And Dennis said:
It is only when you have a pattern like '%_' when this is a problem
and we could detect this and do byte by byte when it's not. Now we
check (*p == '\\') || (*p == '_') in each iteration when we scan over
characters for '%', and we could do it once and have different loops
With a small modification to src/tools/msvc/Install.pm (see attached
patch) it's possible for me to build with msvc and install postgres on a
Windows xp box and leave cygwin in the PATH. Since I use cygwin
frequently it's usfull for me to have it in the PATH.
This might not work on Win9x
Robert Mach wrote:
I see different ways of delivering this functionality to Postgresql. The
best of course would be to become part of Postgresql release either as a
PostgreSQL command (like UPDATE) or as an postgresql server application
like vacuumdb.
Other possibility is to create a
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
3) My personal favorite is create management console - which allows to
perform check without physically access to local machine. Management
console should be use for another purpose - for example disable/enable
databases from cluster, perform upgrade of datalayer to the
Hello,
I'd like to help reviewing patches, in particular the group index tupes (GIT)
patch by Heikki Linnakangas
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01264.php).
I've spoken with Alvaro about it, he gave me several links to the threads on
hackers related to the GIT patch and I
Hannes Eder wrote:
-open($D, dir /b $subdirs $spec |) || croak Could not list $spec\n;
+open($D, cmd /c dir /b $subdirs $spec |) || croak Could not list
$spec\n;
What the heck are we doing here anyway? We should be doing this a la
Perl - calling out to dir /b is surely not the
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before you explode at me (again :), I'm not arguing that you can do
binary based calculations of decimal numbers without having rounding
errors that come to bite you. I know you can't. What I'm saying is that
we have two cases to consider. In one of
Tom Lane wrote:
3. UTF8: % can advance bytewise. _ must check it is on a first byte
(else return match failure) and if so do NextChar. So primitives
are NextChar, NextByte, ByteEq, IsFirstByte.
We should only be able to get out of step from the %_ case, I believe,
so we should only
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We should only be able to get out of step from the %_ case, I believe,
so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is
in a different code path from the normal _ case. Does that seem right?
At least put Assert(IsFirstByte()) in
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We should only be able to get out of step from the %_ case, I believe,
so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is
in a different code path from the normal _ case. Does that seem right?
At least
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We should only be able to get out of step from the %_ case, I
believe, so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that
case (which is in a different code path from the normal _ case.
Does that seem
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am also wondering if it might be sensible to make this choice once at
backend startup and store a function pointer, instead of doing it for
every string processed by like/ilike:
if (pg_database_encoding_max_length() == 1)
return
Richard Huxton wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
3) My personal favorite is create management console - which allows to
perform check without physically access to local machine. Management
console should be use for another purpose - for example disable/enable
databases from cluster, perform upgrade
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
I believe pgadmin lets you update postgresql.conf remotely,
IIRC, it is possible only when you have some additional module/function
installed on server and it works only for pgadmin, not for psql.
It needs the adminpack contrib module installed in the maintenance DB
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
For the rest, that's what ssh is for imho.
And what you will do when you don't have ssh access on this machine and
5432 is only one way how to administrate a server? (Windows is another
story.)
If I've not got ssh access to the machine, then I'm
Richard Huxton wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
For the rest, that's what ssh is for imho.
And what you will do when you don't have ssh access on this machine
and 5432 is only one way how to administrate a server? (Windows is
another story.)
If I've not got ssh access
Hoping to resurrect this thread. I am seeing more and more of this as
the database gets more usage and it really messes up query log analysis.
A quick summary: When I posted this was getting corrupted query log
entries. I still am. They look like this (the problem line + one line
before and
Alexey Klyukin wrote:
What about proposition for indexam changes, I can't find any patches there ?
(http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/msg00125.html)
That mail is just discussion that lead to the patch below:
Is the patch for changing amgetmulti to amgetbitmap relevant to the GIT patch ?
I'm curious if there is a reason that SQL setof UDFs couldn't be inlined?
For example, given a sable setof SQL UDF like
CREATE TYPE uids AS (uid integer);
CREATE FUNCTION needs_secure(integer, integer) RETURNS SETOF uids AS $_$
SELECT uid FROM needs nsec WHERE
nsec.foo = $1 AND nsec.bar = $2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm curious if there is a reason that SQL setof UDFs couldn't be inlined?
Lack of round tuits, I think.
I seem to recall having looked at it awhile ago and concluded that it
wasn't quite trivial, but I forget why.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We should only be able to get out of step from the %_ case, I believe,
so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is
in a different code path from the normal _ case. Does that seem right?
At least
Hi,
LWN.net has published another article on our development process. This
times it focus on our stated lack of (or slowness of) progress in the
review of the 8.3 patch queue. It is an interesting read.
The article is at
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/235230/de029adb1cab0ab2/
--
Alvaro
Tom Lane wrote:
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before you explode at me (again :), I'm not arguing that you can do
binary based calculations of decimal numbers without having rounding
errors that come to bite you. I know you can't. What I'm saying is that
we have two cases to
23 matches
Mail list logo
