Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows

2012-10-20 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/10/21 Albert Cervera i Areny : > A Dimecres, 17 d'octubre de 2012 19:13:47, Merlin Moncure va escriure: > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan >> wrote: > >> > On 17 October 2012 14:53, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> >> Is that defined in the standard? > >> > > >> > RETURNING isn'

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows

2012-10-20 Thread Albert Cervera i Areny
A Dimecres, 17 d'octubre de 2012 19:13:47, Merlin Moncure va escriure: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On 17 October 2012 14:53, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> Is that defined in the standard? > > > > RETURNING isn't even defined in the standard. > > Right: Point bein

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in -c CLI option of pg_dump/pg_restore

2012-10-20 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 14:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > It looks like I broke this in commit > > 4317e0246c645f60c39e6572644cff1cb03b4c65, because I removed this from > > _tocEntryRequired(): > > > - /* Ignore DATABASE entry unless we should create it */ > > - if (!ropt->createDB &&

Re: [HACKERS] patch to add \watch to psql

2012-10-20 Thread Daniel Farina
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > For these reasons, I can imagine using "watch -n2 psql -c …", but not > \watch in its present form. (Of course, I doubt anyone would be enthused > about a proposal to link ncurses into psql, but that's another matter.) A good point. P

Re: [HACKERS] enhanced error fields

2012-10-20 Thread Peter Geoghegan
I think that we're both going to be busy next week, since we're both attending pgconf.eu. For that reason, I would like to spend some time tomorrow to get something in shape, that I can mark "ready for committer". I'd like to get this patch committed during this commitfest. You are welcome to do th

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in -c CLI option of pg_dump/pg_restore

2012-10-20 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > It looks like I broke this in commit > 4317e0246c645f60c39e6572644cff1cb03b4c65, because I removed this from > _tocEntryRequired(): > - /* Ignore DATABASE entry unless we should create it */ > - if (!ropt->createDB && strcmp(te->desc, "DATABASE") == 0) > - return 0;

Re: [HACKERS] FDW for PostgreSQL

2012-10-20 Thread Kohei KaiGai
2012/10/11 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: > http

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in -c CLI option of pg_dump/pg_restore

2012-10-20 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Hm, but the bug is said to happen only in 9.2, so if we don't backpatch >> we would leave 9.2 alone exhibiting this behavior. > Oh, yeah. I missed that. But then shouldn't we start by identifying > which commit

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP PATCH] for Performance Improvement in Buffer Management

2012-10-20 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Amit kapila wrote: > >> Robert wrote an accounting patch a while ago that tallied how often a >> buffer was cleaned but then reclaimed for the same page before being >> evicted. But now I can't find it. If you can find that thread, there >> might be some benchma

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP PATCH] for Performance Improvement in Buffer Management

2012-10-20 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Amit kapila wrote: > On Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:38 PM Amit kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 6:55 PM Amit kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:42 AM Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Amit kapila wrote: This pa

Re: [HACKERS] Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY

2012-10-20 Thread Kevin Grittner
Simon Riggs wrote: > Kevin, you're good to go on the SSI patch, or I'll apply next week > if you don't. Thanks for that. There were some hunks failing because of minor improvements to the comments you applied, so attached is a version with trivial adjustments for that.  Will apply tomorrow if ther

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] explain tup_fetched/returned in monitoring-stats

2012-10-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On 20 October 2012 07:43, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2012-10-15 10:28:17 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > Is there any concise description that applies? […] >> >> I don't think there is. I think we need to replace those counters >> with something better. The status quo is quite biz

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key constraint on sub-column of composite-type column

2012-10-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On 20 October 2012 06:57, David Lee wrote: > I was trying to create foreign key constraints on a sub-column of a > composite-type column, but couldn't find a way to do it. After asking around > on IRC, it seems like this isn't supported in PostgreSQL. > > I wanted to do something like: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Move postgresql_fdw_validator into dblink

2012-10-20 Thread Kohei KaiGai
2012/10/19 Robert Haas : > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Shigeru HANADA > wrote: >> However, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to the original >> goal of getting rid of use of that function name. Thoughts? >> >> Sorry, I had misunderstood the problem :-(. In my proposal, postgres

Re: [HACKERS] patch to add \watch to psql

2012-10-20 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2012-10-19 17:15:27 -0700, w...@heroku.com wrote: > > will=# \watch select now(); > Watch every 2s Fri Oct 19 17:09:23 2012 > > now > --- > 2012-10-19 17:09:23.743176-07 > (1 row) The patch looks OK at first glance, and I can confirm that it works as