Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Barry Lind
Dave Page wrote: I don't know about JDBC, but ODBC could use it, and it would save a heck of a lot of pain in apps like pgAdmin that need to figure out if a column in an arbitrary resultset might be updateable. At the moment there is some nasty code in pgAdmin II that attempts to parse the SQL

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
I'm still unclear on exactly what your needs are. In the first place, are you expecting to obtain data from arbitrary SELECT statements, or only from statements of the form SELECT * FROM single_table? You've also been confusing as to whether you want transparency of views (ie, does a

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi, Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release like this: + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 + If not, we call it 7.4 Wouldn't a new FE/BE protocol be a better reason to call

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread mlw
Justin Clift wrote: Hi everyone, Thinking about the numbering further. Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release like this: + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 + If not, we call

[HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread mlw
I was at a client office reviewing some code. They use MSSQL and I noticed that: select * from table where field = 'blah'; gave the same results as: select * from table where field = 'BLah'; I was shocked. (a) because I know a lot of my code could be easier to write, and (b) that their code

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Robert Treat
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 01:26, Tom Lane wrote: Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release like this: + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Dave Cramer
This may be problematic in the future if we change attrelid, attnum. My preference would be to be able to query the backend for the information if I need it. It is rarely required. ie give me the meta data for the last resultset. Dave On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 09:49, Dave Page wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Justin Clift
mlw wrote: snip So, if the decision is to go with an 8.0, what would you guys say to having a roll call about stuff that is possible and practical and really design PostgreSQL 8.0 as something fundimentally newer than 7.x. 8.0 could get the project some hype. It has been 7x for so many years.

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Mathieu Arnold
--le 12/03/2003 09:03 -0500, mlw écrivait : | I was at a client office reviewing some code. They use MSSQL and I | noticed that: | | select * from table where field = 'blah'; | gave the same results as: | select * from table where field = 'BLah'; | | I was shocked. (a) because I know a lot of

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 09:03, mlw wrote: I was at a client office reviewing some code. They use MSSQL and I noticed that: select * from table where field = 'blah'; gave the same results as: select * from table where field = 'BLah'; I was shocked. (a) because I know a lot of my code could

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Lamar Owen
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 09:55, Robert Treat wrote: Personally I think Justin is a little off base with his criteria, since I see the FE/BE protocol changes as the real differentiator between an 8.0 and 7.4. Everyone is effected by a FE/BE protocol change, not nearly so many are effected by

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0. True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications --- they only needed to relink with a newer

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Justin Clift
Tom Lane wrote: Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0. True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications --- they only needed to relink

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Justin Clift writes: + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 To me, those sound fairly unspectacular as reasons for 8.0. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Barry Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One addition I would personally like to see (it comes up in my apps code) is the ability to detect wheather the server is big endian or little endian. When using binary cursors this is necessary in order to read int data. Actually, my hope is to

Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4

2003-03-12 Thread Felipe Schnack
I think the first thing we should do about that is to define what are the reasons for a major version change. The way this discussion is being taken will not take us anywhere... is just too much about personal opinions. Anyway, for most users a win32 port is not a big deal (after all,

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread pgsql
--le 12/03/2003 09:03 -0500, mlw écrivait : | I was at a client office reviewing some code. They use MSSQL and I | noticed that: | | select * from table where field = 'blah'; | gave the same results as: | select * from table where field = 'BLah'; | | I was shocked. (a) because I

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 12:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --le 12/03/2003 09:03 -0500, mlw écrivait : | I was at a client office reviewing some code. They use MSSQL and I | noticed that: | | select * from table where field = 'blah'; | gave the same results as: | select * from

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Dwayne Miller
I know that the MSSQL code works because the default collation sequence for character fields is case-insensitive. You can change it for each field independantly to be case sensitive, local specific, etc. I'm not sure if PG supports a collation sequence attribute on column

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Merlin Moncure
Peter Eisentraut writes: Dave Page writes: Well what I *really* need has been made quite clear in other posts, but, when I say resultset in the same sentence as pgAdmin, I'm referring to the ability to enter an arbitrary SQL query, have the results displayed in a grid, which can then

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 13:35, Dwayne Miller wrote: I know that the MSSQL code works because the default collation sequence for character fields is case-insensitive. You can change it for each field independantly to be case sensitive, local specific, etc. I'm not sure if PG supports a

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: But I think I like better the notion of extending my bound-together- ANYARRAY-and-ANYELEMENT proposal, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-03/msg00319.php Suppose that we do that, and then further say that ANYARRAY or ANYELEMENT appearing as the return type implies

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: + * If ANY, ANYARRAY, or ANYELEMENT is used for a function's arguments or + * return type, make sure the runtime types are consistent with + * each other. The argument consistency rules are like so: + * + * 1) All arguments declared ANY should have

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: + * If ANY, ANYARRAY, or ANYELEMENT is used for a function's arguments or + * return type, make sure the runtime types are consistent with + * each other. The argument consistency rules are like so: Hmm. I don't see why we should drag ANY

[HACKERS] regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Deepak Bhole of Red Hat just pointed out to me a failure that he got after some 7.3 stress testing: [ [EMAIL PROTECTED]*()''| \final_db\n,.;:' ]=# SELECT n.nspname, p.proname, o.oprcode::oid FROM pg_operator o, pg_proc p, pg_namespace n WHERE o.oid=270447::oid AND p.oid=o.oprcode::oid AND

Re: [HACKERS] regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Another approach is to try to fix pg_statistic to avoid the problem by not doing I/O conversions. For scalar datatypes (those that have associated array types) it'd be probably be feasible to store the histogram and most-common-value arrays as arrays of the datatype itself, not

Re: [HACKERS] regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I am not sure what to do about columns that have datatypes without matching array types, though (that would include array columns and domains, IIRC). Maybe use array of bytea to hold the internal representation of the type? ISTM that the

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Greg Stark
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers anyway ... Surely that's not true for a production environment. You have one database but potentially

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Joe Conway writes: 2) Implement the following new builtin functions array_push(anyarray, anyelement) returns anyarray array_pop(anyarray) returns anyelement array_subscript(anyarray, int) yields anyelement singleton_array(anyelement) returns anyarray - any

Re: [HACKERS] regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: I think that we can actually get away (from an implementation point of view) with a column containing arrays of different base types; array_out will still work AFAIR. It's an interesting question though how such a column could reasonably be declared. This ties into your recent

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
One addition I would personally like to see (it comes up in my apps code) is the ability to detect wheather the server is big endian or little endian. When using binary cursors this is necessary in order to read int data. Actually, my hope is to eliminate that business entirely by

Re: [HACKERS] regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: I think that we can actually get away (from an implementation point of view) with a column containing arrays of different base types; array_out will still work AFAIR. It's an interesting question though how such a column could reasonably be declared. This ties into your recent

Re: [HACKERS] Case insensitivity, and option?

2003-03-12 Thread Ron Mayer
mlw wrote: ... select * from table where field = 'blah'; gave the same results as: select * from table where field = 'BLah'; I was shocked. (a) because I know a lot of my code could be easier to write ... select * from table where field ILIKE 'blAH'; -- ;-) is almost as easy :-) PS: no,

[HACKERS] some more docbook help

2003-03-12 Thread Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Hi Gang I can sense that I'm _really_ close to getting docbook working, but not quite there yet. I'm hoping somebody can tell me where I'm screwing up ! I'm on a Red Hat Linux 7.3 system. Although I do have openjade installed I was finding it difficult to figure out where to point stylesheets

[HACKERS] bug in setval?

2003-03-12 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
When I create a new table with a serial column, the first row defaults to inserting '1'. If I delete all the rows from the table and want to reset the sequence, I can't: ERROR: users_health_types_type_id_seq.setval: value 0 is out of bounds (1,9223372036854775807) How do I set the sequence to

Re: [HACKERS] bug in setval?

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: How do I set the sequence to have next value = 1? Surely the bounds should begin at zero? No; see: http://www.us.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/functions-sequence.html Notice the is_called flag. I think this does what you want: SELECT setval('foo',

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Joe Conway
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Joe Conway writes: 2) Implement the following new builtin functions array_push(anyarray, anyelement) returns anyarray array_pop(anyarray) returns anyelement array_subscript(anyarray, int) yields anyelement singleton_array(anyelement) returns

Re: [HACKERS] some more docbook help

2003-03-12 Thread Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Phew .. after some more struggling with docbook I think I finally managed to get it working. Posting here to help other folks googling through usenet archives. My problem was that I had DOCBOOKSTYLE set to /usr/local/share/sgml - the directory which contained the catalog file. However, inspite

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's upgrading the database that's likely to be the driving motivation for new sql or storage features. People usually don't get excited about upgrading the client libraries :) Usually not. This cycle might be different though, if we are able to finish the

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

2003-03-12 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Create an array support package on gborg if you like, but I feel this should not be in the mainline. Arrays *do* have a place, and they are supported in SQL99+. FWIW, I'm with Joe on this one. Arrays have their uses; and it's not

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Hannu Krosing
Greg Stark kirjutas K, 12.03.2003 kell 07:10: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers anyway ... Surely that's not true for a production

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Hannu Krosing
Tom Lane kirjutas K, 12.03.2003 kell 18:19: Barry Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One addition I would personally like to see (it comes up in my apps code) is the ability to detect wheather the server is big endian or little endian. When using binary cursors this is necessary in order to

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Sean Chittenden
One addition I would personally like to see (it comes up in my apps code) is the ability to detect wheather the server is big endian or little endian. When using binary cursors this is necessary in order to read int data. Actually, my hope is to eliminate that business entirely by

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Mike Mascari
Hannu Krosing wrote: Tom Lane kirjutas K, 12.03.2003 kell 18:19: Actually, my hope is to eliminate that business entirely by standardizing the on-the-wire representation for binary data; note the reference to send/receive routines in the original message. For integer data this is simple enough:

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Peter Eisentraut wrote: (B (B Dave Page writes: (B (B Well what I *really* need has been made quite clear in other (B posts, but, when I say resultset in the same sentence as (B pgAdmin, I'm referring to the ability to enter an arbitrary (B SQL query, have the results displayed in a

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
I suggested using names to Tom for this reason, but he preferred to use attrelid/attnum. Oh, and what happenned to the attlognum idea? If something that needs it is going to be implemented the column should probably be added now and used instead of attnum. Wll, it'd be nice, but I

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-12 Thread Dave Cramer
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 20:45, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Dave Page writes: Well what I *really* need has been made quite clear in other posts, but, when I say resultset in the same sentence as pgAdmin, I'm referring to the ability to enter an arbitrary SQL