Re: [HACKERS] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2]

2008-07-07 Thread KaiGai Kohei
Thanks for your reviewing. Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 schrieb KaiGai Kohei: The following patch set (r926) are updated one toward the latest CVS head, and contains some fixes in security policy and documentation. OK, I have quickly read through these patches. They l

[HACKERS] CONNECT BY and WITH ...

2008-07-07 Thread Hans-Juergen Schoenig
good morning everybody, i know that this is really a hot potato on the mailing list but i think it is useful to discuss this issue. in the past few months we have been working with a customer to improve evgen's CONNECT BY patch. as we have a nice and promising WITH RECURSIVE patch the original

Re: New relkind (was Re: [HACKERS] Exposing quals)

2008-07-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:26 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:46:29PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > For the record, I agree with Jan's suggestion of passing a pointer > > to the parse tree, and offline gave David a suggestion verbally as > > to how this could be hand

Re: [HACKERS] CONNECT BY and WITH ...

2008-07-07 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 07:28:36AM +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: > good morning everybody, > > i know that this is really a hot potato on the mailing list but i > think it is useful to discuss this issue. in the past few months > we have been working with a customer to improve evgen's CONN

Re: [HACKERS] Adding variables for segment_size, wal_segment_size and block sizes

2008-07-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 16:36 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote: > --On Montag, Juni 30, 2008 18:47:33 -0400 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> > >> I'd like to implement them if we agree on them > > > > Bernd, have you made any progress on this? > > Here's a patch for this. I'll add it to

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v2

2008-07-07 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:06:08PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > I guess that'd be the reason to keep it on pgFoundry, but I have two > comments: > > * 2-3 years is a *long* time in Internet time. There have been patches over the years, but they tend not to get looked at. Recently someone pu

<    1   2