Re: [HACKERS] spinlocks on powerpc

2012-01-01 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: it might be that the only machines that actually spit up on the hint bit (rather than ignore it) were 32-bit, in which case this would be a usable heuristic. Not sure how we can research that ... do we want to just assume the kernel guys know what they're doing? I did a bit of

Re: [HACKERS] spinlocks on powerpc

2012-01-01 Thread Manabu Ori
-TAS_SPIN-20120101.diff Description: Binary data BTW, while reading the ISA document I couldn't help noticing that LWARX is clearly specified to operate on 4-byte quantities (there's LDARX if you want to use 8-byte). Which seems to mean that this bit in s_lock.h just represents bogus waste of space

Re: [HACKERS] review: CHECK FUNCTION statement

2012-01-01 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello all here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch I changed implementation of interface: * checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it allow to use better structured data then ExceptionData postgres=#

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

2012-01-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 30.12.2011 02:40, Daniel Farina wrote: How about this revised protocol (names and adjustments welcome), to enable a less-terrible approach? Not only is that workaround incorrect (it has a small window where the system will not be able to restart), but it's pretty inconvenient. New concepts:

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

2012-01-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 14:18, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 30.12.2011 02:40, Daniel Farina wrote: How about this revised protocol (names and adjustments welcome), to enable a less-terrible approach?  Not only is that workaround incorrect (it has a small

Re: [HACKERS] alternate psql file locations

2012-01-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/31/2011 04:26 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of sáb dic 31 12:52:02 -0300 2011: It's not a big thing, but I just found myself in a shared environment wanting to be able

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

2012-01-01 Thread Daniel Farina
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: That's awfully complicated. If we're going to require co-operation from the backup/archiving software, we might as well just change the procedure so that backup_label is not stored in the data

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

2012-01-01 Thread Daniel Farina
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: It also doesn't affect backups taken through pg_basebackup - but I guess you have good reasons for not being able to use that? Parallel archiving/de-archiving and segmentation of the backup into pieces and rate limiting

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

2012-01-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? I was able to nail down the problem. In the absence of reaction, to keep my promise, I'm sending the

[HACKERS] controlling the location of server-side SSL files

2012-01-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I think I would like to have a set of GUC parameters to control the location of the server-side SSL files. In a setup that has all the other configuration files under /etc, the SSL files ought to go there as well. (For comparison, most email and web servers keep them there.) Having them in the

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL return value in after triggers

2012-01-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned, even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would make things a bit more robust and

Re: [HACKERS] information schema/aclexplode doesn't know about default privileges

2012-01-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On sön, 2011-11-27 at 17:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: This ought to show EXECUTE privilege on the new function, but it doesn't, because proacl is null, and nothing in the information schema handles that specially. I've pondered some ways to fix

[HACKERS] sorting operators in pg_dump

2012-01-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Currently, pg_dump sorts operators by name, but operators with the same name come out in random order. A few releases ago we adjusted this for functions, so that they are in increasing number of arguments order. I'd like to do this for operators as well, so that they come out in order, say,

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL return value in after triggers

2012-01-01 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/1/2 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net: On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned, even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger fired AFTER.  I was wondering if we could relax that.  

Re: [HACKERS] spinlocks on powerpc

2012-01-01 Thread Tom Lane
Manabu Ori manabu@gmail.com writes: I recreated the patch as you advised. Hmm, guess I wasn't clear --- we still need a configure test, since even if we are on PPC64 there's no guarantee that the assembler will accept the hint bit. I revised the patch to include a configure test and

Re: [HACKERS] SEGFAULT on SELECT * FROM view

2012-01-01 Thread chris r.
I ported the entire schema to my test DB server and could not reproduce the error there. Note that probably recreating the view solves this issue. Given this, how should I proceed to create a test case? Any tutorial on this? (I'm not too familiar with all this yet.) It's possibly