Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

2005-01-23 Thread Ron Mayer
Bruce Momjian wrote: Added to TODO based on this discusion:... * Speed up COUNT(*) One think I think would help lots of people is if the documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some of the techniques using triggers to maintain a count for tables where this is important. For every one

Re: [HACKERS] Two-phase commit for 8.1

2005-01-23 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Heikki, What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?. Regards, Hans Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most definitely ... just

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1 development cycle (was a couple of other threads

2005-01-23 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006? Or something else? I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would be really helpful :) I really don't know why this short dev cycle thing keeps coming back... People don't want to upgrade their major

Re: [HACKERS] Two-phase commit for 8.1

2005-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: Heikki, What is still missing to complete the 2PC patch?. Here's my TODO on things that need to be done: * large objects * guc variables * notify/listen Large objects and notify/listen should be quite straightforward. GUC variables need

Re: [HACKERS] can plpgsql returns more flexibe value ?

2005-01-23 Thread Arnold.Zhu
Hello, Kris Jurka! Perhaps you should look into the refcursor type, which will allow you to return anything you want without specifying it. You can't do things like a join between to refcursor outputs, but it does allow for more return flexibility. Kris Jurka Can I use DataAdapter.Fill()

Re: [HACKERS] Two-phase commit for 8.1

2005-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up. I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's the idea behind those? Do you release the locks and then reacquire them, or do you

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1 development cycle (was a couple of other threads

2005-01-23 Thread Robert Treat
On Sunday 23 January 2005 05:23, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006? Or something else? I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would be really helpful :) I really don't know why this short dev

Re: [HACKERS] Locale agnostic unicode text

2005-01-23 Thread Dawid Kuroczko
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:42 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This time setlocale() was needed to get the behaviour I needed (database initdb'ed to 'C', my order set to 'pl_PL', or whatever locale I need at given moment). I would imagine that the performance is spectacularly awful

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow pg_group -- UNTESTED

2005-01-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a proof-of-concept pretty much untested (it compiles) patch against HEAD for review of the general approach I'm taking to merging pg_shadow and pg_group. This is in order to support group

Re: [HACKERS] Two-phase commit for 8.1

2005-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up. I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's the idea behind those? Do you release the

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1 development cycle (was a couple of other threads

2005-01-23 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Robert Treat wrote: On Sunday 23 January 2005 05:23, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: So are we looking at a 8.1 in June and a 8.2 in say August of 2006? Or something else? I know that it is hard to completely pin these things down but it would be really helpful :) I really

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow pg_group -- UNTESTED

2005-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok. Can I get some help defining what the New Truth will look like then? I understand users and groups pretty well but I'm not 100% sure about roles. I looked through SQL99 a bit (see 4.31 Basic security model) and think I now have some handle on this.

Re: [HACKERS] Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Marc G. Fournier
I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part? Is there a reason why adding a column/field to an existing view should be considered a bad thing? As long as we don't remove existing colums that an app could be using,

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Josh Berkus
Troels, Others, Generally: Nice. But have you considered if the INFORMATION_SCHEMA could be used? Unfortunately, the INFORMATION_SCHEMA currently has a major problem in its usefulness in PostgreSQL: http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/#cli-list_of_tables-postgresql-gotchas Actually, I did.

Re: [HACKERS] Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Yann Michel
Hi, On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: 4) ignore backwards compatibility and just re-write the old views. I can hear the shouting already ... So, a choice of annoying options. Does anyone else on the channel have opinions? Isn't it a usefull option to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow pg_group -- UNTESTED

2005-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Stephan, On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:14:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Smaller patches are easier to review, for sure. Also, you'll need to coordinate with Alvaro's work on dependencies for global objects. If you want, I can send you the current patch so you can see what has changed in it, maybe

Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:36:10AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Added to TODO based on this discusion:... * Speed up COUNT(*) One think I think would help lots of people is if the documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some of the techniques using triggers to

Re: [HACKERS] Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
I'm going to reply to 3 emails in one here... Out of Josh's 4 options, I think a new schema makes the most sense. Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name, but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go back to pg_catalog. The idea of using a

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:43:15PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: BTW, People, I really don't see the point in prodiving a dual list -- that is, a list of OIDs in addition to the list of names provided in the columns of each view. The idea of these views is to keep the users *away* from

[HACKERS] Shortcut for defining triggers

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives... How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in one statement? Something like a combination of CREATE TRIGGER and CREATE FUNCTION? Being able to define them seperately is awesome for generic cases where you can

Re: [HACKERS] Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name, but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go back to pg_catalog. Huh? pg_catalog isn't going away, and none of this discussion has anything to do with

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the long term plan to remove OIDs entirely? No. OIDs will be the real primary keys of most system catalogs for the foreseeable future. The only discussion that's going on concerns deprecating their use in user tables. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow pg_group -- UNTESTED

2005-01-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:14:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Smaller patches are easier to review, for sure. Also, you'll need to coordinate with Alvaro's work on dependencies for global objects. If you want, I can send you the current patch so you

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow pg_group -- UNTESTED

2005-01-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok. Can I get some help defining what the New Truth will look like then? I understand users and groups pretty well but I'm not 100% sure about roles. I looked through SQL99 a bit (see 4.31 Basic security

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Josh Berkus
Jim, It's a question of if these views will also be used programatically. ISTM that OIDs are the preffered method of refering to things in code (in fact, aren't there some functions that only take OIDs?). If we want to make names the cannonical way to reference things in code, then I agree

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:37:28PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: Jim, It's a question of if these views will also be used programatically. ISTM that OIDs are the preffered method of refering to things in code (in fact, aren't there some functions that only take OIDs?). If we want to make

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Josh Berkus
Jim, Perhaps a good way to accomplish both goals is to have the set of human-readable views, and to add columns to the system tables/views that conform with the new, more logical naming convention. This way people accessing system information programmatically can use pg_catalog (and migrate

Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

2005-01-23 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you need to maintain it.

Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] %2$, %1$ gettext placeholder replacement is not working under Win32

2005-01-23 Thread Nicolai Tufar
Greetings, I would like to submit a new version of src/port/snprintf.c It passes regression tests on Linux and Win32 and prints all of %n$ messages finely. I added printf() function too because --help usage-type output is printed with printf(). I have no experience with autoconf so I would

[HACKERS] Goals for 8.1

2005-01-23 Thread Benjamin Arai
What are the goals for 8.1? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers] Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

2005-01-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: Jim, Perhaps a good way to accomplish both goals is to have the set of human-readable views, and to add columns to the system tables/views that conform with the new, more logical naming convention. This way people accessing