Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] Is it sufficient to
remember just the relation and the block number or do we need the
contents a well?
I meant the contents of the WAL record, not the original block
contents. Anyway, I think it's not needed.
Oh, I see.
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
I'm willing to move soundex and metaphone into the backend.
Does anyone see a reason not to do so?
As a kinda strange reason, I like them in contrib because
they demonstrate a nice simple example of how one can write a
contrib extension.
This module has simple functions
I've got a table I've split into two, a portion that can be modified
under normal circumstances, and a portion that can't be. (In a testing
mode they both can be, but in production the user IDs doing the work
don't have update or delete access on the immutable portion. BTW, I'm
open to better
-Original Message-
From: Manfred Koizar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 May 2005 20:25
To: Manfred Koizar
Cc: Tom Lane; Greg Stark; Bruce Momjian; Mark Cave-Ayland
(External); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
(cut)
-Original Message-
From: Manfred Koizar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 May 2005 20:25
To: Manfred Koizar
Cc: Tom Lane; Greg Stark; Bruce Momjian; Mark Cave-Ayland
(External); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
(cut)
The
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of which, does anyone see a reason why RI_FKey_keyequal_upd()
is implemented as a pseudo-trigger function -- e.g. taking a pointer to
a TriggerData?
Because (a) it needs all the same arguments and (b) it can share
infrastructure with the other
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My question is: What happens if the system is killed inside
rebuild_relation or inside swap_relfilenodes which is called by
rebuild_relation?
Nothing at all, because the system catalog updates aren't committed yet,
and we
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Opt 32 32a32b2x32 64 64a 64b
O14.91 4.86 5.43 6.00 11.4 11.3911.39
O24.96 4.94 4.69 5.18 15.86 18.7524.73
O34.82 4.83 4.64
Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My question is: What happens if the system is killed inside
rebuild_relation or inside swap_relfilenodes which is called by
rebuild_relation?
Nothing at all, because the system catalog updates aren't
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CREATE VIEW offer AS
SELECT * FROM offer_immutable NATURAL JOIN offer_mutable;
In a transaction, when I try to commit, this does not work:
CREATE OR REPLACE RULE offer_delete AS
ON DELETE TO offer DO INSTEAD (
DELETE
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 May 2005 15:00
To: Mark Cave-Ayland (External)
Cc: 'Manfred Koizar'; 'Greg Stark'; 'Bruce Momjian';
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Mark Cave-Ayland
Tom Lane wrote:
Because (a) it needs all the same arguments
Well, it needs the Trigger that we're in the process of queueing, the
old tuple, the new tuple, and the updated relation. It doesn't need the
rest of the content of TriggerData. trigger.c has to manually construct
a TriggerData to
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 May 2005 15:00
To: Mark Cave-Ayland (External)
Cc: 'Manfred Koizar'; 'Greg Stark'; 'Bruce Momjian';
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
(cut)
Not sure I
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looking at the sequence, at least the relcache init file stuff looks if
not broken at least a bit heavy-handed...
I was planning to change that ;-) ... using separate 2PC action records
for the relcache init file actions would make it much better.
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(b) it can share infrastructure with the other RI triggers.
Such as? I don't see anything it allows us to share.
Note the ri_BuildQueryKeyFull call, and the arguments thereto.
As to the notational convenience issue, I think it's good that
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Should we not change it to bonjour as that is the actual name for it?
Done, in CVS.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 12:03 -0400, David Parker wrote:
Could somebody point me at the area of the source where this decision
gets made, and/or how difficult it would be to enable this logging?
This has just been fixed for 8.1, patch recently submitted.
In the meantime, use p6spy
Best Regards,
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Simon Riggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:45 AM
To: David Parker
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logging sql from JDBC
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 12:03 -0400, David Parker wrote:
Could somebody point me at
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 21:24 +0200, Manfred Koizar wrote:
WAL replay does not apply changes to nonexistent blocks,
but it keeps a list (hash table, file, whatever) of those blocks.
When a truncate WAL record is found, all entries for blocks affected
by the truncation are removed from the list.
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Same old same old: as soon as you've deleted from offer_mutable, there
is no row in the view with the given offer_id; and since OLD is a macro
for the view, the second delete finds nothing to do.
Oh, now I'm starting to see how this behavior does make
I've quite some trouble with the overlaps function:
SELECT overlaps('9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
'9.6.2005'::date);
returns true (these are german timestamps dd.mm.)
SELECT overlaps('8.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
'9.6.2005'::date);
returns
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know whether gcc is just producing an inefficient CRC32 compared to
2x32 but the results seem very odd There must be something else we are
missing?
I went back and looked at the code, and see that I was misled by
terminology: what we've
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
I've quite some trouble with the overlaps function:
SELECT overlaps('9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
'9.6.2005'::date);
returns true (these are german timestamps dd.mm.)
SELECT
On 5/27/05, Mario Weilguni wrote:
I've quite some trouble with the overlaps function:
SELECT overlaps('9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
'9.6.2005'::date);
returns true (these are german timestamps dd.mm.)
SELECT overlaps('8.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
Folks,
With OSCON 2005 (August 1-5) registration now open, I wanted to invite members
of the PostgreSQL community along on a field trip immediately following
OSCON. We will be visiting the offices of the National Weather Service and
of ODSL in Portland. Transportation will be provided
Tom Lane wrote:
Alternatively, we might say that 64-bit CRC was overkill from day one,
and we'd rather get the additional 10% or 20% or so speedup. I'm kinda
leaning in that direction, but only weakly.
Yes, I lean in that direction too since the CRC calculation is showing
up in our profiling.
Added to TODO:
* Add the features of packages
o Make private objects accessable only to objects in the same schema
o Allow current_schema.objname to access current schema objects
o Add session variables
o Allow nested schemas
Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've quite some trouble with the overlaps function:
SELECT overlaps('9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
'9.6.2005'::date);
returns true (these are german timestamps dd.mm.)
SELECT overlaps('8.6.2005'::date, '9.6.2005'::date,
Is the following behavior intended?
CREATE FUNCTION foo(INOUT x integer, INOUT y integer) AS $$
BEGIN
x := x * 10;
y := y * 10;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
SELECT * FROM foo(1, 2);
x | y
+
10 | 20
(1 row)
ALTER FUNCTION foo(integer, integer) IMMUTABLE;
SELECT * FROM foo(1,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think they may have intended to treat each time interval
as the half-open interval [S,T), that is S = time T. However
that would leave a zero-length interval as completely empty and
thereby arguably not overlapping anything ... which they didn't
make
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It may not be necessary at all. But what I meant is I don't know what
the default permissinos ar eon a shared mem/event object in the global
namespace. On the naemd pipe it's creator/owner full (so the postgres
account itself can issue kills),
I have removed the XML TODO item:
* Add XML output to pg_dump and COPY
We already allow XML to be stored in the database, and XPath queries
can be used on that data using /contrib/xml2. It also supports XSLT
transformations.
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the following behavior intended?
Nope. Thanks for the report ;-)
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
33 matches
Mail list logo
