Re: [HACKERS] log files and permissions

2010-07-01 Thread Michael Tharp
On 07/01/2010 12:56 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I just tried creating a symbolic link to the pg_log directory and flagging the existing logs within it to 640. As a member of the group I was able to list and view the contents of log files through the symbolic link, even though I didn't have any

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add XMLEXISTS function from the SQL/XML standard

2010-05-25 Thread Michael Tharp
On 05/25/2010 01:09 PM, Mike Fowler wrote: Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old. RHEL 5 ships with 2.6.26. I imagine that supporting it is very desirable, regardless of its age, since that is unfortunately still the latest version of RHEL. -- m. tharp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] no universally correct setting for fsync

2010-05-10 Thread Michael Tharp
On 05/08/2010 04:07 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: It's probably worth mentioning that people who want to turn off fsync to gain a performance boost should instead look at a RAID controller with a BBU so they can safely enable write-back caching, getting most of the benefits of fsync=off safely.

Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

2010-04-30 Thread Michael Tharp
On 04/30/2010 01:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Well, one of us is. Why would you want to retain all of your WAL logs in pg_xlog forever? ...Robert To create or re-synchronize SR slaves, one could change wal_keep_segments to -1, run a backup, wait for the slaves to catch up, and change it

Re: [HACKERS] Differential backup

2010-04-27 Thread Michael Tharp
On 04/27/2010 09:59 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Under what circumstances would PostgreSQL modify a file without changing the last modified timestamp or the file size? Do all OSes have sub-second precision mtimes? Because otherwise I could see a scenario such at this: * File is modified *

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] nodeToString format and exporting the SQL parser

2010-04-24 Thread Michael Tharp
On 04/24/2010 08:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: The nodeToString format as it stands is somewhat ambiguous with respect to the type of a node member's value if one does not have access to readfuncs.c. For example, a T_BitString called foo is serialized as ':foo b1010' while a char * containing

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] nodeToString format and exporting the SQL parser

2010-04-04 Thread Michael Tharp
On 04/02/2010 04:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Generally speaking I'm against exposing that data structure to clients, because there will inevitably be griping when we change it (as we most certainly will). Your complaints boil down to this is hard to parse from the client side, and that already tells

[HACKERS] [RFC] nodeToString format and exporting the SQL parser

2010-04-02 Thread Michael Tharp
Most Esteemed Hackers: Due to popular demand on #postgresql (by which I mean David Fetter), I have been spending a little time making the internal SQL parser available to clients via a C-language SQL function. The function itself is extremely simple: just a wrapper around a call to raw_parser