Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application

2012-04-11 Thread Hitoshi Harada
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I think we are back on the initial approach I proposed(hooking directly into the JVM and executing Java code that calls JDBC).I think the best way to do this is create a JVM that executes the Java code and give

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application

2012-04-11 Thread Atri Sharma
I think Multicorn is a good example, which invokes Python from FDW routines though it is not using PL/Python. http://multicorn.org/ Hi Hitoshi, Thanks for the link. You mean,I should try to build something like Multicorn for Java? Atri -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.comjavascript:; wrote: On 11 April 2012 02:14, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: My perception of what's going on here is dramatically different from

[HACKERS] [Patch] Fix little typo in a comment

2012-04-11 Thread Etsuro Fujita
This is a little patch to fix a typo in contrib/file_fdw. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita file_fdw_typo_fix.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Another review of URI for libpq, v7 submission

2012-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun abr 09 16:41:50 -0300 2012: There are three minor things that need to be changed for this to be committable: Committed this patch after some more editorialization; in particular the test was rewritten so that instead of trying to connect, it uses

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Daniel Farina
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: However exactly the list turns out, there is no question that non-committers have been quite successful in getting significant feature enhancements committed in each of the last three releases, and I'm pretty confident

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

2012-04-11 Thread Shigeru HANADA
Hi all, (2012/03/07 3:39), Tom Lane wrote: A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports, which is bad design on its face. It would be much more sensible for dblink to be asking libpq what options

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Greg Smith
On 04/10/2012 09:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I wouldn't object to creating some doc-only committers. OTOH, I would object to anyone making non-trivial documentation enhancements without posting their patches first and having a second person look it over, so how much difference is there, really?

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests

2012-04-11 Thread k...@rice.edu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:53:06AM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On 11 April 2012 01:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 11 April 2012 00:35, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: If people need something like that, couldn't they create

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 04/10/2012 09:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I wouldn't object to creating some doc-only committers. OTOH, I would object to anyone making non-trivial documentation enhancements without posting their patches first and having a second person look it over,

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 11 April 2012 03:26, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: [ scratches head... ]  That's supposed to be total lines of code in our source tree?  What's the big drop in late 2009, then? I had wondered about that myself - all I can tell you is that I used the tool as advertised, without any

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 16:24, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 04/10/2012 09:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I wouldn't object to creating some doc-only committers.  OTOH, I would object to anyone making non-trivial documentation enhancements without

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application

2012-04-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote: Well. maybe I spoke too soon...JNI is probably the best route.  Since SPI is off the table, all we're really pulling in from pl/java is the (non-trivial) proper installation of a jvm into a postgres process. pl/java is

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Michael Nolan
On 4/11/12, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: Yes, increase wal_keep_segments. Even if you set wal_keep_segments to 64, the amount of disk space for WAL files is only 1GB, so there is no need to worry so much, I think. No? But when a transaction larger than 1GB... Then you may need

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application

2012-04-11 Thread Atri Sharma
Hi all, In continuation to the discussion regarding my JDBC wrapping FDW,I have been talking to members of the community and I have two approaches on which I would request your suggestions and opinions: I think we are back on the initial approach I proposed(hooking directly into the JVM and

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application

2012-04-11 Thread Atri Sharma
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote: Well. maybe I spoke too soon...JNI is probably the best route. Since SPI is off the table, all we're really pulling in from pl/java is the (non-trivial) proper installation of a jvm into a postgres process. pl/java is

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/10/2012 08:43 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On 04/10/2012 01:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: The fact is that we have no shortage of committers - there are 19 people who have access to push code into our master git repository. A handful of those people have basically completely left the project and

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mié abr 11 11:35:10 -0300 2012: For example, Thom (and others) could collect a number of typo fixes in their own repo and then just ask for a merge.The advantage over just staging multiple commits and then submitting a patch would be that multiple

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Kevin Grittner
Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/11/12, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: But when a transaction larger than 1GB... Then you may need WAL space larger than 1GB as well. For replication to work, it seems likely that you may need to have sufficient WAL space to handle a

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Since the topic is somewhat drifting here anyway.. :-) Might it be worthwhile to allow some sort of staging repository and actually start using the git stuff a bit more around this? E.g. we could have a docs repo

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Might it be worthwhile to allow some sort of staging repository and actually start using the git stuff a bit more around this? ... As far as I can see, this basically amounts

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Might it be worthwhile to allow some sort of staging repository and actually start using the git stuff a

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 11 12:44:02 -0300 2012: Me neither, but I don't know how far it scales. Having certain people who are defined as, say, doc-only committers will not only make it clear to those people what they're expected to commit, but also clear to everyone

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Michael Nolan
On 4/11/12, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/11/12, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: But when a transaction larger than 1GB... Then you may need WAL space larger than 1GB as well. For replication to work, it seems likely

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Joshua Berkus
All, From my observation, the CF process ... in fact, all development processes we've had in Postgres ... have suffered from only one problem: lack of consensus on how the process should work. For example, we've *never* had consensus around the criteria for kicking a patch out of a

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: So in sync streaming replication, if master delete WAL before sent to the only standby, all transaction will fail forever, the master tries to avoid a PANIC error rather than termination of replication. but in sync

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 11 April 2012 15:35, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Might it be worthwhile to allow some sort of staging repository and actually start using the git stuff a bit more around this? E.g. we could have a docs repo somewhere where more people have commit bits, and then they are just

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What I'd be interested to see is number of lines changed per unit time; that would be a much better measure of patch rate IMHO. Based on `git diff --shortstat` between tags, for the whole tree, this is what shows up: files git tag

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Michael Nolan
On 4/11/12, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: So in sync streaming replication, if master delete WAL before sent to the only standby, all transaction will fail forever, the master tries to avoid a PANIC error

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We've frequently had, and still have today, committers who are understood to have limited areas of expertise and are given commit bits on the honor system to not break what they don't

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Josh Kupershmidt
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 11 April 2012 15:35, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: For example, Thom (and others) could collect a number of typo fixes in their own repo and then just ask for a merge.The advantage over just staging

Re: [HACKERS] [Patch] Fix little typo in a comment

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes: This is a little patch to fix a typo in contrib/file_fdw. I think that comment is fine as-is. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: So in sync streaming replication, if master delete WAL before sent to the only standby, all transaction will fail forever, the master tries to

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 18:29, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 11 April 2012 15:35, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: For example, Thom (and others) could collect a number of typo fixes in

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: From my observation, the CF process ... in fact, all development processes we've had in Postgres ... have suffered from only one problem: lack of consensus on how the process should work. For example, we've *never* had consensus around the criteria for

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 11 12:44:02 -0300 2012: Me neither, but I don't know how far it scales.  Having certain people who are defined as, say, doc-only committers will not only make it

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2012-04-11 at 06:04 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: Compare with: -Submitter suggests doc change -No one has a strong opinion on it, may not be picked up at all -Submitter adds to the next CF -Wait for review -[Possible repost update with reviewer changes] -Ready for committer

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Joshua Berkus
Ultimately, we're herding cats here. I don't think you're going to get the community to suddenly be willing to march in lockstep instead. If you, Peter, Simon, Robert, Heikki, Magnus, Peter G., Greg, Bruce and Andrew agreed on a calendar-driven, mostly unambiguous process and adhered to

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2012-04-11 at 12:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: However, the real criteria don't matter as much as coming up with a set of criteria we're all willing to obey, whatever they are. Ultimately, we're herding cats here. I don't think you're going to get the community to suddenly be willing

Re: [HACKERS] patch: bytea_agg

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On lör, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Nevertheless, the problem would now be that adding string_agg(bytea) would effectively forbid adding string_agg(bytea, delim) in the future. So making a two-argument string_agg(bytea, bytea) now seems like the best solution anyway. (This

Re: [HACKERS] patch: bytea_agg

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On lör, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. So are you now suggesting we should get rid of one-argument bytea_agg and replace it with two-argument string_agg(bytea,bytea)? I could support that, since we've not released bytea_agg yet. Yes,

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Ultimately, we're herding cats here.  I don't think you're going to get the community to suddenly be willing to march in lockstep instead. If you, Peter, Simon, Robert, Heikki, Magnus, Peter G., Greg, Bruce and Andrew

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Nikhil Sontakke
Hi, So, I have a patch for this. This patch introduces support for CHECK ONLY syntax while doing a CREATE TABLE as well as during the usual ALTER TABLE command. Example: create table atacc7 (test int, test2 int CHECK ONLY (test0), CHECK (test210)); create table atacc8 () inherits (atacc7);

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, 乔志强 qiaozhiqi...@leadcoretech.com wrote: So in sync streaming replication, if master delete WAL before sent to

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: Just as a personal view, if people were to send me doc or trivial patches in git-am format, with proper commit message, and Acked or Signed-off etc. lines from recognized contributors, and proper References: mail header linked to the discussion or

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: This patch removes the support for : ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b 0); and uses ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK ONLY (b 0); Is this what

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: This patch removes the support for : ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b 0); and uses ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: This patch removes the support for : ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b 0); and uses

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié abr 11 15:51:51 -0300 2012: On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: This patch removes the support for : ALTER

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/11/2012 03:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I'd propose CHECK NO INHERIT, though, as (a) it seems better English and (b) it avoids creating any new keyword. I could live with that too. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: This patch removes the support for : ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: +1 for fixing up the syntax before 9.2 goes out the door. I think the original syntax was misguided to begin with. Well, it was fine in isolation, but once you consider how to make CREATE TABLE do this too, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you

Re: [HACKERS] man pages for contrib programs

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2012-04-04 at 21:53 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I think it would be useful to split this up into three sections: F.1. Extensions F.2. Client Applications F.3. Server Applications where the first looks like now and the other two contain the refentry pages. We could also

Re: [HACKERS] man pages for contrib programs

2012-04-11 Thread Thom Brown
On 11 April 2012 21:29, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2012-04-04 at 21:53 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I think it would be useful to split this up into three sections: F.1. Extensions F.2. Client Applications F.3. Server Applications where the first looks like now and

[HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people think about these column names? backend_start| timestamp with time zone | xact_start | timestamp with time zone | query_start | timestamp with time zone | Arguably:

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Thom Brown
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people think about these column names?         backend_start    | timestamp with time zone |         xact_start       | timestamp with time zone |         query_start  

Re: [HACKERS] man pages for contrib programs

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2012-04-11 at 21:42 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: G. Additional Supplied Applications with two subsections Client and Server Applications, and one refentry per application. That would end up looking much like the SPI chapter. Could you clarify what you're defining to be a client

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people think about these column names?         backend_start    | timestamp with time zone |        

Re: [HACKERS] man pages for contrib programs

2012-04-11 Thread Thom Brown
On 11 April 2012 21:58, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2012-04-11 at 21:42 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: Could you clarify what you're defining to be a client application and a server application?  This could be confusing as we already have sections under Reference called

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:04, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people think about these column names?

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Arguably: backend_start - session_start query_start - statment_start Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:11:18PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: Should we make any of these changes? Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't think is a problem.  Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now closed and bolted? Well, we renamed procpid - pid

Re: [HACKERS] Columns of pg_stat_activity

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:14:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Arguably: backend_start - session_start query_start -

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2012-04-11 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I hear you ... but, given that the source material is a mailing-list thread, *somebody* has to do all that work to produce an acceptable commit. And if you're just going to commit what that somebody sends you without further review, then you

[HACKERS] About bug #6579

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
I've looked into this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-04/msg00058.php and concluded that it's not very practical to fix it properly right now. A real fix will involve rearranging things so that construction of the filter-condition list happens at Path creation time, not createplan

Re: [HACKERS] About bug #6579

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I've looked into this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-04/msg00058.php and concluded that it's not very practical to fix it properly right now. A real fix will involve rearranging things so that construction of the filter-condition list happens at Path creation time,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade improvements

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 01:13:23PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On ons, 2012-04-04 at 19:26 -0700, Harold Giménez wrote: It would also be nice if the invocation of pg_ctl didn't pipe its output to /dev/null. I'm sure it would contain information that would directly point at the root cause

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade improvements

2012-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 07:26:58PM -0700, Harold Giménez wrote: Hi all, I've written a pg_upgrade wrapper for upgrading our users (heroku) to postgres 9.1. In the process I encountered a specific issue that could easily be improved. We've had this process work consistently for many users

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade improvements

2012-04-11 Thread Harold Giménez
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 07:26:58PM -0700, Harold Giménez wrote: There could be incoming connections for a number of reasons: either the user or the user's applications are reestablishing connections, or something like

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2012-04-11 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I hear you ... but, given that the source material is a mailing-list thread, *somebody* has to do all that work to produce an acceptable commit.  And if you're just going

Re: [HACKERS] Last gasp

2012-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I'd still review it, but I'd be able to spend say 3 minutes on review and 30 seconds on committing it, versus 3 minutes on review, 3 minutes on research, and 8 minutes on

Re: [HACKERS] how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

2012-04-11 Thread Nikhil Sontakke
Hi, Cumulative reaction to all the responses first: Whoa! :) I was under the impression that a majority of us felt that the current mechanism was inadequate. Also if you go through the nabble thread, the fact that CREATE TABLE did not support such constraints was considered to be an annoyance.