Re: [HACKERS] Serializable Isolation without blocking

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote: On Thursday, January 7, 2010, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote: Row level locks

Re: [HACKERS] Serializable implementation

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Opinions? I think anything you decide about how to invoke the different isolation levels will be easy to change later to meet whatever the consensus of the community is at that time. I wouldn't spend any time or

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: I have long spoken against making Windows a second class citizen. But I don't think David is going to do that (and I'll hound him if he does). But that doesn't mean it has to be fully supported from day one. I'm not saying it

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: This strikes me as quite premature. Heiki just said he expects to have SR committed next week. Getting it committed

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote: Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository? I already find the .cvsignore files to be useless and an

Re: [HACKERS] Setting oom_adj on linux?

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: I don't want to go to the trouble of creating (and documenting) a configure option for this.  Much less a GUC ;-) Requiring a custom build to

Re: [HACKERS] git help (was: Serializable Isolation without blocking)

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 19:08, Kevin Grittner Robert's advice being the last (and only) offered on the topic, I'm taking the silence as agreement and have dropped the

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are fixed/addressed, and you can't move from beta to RC using the same criteria. Hmm.  For 8.4, I don't think we actually fixed all known

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are fixed/addressed, and you can't move from

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're rewarding people

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On fre, 2010-01-08 at 10:02 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to run the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the commitfest for any given

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com wrote: Robert Haas escreveu: I would be willing to maintain .gitignore files, under the agreement that if I should fail or cease to do so, and no one else wants to take over, then they all get removed.   Would

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tidy up and refactor plperl.c.

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: aduns...@postgresql.org (Andrew Dunstan) writes: - Changed MULTIPLICITY check from runtime to compiletime.     No loads the large Config module. [ squint... ]  I thought we'd decided that wasn't a good idea? What happens if

Re: [HACKERS] Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

2010-01-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com wrote: I didn't get any significant feedback from the earlier draft so here's the finished 'feature patch 1' for plperl.  (This builds on my earlier plperl refactoring patch, and the follow-on ppport.h patch.) Significant changes

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:  I have always felt that the purpose of a CommitFest was to give everyone a fair shake at getting their patch reviewed, provided that they followed certain ground rules

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On fre, 2010-01-08 at 21:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: The commitfest is a tool for people to track what is going on, not a tool to tell people what to do. I don't understand what you mean by this.  Can you please

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle, that's when people will submit them.  You've previously criticized the high proportion

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore? The format is the same, but while cvsignore files currently list a few

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Do .gitignore files have the same

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Robert Haas wrote: What I want is to ignore all of the build products Use a vpath build, and you'll keep

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On lör, 2010-01-09 at 17:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: Oh.  Never mind.  That doesn't seem useful enough to be worth spending time on.  What I want is to ignore all of the build products, so that when I do 'git status

Re: [HACKERS] Add .gitignore files to CVS?

2010-01-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... What I'm interested in is being able to run 'git status' on a tree in which I've run a build without getting a lot of extra output, and that will require ignoring all the build

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: But really if beta slips because we don't like the looks of our open issues list, thats signicantly better than the last couple releases where we held everything up just to get things into CVS months after feature

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: But really if beta slips because we don't like the looks of our open issues list, thats signicantly better than the last couple releases where we held everything up just to get things into CVS months after feature

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 05:54, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Peter, Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates.  If some things are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make

Re: [HACKERS] Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com writes: On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:36:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I kind of thought Tom said these were a bad idea, and I think I kind of agree. Tom had some concerns which I believe I've

Re: [HACKERS] Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What happens when the supplied code has errors, takes an unreasonable amount of time to run, does something unsafe

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:53 PM, I wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes: [ patch to remove EnableDisableRule's permissions check ] I don't particularly like this patch, mainly because I disagree with randomly

Re: [HACKERS] Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I don't know why you would do either of these things. I at least would load one module which would in turn load others. So I'd expect to see something like this:   plperl.on_perl_init = 'use lib /my/app; use

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I have looked this over a little bit and I guess I don't see why the lack of a grand plan for how to organize all of our permissions checks ought to keep us from removing this one

Re: [HACKERS] Red-black tree for GIN

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: My other question is as related to performance.  Can you provide a test case that shows the performance improvement with this patch? So, we still don't have a test case for this patch. During the November CommitFest

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something* on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally considered to be beta quality.  I don't think that really helps much though; it just means

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/5 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have a problem to write second and safe fmtId

[HACKERS] CommitFest 2010-01: Call for Reviewers

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
Well, folks, it's that time again! CommitFest 2010-01 will begin in just a few days (specifically, Fri Jan 15 00:00:00 UTC) and we are in need of reviewers. If you're willing to help out, please drop me an email and I'll assign you a patch; if you have a preference, please let me know that, too.

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] CommitFest 2010-01: Call for Reviewers

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I could to start with https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=251 OK. Please edit that patch and list your name as the reviewer. One thing I forgot to mention is - if you are volunteering to review,

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/11 Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru: I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me.  The only substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon and circle cases?  It's not obvious to me on the face

Re: [HACKERS] Red-black tree for GIN

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/11 Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru: knngist uses that implementation of rb-tree. One more candidate is a ts_stat which now uses unbalanced binary tree. Ah, OK. That's great if we can reuse that code in 2 or 3 places. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] dbt2-shell script problem

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Jonas J autoram...@gmail.com wrote: I get the dbt2 project from the git tree. And i'm trying to make it work with postgres. The problem is in one of the dbt2 shell scripts. Since I dont understand of Shell Script Programing, here is my problem: (I will post the

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're probably dead as a project.  MySQL and Ingres both tried feature-based

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: The consensus view on this thread seems to be that we should have a time-based code freeze, but not a time-based release.  No one has argued (and I sincerely hope no one will argue) that we should let

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: We could if we could all stop long enough to address them.  I think there is the feeling that a great idea will pop up eventually, and only when we are looking at beta do we realize we are out of time, and the hard,

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Personally, I'd like the topic of a thread on damage control to be all about testing the one big patch that's already in there (HS), its related bits like the VACUUM FULL changes, and potentially SR too.  Those are things

Re: [HACKERS] NOT NULL violation and error-message

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote: Andreas Joseph Krogh andr...@officenet.no wrote: ERROR: null value in column created violates not-null constraint It is easy to add the table name to the message, but ... ERROR: null value in column

Re: [HACKERS] damage control mode

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I agree.  My main concern in terms of dealing with these outstanding is that it will distract us, particularly Tom, from stabilizing the tree, especially HS, VF, and SR

Re: [HACKERS] planner or statistical bug on 8.5

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/12 Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com: Il 12/01/2010 08:55, Pavel Stehule ha scritto: I checked query and I was surprised with very strange plan: postgres=# explain select  a, b from a,b,c;                    

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication status

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: The final commit-fest is in 5 days --- this is not the time for design Actually just over 2 days at this point... ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I would strongly suggest to Tim that he rip the portions of this patch that are related to this feature out and submit them separately so that we can commit the uncontroversial portions first. See my previous email. I

Re: [HACKERS] plpython3

2010-01-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, James Pye li...@jwp.name wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:41 PM, James Pye wrote: Here's my latest patch. Fixed a lot of memory/reference leaks, added some minor features(mostly around Arrays), and filled in more documentation. At this point, I don't have any

Re: [HACKERS] Bloom index

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/13 Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru: CREATE INDEX bloomidx ON tbloom(i1,i2,i3)       WITH (length=5, col1=2, col2=2, col3=4); Here, we create bloom index with signature length 80 bits and attributes i1, i2  mapped to 2 bits, attribute i3 - to 4 bits. This is pretty darn slick. I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I have looked this over a little bit and I guess I don't see why the lack of a grand plan

Re: [HACKERS] plpython3

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My argument would be now, what is the benefit of the James Pye version over our version. James can you illustrate succinctly why we should be supporting a new version? If there is, I am still all for it, but I am a python

Re: [HACKERS] NEED HELP !

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Sergej Galkin sergej.gal...@gmail.com wrote: I can not understand why DB is restarting ? It is restarting when SQL begins use index :((( Can anybody help me , I would by appretiate every people who downloads my sources, try to deploy index and maybe solve where

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: I agree.  Why are arbitrary restrictions being placed on code improvements?  If code has no purpose, why

Re: [HACKERS] primary key display in psql

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I think we could easily improve that by having it look something like this instead:     Table public.test2  Column |  Type   | Modifiers +-+---  a      |

Re: [HACKERS] patch to implement ECPG side tracing / tracking ...

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Hans-Juergen Schoenig h...@cybertec.at writes: Michael Meskes wrote: Before looking into it in detail I think we should first figure out if this feature really has a benefit. the use cases for this thing are quite simple: we

[HACKERS] last CommitFest coming up in just under 24 hours

2010-01-13 Thread Robert Haas
Patch authors, please make sure your patches are listed on commitfest.postgresql.org. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open All, we still need reviewers for the following patches. New XLOG record indicating WAL-skipping Fix large object support in pg_dump knngist (WIP)

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

2010-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: But the preference of the last CF is to not apply any patch which doesn't have a very clear justification to be committed.  Given that whether this patch is applied or not to 8.5 really doesn't make any functional

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication, retrying from archive

2010-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Imagine this scenario: 1. Master is up and running, standby is connected and streaming happily 2. Network goes down, connection is broken. 3. Standby falls behind a lot. Old WAL files that the

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication, retrying from archive

2010-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I wasn't really asking if it's possible to fix, I meant Let's think about *how* to fix that. Well... maybe if it doesn't require too MUCH thought. I'm thinking that HS+SR are going to be a bit like

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: No longer applies, please rebase. fixed, sorry Hmm. I think that pqEscapeIdentConn should be in a separate section of the documentation, entitled Escaping Identifiers for Inclusion in SQL Commands. Or else we

Re: [HACKERS] KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)

2010-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/12 Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru: Changes: - split patch to several ones - sync with current CVS Patch set is based on 0.5.1 version, difference between 0.5 and 0.6 should be only in planner patch. builtin_knngist_itself-0.6.gz  - patch to the gist itself

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication, loose ends

2010-01-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Yep. What's happening is that make -j starts building libpq and walreceiver.so simultaneously, because of the above

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication, loose ends

2010-01-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: Uh, do we really want to call this replication rather than archive log streaming or something.  It seems replication is a generic term and will confuse people who are using other replication solutions like Slony.

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication, loose ends

2010-01-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: Uh, do we really want to call this replication rather than archive log streaming or something

Re: [HACKERS] attoptions

2010-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
First, thanks for the review. Detailed comments/questions below. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:27, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I am not very happy with ATPrepSetOptions().  I basically just retained the logic

Re: [HACKERS] Archive recovery crashes on win32 in HEAD - hot standby related?

2010-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Not knowing that code very well at this time, but is this perhaps a structure not being properly initialized in EXEC_BACKEND case? It looks like KnownAssignedXidsHash is not initialized. That's supposed to happen when

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I have yet to fully review the code but on a quick glance it looks reasonable. On further review, it looks less reasonable. :-( The new PQescapeIdentConn function is basically a cut-up version of PQescapeStringInternal

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning syntax

2010-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote: Here is a revised partitioning syntax patch. It implements only syntax and on-disk structure mentioned below:    Table Partitioning#Syntax      http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning#Syntax    

Re: [HACKERS] Clearing global statistics

2010-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Tom Lane wrote: Actually, that brings up a more general question: what's with the enthusiasm for clearing statistics *at all*? ... Right now, you're still carrying around the history

Re: [HACKERS] parallel regression test output

2010-01-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: There is something slightly funny about the regression test output. When it starts a parallel group, it prints something like parallel group (14 tests):  select_views portals_p2 rules foreign_key cluster dependency guc

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I rewrote patch so now interface for PQescapeIdentConn is same as PQescapeStringConn @3. I though so the protection under incomplete multibyte chars are enought - missing bytes are replaced by space - like

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I rewrote patch so now interface for PQescapeIdentConn is same as PQescapeStringConn @3

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Pavel Stehule

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ...  Also, I prefer an API where the escaping function does include the quotes, so I've done it that way in the attached patch. IMO this function should act as much like

Re: [HACKERS] parallel regression test output

2010-01-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On sön, 2010-01-17 at 23:54 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I always assumed that it was printing the names as the tests finished, probably because of the way the output is staggered.  If they were printed when the tests were

Re: [HACKERS] attoptions

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: ... The idea that we want to support attdistinct for system tables and index columns was based on a very specific understanding of what that was going to do; for attoptions, well, it might make sense for the options that

Re: [HACKERS] Git out of sync vs. CVS

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:53, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Magnus Hagander  wrote: the Git repository is missing parts of two non-recent commits. We've seen this happen before. That seems

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ...  Also, I prefer an API where the escaping function does

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I think what you're saying is that you agree with Tom's position that the new escaping function should not add the necessary surrounding quotes, instead leaving that to the user.  Is that correct? yes Updated

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Updated patch attached.  I still think this is a bizarre API. Well, if we had it to do over I'm sure we'd have done it differently, but the functions are there now and we aren't going

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... I think as long as we're adding a new function, we should make it behave sanely. We could even take the opportunity to go back and add a saner version of PQescapeStringConn

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: As long as it's documented it's okay ... probably ... note that conditionally inserting E would get us right back to the place where an unsafe usage might appear to work fine in light testing.  Maybe prepend a space only if

Re: [HACKERS] attoptions

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: *** *** 152,158 CATALOG(pg_attribute,1249) BKI_BOOTSTRAP BKI_WITHOUT_OIDS BKI_ROWTYPE_OID(75) BK        aclitem         attacl[1];        /* Column-level options */ !       aclitem        

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It seems to me that it might be sensible to do it this way: 1. Do a locale-aware scan of the input string and count the number of characters we need to escape (num_to_escape). 2. If num_to_escape is 0, fast path: allocate

Re: [HACKERS] MySQL-ism help patch for psql

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: Why would they want more? It's not MySQL, and they know that. If we give them some very minor helpful hints for the most common things they try to do, it would be a huge benefit to them. I know I've badly wanted the

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: A larger question, which I think has been raised before but I have not seen a satisfactory answer for, is whether the system will behave sanely at all with this type of patch in place.  I don't really think that a single lock

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: A larger question, which I think has been raised before but I have not seen a satisfactory answer for, is whether

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'd like to proceed by committing an initial patch which changes the Escaping Strings for Inclusion in SQL Commands to use a variablelist with one varlistentry per function (as we do

Re: [HACKERS] MySQL-ism help patch for psql

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tis, 2010-01-19 at 16:00 -0600, David Christensen wrote: Currently, a session will look like the following:    machack:machack:5485=# show tables;    See:           \d           or \?

Re: [HACKERS] Git out of sync vs. CVS

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:52, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 16:59, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44

Re: [HACKERS] MySQL-ism help patch for psql

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2010-01-20 at 09:05 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: I disagree.   No one has complained that we are being a smartass by reporting this for help in psql:         You are using psql, the command-line interface to

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/20 Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at: Attached with the proposed modification to lift the portability concerns. Fixed the missing check for get_rel_name() and one typo (transation) Introduced checks for semtimedop() and sem_timedwait() in configure.in and USE_LOCK_TIMEOUT in port.h

Re: [HACKERS] HS/SR and smart shutdown

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: If it's standby, it's a previously-existing behavior that a smart shutdown doesn't work immediately during recovery. After a recovery has been completed, it would work. Of course, I agree that such a behavior should be

Re: [HACKERS] HS/SR and smart shutdown

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Well, as long as streaming rep is running, you can't do a smart shutdown ... smart shutdown seems to treat

Re: [HACKERS] Red-black tree for GIN

2010-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/11 Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru: knngist uses that implementation of rb-tree. One more candidate is a ts_stat which now uses unbalanced binary tree. Ah, OK.  That's great if we can reuse that code in 2 or 3

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/21 Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at: Tom Lane írta: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I think that it is a very bad idea to implement this feature in a way that is not 100% portable. Agreed, this is not acceptable.  If there were no possible way to implement the feature

Re: [HACKERS] attoptions

2010-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to me a comment about the above might be nice.  Something like /* Things after here are should always be default null */ in pg_attribute.h ? Well... that wouldn't actually be a correct summary, so no. The point is

Re: [HACKERS] quoting psql varible as identifier

2010-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'd like to proceed by committing an initial patch which changes the Escaping Strings for Inclusion in SQL

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote: Thanks. So it means that this patch will considered for 9.1. Yeah, I think that's best. I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest patch by introducing the validator function. Is it enough to check

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch

2010-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote: I would like a mini-review on the change I made in the latest patch by introducing the validator function

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >