Re: [HACKERS] git: uh-oh

2010-08-21 Thread Michael Haggerty
Max Bowsher wrote: On 20/08/10 19:07, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:56, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote: On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote: On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Sergio A. Kessler
The current system give people the completely false impression that 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar. On what planet? on every single planet of the universe, except the one called postgrearth, whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from postgresql mailing lists... :-) most people I

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 08/20/2010 09:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote: Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice thing about Semantic Versions is that if you append any ASCII string to the third integer, it automatically means less

Re: [HACKERS] Vaccum and analyze counters in pgstat

2010-08-21 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 15:49, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Attached is a patch that adds columns to pg_stat_*_tables for number of [auto]vacuum and [auto]analyze runs on a table, completing the current one that just had the last time these

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:45 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: hmm FWIW I would interpret something like 9.0.1B4 as the forth beta release for the first point release of the major release 9.0 bis seems stupid and is not anything we have done before. It does't make sense for PostgreSQL, no. You

Re: [HACKERS] security hook on authorization

2010-08-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Aug 20, 2010, at 8:27 PM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: (2010/08/20 23:34), Robert Haas wrote: 2010/8/19 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com: I think our standard criteria for the inclusion of hooks is that you must demonstrate that the hook can be used to do something interesting

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler sergiokess...@gmail.com wrote: on every single planet of the universe, except the one called postgrearth, whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from postgresql mailing lists... :-) most people I know, think 8.1 is just 8.0 with some

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:00 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler sergiokess...@gmail.com wrote: on every single planet of the universe, except the one called postgrearth, whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from postgresql mailing lists...

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] COPY FROM/TO losing a single byte of a multibyte UTF-8 sequence

2010-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
Steven Schlansker ste...@trumpet.io writes: Anyway, it looks like this is actually a BSD bug which got copy + pasted into Apple's Darwin source - http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-i18n/2007-September/000157.html I've applied a patch for this to HEAD 9.0:

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes: PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space developers do. I.e; PHP people. This is utter nonsense. We're a database, not a desktop. People who even

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: There was *NEVER* a Windows NT 4.0.x, there was Windows NT 4.0 SP2. I'm not sure what you're point is here. There was a NT 4.0 followed by SP1 through SP6. followed by NT 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, and 7.0. They also

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes: PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space developers do. I.e; PHP people. This is utter

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 03:34:35AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: It's possible that we're arguing for the sake of arguing No it's not! ;) Yes it is! ;) It's nice to be able to keep track of the major version number without running out of fingers (at least for a few more years) and

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space developers do. I.e; PHP people. Uhm

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote: I'm not sure what you're point is here. Argh! This thread is almost enough to make me believe in adding recalls to smtp. I can't even blame this one on my flaky keyboard this time. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 18:24 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: There was *NEVER* a Windows NT 4.0.x, there was Windows NT 4.0 SP2. I'm not sure what you're point is here. There was a NT 4.0 followed by SP1 through SP6.

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 18:35 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote: I'm not sure what you're point is here. Argh! This thread is almost enough to make me believe in adding recalls to smtp. I can't even blame this one on my flaky keyboard

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: Q. Do we have a problem? A. Some of our contributors, even some very experienced contributors feel we do. Q. What is the problem we are trying to solve? A. That users, especially those that are less technical are

[HACKERS] Replacing the pg_get_expr security hack with a datatype solution

2010-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1. Right offhand the outlines of a cleaner solution look pretty obvious: * Create a datatype with the same internal representation as TEXT; make its input and recv routines throw errors, while the output routines just reuse textout/textsend. * Provide

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing the pg_get_expr security hack with a datatype solution

2010-08-21 Thread Thom Brown
On 21 August 2010 20:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: * Change all system catalog columns holding expression trees to be declared as this type. *snip* We could go with something like pg_parse_tree, perhaps.  Or maybe that's overthinking it. How about pg_expr_tree? -- Thom Brown

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Peter Geoghegan
Or at least to RTFM if they don't. If this were true, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is, nor would our mailing lists be anywhere near as busy as they are. This thread is as long as it is principally because people generally bikeshed about things that are easy to understand, and are fun

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing the pg_get_expr security hack with a datatype solution

2010-08-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1. One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get less testing. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing the pg_get_expr security hack with a datatype solution

2010-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1. One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get less testing. Less testing than what?

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing the pg_get_expr security hack with a datatype solution

2010-08-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Aug 21, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We agreed that we ought to do $SUBJECT in 9.1. One argument against this is that it might cause the current fix to get

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering

2010-08-21 Thread Wolfgang Wilhelm
I don´t have any problem with PostgreSQL version numbering, to the contrary. The only thing I didn´t like was Postgres95, but I didn´t use Pg then. But since then it´s _consistent_ and I really appreciate that. I could live with, say, version 9.12.0 in a dozend years. I accept the alpha, beta

[HACKERS] small makeVar refactoring

2010-08-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
While hacking around, I noticed that a lot of makeVar() calls could be refactored into some convenience functions, to save some redundancy and so that the unusual call patterns stand out better. Useful? Index: src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c

Re: [HACKERS] small makeVar refactoring

2010-08-21 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: While hacking around, I noticed that a lot of makeVar() calls could be refactored into some convenience functions, to save some redundancy and so that the unusual call patterns stand out better. Useful? I'm not real thrilled with importing

[HACKERS] pg_archivecleanup debug message consistency

2010-08-21 Thread Erik Rijkers
pg_archivecleanup -d (=verbose/DEBUG mode) mainly emits 2 types of messages: pg_archivecleanup: keep WAL file 00010002 and later and: pg_archivecleanup: removing file /var/data2/pg_stuff/dump/hotprime/replication_archive/0001001B I found it a bit annoying to

Re: [HACKERS] Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?

2010-08-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: On further reflection, though: since we put in the BufferAccessStrategy code, which was in 8.3, the background writer isn't *supposed* to be very much involved in writing pages that are dirtied by VACUUM. VACUUM runs in a small ring of buffers and is supposed to have