2007/5/3, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
On Wed, 2007-25-04 at 07:12 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
example: I have table with attr. cust_id, and I want to use parametrized
view (table function) where I
On 4/25/07, Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for me RETURNS TABLE (a,b) isn't equialent for (OUT a, OUT b) RETURNS SETOF
RECORD, but
it's eq. for RETURNS SETOF RECORD ... and SELECT FROM foo() AS (a, b).
Reason:
example: I have table with attr. cust_id, and I want to use parametrized
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
We can fix this for gcc by putting __attribute__((noreturn)) on the
declaration of pg_re_throw(), but what about other compilers?
Sun studio also complains about it :(.
I'm sorry it was to late for me, I recheck it again and Sun studio is
happy :-)
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Is the reason for keeping this in a code? Another kind of construct is:
#define PG_RETURN_NULL() \
do { fcinfo-isnull = true; return (Datum) 0; } while (0)
This is a standard way of getting multiple statements into a macro.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Is the reason for keeping this in a code? Another kind of construct is:
#define PG_RETURN_NULL() \
do { fcinfo-isnull = true; return (Datum) 0; } while (0)
This is a standard way of
Just take 150-199, and submit a patch to HACKERS to updates the comment
in pg_statistic appropriately. I am sure the it will be some time before
we invent another 49 kinds of selectivity statistic.
P
Ale Raza wrote:
Tom,
What numbers you can reserve for our geometry type, 200 - 299?
Ale.
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:38:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could we show it in EXPLAIN ANALYZE somehow? I'm thinking it would be good
to see at runtime (for example as a hint that if you put in a bit more
Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just take 150-199, and submit a patch to HACKERS to updates the comment
in pg_statistic appropriately. I am sure the it will be some time before
we invent another 49 kinds of selectivity statistic.
I've been on the wrong wavelength in this whole thread
It's not exactly easy to do, because (a) none of this information
is exposed outside tuplesort.c, and (b) the tuplesortstate object
is probably gone by the time EXPLAIN ANALYZE runs, anyway.
Hmm. Ok. Don't know enough about those parts of the code to comment on
that, but I'll certainly
On May 4, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
What do you think the output should look like? The first thought that
comes to mind is to add method=memory (or disk or top-N) to the
actual annotation:
regression=# explain analyze select * from tenk1 order by fivethous
limit 100;
Tom, Pavel,
Hmm, I see your point. I'm personally satisfied with adding a new
proargmode to solve this as you suggest.
This will break client-side code that looks at proargmode, and I don't
think the argument in favor is strong enough to justify that ...
What kind of client-side code are
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On a related note, it would also be *really* nice if we kept stats on
how many sorts or hashes had spilled to disk, perhaps along with how
much had spilled. Right now the only way to monitor that in a
production system is to setup a cron job to watch
What do you think the output should look like? The first thought that
comes to mind is to add method=memory (or disk or top-N) to the
actual annotation:
Having the disk and memory would be really useful too.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 01:19, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, that can happen with the current system. The real blocker there
is that some people, particularly Tom, work so fast that there's no
chance for a new reviewer to tackle the easy stuff. Maybe the
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the method is disk it would be nice to know how much spilled to
disk. That would tell you if it would be worth increasing work_mem,
and by how much.
Well, a more radical proposal is to add a whole 'nother line to the
output, which would give us room
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom, Pavel,
Hmm, I see your point. I'm personally satisfied with adding a new
proargmode to solve this as you suggest.
This will break client-side code that looks at proargmode, and I don't
think the argument in favor is strong enough to justify that ...
What kind of
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Sort (cost=840.19..865.19 rows=1 width=244) (actual
time=140.492..140.880 rows=100 loops=1 method=top-N)
Sort
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, you can turn on trace_sort and track it from watching the log.
If pgfouine hasn't got something for that already, I'd be surprised.
Well, it hasn't. I never used trace_sort so i didn't think of
implementing something to use it. I'll take a look
I think this is the apprach joshua tried the first time and it backfired... I
think we need a more personal approach. I'm willing to put time into this if
people want a new point man (I don't think Joshua will mind, lmk if you do)
but it will have to wait untill after pgcon.
On Thursday 03
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sort Method: disk Memory: 1000KB Disk: 18482KB
+1 for this one.
--
Guillaume
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it possible to have something like Sort (disk|top-N|memory) instead
of Sort?
That would be sane if the decision were fixed at plan time, but it isn't.
What do you think of the add-a-line approach?
regards, tom lane
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sort Method: disk Memory: 1000KB Disk: 18482KB
+1 for this one.
I like that one too ...
Stefan
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet,
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is it that we record grantor at all? One could argue that granting
membership in a role is done on behalf of that role and there's no real
need to remember exactly who did it.
I think you should ask Stephen Frost about that
Tom,
Did you restart Postgres and drop file system caches?
What I am suspecting is that some sort of prefetching is happening.
I know that Postgres does not do prefetching.
I also understand very little about OS/FileSystem level prefetching.
- Original Message
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I took a look, and concluded that the only bit of code that uses the
grantor at all is pg_dumpall.
Does this means we can remove it altogether? In back branches, we would
take out the pg_dumpall code.
I don't have time right at the moment
Stephen Frost wrote:
I don't have time right at the moment (leaving shortly and will be gone
all weekend) but what I would do is check the SQL standard, especially
the information schema, for any requirement to track the grantor. Much
of what I did was based on the standard so that may have
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
I don't have time right at the moment (leaving shortly and will be gone
all weekend) but what I would do is check the SQL standard, especially
the information schema, for any requirement to track the grantor. Much
of what I did was based on
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ah, here it is, 12.7 revoke statement. It says that if role revokes
another role from a third role, it will only remove the privileges that
were granted by him, not someone else.
Hmm. I'm not sure, but that may have been a case where it was
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. I'm not sure, but that may have been a case where it was generally
decided that the spec was somewhat braindead in this fashion (it seems
so in my personal view of this, honestly...). To issue a revoke and
have it not work would be kind of
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sort Method: disk Memory: 1000KB Disk: 18482KB
+1 for this one.
I like that one too ...
OK, in the event it looks like one of these four messages:
Sort Method:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. I'm not sure, but that may have been a case where it was generally
decided that the spec was somewhat braindead in this fashion (it seems
so in my personal view of this, honestly...). To issue a revoke and
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're saying we don't currently warn if a revoke leaves the
priviledges in-tact for the right and target, I'm not sure you can
currently get in a state where it'd be possible to run into that.
I'm thinking of the case that comes up periodically where
Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that the sane course of
action is to continue to register the grantor, because the standard
mandates that it should be there; but ignore the parts where we revoke
selectively, because that's a stupid thing to do. So we do deviate, if
slightly.
So we
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're saying we don't currently warn if a revoke leaves the
priviledges in-tact for the right and target, I'm not sure you can
currently get in a state where it'd be possible to run into that.
I'm thinking
Awhile back I wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, is the attached patch about what you had in mind? (It probably only
covers normal types at the moment.)
Hm, I hadn't realized that it would take as little work as that ...
I have an itchy feeling that you missed
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 13:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I believe the problem is not that there isn't enough information, but
not enough people able to do the work. Seeking solutions in areas that
aren't helping was the illustration.
Yes Bruce, but you're failing to see that
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
Get rid of gborg and let's talk.
Touche'.
Actually, AFAICT, the only active thing left on GBorg is WWW. If we move
that, we can shut it down. Any objections?
Why am I having to spend hours in Syndey saying the same thing? ?Why
don't you guys go ahead
I have already responded to all the email comments. Here is my idea of
moving forward. There are basically three interrelated issues:
1) bug tracking
2) getting more people to review complex patches
3) patch tracking
I am not going to go into #1, except to say that the problem has always
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have already responded to all the email comments. Here is my idea of
moving forward. There are basically three interrelated issues:
1) bug tracking
2) getting more people to review complex patches
3) patch tracking
I am not going to go into #1, except to say
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I will say publicly what I have said to others privately. Forgive me if
I'm a bit blunter than usual. I do not see any value in this at all.
What we need to track are problems to be solved, be they bugs or
features, not particular patches. Tracking patches simply comes
Hello!
I have a potential situation where I will have a lot of sensor data coming
in very often. (every second or so) The sensor data is from physics type
measurements, and will normally follow a slowly changing pattern with
sinusoidal disturbances. The overall shape of the data is more
On May 4, 2007, at 10:13 PM, Nathan Buchanan wrote:
Hello!
I have a potential situation where I will have a lot of sensor data
coming in very often. (every second or so) The sensor data is from
physics type measurements, and will normally follow a slowly
changing pattern with sinusoidal
42 matches
Mail list logo
