2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 17:59 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hannu
>>
>> it's not possible in plpgsql, because we are not able iterate via record.
>
> just add function for iterating over record :)
it's not easy, when iterating should be fast - when rec
Tom Lane wrote:
alexander lunyov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I want to try new pg_dump to connect to old server, but i can't - old
postgres doesn't listening to network socket.
It won't work anyway: modern versions of pg_dump are only designed to
work with servers back to 7.0. I see from the
Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder if you need these self defined aggregates at all, most or all
of them are in 8.3 already.
They aren't "self defined" in 6.5 either.
So i can't just delete those AGGREGATEs?
I think what is happening
is that he's trying to force a 7.x pg_dump to dump from the 6.5 s
leiyonghua 写道:
Markus Wanner 写道:
Hello Leiyonghua,
leiyonghua wrote:
at node2, and the psql command is hung up,
NOTICE: Applying for membership in the communication group...
NOTICE: Successfully joined the replication group. Now recovering
schema...
I've just tested the very same here with
David Fetter wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 09:40:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Asko Oja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is it possible to get it into some official 8.3.x release
This is not the kind of patch we put into stable branches.
Does this really count as a user-vis
Steve,
First pass is done. Needs a little cleanup before sharing. I spent a
fair while down OS-specific-hardware-queries rathole, but I'm better now.
Gods, I hope you gave up on that. You want to use SIGAR or something.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq
> uups, completely forgot dual use of = for both assignment and
> comparison.
>
> Maybe we can do without any "keyword arguments" or "labeled function
> params" if we define a way to construct records in-place.
That sounds a lot cleaner to me.
> something like
> RECORD( 'Zdanek'::text AS name, 22
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 09:40:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Asko Oja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it possible to get it into some official 8.3.x release
>
> This is not the kind of patch we put into stable branches.
Does this really count as a user-visible change, except in the sense
that
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 18:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar
> > to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to
> > make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops)
>
> The problem with
On Aug 17, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Michael Nacos wrote:
Hi there... Configuration autotuning is something I am really
interested in.
I have seen this page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/
GUCS_Overhaul and
a couple of emails mentioning this, so I wanted to
> Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar
> to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to
> make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops)
The problem with this is that
SELECT foo(a = b)
...is already valid syntax. It
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
What we have now was named Grand Unified Configuration for a reason:
it centralized the handling of what had been a mess of different things
configured in different ways. I'm not eager to go backwards on that.
No need to change anything related to how the
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 17:59 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hannu
>
> it's not possible in plpgsql, because we are not able iterate via record.
just add function for iterating over record :)
create or replace function json(r record)
returns varchar as $$
select '[' || array_to_string(
array(
If you're still interested in testing CVS HEAD's handling of EXISTS,
I've about finished what I wanted to do with it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/ma
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus and I have been exchanging some ideas for the GUC internals
> overhaul and had a quick discussion about that in person last month.
> We've been gravitating toward putting all the extra information we'd like
> to push into there in an extra cat
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Andrew Satori wrote:
What I'm seeing is a default installation protects the Data directory
properly, but in so doing means that altering the configuration files,
pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf require database administrators, who should
not necessarily have a level of rig
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Michael Nacos wrote:
Hi there... Configuration autotuning is something I am really interested in.
I have seen this page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GUCS_Overhaul and
a couple of emails mentioning this, so I wanted to ask is someone already
on it? If yes, I'd like to con
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
This seems like a fairly bad idea, because it introduces a
gettimeofday() call per transaction.
There's already lots of paths through pgbench that introduce gettimeofday
calls all over the place. I fail to see how this is any different.
If this were wo
2008/8/17 Asko Oja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not able to means not implementable o not implemented ?
Almost not implementable - plpgsql is too static language.
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hannu
>>
>> it's not possible inNot able to plpgsql,
Hi there,
is there psql static binary, which I can use on my iphone (version 1) ?
I have no mac available, so I can't compile it myself. I heard about
gui tool for iphone, but it's not free and is only available from
apple store, which I have no access.
Regards,
Oleg
__
I can say that we have had several times to use bigint instead because of
the lack of uint type in postgres.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Ryan Bradetich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Ryan Bra
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 08:06 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> 2008/8/16 Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > SQL-like would be value AS name, but I'm not a fan of putting the value
>>> > before the name. And
Not able to means not implementable o not implemented ?
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hannu
>
> it's not possible inNot able to plpgsql, because we are not able iterate
> via record.
>
> Pavel
>
> 2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Su
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Ryan Bradetich wrote:
>
>> Here is the first pass at the unsigned data type I have been working on.
>>
>> I am planning on adding these to the September 2008 commitfest wiki page.
>> The unsigned d
Hannu
it's not possible in plpgsql, because we are not able iterate via record.
Pavel
2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value)
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar
> > to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to
> > make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used
2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 08:06 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2008/8/16 Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> "value AS name", on the other hand, accomplishes the same in a more
>> >>> SQL-looki
this entire thing is not about cartesian products at all.
it is about kicking out "expensive" queries before they even start to
eat up tons of CPU.
imagine a user asking for "give me all phone call in the US within the
past 10 years". you could kill the guy instantly because you know that
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar
> to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to
> make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops)
*What* are you thinking?
On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 08:06 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2008/8/16 Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "value AS name", on the other hand, accomplishes the same in a more
> >>> SQL-looking fashion with no new reserved word (since AS is al
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Andrew Gierth wrote:
>>> 2. The server accepts either the old-style or the secure cancel
>>> request from the client, but doesn't allow old-style requests
>>> once a valid secure request has been seen.
>
>> Hmm, I think there should b
31 matches
Mail list logo
