On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and believed
based on the advanced-transactions page that rollback rolls
Hello all
I found strange behave of postgresql. I would to use name
pg_stat_get_some for custom function. Probably it is not smart from
me, because I found so functions that has prefix pg are not searched
via search_path.
postgres=# select public.pg_stat_get_creation_time('xxx'::regclass);
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all
I found strange behave of postgresql. I would to use name
pg_stat_get_some for custom function. Probably it is not smart from
me, because I found so functions that has prefix pg are not searched
via
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I think that optimizations like this are going to be essential for
things like pgsql_fdw (or other_rdms_fdw). Despite the thorny
semantic issues, we're just not going to be able to get around it.
There will even
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
Heya all
It seems like it's a bit trickier to find beta downloads than might be
ideal.
The beta info page simply reads:
PostgreSQL 9.2 beta 3 was released on August 6, 2012.
with no information about how to
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
Heya all
It seems like it's a bit trickier to find beta downloads than might be
ideal.
The beta info page simply reads:
PostgreSQL 9.2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I don't disagree with pg_upgrade being operationally complex, but I
don't see how this
Should we consider if we can make pg_ctl -w work for promote as well?
The main problem is, I guess, that it can't log in - so wed' need
something like PQping() that actually checked if it was master or
slave?
//Magnus
-- Forwarded message --
From: Manoj Govindassamy
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
recent question came from someone who actually bothered
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 03:06:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I don't disagree with
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it doesn't format
subqueries well
postgres=# select pg_pretty_query('select
On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 16:02:28 -0400 2012:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I don't disagree with pg_upgrade being operationally complex, but I
don't see how
2012/8/7 Thom Brown t...@linux.com:
On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:38:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 16:02:28 -0400 2012:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I don't disagree
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 09:45:35 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
[...snipped...]
I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in the
Introduction section of that
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 04:14:34PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it
On 08/07/2012 10:14 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it doesn't format
subqueries
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Agreed. Anybody up for writing the text though? There was some text
earlier (see
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=commitdiff;h=bd02e36141bb99e9ee4e0b80fd69464e0e6d91b7#patch18
or the corresponding one in
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:54:12PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2012/8/7 Thom Brown t...@linux.com:
On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some
queries.
Here is patch:
this patch
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Should we consider if we can make pg_ctl -w work for promote as well?
+1
The main problem is, I guess, that it can't log in - so wed' need
something like PQping() that actually checked if it was master or
slave?
I just got a bug report from EnterpriseDB saying pg_upgrade generates a
file share violation on PG 9.2. I was initially confused because I know
we fixed this in a May commit. Well, it turns out that this commit
re-added the same failure:
commit 4741e9afb93f0d769655b2d18c2b73b86f281010
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 03:59:42PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
recent question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and
believed
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Alexander Law exclus...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I would like to fix this bug, but it looks like it would be not one-line
patch.
Looking at the pg_dump code I see that the object names come through the
following chain:
1. pg_dump executes 'SELECT c.tableoid,
Here's an updated version of my LATERAL patch.
* Accepts LATERAL func_name(args).
* Handles LATERAL in JOIN nests now. I rewrote the way
transformFromClause manages visibility of previously-parsed FROM items.
Rather than my previous idea of adding more namespace lists to a
ParseState, I changed
On 2 August 2012 17:18, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In HEAD and 9.2, the following scenario happens in archive recovery.
1. The archived WAL file is restored onto the temporary file name
RECOVERYXLOG.
2. The restored WAL file is renamed to the correct file name like
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 04:14:34PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
I can see this as very useful for people reporting badly-formatted
queries to our email lists.
Hi,
When I used pg_trgm, I encountered the problem that the search result of
SeqScan was the different from that of BitmapScan even if the search
keyword was the same. Is this a bug? Here is the test case:
---
CREATE EXTENSION pg_trgm;
CREATE TABLE tbl (col text);
CREATE
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
* As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
Its primary charter is to support pg_dump by regurgitating rules/views
in an unambiguous form, which does not
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, the only redeeming value of this patch is that it's short.
One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync
with the dialect that's supported. Anything that doesn't use the
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 13.08.2011 00:17, Simon Riggs wrote:
Also, we discussed that you would work on buffering the index inserts,
which is where the main problem lies. The main heap is only a small
part of the
On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
* As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
Its primary charter is to support pg_dump by
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Should we consider if we can make pg_ctl -w work for promote as well?
+1
The main problem is, I guess, that it can't log in - so wed' need
On 7 August 2012 20:58, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 13.08.2011 00:17, Simon Riggs wrote:
Also, we discussed that you would work on buffering the index inserts,
which is where the main
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync with
the dialect that's supported. Anything that doesn't use the backend's parser
seems to me to be guaranteed
I wrote:
What I'd like to do next, barring objections, is to band-aid the places
where the planner could crash on a LATERAL query (probably just make it
throw FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED errors), write some documentation, and
then commit what I've got. After that I can go back to improve the
Did we ever decide on this? Is it a TODO?
---
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:01:20PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Kevin Grittner
I have looked at the Postgres 9.2 stable and Postgres 9.2 beta 3 git
archives and this bug still appears to be present.
TwoPhaseGetDummyProc returns a PGPROC*. In 9.0, it was safe for
TwoPhaseGetDummyBackendId() to cast this to a GlobalTransaction
because the GlobalTransactionData
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7 August 2012 20:58, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Heikki,
Is the bulk index insert still an active area for you?
If not, is there some kind of summary of design or analysis work
already done, which
2012/8/7 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, the only redeeming value of this patch is that it's short.
One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync
with the dialect that's
2012/8/7 Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
* As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
Its
42 matches
Mail list logo
