Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: I think this needs to be treated as experimental until it's got a few more than zero miles under its belt. OK, then maybe we should document that. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that we have to implement it as a run-time switch instead of compile-time, in order to not

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD
Why is this not the default when supported? Fear. Maybe eventually, but right now I think it's too risky. One point that I already found out the hard way is that sizeof(off_t) = 8 does not guarantee the availability of largefile support; there can also be filesystem-level

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD
Why is this not the default when supported? I am wondering both from the point of view of the user, and in terms of development direction. Also it would get more buildfarm coverage if it were default. If it breaks something we'll notice earlier. No we don't, because the buildfarm does

[HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Hi, I have encountered a strange pg_ctl's behavior in 8.3. pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 start-- works pg_ctl -w -o -i start -- works pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 -i start -- doesn't work In the last case, even postmaster starts successfully, pg_ctl keeps trying to make sure that postmaster actually started

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Richard Huxton
Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Hi, I have encountered a strange pg_ctl's behavior in 8.3. pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 start -- works pg_ctl -w -o -i start -- works pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 -i start -- doesn't work In the last case, even postmaster starts successfully, pg_ctl keeps trying to make sure

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Hi, I have encountered a strange pg_ctl's behavior in 8.3. pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 start-- works pg_ctl -w -o -i start -- works pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 -i start -- doesn't work In the last case, even postmaster starts successfully, pg_ctl keeps

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Richard Huxton
Richard Huxton wrote: Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Hi, I have encountered a strange pg_ctl's behavior in 8.3. pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 start-- works pg_ctl -w -o -i start-- works pg_ctl -w -o -p 5432 -i start-- doesn't work In the last case, even postmaster starts successfully, pg_ctl keeps

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Richard Huxton
Richard Huxton wrote: Hmm - that does seem to be the case. I added a line to print connstr along with the . waiting for server to startdbname=postgres port=5483 -i connect_timeout=5. The code looks fine to my uneducated eye though (bin/pg_ctl/pg_ctl.c test_postmaster_connection

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

2008-03-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Does it make any sense to allow LISTEN or UNLISTEN in a prepared transaction? It's certainly not sensical for these actions to affect the backend that actually executes the COMMIT PREPARED, in the sense of creating or destroying pg_listener entries for it. But how can we say

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] == Postgres Weekly News - March 09 2008 ==

2008-03-11 Thread Karsten Hilbert
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:16:52AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: - Add to TODO: Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status. Yes, please. I have recently been discussing this with Andreas, Bernd and Peter at Linuxtage Chemnitz. In GNUmed we want to be able to distinguish connection errors due

[HACKERS] Idea about sql command create table like

2008-03-11 Thread David BOURIAUD
Hello, I've seen that postgreSQL tries to follow sql standards as far as possible, and that sometimes (often) brings it's own extentions. I've thought of one concerning the sql command create table like. As far as I've understood the documentation, one can create a table using another table as

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Richard Huxton wrote: Richard Huxton wrote: Hmm - that does seem to be the case. I added a line to print connstr along with the . waiting for server to startdbname=postgres port=5483 -i connect_timeout=5. The code looks fine to my uneducated eye though

[HACKERS]COPY issue(gsoc project)

2008-03-11 Thread longlong
i want to paticipate in gsoc 2008. here is my plan: the red part is came from Greg Smith(thanks for Greg Smith's advice). 1.release8.2 make COPY TO can copy the output of an arbitrary SELECT statement. so i think maybe COPY FROM can get data from output and 'insert into' some column that

[HACKERS] [ANN] Now v8.3 based SE-PostgreSQL is available

2008-03-11 Thread KaiGai Kohei
It is an announcement of new version of SE-PostgreSQL. Now v8.3 based SE-PostgreSQL is available - SE-PostgreSQL development team published v8.3 based SE-PostgreSQL at: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development You can obtain the

Re: [HACKERS] strange pg_ctl's behavior

2008-03-11 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Line 52: #define WHITESPACE \f\n\r\t\v /* as defined by isspace() */ We've defined whitespace as not including a space character :-/ Yes, we fixed this on February 20 and the fix will appear in 8.3.1 and all back brances once a release is made. Thanks. I should have checked the CVS

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Applied with minor corrections. Why is this not the default when supported? Fear. Maybe eventually, but right now I think it's too risky. One point that I already found out the hard way is

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: So I'm thinking that PREPARE TRANSACTION should throw an error if any LISTEN or UNLISTEN is pending in the current transaction. For back-branches, I'm a bit hesitant to do that, as there might be applications that do LISTEN in a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I think this needs to be treated as experimental until it's got a few more than zero miles under its belt. OK, then maybe we should document that. Agreed, but at this point we don't even know what hazards we need to document.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly, e.g. AIX is one of those. jfs (not the newer jfs2) has an option to enable large files, which is not the default and cannot be changed post crfs. And even if it is enabled, jfs has a 64 Gb filesize limit ! Anybody know others that

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

2008-03-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To be honest, I didn't realize the receiver gets to know the PID of the sending process, but clearly it does. It seems mostly indifferent to me; it's not guaranteed that the PID is valid by the time the client application sees it

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status

2008-03-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:55:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Why do we keep the TODO file with the source code? Wouldn't it make more sense to store it separately? No idea --- it has always been there because it relates

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To be honest, I didn't realize the receiver gets to know the PID of the sending process, but clearly it does. It seems mostly indifferent to me; it's not guaranteed that the PID is

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN vs. two-phase commit

2008-03-11 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's a small window between backend A committing and sending a NOTIFY, and the time client B receives the notification from backend B through the connection and reacts to it. Sorry, I was unclear: the case that's of interest is

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have added a TODO: o Set up autovacuum to ignore statement_timeout set in postgresql.conf http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg01753.php and documented this behavior with the attached patch; backpatched to 8.3.X.

Re: [HACKERS] Background LRU Writer/free list

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Consider adding buffers the BGW finds reusable to the free list http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-04/msg00781.php * Automatically tune bgwriter_delay based on activity rather then using a fixed interval

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: I have added a TODO: o Set up autovacuum to ignore statement_timeout set in postgresql.conf http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg01753.php and documented this behavior with the attached patch; backpatched to 8.3.X.

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hmm, AFAIR subsequent investigation led to the discovery that autovacuum is not affected by statement_timeout. Right -- see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/80044/focus=93847 So your documentation changes are incorrect. -- Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: I have added a TODO: o Set up autovacuum to ignore statement_timeout set in postgresql.conf http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg01753.php and documented this behavior with the attached

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Tom Lane napsal(a): Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly, e.g. AIX is one of those. jfs (not the newer jfs2) has an option to enable large files, which is not the default and cannot be changed post crfs. And even if it is enabled, jfs has a 64 Gb filesize limit ! Anybody

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hmm, AFAIR subsequent investigation led to the discovery that autovacuum is not affected by statement_timeout. Right -- see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/80044/focus=93847 Or even more to the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane napsal(a): These examples suggest that maybe what we want is not so much a no segments ever mode as a segment size larger than 1GB. PS: ZFS is happy with 2^64bit size and UFS has 1TB file size limit (depends on solaris version) So even on

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane napsal(a): These examples suggest that maybe what we want is not so much a no segments ever mode as a segment size larger than 1GB. PS: ZFS is happy with 2^64bit size and UFS has 1TB file size limit (depends on solaris

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] encoding problems

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Cliff Nieuwenhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure how to ask this question. I have written a function, and with PostgreSQL 8.0.13 I can do a \df+ and see something like this under Source Code: DECLARE result text; ... If I create the same function on my

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Tom Lane napsal(a): Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane napsal(a): These examples suggest that maybe what we want is not so much a no segments ever mode as a segment size larger than 1GB. PS: ZFS is happy with 2^64bit size and UFS has 1TB file size limit (depends on solaris

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hmm, AFAIR subsequent investigation led to the discovery that autovacuum is not affected by statement_timeout. Right -- see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/80044/focus=93847

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think current patch could stay in CVS and I will rip out non segment code path in a new patch. Sure, I feel no need to revert what's applied. Have at it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

[HACKERS] simple plpgsql / sql function question

2008-03-11 Thread Joshua
Hello, I have a series of SQL Update statements. I would like to write a function which runs all of the SQL Update statements one at a time, in order from top to bottom. Can somebody share the basic syntax that I would need to write the aforementioned function? Please let me know. Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Zdenek Kotala wrote: Yes, agree. It seems only ZFS is OK at this moment and if somebody sets 32TB he gets nonsegment mode anyway. Surely if you set the segment size to INT64_MAX, you will get nonsegmented behavior anyway, so two code paths might not be necessary at all. I looked into posix

Re: [HACKERS] temporal variants of generate_series()

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Add temporal versions of generate_series() http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-04/msg01180.php --- Jim Nasby wrote: On May 6, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby [EMAIL

[HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, O.k. this appeared easy enough for even me to do it. So I did. It seems to work but I wasn't 100% positive on where I put the code changes. Please take a look. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997:

Re: [HACKERS] simple plpgsql / sql function question

2008-03-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have a series of SQL Update statements. I would like to write a function which runs all of the SQL Update statements one at a time, in order from top to bottom. Can somebody share the basic syntax that I would need

Re: [HACKERS] simple plpgsql / sql function question

2008-03-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a series of SQL Update statements. I would like to write a function which runs all of the SQL Update statements one at a time, in order from top to bottom. Can somebody share the basic syntax that I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status

2008-03-11 Thread Greg Smith
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Magnus Hagander wrote: How about we move it to the wiki. AFAIK we can still lock it down to who can edit it if we want to You should confirm you can get the editing granularity you want before making too many plans here if this is important. The features for locking

Re: [HACKERS] simple plpgsql / sql function question

2008-03-11 Thread Joshua
Thanks for the info. I will make sure to direct these types of questions to the 'general' list in the future. Thanks again for your help!!! Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have a series of SQL Update statements. I would

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support)

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: Maybe we can put additional test into configure and collect appropriate data from buildfarm. It might be good to just check first if it returns realistic values for the example cases that have been mentioned. Yeah, please just

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0700 Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the -c version :) (thanks bruce) Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference:

Re: [HACKERS] Planning large IN lists

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Consider using a hash for joining to a large IN (VALUES ...) list http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00450.php --- Atul Deopujari wrote: Hi, Tom Lane wrote: Neil Conway

Re: [HACKERS] Sorted writes in checkpoint

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Consider sorting writes during checkpoint http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00541.php --- ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007,

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET statement_timeout=0 to the pg_dump file? I hope not. That should be the user's choice. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x14964AC8

Re: [HACKERS] What is the maximum encoding-conversion growth rate, anyway?

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Change memory allocation for multi-byte functions so memory is allocated inside conversion functions Currently we preallocate memory based on worst-case usage. --- Tom Lane wrote: Tatsuo Ishii

Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_' http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php --- Alvaro Herrera wrote: Zdenek Kotala wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce

Re: [HACKERS] Fractions in GUC variables

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: o Consider normalizing fractions in postgresql.conf, perhaps using '%' http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00550.php --- Heikki Linnakangas wrote: We have

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET statement_timeout=0 to the pg_dump file? I hope not. That should be the user's choice. Would anyone want to limit the load time for pg_dump? I can hardly see why. --

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET statement_timeout=0 to the pg_dump file?

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET

Re: [HACKERS] Estimating geometric distributions

2008-03-11 Thread Stephen Denne
I wrote: I have a field whose distribution of frequencies of values is roughly geometric, rather than flat. My problem is frequent over-estimation of rows when restricting by this field with values not known at plan time. Is there any facility already in PostgreSQL to help me

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET statement_timeout=0 to the pg_dump file? I hope not. That should be the user's choice. Would anyone want to limit the load time for

Re: [HACKERS] Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Consider wither increasing BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT improves performance http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg01007.php --- Gregory Stark wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Re: [HACKERS] Restartable signals 'n all that

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Research use of signals and sleep wake ups http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg3.php --- Tom Lane wrote: While poking at the vacuum-launcher issue currently under discussion,

Re: [HACKERS]COPY issue(gsoc project)

2008-03-11 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 20:56 +0800, longlong wrote: This would be a nice feature. Right now there are often applications where there is a data loading or staging table that ends up being merged with a larger table after some cleanup. Moving that data from the preperation area into the final

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql and qualified variable names

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to pl/pgsql TODO: o Improve logic of determining if an identifier is a a variable or column name http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00436.php --- Tom Lane wrote: I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] allow CSV quote in NULL

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO for COPY: o Allow COPY in CSV mode to control whether is treated as NULL http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00905.php --- Andrew Dunstan wrote: [redirecting to

Re: [HACKERS]COPY issue(gsoc project)

2008-03-11 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 15:18 -0700, Neil Conway wrote: Note also that pg_bulkload currently does something analogous to this outside of the DBMS proper: http://pgbulkload.projects.postgresql.org/ Sorry, wrong project. I mean pgloader: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgloader/ -Neil --

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

2008-03-11 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Bruce asks: Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump dump --- are we going to add SET statement_timeout=0 to the pg_dump file? I hope not. That should be the user's choice. Would anyone want to limit the load time for

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention

2008-03-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Is this still a TODO? --- Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:20 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: Jignesh Shah's scalability testing on Solaris has revealed further tuning opportunities surrounding the start and end

Fwd: [HACKERS]COPY issue(gsoc project)

2008-03-11 Thread longlong
-- Forwarded message -- From: longlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008-3-12 9:42 Subject: Re: [HACKERS]COPY issue(gsoc project) To: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] the first feature has been implementet. i used to ignore the pid column with the command copy tablename (columns) from

[HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function

2008-03-11 Thread Richard Wang
I expected 0 ^ 123.3 to be 0, but it reported error as follows postgres=# select 0 ^ 123.3; ERROR: cannot take logarithm of zero I find that there is a bug in numeric_power() function the function caculates a ^ b based on the algorithm e ^ (lna * b) as you see, ln0 is not valid -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function

2008-03-11 Thread Dann Corbit
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-hackers- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Wang Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:38 PM To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function I expected 0 ^ 123.3 to be 0, but it reported

Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function

2008-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Richard Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I expected 0 ^ 123.3 to be 0, but it reported error as follows postgres=# select 0 ^ 123.3; ERROR: cannot take logarithm of zero Hmm, seems like the numeric and float8 power operators don't agree about 0^0 either... regards, tom