Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd still like to see us adopt the proposal from some time ago where we stop commenting out the parameters at all, but short of that, hiding options seems about the worst choice we could

Re: [HACKERS] Extending varlena

2008-08-20 Thread Stephen R. van den Berg
Peter Eisentraut wrote: If you replace the third point by maybe partition TOAST tables, replace large object handle by TOAST pointer, and create an API to work on TOAST pointers, how are the two so much different? And why should they be? I can see that there are going to be needs to access

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Dave Page wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm, let me suggest providing it as a manpage for postgresql.conf, i.e., you run man postgresql.conf and it gives you this manpage documenting

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Joshua Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:32:34 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On idea is for postgresql.conf to merely include other files: include 'sharedmem.conf' include

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Michael Paesold
Am 19.08.2008 um 20:47 schrieb Tom Lane: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joshua Drake wrote: Is our backpatch policy documented? It does not appear to be in developer FAQ. Seems we need to add it. I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down backpatch policy. Whether (and

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Michael Paesold
Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Tuesday 19 August 2008 19:12:16 Tom Lane wrote: Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)? Well, my original implementation of GUC had an empty default configuration file,

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Le mercredi 20 août 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : That just begs the question of what's the difference between a bug and a limitation. AFAICS, having such a policy/guideline/whatchacallit in place wouldn't have done a single thing to stop the current flamewar, because the people who want this

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed Resource Manager Changes

2008-08-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 10:46 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: One thing to worry about is a confliction of RmgrId. We can check conflictions in redo because rmgrs are actually registered, but we might need to check conflictions even in a normal running. Extensions that write own XLog record can

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 19:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is plan invalidation then you just change called1() to return one more field and that's it - no juggling with C) and D) and generally less things that can go wrong. That is a pure flight

[HACKERS] Is mdextend really safe?

2008-08-20 Thread Gregory Stark
Earlier we saw some bug reports from someone who had a buffer flush fail do to ENOSPC. We asserted then that that should never happen because when we extend the relation we write out the new blocks so any ENOSPC errors out to happen at that point, not when a buffer is flushed. However looking at

Re: [HACKERS] proposal sql: labeled function params

2008-08-20 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello I understand now why Oracle use = symbol for named params. This isn't used so operator - so implementation is trivial. postgres=# create function x(a boolean) returns bool as $$select $1$$ language sql; CREATE FUNCTION Time: 5,549 ms postgres=# select x(a = true); x --- t (1 row) Time:

Re: [HACKERS] Is mdextend really safe?

2008-08-20 Thread Florian Weimer
* Gregory Stark: On Unix that creates a sparse file where the intervening blocks are not allocated. When we later write out those blocks the filesystem then has to allocate space for them. This seems to happen relatively rarely. Creating temporary holes like this usually results in heavily

Re: [HACKERS] Is mdextend really safe?

2008-08-20 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Gregory Stark napsal(a): On Unix that creates a sparse file where the intervening blocks are not allocated. When we later write out those blocks the filesystem then has to allocate space for them. IIRC the bug reports were from Windows. I'm not sure what NTFS's behaviour with sparse files is.

Re: [HACKERS] Is mdextend really safe?

2008-08-20 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gregory Stark wrote: Now this only matters if we ever call mdextend on a block which isn't the block immediately following the end of file. Is that true? I don't think so. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Asko Oja
The lack of plan invalidation is limitation that also has two bugs attached to it. I agree that full fledged patch to fix all the isssues should not be done in 8.3. I can't agree that effort to get the bugs fixed already in 8.3 should not be made. I can understand that hackers here have learned to

Re: [HACKERS] Is mdextend really safe?

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now this only matters if we ever call mdextend on a block which isn't the block immediately following the end of file. Is that true? Only in hash indexes. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] proposal sql: labeled function params

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand now why Oracle use = symbol for named params. This isn't used so operator - so implementation is trivial. You really didn't understand the objection at all, did you? The point is not about whether there is any built-in operator named =. The

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Dave Page wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Joshua Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not arguing for this but if we went down that route it does buy us the ability to compartmentalize the entire conf.. so you have: memory_settings.conf logging.conf maintenance.conf Would

Re: [HACKERS] Extending varlena

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut wrote: If you replace the third point by maybe partition TOAST tables, replace large object handle by TOAST pointer, and create an API to work on TOAST pointers, how are the two so much different? And why should they be? The reason they should be different is that (IMHO

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Dave Page wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Joshua Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not arguing for this but if we went down that route it does buy us the ability to compartmentalize the entire conf.. so you have: memory_settings.conf logging.conf

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:12:43PM +0300, Asko Oja wrote: - If there is nothing that can be done in 8.3 at least warning should be added into the documentation. It will be just one more don't in our long list don'ts for our developers. I am in favour of that change in the 8.3 branch.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Kenneth Marshall
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:16:56AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:12:43PM +0300, Asko Oja wrote: - If there is nothing that can be done in 8.3 at least warning should be added into the documentation. It will be just one more don't in our long list don'ts for our

Re: [HACKERS] proposal sql: labeled function params

2008-08-20 Thread Pavel Stehule
2008/8/20 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand now why Oracle use = symbol for named params. This isn't used so operator - so implementation is trivial. You really didn't understand the objection at all, did you? The point is not about whether

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Well, there seems to be a very substantial body of opinion that says we *do* need to hide uninteresting options. more to the point... not just uninteresting but dangerous for the uninformed ones... i have seen to many people turning off

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Asko Oja wrote: I do get the impression that Tom who would prefer to get all the pl's out of PostgreSQL and live happily ever after with pure SQL standard. I have not seen the slightest evidence of this, and don't believe it for a minute. I understand some of the frustration you are

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Asko Oja escribió: In the first message Martin asked There are probably a lot of details that I have overlooked. I'd be really thankful for some constructive comments and criticism. Especially, what needs to be done to have this in the core. Feedback appreciated. Can we get back to the

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Asko Oja
Thanks for a nice replay Andrew. So best solution for 8.3 is update pg_proc set proname = proname; whenever you need to drop and create functions or some in house patch. Lets get on with 8.4 Asko On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at

[HACKERS] Volatile functions in subqueries don't prevent subqueries from being evaluated in initplans?

2008-08-20 Thread Gregory Stark
Hm, shouldn't this query notice that random() is volatile and not make the subquery an initplan? postgres=# select i, (select (random()*1000)::integer ) from x limit 5; i | ?column? ---+-- 1 | 677 2 | 677 3 | 677 4 | 677 5 | 677 (5 rows) postgres=#

[HACKERS] make dist does not work in VPATH

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hi, It seems we're neglecting to copy GNUmakefile into the temporary distdir: $ pwd /pgsql/build/83_rel $ make dist rm -rf postgresql-8.3.3* =install= for x in `cd /pgsql/source/83_rel find . -name CVS -prune -o -print`; do \ file=`expr X$x : 'X\./\(.*\)'`; \ if test -d

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is where the interesting questions are: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/10333.1219179364%40sss.pgh.pa.us Upthread, someone speculated about solving the problem by forcing plan cache flush on *any* catalog change. I think that's probably

Re: [HACKERS] Volatile functions in subqueries don't prevent subqueries from being evaluated in initplans?

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hm, shouldn't this query notice that random() is volatile and not make the subquery an initplan? We've never done that in the past; in fact I recall seeing people using subselects deliberately to hide volatility. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] make dist does not work in VPATH

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Is it sensible for make dist to work in a VPATH? Seems like the entire point of that operation is to modify the source tree. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Zdenek Kotala
David Fetter napsal(a): On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:50:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:45:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: FWIW, given that there will probably always be corner cases. I can see the attraction in Simon's suggestion of

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Robert Treat
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 02:22:26 Jaime Casanova wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd still like to see us adopt the proposal from some time ago where we stop commenting out the parameters at all, but short

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: # foobar: Adjusts the foobariness of the database # # This uses units of baz from 1-10, with 10 being the strongest # # Changing this setting requires a reload # This setting may also be changed per session # The default value is 5 # # For

Re: [HACKERS] make dist does not work in VPATH

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Is it sensible for make dist to work in a VPATH? Seems like the entire point of that operation is to modify the source tree. Actually the point AFAICS is to generate a tarball. Why wouldn't it work in a VPATH build? -- Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 08:50 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Asko Oja wrote: I do get the impression that Tom who would prefer to get all the pl's out of PostgreSQL and live happily ever after with pure SQL standard. I have not seen the slightest evidence of this, and don't believe it

Re: [HACKERS] window function v03 against HEAD

2008-08-20 Thread Hitoshi Harada
2008/8/1 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00:15PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: 2008/7/31 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry about that. Apparently, at least the way things are set up, there's a *lot* of history you can rewind. Further changes should move

[HACKERS] Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData

2008-08-20 Thread Zdenek Kotala
I try to understand why HeapTupleHeaderData structure has t_datum member. This is use only on few places and from my point of view this information should be stored in the HeapTupleData structure or split HeapTupleHeaderData it into two structures (DatumTupleHeaderData). The idea behind my

Re: [HACKERS] Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I try to understand why HeapTupleHeaderData structure has t_datum member. This is use only on few places and from my point of view this information should be stored in the HeapTupleData structure or split HeapTupleHeaderData it into two structures

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008-08-20 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 05:03:19PM +0300, Asko Oja wrote: Lets get on with 8.4 Oh, I shoulda mentioned that, too -- I completely support doing this work for 8.4. (I can think of more than one case where this feature alone would be worth the upgrade.) A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 So your plan is that postgresql.conf will be approximately two thousand lines long, before the user has ever touched it at all? (Two hundred or so GUC variables and ten lines of comments for each one) Sure, why not? Clarity should always

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 One more benefit of a small file is that it makes it easier to ask someone please attach a copy of your postgresql.conf file; rather than please send the output of grep -v '^[]*#' postgresql.conf | grep = or worse Can you recall what

Re: [HACKERS] make dist does not work in VPATH

2008-08-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Alvaro Herrera wrote: It seems we're neglecting to copy GNUmakefile into the temporary distdir: make -C postgresql-8.3.3 distprep make[1]: entrant dans le répertoire « /home/alvherre/Code/CVS/pgsql/build/83_rel/postgresql-8.3.3 » make[1]: *** Pas de règle pour fabriquer la cible « distprep

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Joshua Drake
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:49:39 - Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Sure, why not? Clarity should always trump brevity. The only people who gain from a comment-less file are the ones who are already expert in it. You are

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So your plan is that postgresql.conf will be approximately two thousand lines long, before the user has ever touched it at all? (Two hundred or so GUC variables and ten lines of comments for each one) Sure, why not? Clarity should always trump

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

2008-08-20 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:08:02AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:49:39 - Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, why not? Clarity should always trump brevity. The only people who gain from a comment-less file are the ones who are already expert in

[HACKERS] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hi, Thanks to Brendan Jurd, who spent a lot of effort in creating useful Mediawiki templates, we now have moved the TODO list to the Wiki site. The new official location for the TODO list is here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo:Todo I hereby kindly request the WWW team to update any

Re: [HACKERS] SeqScan costs

2008-08-20 Thread Decibel!
On Aug 18, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Perhaps what's also needed here is to measure just how accurate the cpu_* costs are. Perhaps they need to be raised somewhat if we're underestimating the cost of digging through 200 tuples on a heap page and the benefit of a binary search on

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Joshua Drake
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:12:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The move has been approved by Bruce, the current maintainer. I hope that he continues to maintain the new version. This is great! I only have one small request. The font is really small and I have pretty good

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua Drake wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:12:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The move has been approved by Bruce, the current maintainer. I hope that he continues to maintain the new version. This is great! I only have one small request. The font is really small

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hi, Thanks to Brendan Jurd, who spent a lot of effort in creating useful Mediawiki templates, we now have moved the TODO list to the Wiki site. The new official location for the TODO list is here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo:Todo I hereby kindly request

Re: [HACKERS] Improving non-joinable EXISTS subqueries

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ complicated scheme for improving planning of EXISTS ] So I'd be very happy to see this work done, not because I can't find a workaround, but because trying to teach all the programmers tricky hand-optimizations is

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hi, Thanks to Brendan Jurd, who spent a lot of effort in creating useful Mediawiki templates, we now have moved the TODO list to the Wiki site. Yay! Thanks to Brendan for helping out with that! The new official location for the TODO list is here:

[HACKERS] SHOW ALL doesn't actually SHOW ALL

2008-08-20 Thread David Fetter
Folks, I've noticed that neither SHOW ALL nor SELECT ... FROM pg_settings shows the value of custom GUCs, even though SHOW will do so for any given one. For example: SHOW plperl.use_strict; plperl.use_strict --- true (1 row) SELECT * FROM pg_settings WHERE name =

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:11AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:12:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The move has been approved by Bruce, the current maintainer. I hope that he continues to maintain the new version. This is great! I only have one

Re: [HACKERS] SHOW ALL doesn't actually SHOW ALL

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've noticed that neither SHOW ALL nor SELECT ... FROM pg_settings shows the value of custom GUCs, even though SHOW will do so for any given one. Yeah, that's intentional, because what the code is designed to do is allow GUC values for a user-written

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Joshua Drake
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:57 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is great! I only have one small request. The font is really small and I have pretty good eyesight. Fixed :) Much better, thanks! Joshua D. Drake Cheers, David. -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997:

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe TODO and TODO.html files should now be removed from CVS. +1. Leaving them in CVS would just result in confusion. It might make sense to leave TODO still in the file set, but reduce its content to a pointer to the wiki page.

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And let's keep the version in CVS around for a couple of days to let things settle before we do a cvs remove on it.. Why? cvs remove is reversible, if it comes to that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And let's keep the version in CVS around for a couple of days to let things settle before we do a cvs remove on it.. Why? cvs remove is reversible, if it comes to that. Good pt. I was mixing it up with the sucky way cvs deals with

[HACKERS] Bogus TODO item

2008-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Idly thumbing through the new TODO list, I noticed that the second item from the bottom (about how we don't want optional AS) has been superseded by events ... http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-02/msg00172.php regards, tom lane -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Bogus TODO item

2008-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Idly thumbing through the new TODO list, I noticed that the second item from the bottom (about how we don't want optional AS) has been superseded by events ... http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-02/msg00172.php Good point, removed. I didn't mark it as done

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

2008-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe TODO and TODO.html files should now be removed from CVS. +1. Leaving them in CVS would just result in confusion. It might make sense to leave TODO still in the file set, but reduce its content to a pointer to the wiki

Re: [HACKERS] SHOW ALL doesn't actually SHOW ALL

2008-08-20 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've noticed that neither SHOW ALL nor SELECT ... FROM pg_settings shows the value of custom GUCs, even though SHOW will do so for any given one. Yeah, that's intentional, because what the

Re: [HACKERS] TODO item: Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes

2008-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have added this email's URL to TODO under tuple visibility. --- Karl Schnaitter wrote: Sometime last year, a discussion started about including visibility metadata to avoid heap fetches during an index scan:

Re: [HACKERS] make dist does not work in VPATH

2008-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Fix option 1 would be to copy the build tree as well, if it is different from the source tree. Since the build tree contains a bunch of symlinks back to the source tree, this would probably need some careful file handling to not overwrite the real files with

Re: [HACKERS] Improving non-joinable EXISTS subqueries

2008-08-20 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when we have an EXISTS that could be done both ways, why not just generate plans for both ways, and leave the decision which to use until later? That seems good to me. The costs for the slower plan generally come out much higher. When the run times are

Re: [HACKERS] Improving non-joinable EXISTS subqueries

2008-08-20 Thread Robert Haas
Another technique that we could play with is to have the AlternativeSubPlans node track the actual number of calls it gets, and switch from the retail implementation to the hashed implementation if that exceeds a threshold. This'd provide some robustness in the face of bad estimates,

[HACKERS] postgres-R

2008-08-20 Thread Marcelo Martins
Anyone knows a link that has some docs about how to get that setup ? Also is it stable enough for production ? I though getting postgreSQL from CVS and compiling was not such a good idea since the CVSROOT is probably not stable, is that wrong ? since I could not find info out there this is

Re: [HACKERS] postgres-R

2008-08-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Marcelo Martins wrote: Anyone knows a link that has some docs about how to get that setup ? Also is it stable enough for production ? I though getting postgreSQL from CVS and compiling was not such a good idea since the CVSROOT is probably not stable, is that wrong ? since I could not find