On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:24:22 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Josh Berkus
wrote:
To take the opposite approach... has anyone looked at having the OS
just manage all caching for us? Something like MMAPed shared buffers?
Even if we find the issue with large shared buffe
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:02:18 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Rados*aw Smogura wrote:
I have implemented initial concept of 2nd level cache. Idea is to
keep some segments of shared memory for special buffers (e.g.
indices) to prevent overwrite those by other operations. I added
those functionality
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:38:35 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and
reserved
mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any
wa
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still
unconvinced
about the use-case.
Do we want to intentionally make binary format a second-class
citizen?
Well,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:12:23 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Radosław Smogura
wrote:
Just patch for missing procedures for void send/recv
What problem does this fix?
void returning functions may not be calle
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:01:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Radosław Smogura
wrote:
Just patch for missing procedures for void send/recv
What problem does this fix?
Can not execute stored procedures in JDBC with out arguments, I think
function retuning void as w
testdb=# CREATE FUNCTION p_enhance_address4 (address OUT
u_address_type) AS $$ BEGIN address := (SELECT t_author.address FROM
t_author WHERE first_name = 'George'); END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE FUNCTION
testdb=# SELECT * FROM p_enhance_address4();
street | zip | city
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:44:07 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
On 18/02/11 00:37, rsmogura wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:06:22 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
On 17/02/11 23:18, rsmogura wrote:
Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and
number of
resulted parameters (even check types
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:06:22 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
On 17/02/11 23:18, rsmogura wrote:
Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and number
of
resulted parameters (even check types of those), to prevent
programming
errors.
And..?
Oliver
And it will throw exception
Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and number of
resulted parameters (even check types of those), to prevent programming
errors.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:15:07 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
Florian Pflug wrote:
On Feb17, 2011, at 01:14 , Oliver Jowett wrote:
Any suggestions
Maybe change in backend to treat complex types marked in relation as
COMPLEX in same way as scalar values is solution, actually I don't know.
This can be determined by GUC variable so every one can be happy :)
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:08:13 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
Lukas Eder wrote:
The resu
Yes new node should be created and added for 8.x and 9.x releases...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:53:19 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2011/2/17 Florian Pflug :
On Feb17, 2011, at 10:30 , rsmogura wrote:
When JDBC driver will detect if procedure call statement is
created.
1. Determine procedure oid
Something like this,
Everything must be done on call, due to polymorphic signatures, this
can be kept in short living cache, but bear in mind user can alter
procedure in meantime.
When JDBC driver will detect if procedure call statement is created.
1. Determine procedure oid - how? procedures
If I may give some suggestion, I was tried to investigate this, and
maybe some this will help
When you create procedure with out parameters then return type of this
is implicit calculated and may be
record or base type (if exactly one out param is defined).
In many places I saw comparison of re
Hi,
I don't know if this is a bug, but at least I haven't found any clear
statement in documentation about; this should be wrote with big and bold
letters.
In any way I think this is bug or big inconsistency, because of, as was
stated in previous mail
test=# CREATE FUNCTION p_enhance_address3
Dear hackers :) Could you look at this thread from General.
---
I say the backend if you have one "row type" output result treats it as
the full output result, it's really bad if you use STRUCT types (in your
example you see few columns, but this should be one column!). I think
backend should r
16 matches
Mail list logo
