Re: [HACKERS] [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached)

2012-10-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 22.09.2012 20:00, Andres Freund wrote: [[basic-schema]] .Architecture Schema [ditaa] -- Traditional Stuff +-+-+-+-++ | Backend | Backend | Backend | Autovac | ...|

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 10/11/2012 04:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Isn't there an even more serious problem, namely that this assumes *all* transactions are serializable? What happens when they aren't? Or even just that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 10/11/2012 03:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The purpose of ApplyCache/transaction reassembly is to reassemble interlaced records, and organise them by XID, so that the consumer client code sees only streams (well,

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 01:43, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think we have to revert and go back to the drawing board on this. Given that change was also sold on the basis of higher performance, I suggest we retest performance to check there is a gain. If there is still a gain, I suggest we

Re: [HACKERS] FDW for PostgreSQL

2012-10-11 Thread Etsuro Fujita
Hi Hanada-san, Please examine attached v2 patch (note that is should be applied onto latest dblink_fdw_validator patch). I've reviewed your patch quickly. I noticed that the patch has been created in a slightly different way from the guidelines:

Re: [HACKERS] replace plugins directory with GUC

2012-10-11 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes: Now that we support include-directories in postgresql.conf, you could put a mylib.conf file in the include directory that contains the above line, if you want to enable/disable a module just by moving things around in the filesystem (after

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate if exists

2012-10-11 Thread Sébastien Lardière
On 10/09/2012 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: - if a table is not yet or no more visible, because of search_path modification I don't think I understand the case you are describing here. Here's a sample : begin; set search_path = foo, public; create table c ( … ) ; commit; begin; set

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate if exists

2012-10-11 Thread Sébastien Lardière
On 10/09/2012 04:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Second, to my mind the point of a multi-table TRUNCATE is to ensure that all the referenced tables get reset to empty *together*. With something like this, you'd have no such guarantee. Consider a timeline like this: Session 1

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

2012-10-11 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:15 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04.10.2012 13:12, Amit kapila wrote: Following changes are done to support replication timeout in sender as well as receiver: 1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to detect timeout at

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples

2012-10-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
Do you intend to follow through with this, Jeff? -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

2012-10-11 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:58:40PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types instead of trying to hack indexes to work

Re: [HACKERS] Is there a good reason why PL languages do not support cstring type arguments and return values ?

2012-10-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/10/11 Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr: Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes: I've wanted to allow writing i/o functions in non-C languages for a long time as well, but never got around to do anything about it. Custom datatypes are really powerful, but as soon as you

Re: [HACKERS] September 2012 commitfest

2012-10-11 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:19:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Many of those patches waiting on authors have been in such state for a rather long time. I feel inclined to mark them returned with feedback, and have them posted again for the next commitfest. +1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached)

2012-10-11 Thread Andres Freund
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:15:47 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 22.09.2012 20:00, Andres Freund wrote: [[basic-schema]] .Architecture Schema [ditaa] - - Traditional Stuff

[HACKERS] Windows help needed for flex and bison

2012-10-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
The flex and bison make rules refactoring I just did broke the Windows build. I think the fixes should look like the patch below. Could someone please verify and/or commit that? diff --git a/src/tools/msvc/pgbison.pl b/src/tools/msvc/pgbison.pl index d6f2444..15db921 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] embedded list

2012-10-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera escribió: I also included two new functions in that patch, dlisti_push_head and dlisti_push_tail. These functions are identical to dlist_push_head and dlist_push_tail, except that they do not accept non-circular lists. What this means is that callers that find the

Re: [HACKERS] embedded list

2012-10-11 Thread Andres Freund
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 03:23:12 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Alvaro Herrera escribió: I also included two new functions in that patch, dlisti_push_head and dlisti_push_tail. These functions are identical to dlist_push_head and dlist_push_tail, except that they do not accept non-circular

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

2012-10-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 11.10.2012 13:17, Amit Kapila wrote: How does this look now? The Patch is fine and test results are also fine. Ok, thanks. Committed. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] foreign key locks

2012-10-11 Thread Andres Freund
On Friday, August 31, 2012 06:59:51 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote: v21 is merged to latest master. Ok, I am starting to look at this. (working with a git merge of alvherre/fklocks into todays master) In a very first pass as somebody who hasn't followed the discussions in the past I took notice of

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

2012-10-11 Thread Amit kapila
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:22 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 11.10.2012 13:17, Amit Kapila wrote: How does this look now? The Patch is fine and test results are also fine. Ok, thanks. Committed. Thank you very much. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] foreign key locks

2012-10-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andres Freund wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2012 06:59:51 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote: v21 is merged to latest master. Ok, I am starting to look at this. (working with a git merge of alvherre/fklocks into todays master) In a very first pass as somebody who hasn't followed the discussions in

Re: [HACKERS] embedded list

2012-10-11 Thread Andres Freund
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 03:27:17 PM Andres Freund wrote: On Thursday, October 11, 2012 03:23:12 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Alvaro Herrera escribió: I also included two new functions in that patch, dlisti_push_head and dlisti_push_tail. These functions are identical to dlist_push_head

Re: [HACKERS] Windows help needed for flex and bison

2012-10-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/11/2012 09:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The flex and bison make rules refactoring I just did broke the Windows build. I think the fixes should look like the patch below. Could someone please verify and/or commit that? Close, but not quite. I have made it work and committed it.

Re: [HACKERS] enhanced error fields

2012-10-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 10 October 2012 14:56, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: (eelog3.diff) This looks better. You need a better comment here: + * relerror.c + * relation error loging functions + * I'm still not satisfied with the lack of firm guarantees about what errcodes one can assume

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 17:53, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 11 October 2012 01:43, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think we have to revert and go back to the drawing board on this. Given that change was also sold on the basis of higher

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 11 October 2012 17:53, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Maybe what we really need is to find a way to make taking a snapshot a lot cheaper, such that the whole need for this patch goes away. We're not going to get far with the idea of making

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate if exists

2012-10-11 Thread Cédric Villemain
For starters, the use-case hasn't been explained to my satisfaction. In what situation is it actually helpful to TRUNCATE a table that's not there yet? Aren't you going to have to do a CREATE IF NOT EXISTS to keep from failing later in the script? If so, why not just do that first? There

Re: [HACKERS] September 2012 commitfest

2012-10-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: IIRC, the parallel pg_dump one is said to need review by a Windows expert, which is not me, so I've not looked at it. Andrew? Magnus? There's,

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 18:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I suggested a way to automatically trigger a second snapshot. I think that would be acceptable to backpatch. If it worked, I might be amenable to that, but it doesn't. You can't trigger taking a new snapshot off whether we waited

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So where's the race? AFAICS it either waits or it doesn't - the code isn't vague on that point. If we wait we set the flag. The point is that lock waits are pretty rare since most locks are compatible, so triggering a

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 11 October 2012 18:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: If it worked, I might be amenable to that, but it doesn't. You can't trigger taking a new snapshot off whether we waited for a lock; that still has race conditions, just ones that are not so

Re: [HACKERS] September 2012 commitfest

2012-10-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/11/2012 02:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: IIRC, the parallel pg_dump one is said to need review by a Windows expert, which is not me, so I've

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 19:36, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: So where's the race? AFAICS it either waits or it doesn't - the code isn't vague on that point. If we wait we set the flag. The point is that lock

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 19:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 11 October 2012 18:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: If it worked, I might be amenable to that, but it doesn't. You can't trigger taking a new snapshot off whether we waited for a

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate if exists

2012-10-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: 2) Clearly, rollout scripts benefit from not throwing errors. Personally I would prefer setting SET ddl_abort_on_missing_object = false; at the top of a script than having to go through every SQL statement and add extra

[HACKERS] Making the planner more tolerant of implicit/explicit casts

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
I looked into the complaint in bug #7598, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-10/msg00090.php The core of the problem is in an inner sub-select that's written like outercol IN (SELECT varcharcol FROM ... WHERE varcharcol = anothercol ... The = operator is actually texteq, since

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate if exists

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 19:59, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: 2) Clearly, rollout scripts benefit from not throwing errors. Personally I would prefer setting SET ddl_abort_on_missing_object = false; at the top of a

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Hmm, so now the patch author thinks his patch is not just broken with respect to lock waits, but in all cases? Surely the above race condition is obvious, now and before. Why is it suddenly unacceptable? (If you believe

[HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
Not many RULE-lovers out there, once you've tried to use them. Allowing RULEs complicates various things and can make security more difficult. For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated. Anybody that

Re: [HACKERS] September 2012 commitfest

2012-10-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I have a quietish few days starting on Saturday, will be looking at this then. Is it only the Windows aspect that needs reviewing? Are we more or less happy with the rest? I think the Windows issues were the biggest

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 20:25, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Hmm, so now the patch author thinks his patch is not just broken with respect to lock waits, but in all cases? Surely the above race condition is

Re: [HACKERS] September 2012 commitfest

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 20:30, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I have a quietish few days starting on Saturday, will be looking at this then. Is it only the Windows aspect that needs reviewing? Are we more or less

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: So we have to take the snapshot before you begin execution, but it seems that to avoid surprising behavior we also have to take it after acquiring locks. And it looks like locking is intertwined with a bunch of other parse analysis tasks that might

Re: [HACKERS] change in LOCK behavior

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 20:43, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: So we have to take the snapshot before you begin execution, but it seems that to avoid surprising behavior we also have to take it after acquiring locks. And it looks like locking is

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Not many RULE-lovers out there, once you've tried to use them. Allowing RULEs complicates various things and can make security more difficult. For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that

[HACKERS] WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data

2012-10-11 Thread Markus Wanner
Hi, I stumbled across a minor issue in xlog.c:1030: the WAL_DEBUG code block there passes rdata-data to the rm_desc() methode. However, that's only the first XLogRecData struct, not the entire XLog record. So the rm_desc() method effectively reports spurious data for any subsequent part. Take a

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: This is utter nonsense. We can't deprecate them until we have a substitute that is better. If you want to get rid of rules, build the replacement; don't just try to be a pain in the ass to users. My understanding is that the main reason why RULEs are bad™

Re: [HACKERS] Making the planner more tolerant of implicit/explicit casts

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: What I'm thinking about is modifying eval_const_expressions so that one of its responsibilities is to force CoercionForm fields to COERCE_DONTCARE in the output; I fooled around with that approach for awhile and didn't like the results, mainly because it caused EXPLAIN output to

Re: [HACKERS] WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes: I stumbled across a minor issue in xlog.c:1030: the WAL_DEBUG code block there passes rdata-data to the rm_desc() methode. However, that's only the first XLogRecData struct, not the entire XLog record. So the rm_desc() method effectively reports spurious

Re: [HACKERS] Measure Theoretic Data Types in Postgresql

2012-10-11 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/10/12 9:37 PM, Aaron Sheldon wrote: I have begun sketching these ideas in off the shelf pgSQL using composite types and constructor functions; but am far from tackling anything like building external C extensions to handle the data types. I can set-up a GitHub repository if anyone is

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 20:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Not many RULE-lovers out there, once you've tried to use them. Allowing RULEs complicates various things and can make security more difficult. For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/10/12 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: How does Slony write its changes without causing serialization replay conflicts? Since nobody from the Slony team answered this: a) Slony replicates *rows*, not *statements* b) Slony uses serializable mode internally for row replication c) it's

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Christopher Browne
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Anyway, lets start with a discussion of what rules give us that SQL standard features do not? The somewhat broader question that this elicits is How would we go about deprecating a feature that seems to be troublesome? I

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 23:28, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated. Well, even if we were considering this, the sequence would need to be: 1. Announce in 9.3 that

Re: [HACKERS] WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data

2012-10-11 Thread Markus Wanner
Tom, On 10/11/2012 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The original design intention was that rm_desc should not attempt to print any such data, but obviously some folks didn't get the word. FWIW: in case the source code contains comments explaining that intention, I certainly missed them so far.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Christopher Browne
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: How does Slony write its changes without causing serialization replay conflicts? It uses a sequence to break any ordering conflicts at the time that data is inserted into its log tables. If there are two transactions, A

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On 11 October 2012 03:16, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think I've mentioned it before, but in the interest of not being seen to critique the bikeshed only after it's been painted: this design gives up something very

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Daniel Farina
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 11 October 2012 23:28, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated. Well, even if we were

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Josh Berkus
For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated. Well, even if we were considering this, the sequence would need to be: 1. Announce in 9.3 that RULES will be going away RSN. 2. In 9.4, send a warning every

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel

2012-10-11 Thread Steve Singer
On 12-10-11 06:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 10/10/12 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: How does Slony write its changes without causing serialization replay conflicts? Since nobody from the Slony team answered this: a) Slony replicates *rows*, not *statements* True, but the proposed logical

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Josh Berkus
With the DDL trigger, we're able to do that faster. The idea is you can still delete it if you need compatibility, so we get the message across without an extra release and without an annoying GUC (etc). You're seeing these things as bugs. I see them as features. And we don't need a GUC if

Re: [HACKERS] WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data

2012-10-11 Thread Tom Lane
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes: On 10/11/2012 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: The original design intention was that rm_desc should not attempt to print any such data, but obviously some folks didn't get the word. FWIW: in case the source code contains comments explaining that intention, I

Re: [HACKERS] WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data

2012-10-11 Thread Markus Wanner
On 10/11/2012 04:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, if we decide to stick with the limitation, some documentation would be called for. I remember having run into this and having removed functionality from an rm_desc function rather than question the premise. But maybe the extra functionality is

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Daniel Farina
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: With the DDL trigger, we're able to do that faster. The idea is you can still delete it if you need compatibility, so we get the message across without an extra release and without an annoying GUC (etc). You're seeing

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 11 October 2012 20:28, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Not many RULE-lovers out there, once you've tried to use them. Allowing RULEs complicates various things and can make security more difficult. What exactly do they make more difficult? Are you particularly concerned with the

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 10/11/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2 database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger, especially if they might not encounter it until halfway through a restore. That seems rather user-hostile to me.

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Daniel Farina
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 10/11/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2 database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger, especially if they might not

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/11/2012 08:20 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 10/11/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2 database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Tom and Simon wrote: If you want to get rid of rules, build the replacement; don't just try to be a pain in the ass to users. Supporting broken and non-standard features *is* a pain in the ass to users, since they are sometimes persuaded

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
FWIW I thought the stuff in commit 092d7ded2 might be pretty useful generally. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread David Johnston
-Original Message- From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Dunstan Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:52 PM To: Daniel Farina Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Josh Berkus; Simon Riggs; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re:

Re: [HACKERS] Deprecating RULES

2012-10-11 Thread Darren Duncan
Josh Berkus wrote: For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated. Well, even if we were considering this, the sequence would need to be: 1. Announce in 9.3 that RULES will be going away RSN. 2. In 9.4, send

[HACKERS] line type

2012-10-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
What's the deal with the line type? It's installed in the catalogs and listed in the documentation, varyingly as not implemented or not fully implemented, but all the support functions throw an error. Is there any known list of things that would need to be done to make it fully implemented? Or

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]

2012-10-11 Thread Dean Rasheed
Thanks for looking at this. Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs. On 11 October 2012 02:39, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Compiler warning needs to be fixed: rewriteHandler.c: In function 'RewriteQuery': rewriteHandler.c:2153:29: error: 'view_rte' may be used uninitialized in