> Yes, that means the list has over-flowed. Once it is over-flowed, it
> is now invalid for the reminder of the life of the resource owner.
Don't we need any logic to clear the reference of locallock in owner->locks
array.
MAX_RESOWNER_LOCKS - How did you arrive at number 10 for it. Is there any
Noah Misch writes:
>> CREATE FUNCTION + ALTER FUNCTION OWNER TO is useful for creating another
>> user's untrusted-language SECURITY DEFINER function. ALTER FUNCTION CALLED
>> ON
>> NULL INPUT ought to require that the user be eligible to redefine the
>> function
>> completely.
> Here's a patc
Hello, sorry for vague understanding.
> > I depend on this and suppose we can omit it if latest checkpoint
> > has been taken so as to be able to do crash recovery thereafter.
>
> I don't see any reason to special case this. If a checkpoint has no
> work to do, then it will go very quickly. Why s
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe the right thing to do here is nothing. I think to some degree
>> we are arguing about what color to paint an imaginary bikeshed. If at
>> some point we support GTTs using the syntax CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY
>> TABLE, then there is going to
Asif Naeem writes:
> With the following test case pgdump creates a corrupt tar file i.e.
Ooops :-(. Thanks for the report!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresq
Robert Haas writes:
> We don't actually have a patch for GTT at this point; Noah is at least
> the second person to threaten to write one, but nobody's actually done
> it yet to my knowledge.
IMO, the main reason that's been let slide for nine years is that there
wasn't a particularly strong use-
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> and also affects the naming of any UNIX sockets created.
> > >
> > > Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket
> > > locations, you get M*N actual socke
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket
>>> locations, you get M*N actual sockets created.
>> ...I *seriously* doubt that this is the behavior anyone wants.
>> Creating M sockets per d
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> What do others think? Maybe I'm just being obnoxious here for no useful
> gain.
I don't think you're being obnoxious; and I also agree with you on the
substance of the issue.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The E
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun jun 11 15:44:16 -0400 2012:
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > Hm, does this touch stuff that would also be modified by perltidy? I
> > > > wonder if we should refrain from doing entab/detab on perl files and
>
On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm unconvinced that allowing multiple port numbers is worth the
> amount of confusion it will cause.
Well, it's a feature that people have asked for. I would love to have
it. Much more than multiple Unix-domain socket locations.
> In particu
On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> and also affects the naming of any UNIX sockets created.
> >
> > Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket
> > locations, you get M*N actual sockets created.
>
> ...I *seriously* doubt that this is the behavior any
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 13:43 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Ne
On sön, 2012-06-10 at 13:43 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Next question is -
> >> suggestions for naming of said paramter?
>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Hm, does this touch stuff that would also be modified by perltidy? I
> > > wonder if we should refrain from doing entab/detab on perl files and
> > > instead have perltidy touch such code.
>
> > The Perl files were modified by
Daniel Farina writes:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Um. We oughta fix that. I'm not necessarily wedded to the old
>> throw-an-error definition, but there seems no good reason for these
>> two syntaxes to act inconsistently.
>
> I agree with that. The URIs may have b
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 07:34:16PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> ALTER FUNCTION OWNER TO on a C-language function conveys more trust than
> meets the eye:
>
> BEGIN;
> CREATE ROLE alice;
> CREATE FUNCTION mylen(text) RETURNS integer LANGUAGE internal IMMUTABLE
> STRICT AS 'textlen'
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Hmmm. I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out, and that
> nobody has previously talked seriously about a June release. I'll also point
> out that while there's a beta2 tarball, there was no announcement and
Robert,
Hmmm. I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out, and that
nobody has previously talked seriously about a June release. I'll also point
out that while there's a beta2 tarball, there was no announcement and no
packages for it.
If we decide to do June, then PR will be m
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom jun 10 22:37:14 -0400 2012:
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 08:55:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom jun 10 15:20:34 -0400 2012:
> > > Run pgindent on 9.2 source tree in preparation for first 9.3
> > > c
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> We might want to have a different definition of apply delay for
> different purposes, so an improved definition of apply delay doesn't
> necessarily mean changing standby delay mechanism.
>
> An improved definition of apply delay would be, IMHO
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Magnus Hagander
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> So there are three types of temporary tables defined in the standard,
> and the PostgreSQL implementation doesn't look like any of them. The
> bad thing is that PostgreSQL supports syntax for two of them without
> matching the standard sem
Robert Haas wrote:
> So, when are we thinking we might release 9.2.0?
>
> We've done a fall release the last two years, but it's not obvious
> to me that we have a whole lot of blockers left.
I'm working on getting all of our triggers to behave with Tom's v8
patch for bug 6123 and hope to be ab
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> How about this?
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Set flushed position to the
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have few doubts regarding logic of ResourceOwnerRememberLock() and
> ResourceOwnerForgetLock():
> 1. In function ResourceOwnerRememberLock(), when lock count is
> MAX_RESOWNER_LOCKS, it will not add the lock to lock array but increment the
>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, when are we thinking we might release 9.2.0?
>
> We've done a fall release the last two years, but it's not obvious to
> me that we have a whole lot of blockers left. In fact, the only
> blocker for which we have nothing that looks like a
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a small patch to improve the HINT message produced by
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION when the new function definition conflicts
> with the old definition. With this patch the hint now includes the
> function's name and signat
So, when are we thinking we might release 9.2.0?
We've done a fall release the last two years, but it's not obvious to
me that we have a whole lot of blockers left. In fact, the only
blocker for which we have nothing that looks like a fix at present
seems to be this:
http://archives.postgresql.o
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>Uh... no. The whole point of doing things in shared buffers is that
>>>you don't have to write and fsync the buffers immediately. Instead,
>>>buffer evicting handles that stuff for you.
>
> So you mean to say that there exists operations wh
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> How about this?
>
> + /*
> + * Set flushed position to the last byte in
> the previous
> +
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Next questi
Hi,
With the following test case pgdump creates a corrupt tar file i.e.
CREATE DATABASE dump_test;
> \c dump_test
> CREATE TABLE test_table1 (int1 int);
> INSERT INTO test_table1 (SELECT * FROM generate_series(1, 1000));
> \! pg_dump -F t -f dump_test.tar dump_test
Debugging shows that pg_dump
As per the previous discussion in link below, it seems that fallback
application name needs to be provided for only
pgbench and oid2name.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/w2g9837222c1004070216u3bc46b3ahbdd
fdffdbfb46...@mail.gmail.com
However the title of Todo Item suggests it needs
35 matches
Mail list logo
