On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I've asked for this a few times before, but it seems others aren't as
>> keen on it as me :-) Personally, I find the docs easier to read when
>> formatted with the new website styles tha
Robert Haas writes:
> I think I agree Tom's position upthread: blaming the coercion seems to
> me to make more sense. But if that's what we're trying to do, then
> why does parse_coerce() say this?
> /*
> * Set up to point at the constant's text if the input routine throws
>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> this doesn't feel like the right time to embark on a bunch of new
>> engineering projects.
>
> IMHO this is exactly the right time to do full system tuning. Only
> when we have major proj
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Tom's point example does not seem to be problematic to me - the cast
> *should* blame the 42 const token, as the cast doesn't work as a
> result of its representation, which is in point of fact why the core
> system blames the Const node an
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:03, Greg Smith wrote:
>> On 01/15/2012 12:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Please follow the style already used for system catalogs; ie I think
>>> there should be a summary table with one entry per view, and then
Robert Haas writes:
> A quick Google search for external sorting algorithms suggest that the
> typical way of doing an external sort is to read data until you fill
> your in-memory buffer, quicksort it, and dump it out as a run. Repeat
> until end-of-data; then, merge the runs (either in a single
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I've asked for this a few times before, but it seems others aren't as
> keen on it as me :-) Personally, I find the docs easier to read when
> formatted with the new website styles that Thom put together, and I
> also like to see things the
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> If there seems to be a consensus on removing system column from foreign
>>> tables, I'd like to work on this issue. Attached is a halfway patch,
>>> and ISTM there is no problem so far.
>>
>>
>> I can say that at least PgAdmin doesn't use the
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I'm not sure about the conclusion, but given this discussion, I'm
>> inclined to mark this Returned with Feedback.
>
> OK, thanks. Does anyone have additional feed-back on how tightly we
> wish to manage memory usage? Is trying to make us use
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2012-02-25 at 14:21 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Well, I'm trying to invoke the extension's "make check" target at
>> extension build time. I do have a temporary installation I own
>> somehwere in my $HOME, but that is still tr
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> This
>> seems like a horrid mess that's going to be unsustainable both from a
>> complexity and a performance standpoint. The only reason multixacts
>> were tolerable at all was that they had only one semantics. Changing
>> it so that ma
On 02/26/2012 08:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, A.M. wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_(computer_science)
So a function could be described as "REFERENTIALLY TRANSPARENT".
Hmm, I think that's very close to what we're lo
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, A.M. wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_(computer_science)
>> So a function could be described as "REFERENTIALLY TRANSPARENT".
> Hmm, I think that's very close to what we're looking for. It might be
> slightly s
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, A.M. wrote:
> If you are willing to go full length, then the computer science term is
> "referential transparency", no?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_(computer_science)
>
> So a function could be described as "REFERENTIALLY TRANSPARENT"
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-11-29 at 06:33 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > > I'm not trying to inherit a relation, I'm trying to base a table on
>> > > it. As it happens, "cows" is a foreign table, which *is* a table,
>> > > just not a regular table
On Feb 26, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-02-22 at 10:56 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> The trouble with "leakproof" is that it
>> doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information
>> rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without fu
On 26 February 2012 19:49, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 26 February 2012 14:12, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Thanks for your further testing!
>>
>> Thom Brown writes:
>>> Further testing reveals a problem with FTS configurations when using
>>> the example function provided in the docs:
>>
>> Could you s
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Given that, I obviously cannot test this at this point,
>
> Patch with minor corrections attached here for further review.
All right, I will set up some benchmarks with this version, and
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:46:16PM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> - rename to PQrecvRow() and additionally provide PQgetRow()
I tried it and it seems to work as API - there is valid behaviour
for both sync and async connections.
Sync connection - PQgetRow() waits for data from network:
if (
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, what I should have asked is "are you running Lion?".
> Because with libedit on Lion, tab completion is 100% broken, as per
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01642.php
> This is just the latest installment in a lon
On 26 February 2012 14:12, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Thanks for your further testing!
>
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Further testing reveals a problem with FTS configurations when using
>> the example function provided in the docs:
>
> Could you send me your tests so that I add them to the proper regr
Hi!
I admit to not having actually tested this since I don't have a good
cluster to test it on right now, but from what I can tell the code in
the new checkpointer process only sends statistics to the collector
once the checkpoint is finished (checkpointer.c, line 549). The 9.1
and earlier sent th
On 24.02.2012 22:55, Simon Riggs wrote:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, we discussed ways to speed up
data loads/COPY.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00470.php
In particular, the idea that we could mark tuples as committed while
we are still loading them, to avoid
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> For TRIGGER, I cannot thinking of any way. Any idea will be
> welcome.
It would require creating "cooperating" triggers in the database and
having a listener, but you might consider the
triggered_change_notifications() trigger function included in 9.2.
It works at least
On ons, 2012-02-22 at 10:56 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The trouble with "leakproof" is that it
> doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information
> rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without further
> hints. I'm not sure any single English word would be
On lör, 2012-02-25 at 14:21 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Well, I'm trying to invoke the extension's "make check" target at
> extension build time. I do have a temporary installation I own
> somehwere in my $HOME, but that is still trying to find extensions in
> /usr/share/postgresql/9.1/extension
Hello
I tested creating some larger indexes
There was a warning:
postgres=# CREATE INDEX idx_resource_name ON resource (name, tid);
WARNING: concurrent insert in progress within table "resource"
I am sure so there was only one active session - so this warning is strange.
postgres=# select ve
Thanks for your further testing!
Thom Brown writes:
> Further testing reveals a problem with FTS configurations when using
> the example function provided in the docs:
Could you send me your tests so that I add them to the proper regression
test? I've been lazy on one or two object types and ob
Hello
I rechecked Depesz's article -
http://www.depesz.com/2011/07/01/waiting-for-9-2-not-valid-checks/
The behave of current HEAD is different than behave described in article.
"alter table a validate constraint a_a_check" needs a access exclusive
locks and blocks table modification - I tested
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 13:55 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > By default, a trigger function runs as the table owner, ie it's
> implicitly SEC DEF
> > to the table owner.
>
> Really? That's certainly what I would *want*, but it's not what I've
> seen.
Yes, you're right, that was my recollection
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 23:00 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET
That would probably create too much confusion with "discrete".
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 10:40 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tor, 2012-02-23 at 23:41 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> >> As it turns out, evidence would suggests that the "ISO" output in
> >> Postgres isn't, unless there's an ISO standard
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
> = Project Reports: 5 minutes from each project
> * Hot Standby/Binary Replication
> * pgPoolII
> * PostgresXC
> * Your Project Here
I'd like some time to discuss my new project: Bi-Directional
Replication for Core. I don't have all
33 matches
Mail list logo
