Re: [HACKERS] Further news on Clang - spurious warnings

2011-08-03 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 3 Aug 2011, at 19:20, David E. Wheeler wrote: Yeah, not sure whether or not to tweak the Makefile to use Clang. I guess not? export CC=clang ./configure ... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] sync rep fsync=off

2011-03-19 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 18 Mar 2011, at 21:12, Robert Haas wrote: While investigating Simon's complaint about my patch of a few days ago, I discovered that synchronous replication appears to slow to a crawl if fsync is turned off on the standby. I'm not sure why this is happening or what the right behavior is

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: cross column correlation ...

2011-02-26 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 25 Feb 2011, at 13:18, Robert Haas wrote: People coming from Oracle are not favorably impressed either by the amount of monitoring data PostgreSQL can gather or by the number of knobs that are available to fix problems when they occur. We don't need to have as many knobs as Oracle and

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: cross column correlation ...

2011-02-26 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 26 Feb 2011, at 14:45, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz I don't think *anyone* is avoiding that approach. There is almost universal consensus here that auto-tuning is better than manual tuning, even to the extent of being unwilling to add knobs

Re: [HACKERS] double and numeric conversion

2010-03-03 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
if (p1 buf) ++ * --p1; else { ++ * --p1; ??? does it even compile ? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] double and numeric conversion

2010-03-03 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 3 Mar 2010, at 17:41, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: if (p1 buf) ++ * --p1; else { ++ * --p1; ??? does it even compile ? Oh, I can see, that it is *(--p1)++ ,mea culpa. Which doesn't change the fact, that the code is rather messy imo. -- Sent via pgsql

Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL

2010-01-22 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
think also how people use SQL word , when calling ms sql server. They would just say 'sql server' , and to some I had to explain that the little greedy company didn't actually invented sql, hence it should be called ms sql server... so, -1 for dropping SQL word from me. ... and maybe the

Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0

2010-01-21 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 21 Jan 2010, at 09:37, Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next

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

2009-11-21 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 21 Nov 2009, at 02:56, Josh Berkus wrote: Would a patch that changes that have any chance of being accepted? Or is the gain (not having to repeat the DEFAULT clause, and being able to maintain it at one place instead of many) considered too small compared to the risk of breaking

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

2009-11-13 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 13 Nov 2009, at 19:39, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2009-11-13 at 15:05 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: As per Tom's - yes, this laptop has LANG set to UTF8 Polish. Setting it back to EN actually makes this error go away. The Polish locale isn't

[HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

2009-11-12 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). regression.diffs.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Syntax for partitioning

2009-10-29 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 29 Oct 2009, at 02:15, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: I'd like to improve partitioning feature in 8.5. Kedar-san's previous work is wonderful, but I cannot see any updated patch. http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/bd8134a40906080702s96c90a9q3bbb581b9bd0d...@mail.gmail.com So, I'll take

Re: [HACKERS] Parsing config files in a directory

2009-10-24 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 24 Oct 2009, at 14:41, Magnus Hagander wrote: Per discussion at the developer meeting back in Ottawa, attached is an initial patch that implements reading a directory of configuration files instead of just one. The idea being that something like a tuning tool, or pgadmin, for example can

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-10-03 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
new version under: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-10-03-1/ What's strange, is the increase of 48.2 percent in reports, that happened about two weeks before (weekend before the previous one). enjoy. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-15 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4979 will see, one issue is already fixed. I'll retry when the second one is too. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-14 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 14 Sep 2009, at 06:04, Tom Lane wrote: Looks like the clang guys still have some work to do. Thanks Tom, reported to clang dev's . meanwhile, since quite a lot stuff went in over weekend, and since Yesterday, new report at:

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for automating partitions in PostgreSQL 8.4 Beta 2

2009-09-14 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Anyone knows what's the latest on that patch ? To be honest, this was the thing that I was looking forward most in 8.5 ... (and probably not only me alone). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-12 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
usual round of updates to the scan report. Today's report available at: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-12-1/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-04 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
clang developers were quick to iron out their bugs, here's Today report: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-04-1/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-02 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
new report: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-02-1/ archive one dir up, as usual (with index of all previous reports). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-09-02 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2 Sep 2009, at 21:38, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz escribió: new report: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-09-02-1/ archive one dir up, as usual (with index of all previous reports). What's with the analyzer failures? Did you submit bug reports about

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 29 Aug 2009, at 18:05, Greg Stark wrote: Oh, I think I see what's happening. Our assertions can still be turned off at run-time with the variable assert_enabled. Index: src/include/postgres.h === RCS file:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
okay, I think I nailed the assert part right. (3rd iteration, about time...). as usual: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-2/ archive one dir up. the current patch attached. postgres_checker_patch.patch.bz2 Description: BZip2 compressed data -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 30 Aug 2009, at 15:46, Greg Stark wrote: So three of the four dead initialization warnings are legitimate -- if minor -- errors. Attached is a patch to remove the redundant initializations. well, all I can do is this: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4832 I find it hard to belive

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
with Greg's suggested palloc and friends patch: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-3 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 30 Aug 2009, at 18:07, Greg Stark wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewiczg...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: with Greg's suggested palloc and friends patch: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-3 Argh. That didn't help at all. hm, I suppose instead

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-4/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
please don't tell me that this is bogus: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-4/report-7JaICX.html#EndPath ? How come ? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-30 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 30 Aug 2009, at 19:14, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: please don't tell me that this is bogus: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-30-4/report-7JaICX.html#EndPath Yes, it's bogus. ctid is never passed as NULL. It might point

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-29 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
new one at http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-29-3/ archive at : http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/postgresql_static_check_29thAugust2009.tar.xz as always, comments are welcomed. And constructive explanation of any wrong-results will be relayed to clang-checker

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-29 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 29 Aug 2009, at 17:35, Greg Stark wrote: We still have things like this showing division by zero: Assert(activeTapes 0); 1913 slotsPerTape = (state-memtupsize - state-mergefirstfree) / activeTapes; It looks like if you marked ExceptionalCondition() as never returning then it should

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-27 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 24 Aug 2009, at 14:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2009-08-24 at 00:42 +0100, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: --enable-cassert, enabled, and also added exit_* in pg_dump to list of functions that never return. A few more functions to mark noreturn: DateTimeParseError(), and die_horribly

Re: [HACKERS] Patches for static check on geo_ops.c

2009-08-27 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 27 Aug 2009, at 10:46, Paul Matthews wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wonderful static checker coughed up 5 errors in geo_ops.c. None of them of any particular excitement or of earth shattering nature. A patch is attached below that should correct these. (The more little issue we eliminate

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-27 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
heh, sorry folks for the noise again :/ There was a fair amount of false positives there - due to nature of Assert() macro. Mainly, since assert_enabled is a runtime variable, not a macro (which I sadly overlooked). So, hardcoding it to (1) (using CPP) removed quite few false positives.

[HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
So, after successful, and helpful Saturday with llvm's clang static checker, I decided to run it against postgresql's source code. Result can be seen at: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-5/ . One directory below is the tar file, with the report. I am sure

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 23 Aug 2009, at 17:41, Greg Stark wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewiczg...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: I am sure there's plenty of false positives, but I am also quite sure there's many real errors on that list. Do you know how to teach clang about functions which

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 23 Aug 2009, at 17:41, Greg Stark wrote: Do you know how to teach clang about functions which never return? http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/annotations.html#attr_noreturn -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-5/report-MAVb5D.html#EndPath for a very positive one - at least from strict language point of view. consider: float f = 1; f++; printf(%f\n, f); -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
about the false positives around 'null reference'. I'll try sticking exit(1)'s at the end of each macro - and see if that makes most of them go away. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
memory leak: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-5/report-46wcmJ.html#EndPath -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
this one should contain substantialy less false positives, because error functions were marked as the 'never exit' points: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-9/ for the record, here's patch that marks elog, etc as dead ends: Index: src/include/utils/elog.h

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 23 Aug 2009, at 20:31, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: for the record, here's patch that marks elog, etc as dead ends: That does not look like the right thing at all, since now the checker will believe that elog(NOTICE) and such don't return. I think

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
ok folks, here's the last one for Today: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-29/ tar ball with report can be downloaded from here: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/postgresql_static_check_23rdAugust2009.tar.xz (compressed with lzma's xz tool). here's the

Re: [HACKERS] clang's static checker report.

2009-08-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 24 Aug 2009, at 00:15, Greg Stark wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewiczg...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: ok folks, here's the last one for Today: http://zlew.org/postgresql_static_check/scan-build-2009-08-23-29/ This does look better. The first one I looked at looks

[HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Hi folks, Today I got bitten a bit, trying to write C function for postgresql, that also includes some of company's internal stuff. Needles to say, our stuff defines BOOL, as well as postgresql's c.h include file. Now, for us, we will probably change it, but is there any reason for

Re: [HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Jul 2009, at 12:52, Bernd Helmle wrote: --On 16. Juli 2009 11:12:34 +0100 Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: Now, for us, we will probably change it, but is there any reason for postgresql nowadays not to use stdbool.h, apart from fact, that no one made an effort

Re: [HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
oh, another thing. stdbool is C99 standard feature. Not gcc extension. Just in case, someone thinks otherwise. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Jul 2009, at 14:20, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: oh, another thing. stdbool is C99 standard feature. We are still targeting C89, not C99. Another reason not to depend on stdbool is that, so far as I can see, the standard does not promise that type

Re: [HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Jul 2009, at 14:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Thursday 16 July 2009 16:23:31 Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: On 16 Jul 2009, at 14:20, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: oh, another thing. stdbool is C99 standard feature. We are still targeting C89

Re: [HACKERS] boolean in C

2009-07-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Jul 2009, at 15:17, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: That's hardly going to improve readability for anyone. Also, it will flat out not work for the catalog struct declarations. When we say bool relhasindex; the compiler had better think that that's

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for automating partitions in PostgreSQL 8.4 Beta 2

2009-06-09 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
gcc -no-cpp-precomp -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith - Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing - fwrapv -bundle -multiply_defined suppress regress.o - bundle_loader ../../../src/backend/postgres -L../../../src/port -o regress.so cp

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for automating partitions in PostgreSQL 8.4 Beta 2

2009-06-08 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
make -C catalog all ( echo src/backend/catalog/catalog.o src/backend/catalog/dependency.o src/backend/catalog/heap.o src/backend/catalog/index.o src/backend/ catalog/indexing.o src/backend/catalog/namespace.o src/backend/catalog/ aclchk.o src/backend/catalog/pg_aggregate.o

Re: [HACKERS] pg_migrator issue with contrib

2009-06-07 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 7 Jun 2009, at 03:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: On 6 Jun 2009, at 19:50, Tom Lane wrote: We have five days. I don't think we need testing, per se. The first step should be to diff the 8.3 and 8.4 versions of the various contrib .sql.in files and determine what

Re: [HACKERS] pg_migrator issue with contrib

2009-06-06 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 6 Jun 2009, at 19:50, Tom Lane wrote: We have five days. I don't think we need testing, per se. The first step should be to diff the 8.3 and 8.4 versions of the various contrib .sql.in files and determine what changed. Any module whose .sql.in file hasn't changed is definitely safe.

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 4.4 compiler warnings

2009-04-26 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
and a quick one on mac os x, which looks like it has something to do with COMPLETE_WITH_LIST() and macros like that, and maybe with completion_matches on mac os x. I don't get these on linux. This is from gcc4.4 with -O3 (which obviously causes gcc to find more potential warnings).

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 4.4 compiler warnings

2009-04-26 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 26 Apr 2009, at 16:22, Tom Lane wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: tab-complete.c:666: warning: implicit declaration of function 'completion_matches' Are you sure you have a real installation of readline? OSX is notorious for providing a bogus one, particularly

Re: [HACKERS] HashJoin w/option to unique-ify inner rel

2009-04-25 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 25 Apr 2009, at 04:52, Robert Haas wrote: blow the hash-join plan out of the water anyway... but Stephen Frost was telling me at JDcon East that he sometimes sets it to something like 8GB when he's the only user on his apparently-quite-awesome hardware...) For the record, because most

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 4.4 compiler warnings

2009-04-24 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
reloptions.c: In function ‘extractRelOptions’: reloptions.c:731: warning: value computed is not used heapam.c: In function ‘heapgettup’: heapam.c:458: warning: value computed is not used heapam.c:458: warning: value computed is not used heapam.c: In function ‘heapgettup_pagemode’:

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 4.4 compiler warnings

2009-04-22 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
if that's without -O3, than please retry it with. It will give even more. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Automating Partitions in PostgreSQL - Query on syntax

2009-04-21 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Does sql standard defines it ? and another question, what about updating existing partitions, with no need to drop/recreate ? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing plpgsql's lexer

2009-04-19 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 19 Apr 2009, at 17:42, Tom Lane wrote: The attached proposed patch rips out plpgsql's handling of comments and string literals, and puts in scanner rules that are extracted from the core lexer (but simplified in a few places where we don't need all the complexity). The net user-visible

Re: [HACKERS] Replacing plpgsql's lexer

2009-04-19 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 19 Apr 2009, at 18:28, Greg Stark wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: Will it also mean, that queries are going to be analyzed deeper ? Ie, afaik I am able now to create plpgsql function, that tries to run query accessing non existent

Re: [HACKERS] 8.4b1: Query returning results in different order to 8.3

2009-04-18 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 18 Apr 2009, at 22:22, Tom Lane wrote: This is mentioned in the release notes, but I suppose we'd better promote it to the observe the following incompatibilities list... This is a really funny one, because people naturally expect UNION [ALL] to stay in the same order. Unlike the

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Performance of full outer join in 8.3

2009-04-17 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Btw, There was a EXPLAIN XML summer of code project, wasn't there ? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Performance of full outer join in 8.3

2009-04-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Apr 2009, at 16:21, David Fetter wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:12:10AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: I think the way to do this is to introduce plan output in XML If we're going with a serialization, which I think would be an excellent idea, how about one that's light-weight and

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Performance of full outer join in 8.3

2009-04-16 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 16 Apr 2009, at 19:41, Merlin Moncure wrote: Is that because of how the output is formatted though, or because the concepts are difficult to express? (I agree though, json is better especially for structures that are possibly highly nested). What I mean is that what postgresql displays

Re: [HACKERS] Closing some 8.4 open items

2009-04-11 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 11 Apr 2009, at 08:01, Hitoshi Harada wrote: 2009/4/11 David Fetter da...@fetter.org: On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:48:33PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: Yeah, but all the window functions are stored in pg_proc. So are aggregate functions, and they have their own separate way of being

Re: [HACKERS] Closing some 8.4 open items

2009-04-11 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 11 Apr 2009, at 13:33, Hitoshi Harada wrote: Maybe trigger functions should be displayed separately too than ? You don't catch the point. The aggregate entries in pg_proc have prosrc = 'aggregate_dummy', which means they're dummy and the entities are stored in pg_aggregate. Triggers in

Re: [HACKERS] a few crazy ideas about hash joins

2009-04-03 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 3 Apr 2009, at 19:44, Lawrence, Ramon wrote: I would be especially interested in using a shared memory hash table that *all* backends can use - if the table is mostly read-only, as dimension tables often are in data warehouse applications. That would give zero startup cost and

Re: [HACKERS] gcc: why optimize for size flag is not the default

2009-03-11 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 11 Mar 2009, at 13:51, Marko Kreen wrote: Linux kernel is moving to use -Os everywhere. AFAIK their argument is that kernel code should not be doing anything CPU-intensive, thus minimal cache usage is more important than unrolled loops. This also seems to hint that -Os is not really

Re: [HACKERS] cardinality()

2009-03-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Mar 2009, at 00:52, Andrew Dunstan wrote: We seem to have acquired a cardinality() function with almost no discussion, and it has semantics that are a bit surprising to me. I should have thought cardinality(array) would be the total number of elements in the array. Instead, it

[HACKERS] would it be a lot of work, to add optimizations accross unions ?

2009-02-28 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Say I have: select foo ( select foo from bar1 union all select foo from bar2 union all select foo from bar3 ... ) a order by foo desc limit X; (and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say with when foo=N in outer subselect) Would anyone consider such

Re: [HACKERS] would it be a lot of work, to add optimizations accross unions ?

2009-02-28 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:37, Gregory Stark wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: Say I have: select foo ( select foo from bar1 union all select foo from bar2 union all select foo from bar3 ... ) a order by foo desc limit X; (and I can give you few other examples around

Re: [HACKERS] 8.4 features presentation

2009-02-23 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
tbh, I would add much more facts from internal changes, to improve efficiency. Because that wouldn't be very convincing for , say my managment (but than, what is..), etc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] The science of optimization in practical terms?

2009-02-13 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
yet more arguments, to let postgresql estimate those automatically. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] 64 bit PostgreSQL 8.3.6 build on AIX 5300-09-02-0849 with IBM XL C/C++ 10.1.0.1 - initdb fails (could not dump unrecognized node type: 650)

2009-02-09 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 9 Feb 2009, at 16:04, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm. I think -qnoansialias corresponds to gcc's -fno-strict-aliasing, which we *know* is necessary to build a working Postgres on recent gcc versions. I have not checked the exact symptoms of -fstrict-aliasing recently, but what you're reporting is

Re: [HACKERS] Is a plan for lmza commpression in pg_dump

2009-02-07 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 7 Feb 2009, at 21:08, daveg wrote: That this comes up much to often suggests that there is more than near zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be considered? We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse. I don't see anything wrong with using

Re: [HACKERS] add_path optimization

2009-02-02 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2 Feb 2009, at 14:50, Robert Haas wrote: well, true - but also, statically allocated table, without any predefined size (with #DEFINE) , and no boundary check - is bad as well. I suppose , this code is easy enough to let it be with your changes, but I would still call it not pretty.

Re: [HACKERS] add_path optimization

2009-02-02 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 21:35, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl wrote: I don't like the fact that you hardcoded that here. I know that you are trying to pass on few calls in one go here, but still... ugly. Well, I think you'll find

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backslash consistency patch

2009-02-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 11:07, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: On 1 Feb 2009, at 10:58, David Fetter wrote: I think Stephen meant that they should add a column to the output. Stephen? it's already there. oh sorry, column - as in psql printout's column yeah, doable too - lemme see if I can do

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backslash consistency patch

2009-02-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 14:21, Stephen Frost wrote: So if you have alot of roles granted, and even a couple attributes, it gets ugly.. true. I thought perhaps you guys want to go for table chart USER\t PERM1\t PERM2\t PERM3 foo\to\tx\tx\o bar\tx\to\to\x Personaly that would work for

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-02-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 10:25, Gregory Stark wrote: I'm sorry if I was unclear. It needs to be in keywords.c but can probably be marked as UNRESERVED_KEYWORD there rather than RESERVED_KEYWORD. In other words there are two places where you have to indicate whether it's reserved or not,

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backslash consistency patch

2009-02-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 10:58, David Fetter wrote: I think Stephen meant that they should add a column to the output. Stephen? it's already there. try: psql -E \du ;] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] add_path optimization

2009-02-01 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
disclaimer: I don't know that bit of postgresql code, in fact - this is the first time I see it. *** a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c --- b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c *** *** 473,478 match_unsorted_outer(PlannerInfo *root, --- 473,481 if

[HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
Hey folks, I am trying to add GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES to postgres, as it has been quite few times now - where I had to write a procedure for that. I kind of looked around, and more or less know how to approach it. But I am stuck on parser :), yes - parser. Can someone walk me through

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 16:46, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: + {table, TABLES, RESERVED_KEYWORD}, Gaaah, a typo... :( (another useless post to -hackers, by myself). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 17:17, Gregory Stark wrote: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: You're going to kick yourself, but: {table, TABLE, RESERVED_KEYWORD}, + {table, TABLES, RESERVED_KEYWORD}, ^ I don't see any reason offhand why it should have

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
from http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo: [E] inline: 10px-UntickedTick.svg.pngAllow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema objects with one command The proposed syntax is: GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN public TO phpuser; GRANT SELECT ON NEW TABLES IN public TO phpuser;

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 17:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote: But the syntax you posted does not do this at all. Where does it restrict the grant to a single schema, like the syntax above? I am just starting the attempt here, obviously since I admit that my parser skills are next to none - I didn't

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 17:28, David Fetter wrote: On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 05:24:15PM +, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: from http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo: I see the TODO item, but I don't see anything in the SQL standard, which I think is something we should explore before making

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 1 Feb 2009, at 00:05, Joshua Tolley wrote: to add new syntax, you might consider writing a function instead. This function might take parameters such as the privilege to grant and the user to grant it to, and be called something like this: SELECT my_grant_function('someuser',

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 17:17, Gregory Stark wrote: I don't see any reason offhand why it should have to be a reserved word though. You should be able to make it an UNRESERVED_KEYWORD. Oh, and you'll want to add it to the list of tokens in unreserved_keyword in gram.y as well. removing it

Re: [HACKERS] adding stuff to parser, question

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 31 Jan 2009, at 17:22, David Fetter wrote: Is this part of the SQL:2008? If not, is there something else that is? As far as I can see in the 'free' draft, no. Which is quite funny, cos 'DATABASE' keyword isn't there too.. Anyway. Looks like m$'s sybase clone got it, so I figure - at

Re: [HACKERS] Updated backslash consistency patch

2009-01-31 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 23 Jan 2009, at 00:03, Tom Lane wrote: Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: Seeing this list reminded me of a pet-peeve.. \du and \dg actually show the same info, that's fine, but neither of them show the rolcanlogin value. +1 for fixing that. was it that easy, or I got it

Re: [HACKERS] More FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE problems

2009-01-26 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2009-01-26, at 17:34, Kevin Grittner wrote: . It may not surprise someone who is intimately familiar with PostgreSQL internals for a single SELECT statement to see PART of a transactions work, but it would surprise most users, and is certainly not compliant with the standard. +1000 --

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, dropping a tablespace

2009-01-25 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2009-01-25, at 09:04, Simon Riggs wrote: On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 21:58 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: When replaying a DROP TABLE SPACE, you first try to remove the directory, and if that fails, you assume that it's because it's in use as a temp tablespace in a read-only transaction.

Re: [HACKERS] Time to finalize patches for 8.4 beta

2009-01-24 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2009-01-24, at 15:33, Bruce Momjian wrote: The PostgreSQL community is considering including security enhancements in Postgres 8.4, e.g. row-level permissions and SE-Linux security. However, to evaluate the patch and its usefulness, we need security experts who want to use this

Re: [HACKERS] Fixes for compiler warnings

2009-01-18 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2009-01-18, at 09:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sunday 18 January 2009 08:28:51 Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, the risk this is trying to guard against is variables containing % unexpectedly. Even if that's not possible, it requires some work to verify and it's a bit fragile. I didn't look at

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery Test Framework

2009-01-12 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 2009-01-12, at 16:48, Dave Page wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 11:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Basically I think we are up against the same type of project management decision we've had several times before: are

[HACKERS] merry christmas folks

2008-12-24 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
WITH RECURSIVE tree(b, l, lv) AS ( ( WITH RECURSIVE t(b, l) AS ( select b/11.6, 0 AS l from (select generate_series(0,30)::float8 b union all select generate_series(30,0, -1)::float8 b) ziew UNION ALL select (b*1.06), l+1 FROM t WHERE l 3 ) select b, l,

  1   2   >