Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-03 Thread Robert Haas
The idea of the mixed mode is that you want to reduce the odds someone will get a massively wrong configuration if they're not paying attention. Is it worse to suffer from additional query overhead if you're sloppy with the tuning tool, or to discover addition partitions didn't work as you

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-03 Thread Robert Haas
What fun. I'm beginning to remember why nobody has ever managed to deliver a community tool that helps with this configuration task before. I have to say I really like this tool. It may not be perfect but it's a lot easier than trying to do this analysis from scratch. And we are really only

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-03 Thread Robert Haas
If we do though, it shouldn't default one way and then get randomly flipped by a tool that has the same information to make its decision on. What I'm saying is that mixed is the same information that initdb had about the workload. +1. If we do change this then I wonder if we need the

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-03 Thread Robert Haas
I think the tests you could consider next is to graph the target going from 10 to 100 in steps of 10 just for those 5 queries. If it gradually degrades, that's interesting but hard to nail down. But if there's a sharp transition, getting an explain plan for the two sides of that should

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-04 Thread Robert Haas
In defense of thinking about very small configurations, I've seen many cases where an enterprise-software salesperson's laptop is running a demo - either in a small virtual machine in the laptop, or on an overloaded windows box.Even though the customer might end up running with 64GB, the

Re: [HACKERS] In-place upgrade: catalog side

2008-12-04 Thread Robert Haas
Not being familiar with the code, my assumption was that it would be possible to push all the tuples involved off to another page as if they'd been updated, with WAL logging and everything, similarly to the ideas that keep getting kicked around for creating extra space for header expansion.

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Kevin Grittner wrote: I think there needs to be some easy way to choose an option which yields a configuration similar to what we've had in recent production releases -- something that will start up and

Re: [HACKERS] default statistics target testing (was: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ANALYZE with default_statistics_target set to 10 takes 13 s. With 100, 92 s. With 1000, 289 s. That is interesting. It would also be interesting to total up the time it takes to run EXPLAIN (without ANALYZE) for a large

Re: [HACKERS] default statistics target testing (was: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comparing to 8.2.9 results: - q1 was 32% slower with dst = 10, 33% slower with dst = 1000 - other queries were 19% slower with dst = 10, 25% slower with dst = 1000 You mean that HEAD is slower than 8.2.9 or I don't

Re: [HACKERS] default statistics target testing (was: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
Thanks also to Greg for reposting my emails. I didn't even realize I hadn't sent them to the list. Any chance you could do the same test with a 8.3? It could be interesting to see if it's a HEAD thing or if the slow down was introduced in 8.3. Somehow I knew you were going to ask that.

Re: [HACKERS] PLUGINS Functionlity in Win32 build scripts

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
I've been assigned to review this patch, but I confess I'm a little murky on what problem it's trying to solve. Can you explain what I need to do to recreate the problem? There's also this comment on the Wiki (not sure why it wasn't posted to the mailing list...): Dave Page says: This

Re: [HACKERS] default statistics target testing (was: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct. As compared with 8.2.9, ANALYZE was substantially faster, but query planning was significantly slower. Thanks also to Greg for reposting my

Re: [HACKERS] Simple postgresql.conf wizard

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
Looking at eqjoinsel I think it could be improved algorithmically if we keep the mcv list in sorted order, even if it's just binary sorted order. But I'm not sure what else uses those values and whether the current ordering is significant. I'm also not sure it's the only O(n^2) algorithm there

Re: [HACKERS] default statistics target testing (was: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
That is interesting. It would also be interesting to total up the time it takes to run EXPLAIN (without ANALYZE) for a large number of queries. I wonder if we'd see anything dramatically different using PREPARE... Well... the point here is to measure planning time. I would think that

[HACKERS] benchmarking the query planner (was Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-06 Thread Robert Haas
Sorry for top posting but we are getting a bit far afield from the original topic. I followed up the tests I did last night: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00369.php I benchmarked 100 iterations of EXPLAIN on the query Greg Stark put together as a synthetic benchmark

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine

2008-12-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dmitry Koterov wrote: Could you please say, if ALTER TYPE ... ADD COLUMN is planned for a future PostgreSQL version? It is not currently on the TODO list. Perhaps we could add it? It's been complained about more than

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine

2008-12-08 Thread Robert Haas
Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable workaround typically have a fairly low priority of fixing :-) Putting something in the TODO list doesn't make it a priority. But it indicates that it's something that the community would like to see fixed, if anyone is interested

Re: [HACKERS] benchmarking the query planner (was Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard)

2008-12-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That might only be the case when the pg_statistic record is in shared buffers. Yeah, it seems unlikely that disabling compression is a good idea in the bigger scheme of things. Is there

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
On the other hand, we don't have to think of compatibility in EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE because it is newly added in 8.4. Uh, it exists for me in 8.2.9. Welcome to psql 8.2.9, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal. Type: \copyright for distribution terms \h for help with SQL commands

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: default values for function parameters

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
it means, so we must not implement any new operator? If the operator were called [EMAIL PROTECTED], I think you could make a good argument that no one else is likely using that for anything. Surely the same cannot be said of = Of course, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a very convenient name for an

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
As stuff matures and becomes indispensable we could consider moving it to the regular EXPLAIN or implement some way to specify precisely which data the user wants. Or just say XML/table data/whatever will solve the problem for us. I think some way to specify precisely which data the user wants

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes this is one reasonable option, as is the idea of using XML or a table and making it the client's problem. Neither are going to happen for this release I think. Agreed. And in any case it will always be useful to have an

Re: [HACKERS] benchmarking the query planner

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried a different query, trying to get quadratic growth and again failed. It The profiling results I sent the other day show an exactly-linear increase in the number of times eqjoinsel invokes FunctionCall2. Reading

Re: [HACKERS] PLUGINS Functionlity in Win32 build scripts

2008-12-09 Thread Robert Haas
I've been assigned to review this patch, but I confess I'm a little murky on what problem it's trying to solve. Can you explain what I need to do to recreate the problem? In postgreSQL, Plugin modules should be installed in (Installation dir)lib/plugins to run properly. There is logic in

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine

2008-12-10 Thread Robert Haas
Allow ALTER TYPE to add, rename, change the type of, and drop columns? ...Robert On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Haas wrote: Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable workaround typically have a fairly low priority

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine

2008-12-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Haas wrote: Allow ALTER TYPE to add, rename, change the type of, and drop columns? That seems kind of vague because my first reaction is that a type doesn't have columns, but you are talking about composite types

Re: [HACKERS] benchmarking the query planner

2008-12-10 Thread Robert Haas
Yeah, that would be fast. To see a quadratic case you need MCV arrays that have little or no overlap of common values --- then each element of the first will be compared (in vain) to all or most of the elements in the second. Ah, that makes sense. Here's a test case based on Greg's. This

Re: [HACKERS] patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

2009-11-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I'm not really convinced of that, but even if we do, so what?  It's not that much code to have an extra cache watching the syscache traffic. There's an example in parse_oper.c of a specialized cache that's about as complicated

Re: [HACKERS] commitfest patch move unavailable

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:21 AM, George Gensure wer...@gmail.com wrote: After consulting with some other members of the community, I tried to post my fk error string patch to the current commitfest, but mistakenly posted it to the current commitfest, not the open one. When I tried to correct

Re: [HACKERS] Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Please can we agree a way forwards? I don't have a strong position on the technical issues, but I am very much in favor of getting something committed, even something with limitations, as soon as we practically can.

Re: [HACKERS] Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: - If WAL recovery runs out of lock space while acquiring an AccessExclusiveLock on behalf of a transaction that ran in

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: At Tom's suggestion I am looking at allowing use of parameter names in SQL functions instead of requiring use of $1 etc. That raises the question of how we would disambiguate a parameter name from a column name.

Re: [HACKERS] Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Agreed. Believe me, I'd like to have this committed as much as everyone else. But once I do that, I'm also committing myself to fix all the remaining issues before the release. The criteria for

Re: [HACKERS] Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Nov 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 23:14 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: Right now, I don't know which you consider to be the must-fix

Re: [HACKERS] Patch committers

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 13:35, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: How about we add specific feature(s) about tihs

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: At Tom's suggestion I am looking at allowing use of parameter names in SQL functions instead of requiring use of $1 etc. That raises the question of how we

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Well, if the funcname.varname gadget will work, as you suggest elsewhere it could, I think that would suffice

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Robert Haas wrote: (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.) Well that is the tricky part, for sure.  I would

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I don't see why it would need to be a reserved word.  We're not changing how it gets parsed, just what it means.  At any rate FUNCTION. is a 9-character prefix, which is rather longer

Re: [HACKERS] named parameters in SQL functions

2009-11-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Robert Haas wrote: (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something that could be implemented

Re: [HACKERS] patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote: --On 14. November 2009 20:22:42 -0500 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I will take another crack at it. ...Robert I take this that you are going to provide a new patch version? Yes. I'm not sure whether

Re: [HACKERS] Patch committers

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
, Nov 14, 2009 at 13:35, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: How about we add specific feature(s) about tihs to the commitfest management tool? Like the possibility to directly link a git repo/branch with the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Tom Lane  wrote: I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as any clear showstoppers remain unresolved. I agree that it would be better not to commit as long as any of the following

Re: [HACKERS] next CommitFest

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote: Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly draconian. There's a difference between:  You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore

Re: [HACKERS] next CommitFest

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: True.  But not enough reviewers to review all the patches we get is also a barrier to contribution. No. It is a barrier of contribution not to contribution. I am not sure exactly what that means, but I agree that

Re: [HACKERS] Unpredictable shark slowdown after migrating to 8.4

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Sergey Konoplev gray...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Sergey Konoplev gray...@gmail.com wrote: Was this situation mentioned before and is there a solution

Re: [HACKERS] Update on Insert

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:31 PM, SebiF sfe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, Given a table Items with a PK item1 and Qty - a numeric column I'd like to define a way in Postgres to insert when item11 doesn't exist already in Items and update the Qty by adding the new quantity to the existent

Re: [HACKERS] next CommitFest

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 19:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Brendan Jurd wrote: One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation

Re: [HACKERS] next CommitFest

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes: One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your name immortalised in the commit log.  There's no such compensation for reviewing patches. Well, that could be fixed:

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the geqo_threshold default

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes: Is there any chance we can raise the default geqo_threshold from its current default of 12? We were over that just a few months ago. Yeah. I think we need to see if we can do

Re: [HACKERS] sgml and empty closing tags

2009-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 20:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Apparently --- it's perfectly legal in SGML.  (I think not in XML.) Cool.  Thanks! BTW anyone know how to escape and for google? I tried searching for

Re: [HACKERS] Timezones (in 8.5?)

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, hernan gonzalez hgonza...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any plans to (is anybody working on) implement better timezone support in postgresql for 8.5 ? Specifically, store the timezone info -instead of just the timestamp as UTC ?

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, this small patch add missing USING clause to OPEN FOR EXECUTE statement + cleaning part of exec_stmt_open function see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00713.php This is now the

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Pavel Stehule wrote: I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all

Re: [HACKERS] RFC for adding typmods to functions

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Apart from all these it's not clear to me what the major benefits of doing this would be. I'd like an explanation of that to start with. Well, aside from the issue about making

Re: [HACKERS] sgml and empty closing tags

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com wrote: Alex Hunsaker escreveu: BTW anyone know how to escape and for google? You can escape and using lt; and gt;, respectively. Searching for lt;foo looks for documents containing lt and foo, not documents

Re: [HACKERS] Syntax for partitioning

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 11:15 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: I think syntax support is a good start. I don't see a syntax-only patch as being any use at all to this community. We go to enormous lengths in other areas

Re: [HACKERS] RFC for adding typmods to functions

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: So I guess really can't get worked up about the idea of propagating this information through the type system.  Even suppose we eventually take the steps you suggesting and make it so

Re: [HACKERS] operator exclusion constraints

2009-11-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: New patches attached. Forgive me if this is discussed before, but why does this store the strategy numbers of the relevant operators instead of the operators themselves? It seems like this could lead to surprising behavior if

Re: [HACKERS] Timezones (in 8.5?)

2009-11-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk wrote: Kevin == Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:   If he meant (A), then you store the event as:   (ts,tz) = (timestamp '2010-07-27 10:30:00',   'Chile/Santiago')   If he meant (B), then you store

Re: [HACKERS] xpath_table equivalent

2009-11-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net wrote: The nice thing about XMLTABLE is that it adds xquery support. I think the majority of xquery engines seem to be written in Java. XQuilla is C++. I'm not sure if our licensing is compatible, but it I would love the irony

Re: [HACKERS] Syntax for partitioning

2009-11-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: Hi, Robert Haas wrote: Settling on a syntax, and an internal representation for that syntax, I've been under the impression that this was only about syntax. What are the internal additions? I haven't looked

Re: [HACKERS] operator exclusion constraints

2009-11-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: I'm in Tokyo right now, so please excuse my abbreviated reply. On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 23:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: Forgive me if this is discussed before, but why does this store the strategy numbers of the relevant

Re: [HACKERS] operator exclusion constraints

2009-11-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: All, FWIW, I'm doing a redesign of a client's production web application right now.  I was able, by combining OEC and the Period type from pgfoundry, to make a set of constraints for declaratively asserting in a sports

Re: [HACKERS] Syntax for partitioning

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: Hi, Robert Haas wrote: Settling on a syntax, and an internal representation

Re: [HACKERS] DEFAULT of domain ignored in plpgsql (8.4.1)

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Florian G. Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: Hi It seems that pl/pgsql ignores the DEFAULT value of domains for local variables. With the following definitions in place create domain myint as int default 0; create or replace function myint() returns myint as $body$

Re: [HACKERS] DEFAULT of domain ignored in plpgsql (8.4.1)

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Florian G. Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Florian G. Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: I've tried to create a patch, but didn't see how I'd convert the result from get_typedefault() (A Node*, presumeably the parsetree

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: /home/peter/commit-msg

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Kris Jurka wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote: I've cleaned up the git repo, and re-enabled the mirror script. From what I can tell it works fine. In theory you will need to use force

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a WHEN clause to CREATE TRIGGER, allowing a boolean

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@postgresql.org wrote: Log Message: --- Add a WHEN clause to CREATE TRIGGER, allowing a boolean expression to be checked to determine whether the trigger should be fired. For BEFORE triggers this is mostly a matter of spec compliance; but

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a WHEN clause to CREATE TRIGGER, allowing a boolean

2009-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Random thought: would it be possible to use something like this to optimize foreign key constraints, by not firing them if none of the relevant columns have been updated

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning option for COPY

2009-11-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote: I was thinking more about SGML docs. They could mention that BEFORE triggers are fired both for the parent table and for the child table, while AFTER triggers will only be called on the target table. I'd add a sentence

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Updating column on row update

2009-11-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au writes: I do think this comes up often enough that a built-in trigger update named column with result of expression on insert trigger might be desirable. There's something of the sort

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Updating column on row update

2009-11-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: CREATE IF NOT EXISTS has been proposed and rejected before, more than once.  Please see the archives. Search

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning option for COPY

2009-11-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@asterdata.com wrote: I think you should read the thread and the patch before making any false statements like you did in your email. 1. The patch does not use any trigger for routing. Whoa, whoa! I don't think that Simon said that it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION

2009-11-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Farina dfar...@truviso.com wrote: Signed-off-by: Daniel Farina dfar...@truviso.com Thanks for the patch. You may want to take a look at this: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch I'm fuzzy on what problem this is attempting to solve... as

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION

2009-11-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: You know how people complain about how new contributors are treated here?  Throwing out comments like this, that come off as belittling to other people's work, doesn't help.  All I was suggesting was that Dan wasn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION

2009-11-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Greg Smith wrote: I haven't heard anything from Andrew about ragged CVS import either.  I think that ultimately those features are useful, but just exceed what the existing code could be hacked to handle cleanly.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Updating column on row update

2009-11-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: So we're conceding that this is a valid need and people will now have a way to meet it.  Is the argument against having CINE syntax that it would be more prone to error than

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Updating column on row update

2009-11-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: If it did so, that would be outside the apparent meaning of the command, which is to do nothing if an object of that name exists. That's why we've gone with CREATE OR REPLACE

Re: [HACKERS] garbage in psql -l

2009-11-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Tom Lane wrote: Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su writes: what's benefit of using linestyle=unicode ? I like old ASCII style for console. Well, I have to grant that it looks pretty spiffy on a

Re: [HACKERS] operator exclusion constraints

2009-11-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: I was thinking maybe you call BuildIndexValueDescription twice and make the error message say something like output of first call conflicts with output of second call. Do you really think that's a better error message, or

Re: [HACKERS] SE-PgSQL patch review

2009-11-25 Thread Robert Haas
2009/11/24 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com: BTW, I plan the following steps for the row-level security. | * A facility to put security label OID within the tuple header. | * System column support to print out the security context. |   (This system column shall be writable to relabel) | *

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning option for COPY

2009-11-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I'd propose that triggers on both parent table and selected child are executed. I was thinking we should make the partitioning decision FIRST, before any triggers are fired, and then fire only those triggers relevant to

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning option for COPY

2009-11-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@asterdata.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I'd propose that triggers on both parent table and selected child are executed. I was thinking we should make

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning option for COPY

2009-11-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It seems like the easiest way to resolve this without weird corner cases is to say that we fire triggers belonging to the parent table. The individual partition child tables either shouldn't have triggers at all, or we should

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

2009-11-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a patch which adds a

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

2009-11-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25

Re: [HACKERS] operator exclusion constraints

2009-11-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: Thanks, I applied it. The only significant thing I changed was that I did not inline the index_elem because it made it fairly hard to read. Instead, I renamed it exclude_elem to make it a little more meaningful, which I

Re: [HACKERS] File IO - why does PG do things in pages?

2009-11-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Dan Eloff dan.el...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Hackers, I've familiarized myself a little with the architecture of postgresql, largely because it's interesting. There's one thing I can't quite figure out though, and it seems that there's no better group of people in

Re: [HACKERS] patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

2009-11-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Current version of patch is attached.  I've revised it to use the reloptions stuff, but I don't think it's committable as-is because it currently thinks that extracting options from a pg_tablespace tuple is a cheap

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a

2009-11-27 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Tom

Re: [HACKERS] Application name patch - v4

2009-11-28 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Joshua Tolley eggyk...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 06:47:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes: Updated application name patch, including a GUC assign hook to clean the application name of any unsafe characters, per

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a

2009-11-28 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I don't think there's any easy fix for this. Nope :-(.  I was able to get rid of the specific O(N^2) behavior that you were running into, but that just pushes the problem out a bit. Yeah. Testing a couple of the cases I was

Re: [HACKERS] draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication

2009-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au wrote: Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: c. splitting wal into different replication sets Just a side note: in addition to its use for partial replication, this might have potential for performance-prioritizing databases or

Re: [HACKERS] is isolation level 'Serializable' in pg not same as 'serializable' in SQL-92?

2009-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
2009/11/30 张茂森 maosen.zh...@alibaba-inc.com: pgsql-hackers is not the right place for user questions; try pgsql-general or pgsql-novice. The answer to your question is in the documentation. You can find it here:

Re: [HACKERS] Application name patch - v4

2009-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote: Le 30 nov. 2009 à 00:25, Tom Lane a écrit : The thing is that the libpq API treats application_name as a *property of the connection*. Oh. Yeah. We could add a third keyword, say SET DEFAULT, that would have the

Re: [HACKERS] Application name patch - v4

2009-11-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote: Le 30 nov. 2009 à 22:38, Robert Haas a écrit : I still don't really understand why we wouldn't want RESET ALL to reset the application name.  In what circumstances would you want the application name to stay

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest status/management

2009-12-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Considering that one of those was a holiday week with a lot of schedule disruption proceeding it, I don't know how much faster things could have moved.  There were large chunks of the reviewer volunteers who wanted only

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest status/management

2009-12-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work. Robert acknowledged the need for a claimed by committer

Re: [HACKERS] Block-level CRC checks

2009-12-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: Proposal * We reserve enough space on a disk block for a CRC check. When a dirty block is written to disk we calculate and annotate the CRC value, though this is *not* WAL

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >