Hello,
June 1 is pretty close now, so I'm asking about yet another
contrib module, pg_trgm which is rather mature and quite useful.
Is't worth to put it into 7.5 contrib ?
trgm - Trigram matching for PostgreSQL
--
The pg_trgm contrib module provides
I think before this can be tested fully by a wide audience there needs to
be some basic documentation. Or is there?
What is the new syntax?
Can we see some basic examples that you have used in your testing?
Regards
Bob
|-+--
| |
This reply was meant to be directed to Alvaro.
|-+--
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | .com |
| | Sent by: |
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |
I see the following on this machine: (OSX 10.3.4, gcc 3.3)
[neilc:/Users/neilc/build-pgsql/contrib]% make -s all
ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol _nextval
pending.o definition of _nextval in section (__TEXT,__text)
../../src/backend/postgres definition of _nextval
ld: warning multiple
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Is that core's decision that:
o below all four major features will be incorporated into 7.5
We don't know. If they can be added to CVS without major changes, they
will be in 7.5. As far as I can tell:
Win32 has 98% of its code in CVS, so
Against current CVS HEAD:
$ ./createuser test
Shall the new user be allowed to create databases? (y/n) y
Shall the new user be allowed to create more new users? (y/n) n
CREATE USER
$ ./createdb -O test test
CREATE DATABASE
$ ./psql -U test test
Welcome to psql 7.5devel, the PostgreSQL interactive
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I've encountered a situation where I'd like to store some information
about the database when I do a pg_dump. For instance, the timestamp of
the dump. And some other information that I pull from the database.
I think every dump should
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Right now, I'd say feature freeze is looking more like next Friday (June
4th), and we're evaluate it then ... that should hopefully give the
above time to flesh out and get into CVS ...
Speaking of CVS, a CERT advisory was issued yesterday documenting a
vulnerability:
Sailesh Krishnamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about things like:
1. DISTINCT PULLUP (Where you realize that you don't have to have an
explicit duplicate elimination operation because of what's done in the
subquery)
2. DISTINCT pushdown (when a dup elim. can be pushed down if the upper
Jon Jensen wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I've encountered a situation where I'd like to store some information
about the database when I do a pg_dump. For instance, the timestamp of
the dump. And some other information that I pull from the database.
I think
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Is that core's decision that:
o below all four major features will be incorporated into 7.5
We don't know. If they can be added to CVS without major changes,
they
will be in 7.5. As far as I can tell:
Win32 has 98%
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:51:07PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
2) certain behavior was different from what I expected (please correct me
if my expectation is wrong).
Yes, the expected behavior is different: if an aborted subtransaction is
closed with a COMMIT or END command, the parent
On May 28, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
A better answer to this particular problem might be incremental dumps,
though :-)
Oh would incremental dumps be ever so hungrily accepted by ever so many
shops. I had imagined that PITR transaction log archiving would allow
one to perform an
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:51:07PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
2) certain behavior was different from what I expected (please correct me
if my expectation is wrong).
Yes, the expected behavior is different: if an aborted subtransaction is
closed with a COMMIT or END command, the
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The Installer is a pgFoundry project, and unaffected by feature freeze.
See http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org (Note: Magnus hasn't put
anything there yet, though.)
'k, wasn't sure about that one ... but the SVC and fsync stuff is still
Can I ask you one more question?
Is there any limit for nesting leveles of subtransactions?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:51:07PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
2) certain behavior was different from what I expected (please correct me
if my expectation is wrong).
Yes, the
Tom == Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom This particular issue is handled as part of our Path
Tom enumeration mechanism, but the more hard-wired sorts of
Tom transformations that you are asking about live mostly in
Thanks again. To confirm the actual cost comparison with plan
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 12:27:39AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Can I ask you one more question?
Is there any limit for nesting leveles of subtransactions?
In theory 2^16 I think, but I haven't tested it. It tried to 30 or so
only. Not sure if it's practical.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 19:35:56 -0700,
Sailesh Krishnamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another question about regular RULE processing .. suppose after
applying a rule the resultant query tree is eligible for another rule,
does pgsql's rule system keep iterating over and over until it
I certainly get the feeling that things are being rushed just a bit too
much, and think having a extra few days of breathing space makes sense.
cheers
andrew
I have that feeling too, and I'm working still working on pg_autovacuum
integration which I was hoping to get in, so I would welcome
I'm not really sure what to call this feature, but I have been talking to
a potential customer and they need a particular feature and they need to
to be very FAST.
Take this query:
select sum(num) from table;
Now, if that table is very large, this can take a lot of time.
Using a trigger, one
Sounds fine.
---
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Hello,
June 1 is pretty close now, so I'm asking about yet another
contrib module, pg_trgm which is rather mature and quite useful.
Is't worth to put it into 7.5 contrib ?
trgm
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:50:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
At first I thought I'd have to add back Xmax as a field on its own
Veto! This would increase heap tuple header size == less tuples per
page == more pages per table == more I/O == performance loss.
If
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:05:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Hm, you are right that there needs to be a more automatic way of doing
this.
One interesting idea would be for COMMIT to affect the outer
transaction, and END not affect the outer transaction. Of course that
kills the logic that
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:48:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Nope. Think about sub-subtransactions.
They are all aborted if the parent is, so
BEGIN;
BEGIN; -- cid = 1
BEGIN; -- cid = 2
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 01:43:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
In this case, I want to try all of the inserts, but any of them can
fail, then I want the bottom part done.
I wonder where everyone eas when I asked this question a lot of time
ago. I said I thought the behavior should be like I
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Off the top of my head ... the Installer and Service Manager come to mind
... and Tom's fsync changes ...
Right now, I'd say feature freeze is looking more like next Friday (June
4th), and we're evaluate it then ... that
Since the Feature Freeze is coming on quickly and I have yet to submit a
patch that integrated pg_autovacuum into the backend (though I have been
working on it), I wanted to see what people thing about a few things.
Since we are nearing feature freeze, I know won't complete all the
improvements
Strange, compiled here fine.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
I see the following on this machine: (OSX 10.3.4, gcc 3.3)
[neilc:/Users/neilc/build-pgsql/contrib]% make -s all
ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol _nextval
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For instance, here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg00696.php are some
profiles documenting a case where nearly 40% of the runtime goes into
lappend's in 7.4. I haven't had time to repeat the test
On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:50:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now you are on the subject, can I ask you to take a peek at what I did
regarding tuple headers?
I did read your patch, but I didn't understand it. :-(
At first I thought I'd have to add back Xmax as a field on its own
Sailesh Krishnamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks again. To confirm the actual cost comparison with plan
enumeration is a dynamic programming algorithm, is it not ?
Selinger-style with 2-way join paths enumerated, then 3-way using the
best 2-way etc. ?
Correct. For details see
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:47:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We could possibly avoid this particular issue with sufficiently complex
visibility rules. (I am thinking that we might be able to say that the
inner xact can't see the tuple in question unless the creating command
was done in the
Today is May 28. So if nobody will not commit above within 3
days, non
of them will be in 7.5(8.0). Am I correct?
Not necessarily ... there are several Win32 related features
that still
haven't been committed (that I've seen) that will push back
the release,
and hopefully give some time
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:48:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:19:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We'd still need a plain CommandCounterIncrement facility, which means
that actually a subtransaction would have to be a group of CIDs
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:51:07PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
2) certain behavior was different from what I expected (please correct me
if my expectation is wrong).
Yes, the expected behavior is different: if an aborted subtransaction is
closed with a COMMIT or
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:19:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We'd still need a plain CommandCounterIncrement facility, which means
that actually a subtransaction would have to be a group of CIDs not just
one.
Right, this is why I suggested runlength (the group is contiguous).
So there'd also
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Today is May 28. So if nobody will not commit above within 3
days, non
of them will be in 7.5(8.0). Am I correct?
Not necessarily ... there are several Win32 related features
that still
haven't been committed (that I've seen) that will push back
the
Sometime between yesterday and today queries in the form of
select * from t where t.f like 'k%' have been broken so that they
never use the index (on win32, not sure about others).
On win32, at least, they have been broken for a while but this was due
to a known issue based on the locales.
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Off the top of my head ... the Installer and Service Manager come to mind
... and Tom's fsync changes ...
Right now, I'd say feature freeze is looking more like next Friday (June
4th), and we're evaluate it then ... that should hopefully give the
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 12:46:29 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that there is a need for internal state variables that can
be accessed either by functions or something similar.
But there still needs to be multiple copies to take into account that
different transactions may
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 01:43:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
In this case, I want to try all of the inserts, but any of them can
fail, then I want the bottom part done.
I wonder where everyone eas when I asked this question a lot of time
ago. I said I thought
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Off the top of my head ... the Installer and Service Manager come to mind
... and Tom's fsync changes ...
Right now, I'd say feature freeze is looking more like next Friday (June
4th), and we're
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Off the top of my head ... the Installer and Service Manager come to mind
... and Tom's fsync changes ...
Right now, I'd say feature freeze is looking more
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Off the top of my head ... the Installer and Service Manager come to mind
... and Tom's fsync changes ...
Right now, I'd say
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Sailesh,
BTW, do lots of people use the GEQO ?
I do. I've several clients with data mining databases that literally require
45-way joins on some queries. Even a state-of-the-art CPU balks at that.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end
Hi all,
I compiled postgres7.5devel and I see that during
compilation are used togheter:
-Wall -Wmissing-proptotype -Wmissing-declaration
there is any reason to specify after -Wall others
warning ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 12:46:29 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that there is a need for internal state variables that
can
be accessed either by functions or something similar.
But there still needs to be multiple copies to take into account that
different transactions
Sometime between yesterday and today queries in the form of
select * from t where t.f like 'k%' have been broken so that they
never use the index (on win32, not sure about others).
On win32, at least, they have been broken for a while but this was due
to a known issue based on the locales.
There are many warnings that do not show up with -Wall
I usually use at least:
-Wall -ansi -pedantic
These are also a good idea:
-Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Werror
You will also get additional warnings when optimization is
Hi all,
I'm running our regression test on top of postgresql 7.5 devel.
I found this function not working anymore ( is a distillated ):
create table test ( quota integer );
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION sp_test ( )
RETURNS TEXT AS'
DECLARE
quota RECORD;
my_ret TEXT := ;
BEGIN
FOR
Hi all,
I distilled another our regression test failing:
create table test ( id integer, quota integer );
create or replace view v_test AS
select id, quota from test;
create or replace view v_v_test AS
select
t1.id,
t1.quota
from
v_test t1 join v_test t2 using ( id )
;
kalman=#
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have tested it and it passes all regression tests (including ones I
added), plus some more tests I threw at it mainly for concurrency.
Everything behaves as expected. At this time I'd like to have it
reviewed by the critic eye of the committers,
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:43:41PM -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have tested it and it passes all regression tests (including ones I
added), plus some more tests I threw at it mainly for concurrency.
Everything behaves as expected. At this time
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:45:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I just remembered why we rejected this idea to start with :-(.
If we do it this way then when the overall xact commits, we no longer
have state that tells which particular tuples are good or not. We would
have to trawl for
test= create temp table t2 (i integer);
ERROR: permission denied for schema pg_temp_1
The immediate problem is a simple thinko (lack of attention to a
function's return convention), but I'm gonna go back and review that
whole patch. It obviously wasn't tested well at all.
I know what's going on
I wrote a while ago
So pg_subtrans remains the same, and we assign a new Xid to each
subtransaction. Each tuple gets Xmin/Xmax according to the Xid of the
current subtransaction. Within the transaction tree we don't use the
Xid to check for visibility, but Cmin/Cmax and the abort bitmap.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:43:41PM -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have tested it and it passes all regression tests (including ones I
added), plus some more tests I threw at it mainly for concurrency.
Everything
\Sean Chittenden wrote:
test= create temp table t2 (i integer);
ERROR: permission denied for schema pg_temp_1
The immediate problem is a simple thinko (lack of attention to a
function's return convention), but I'm gonna go back and review that
whole patch. It obviously wasn't tested
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 11:11:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think this applies to all GUC variables, but I wonder if we want to
save the value of each one at subtransaction start and recover it at
abort? Things could easily get huge. Maybe only saving the ones
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 11:11:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think this applies to all GUC variables, but I wonder if we want to
save the value of each one at subtransaction start and recover it at
abort? Things could easily get huge.
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 23:19, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, what is a thinko?
A mental typeo... brain fart... of if you are old enough to qualify,
a senior moment.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, what is a thinko?
When in doubt, consult the Hacker's Dictionary ...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/thinko.html
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sometime between yesterday and today queries in the form of
select * from t where t.f like 'k%' have been broken so that they
never use the index (on win32, not sure about others).
Not here ... and I've seen no commits that I'd have thought would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 12:46:29 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that there is a need for internal state variables that
can be accessed either by functions or something similar.
What you're describing is called materialized views and indeed a
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reality check --- why should they keep going if the stuff if appication
is going to be months away, and these big features are going to change
CVS significantly anyway?
Let's be honest --- if they aren't going to make it, they will stop
working
67 matches
Mail list logo
