Re: [HACKERS] SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1

2004-10-03 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I concur with Grant Finnemore's objection as well: people expect procedures to be able to return resultsets, ie SETOF something, not only scalar values. Whether this is what SQL2003 says is not really the issue

Re: [HACKERS] SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1

2004-10-03 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Joe Conway wrote: Gavin Sherry wrote: That's fairly bizarre (at least to my view of the world). Say we could have OUT parameters which were of some SETOF style type I think that would solve the same problem. That won't satify people moving over from MSSQL/Sybase, but

[HACKERS] OT moving from MS SQL to PostgreSQL

2004-10-03 Thread stig erikson
Hello. i have an slightly off topic question, but i hope that somebody might know. at the moment we have a database on a MS SQL 7 server. This data will be transfered to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 or PostgreSQL 8 (when it is released). so far so good. the question now arises, this current database is used

Re: [HACKERS] AIX and V8 beta 3

2004-10-03 Thread Christopher Browne
After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian), an earthling, wrote: config/acx_pthread.m4 should be testing all those thread flags and defining proper Makefile.global values for them. Do you want to send me your config.log offline or check ourself why the tests

Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)

2004-10-03 Thread Mike Rylander
Not that my 2c is worth 1c, but I second this. I'd rather initdb now than get bitten by some catalog difference when I move my DB into production. :) --miker On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:22:50 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to have

[HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic

2004-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
I'm working on a patch to detect overflow in the integer-arithmetic operators. The first stage, covering the basic int4 operators, is attached if anyone wants to comment on details. A couple of general questions though: 1. Does anyone object to applying this for 8.0? I think we already had

Re: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic

2004-10-03 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: 03 October 2004 20:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic 2. For the int2 and int8 operators, should we stick to a

Re: Stable function semantics (was Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions)

2004-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Jowett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruno Wolff III wrote: I should have said within a single statement instead of within a single transaction. As I understand Tom's earlier explanation of this, the definition is even more narrow: stable functions only need to return the same value

Re: [HACKERS] AIX and V8 beta 3

2004-10-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, that 8.0beta config file should find all your thread flags and define them as PTHREAD_* in Makefile.global. --- Christopher Browne wrote: After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian), an

[HACKERS] External Tabular Data Via SQL

2004-10-03 Thread David Fetter
Kind people, Please find enclosed an example of what I hope to make into a generalized way of accessing external tabular data via SQL. It is written in PL/PerlU for portability reasons, although it could probably be re-written in C at the cost of some large amount of effort. It depends on

Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)

2004-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The reason the char arithmetic operators are dangerous is that they are the only ones of those names in the STRING type category. What would happen if char were just removed from the STRING type category? What other

Re: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic

2004-10-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 15:38:52 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Does anyone object to applying this for 8.0? I think we already had consensus that it's a good idea, but if not now's the time to speak up. (There are a couple of regression tests that fail and will need to be

Re: [HACKERS] Checking for overflow of integer arithmetic

2004-10-03 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Tom Lane wrote: { int32 arg1 = PG_GETARG_INT32(0); int32 arg2 = PG_GETARG_INT32(1); + int32 result; ! result = arg1 * arg2; ! /* ! * Overflow check. We basically check to see if result / arg2 gives ! * arg1 again. There are two cases where this fails: arg2 = 0 (which ! *

[HACKERS] slow count() was: tsearch2 poor performance

2004-10-03 Thread Oleg Bartunov
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Kris Kiger wrote: Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example; Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ? Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25 tsearchd=# explain analyze select body

Re: [HACKERS] slow count() was: tsearch2 poor performance

2004-10-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example; Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ? Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25 tsearchd=# explain analyze select body from txt where fts_index @@

Re: [HACKERS] slow count() was: tsearch2 poor performance

2004-10-03 Thread Oleg Bartunov
Magnus On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote: Hey all, its me again. If I do not do a count(product_id) on my tsearch2 queries, its actually really fast, for example; Hmm, I also really want to know what's the difference ? Postgresql 8.0beta3 on Linux 2.4.25 tsearchd=#

Re: [HACKERS] OT moving from MS SQL to PostgreSQL

2004-10-03 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 06:33, stig erikson wrote: Hello. i have an slightly off topic question, but i hope that somebody might know. at the moment we have a database on a MS SQL 7 server. This data will be transfered to PostgreSQL 7.4.5 or PostgreSQL 8 (when it is released). so far so good.