Josh Berkus wrote:
Oh, and if it makes it, Tzadhi's FULL DISJUNCTIONS patch is newsworthy.
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
cheers
andrew
---(end of
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in
the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to
release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this release has
less checklist features
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze.
Ah. good. Probably was when my mail was down for about 12
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical queries (one of them wasn't even
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical
On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will
be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php
Certainly there's been a ton of effort spent
Luke Lonergan wrote:
+1
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then
we'd be able to claim complete support for partitioning, but this is a big
deal improvement.
I haven't be following this but.. does the above mean that if CE is
turned on and they are
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
documentation and will power we put into it.
* On-the-fly in-line calls out to PL/your_choice without needing to
issue
3) Index only access (new)
Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Joshua D. Drake
We already have splitting queries among CPUs and machines.
Yes, YOU do. We don't.
Joshua D.
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
Good point...
What about
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
business-like, what are we going to have in the next release
perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just see what patches
come in and we apply what we
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical queries
Josh,
On 8/4/06 7:47 AM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Index only access (new)
Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:37, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could
be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
_improved_ usability
I still don't like it.
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
ready to be disappointed by every future release.
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could
be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
_improved_ usability
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability
improvements aren't a big item, but
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will
be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php
Certainly there's
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
business-like, what are we going to have in the next release
perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what about compression of on-disk sorting?
That's purely a performance issue, which some people seem to want
to define as not a new feature ... which is not *my* view of
what's important ...
regards, tom lane
Luke,
Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number of good ideas on how to
do it, we are in a position to bang it out now IMO.
Actually, a group of us discussed this at the Code Sprint in Toronto, and came
up with a plan which will also reduce row overhead on large tables. I can't
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the
PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a
slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a
)
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Luke Lonergan
Cc: Gavin Sherry; Bruce Momjian; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject:Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL
Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
I think what Luke means, is that an INSERT into the base table of the
inheritance hierarchy
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote:
On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My ordering of this list in terms of priority is:
1) Windowing functions
2) MERGE
3) Index only access (new)
4) In-place upgrades
And what about compression of on-disk
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be unmeasurable
hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So could you say
something
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like that?
[ shrug... ] Five out of
Guys,
I still don't like it. Usability is an opinion based thing. Personally I
find MySQL confusing and illogical. However I know many people love it
for that very same reason.
As the person who's leading the draft of the press release, let me say that
any theme discussions which happen on
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
ready to be disappointed by every future
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be
unmeasurable hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to be unkind, but AFAIR all the unmet expectations in this release
cycle came from commercially-sponsored developers who said
they'd do X and then didn't finish it.
FYI, I am not commercially sponsered. I am a full-time employee
devoted to
The community cannot ask anyone to work harder. What we do ask is that
if you start working on an item, let us know, and if you stop working on
it, let us know soon so others can work on it.
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
no?
There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread comments about
promising things in advance of them hitting CVS
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
otherwise.
True, but stating that you
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:27:49AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
I think what Luke means, is that
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:18:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
no?
There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented
release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd
better get ready to be disappointed by every future
Jonah,
If I would've known a good number of people were asking for WITH
RECURSIVE (as Josh mentioned), I would've had more incentive to work
on it.
You didn't ask. If you had asked, you would have got a response.
People knew you were working on it, and assumed that it would be done,
since
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
otherwise.
I'm picturing something like this:
1. Each person taking an item agrees to write at least one email each
week to -hackers detailing progress or lack of same on the item.
2. Should someone wish to relinquish a claim on a feature, there needs
to be some standard way to do a hand-off of whatever
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 07:45:56AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
documentation and will power we put into it.
It will, but
issue DDL
You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
Something like this:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM (
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
LANGUAGE plperl
$$...$$
) AS (a int, b point, c text)
JOIN ...
Anyhow, the idea is to be able to call PL functionality in-line
without having to create a
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:41:42PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
issue DDL
You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
Something like this:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM (
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
LANGUAGE plperl
$$...$$
) AS (a int, b point, c text)
JOIN ...
Anyhow, the idea is
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
Agreed.
I'm picturing something like this:
1. Each person taking an
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
Agreed.
I'm picturing something like this:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
What say?
I think this is a good plan for adding additional process overhead,
What say?
It's a shame to have a person burn cycles on this, but anything would be
an improvement over what we've got now.
Really?
I lot of this could be automated with a web app. The web app takes the
todo, a hacker signs up. Hacker takes todo. Web app reminds
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items goes.
What say?
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those responsibilities include better communication, feature tracking and
milestones...
Wow, if we had all those we could have as efficient a release-engineering
process as Mozilla!
---(end of
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those responsibilities include better communication, feature tracking
and
milestones...
Wow, if we had all those we could have as efficient a release-engineering
process as Mozilla!
This is not really a good argument. Might it not be possible
Folks,
This is not really a good argument. Might it not be possible that there
is a sweeter spot somewhere in the middle? I don't think anyone wants
something very heavy handed.
Well, I think the answer is just to set something up and see if people can
use it. If we keep kibitzing about
This has been a very interesting thread, if for no other reason then
to just catalog all of the changes going into 8.2. I am going to be
changing some hardware around so I need to decide if I want to a)
change the hardware now and don't bother with 8.2, b) wait to upgrade
hardware and do
Lukas Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:44:24PM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to explain how big a burden on the developer
it is to send an once a week, that being what I'm proposing
here.
There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
development works. When
There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
development
works. When people are contributing their time scratching an itch for
their
own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a manager to report
to.
I am sick of hearing lectures on this. It is simply NOT
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:44 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
As far as the problem in need of solving, it's what Andrew Dunstan
referred to as splendid isolation, which is another way of saying,
letting the thing you've taken on gather dust while people think
you're working on it.
I'm just not
Rick Gigger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if you define major features as class A features. In this case
major doesn't mean important or useful or difficult to implement,
just that they are the sort of features that one might be told to
look for when shopping for a database. So in terms
There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software development
works. When people are contributing their time scratching an itch for their
own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a manager to report to.
I have heard you make this argument before, and it is just is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
development works. When people are contributing their time scratching an
itch for their own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a
manager to report to.
I am sick of hearing lectures
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If people are interested in the status of a patch, I think it's fine for
them to email the person who's volunteered to work on it. If there
hasn't been public activity from that person in recent times, it is
probably a reasonable bet that the work has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg, you are on an utterly wrong track here. Try to look about a bit more
broadly.
FWIW, I tend to agree with Greg. This project has gotten to where it is
with a very loose structure, and I think that trying to impose more
structure carries a significant risk of
I tend to agree --- I don't see much value in trying to institute a
formalized process. We have not had that many cases where lack of
communication was a problem.
How do you know? Seriously... this comes up at least twice a year :).
There is probably a basis for it.
As I was saying on
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I was saying on #postgresql, the current system works well for a
small group of developers. I don't think there is any arguing that.
However, there is a larger group out there, that would likely be willing
to contribute but we are a bit of a
I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
anything like thou shalt report in once a week will merely drive
people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
doing anything
On Friday 04 August 2006 13:56, mdean wrote:
Josh, percentages, like almost anything, do work in the right context,
in this case, that of the testimonial, something postgresql hasn't
emphasized IMHO. If ten to 20 projects were treated as real and
realistic case studies, with an in-depth
On Friday 04 August 2006 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
Rick Gigger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if you define major features as class A features. In this case
major doesn't mean important or useful or difficult to implement,
just that they are the sort of features that one might be told to
look
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case at hand (hierarchical queries), I believe what happened
was ...
Tom is exactly correct, this is what happened.
In the many months I've stated to be working on it, I've only had one
other person (Mark Cave-Ayland) interested in assisting
I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
anything like thou shalt report in once a week will merely drive
people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
doing
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 04 August 2006 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
Rick Gigger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) updatable views - I won't really use this but it just seems like
one of those features that people use when doing rdbms features
comparison charts.
Agreed, if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
anything like thou shalt report in once a week will merely drive
people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them
It's possible that creating a more formal structure would aid these folk
to let the rest of us know what they're doing ... but I think it's at
least as likely that a more formal structure would just drive them away.
Well just some informal from the internal workings of CMD. Some
of this
Robert Treat wrote:
So, the things I hear most non-postgresql people complain about wrt postgresql
are:
no full text indexing built in
no replication built in
no stored procedures (with a mix of wanting in db cron facility)
the planner is not smart enough (with a mix of wanting hints)
vacuum
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you
couldn't do (at all easily) before.
Gavin
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you
couldn't do (at all
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as though the majority of things on
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like that?
[ shrug... ] Five out of your six items have no basis in the SQL spec.
So it's not clear
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like that?
[ shrug... ] Five out of your six items have no basis in the SQL
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do
before, but rather improvements of existing functionality.
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you
couldn't do (at all easily) before.
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like that?
Well to be honest,
201 - 289 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
