead.
I'm giving 9.2-beta2 a test simulating a production workflow.
Everything looks OK except the speed. Most (all?) queries take about
five to six times as long as they do with 9.1.
The configurations are essentially the same, the query plans are the same.
A (hot) example, pulled semi-randomly
On 17 June 2012 21:26, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Sure, and in general we only expect that = operators mean equivalency;
a concrete example is float8 =, which on IEEE-spec machines will say
that zero and minus zero are equal.
Right; the spec says that, and we punt to the spec. No one
Hi,
On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:51:51 AM James Cloos wrote:
I'm giving 9.2-beta2 a test simulating a production workflow.
Everything looks OK except the speed. Most (all?) queries take about
five to six times as long as they do with 9.1.
The configurations are essentially the same, the
On sön, 2012-06-17 at 18:51 -0400, James Cloos wrote:
I think I recall mention from a previous beta (but goog isn't helping
me confirm) that there is some extra debugging or such enabled in the
betas.
That depends on how you built it. Just being a beta by itself doesn't
turn on any extra
On lör, 2012-06-16 at 16:21 +0800, Quan Zongliang wrote:
I found that lower case is less than upper case when the db is
created
with utf8.
I tried below
locale en_US.utf8 'A''a' false
locale ja_JP.utf8 'A''a' true
locale zh_CN.utf8 'A''a' false
Under
On 17 June 2012 23:58, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
We can decree that equivalency implies equality, or make all this
internal (which, perversely, I suppose the C++ committee people
cannot).
Sorry, that should obviously read equality implies equivalency. We
may not have to
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
ISTM if '=' was really a mere equivalency operator, we'd only every
check (a b b a) in the btree code.
You're not really making a lot of sense here, or at least I'm not
grasping the distinction you want to draw. btree indexes (and sorting
in
AF == Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
AF Is it possible that you compiled with assertions enabled? That would
roughly
AF fit that magnitude. SHOW debug_assertions; Should show you whether it was
AF enabled.
Thanks, but SHOW debug_assertions reports off.
-JimC
--
James Cloos
PE == Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
PE That depends on how you built it. Just being a beta by itself doesn't
PE turn on any extra debugging.
OK. So either I misremembered or it was something no longer done.
PE That depends on how you built it.
Its a Gentoo box; both were build
On 12-06-13 01:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
The previous mail contained a patch with a mismerge caused by reording
commits. Corrected version attached.
Thanks to Steve Singer for noticing this quickly.
Attached is a more complete review of this patch.
I agree that we will need to identify
I wrote:
Anybody have DB2, or something else that might be thought to be pretty
close to spec-compliant?
Remarkably enough, the DB2 10.1 manuals at www.ibm.com say that it
doesn't support ON UPDATE SET NULL or ON UPDATE SET DEFAULT. I'm
disappointed in them :-(. But anyway it seems that we'll
On 2012/6/18 7:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On lör, 2012-06-16 at 16:21 +0800, Quan Zongliang wrote:
I found that lower case is less than upper case when the db is
created
with utf8.
I tried below
locale en_US.utf8 'A''a' false
locale ja_JP.utf8 'A''a' true
[Hope it's OK if I move this thread to -hackers, as part of CF review.]
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I noticed this while testing 9.2, but it seems to go back to at least
8.3. Tab completion of function arguments doesn't work if the function
I wrote:
On balance I think we ought to switch to set-all-the-columns, though
only in 9.3+ --- a back-patched behavioral change doesn't seem like a
good idea.
And here is a draft patch for that. I was interested to find that the
documentation already claims that all columns are set in the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
I agree that pg_backup_in_progress() is confusing, if it returns false while
you're running pg_basebackup. In the doc changes you proposed, you call the
pg_start/stop_backup() a low level API for taking backups. That's
53 matches
Mail list logo
