On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Since we now have an official entry in /etc/services, shouldn't we be able
to make use of it, by using getservbyname() if a nonnumeric port number is
specified?
Is any OS actually shipping us in /etc/services?
SuSE 8.0:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't have a better idea, but I am wondering how this will work. If I
create a schema with my name, does it get added to the front of my
schema schema search path automatically,
Yes (unless you've futzed with the standard value of search_path).
If
rise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is any OS actually shipping us in /etc/services?
SuSE 8.0:
postgresql5432/tcp# PostgreSQL Database
postqresql5432/udp# PostgreSQL Database
Mph, complete with the typo in the UDP entry. Hang
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't have a better idea, but I am wondering how this will work. If I
create a schema with my name, does it get added to the front of my
schema schema search path automatically,
Yes (unless you've futzed with the standard value
Tom Lane wrote:
rise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is any OS actually shipping us in /etc/services?
SuSE 8.0:
postgresql 5432/tcp# PostgreSQL Database
postqresql 5432/udp# PostgreSQL Database
Mph, complete with the typo in
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it seems Win32 doesn't need these scripts, except initdb.
The utility of these programs is independent of the platform. If we think
pg_dumpall is not useful, then let's remove it.
I have been seriously considering converting pg_dumpall to C
Rachit Siamwalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are 2 items that match the criteria, and you do a LIMIT 2, it
scans the whole table as well. Limit 1 returns quickly. Basically it
seems like postgres is looking for one more item than it needs to.
This is not a bug; or at least it's not
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it seems Win32 doesn't need these scripts, except initdb.
The utility of these programs is independent of the platform. If we think
pg_dumpall is not useful, then let's remove it.
I have been seriously considering
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I remove public create access to public, can the super user or db
owner still create tables?
Superusers can always do whatever they want.
The DB owner (assume he's not a superuser) has no special privileges
w.r.t. the public schema at the moment. We
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yea, shame it will now take 15 lines of C code to do what we could do in
1 line of shell script but I don't see any other option.
In places we are using 15 lines of shell to do what would take 1 line
in C ;-). Yes, it'll probably be bigger overall, but
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martijn van Oosterhout) wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:43:36PM -0500, Gunther Schadow wrote:
- Sending a parse tree in XML for processing by the optimizer.
This circumvents the SQL language and avoids the kinds of
syntactic ideosyncrasies of
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This is inconsistent with the official IANA assignment which reads
Thanks. I'll update my services file and check all those I come into
contact with. I'll check if a new install if Redhat 7.3 has the correct
entries this weekend.
postgresql
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
I know I have discouraged it because I think shell script language has a
good toolset for those applications. I have fixed all the spacing
issues.
My point is that it is not, for the reasons that I listed. Handling
spaces is a small
Tom Lane wrote:
Uh guys ... what I *said* was:
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
development items, or admit that they won't happen for 7.3.
By which I meant that in July we
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I don't want to apply a partially-implemented feature in the last
week of August, but I don't want to slow things down during August,
because the last time we did this we were all looking at each other
waiting for beta, and nothing was getting
Thomas,
Please define a full set of operators. Or do the subsequent
proposals
defining new behaviors and some operations constitute that list?
+ - / * = and, if appropriate, %
Where support is lacking is * and /
Don't get me wrong. PostgreSQL has the best implementation of
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, but there is a downside to this. We have trouble enough figuring
out if a patch is a feature or bug fix during beta. How are people
going to decide if a feature is big or not to work on during August?
It has a paralyzing effect on our
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question is how to best bootstrap this new function. In order to
create the pg_proc entry I need the return type oid. If I understand
correctly, in order to get a composite return type, with a known oid, I
would need to create a bootstrapped
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, but there is a downside to this. We have trouble enough figuring
out if a patch is a feature or bug fix during beta. How are people
going to decide if a feature is big or not to work on during August?
It has a
Ron Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May 31 16:11:50 vault pgcvs[2135]: [91] LOG: query: Create Temporary Table
pg_dump_blob_xref(oldOid pg_catalog.oid, newOid pg_catalog.oid);
May 31 16:11:50 vault pgcvs[2135]: [93] ERROR: quickview: not authorized to
create temp tables
My theory is that
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwards:
When trying to create a semaphore Postgresql 7.2.1-3 will try 400,000 times=
per
second if it has problems.
AFAICS it will try *once* and abort if it fails. Can you provide a
reproducible test case for the above behavior?
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I don't want to apply a partially-implemented feature in the last
week of August, but I don't want to slow things down during August,
because the last time we did this we were all looking at each other
waiting for beta, and
Tom Lane wrote:
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwards:
When trying to create a semaphore Postgresql 7.2.1-3 will try 400,000 times=
per
second if it has problems.
AFAICS it will try *once* and abort if it fails. Can you provide a
reproducible test case for the above behavior?
I
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume he meant tries to grab a semaphore 400,000 times, but I may
be wrong.
I don't believe that would happen either ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, we're not doing that; and I see no good reason to make the thing
be a builtin function at all. Since it's just an example, it can very
well be a contrib item with a creation script. Probably *should* be,
in fact, because dynamically created functions are what other
Russell, can you provide a test case, or at least explain the
circumstances, please. Please maintain the Cc list.
-Forwarded Message-
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Bug#149056: postgresql: should
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is the idea were are supposed to go into beta with a bug-free release
that bother me.
But its you that's always tried to advocate that ... no? If not, then I
am confused, cause I know *I've* never ... to me, switching to beta mode
has always been
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I don't want to apply a partially-implemented feature in the last
week of August, but I don't want to slow things down during August,
because the last time we did this we were all
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I *really* wish ppl would stop harping on the length of the last beta
cycle ... I will always rather delay a release due to an *known*
outstanding bug, especially one that just needs a little bit more time to
work out, then to release software on
29 matches
Mail list logo
