Re: [HACKERS] 2nd Level Buffer Cache

2011-03-21 Thread rsmogura
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:24:22 +, Greg Stark wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: To take the opposite approach... has anyone looked at having the OS just manage all caching for us? Something like MMAPed shared buffers? Even if we find the issue with

Re: [HACKERS] 2nd Level Buffer Cache

2011-03-18 Thread rsmogura
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:02:18 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: Rados*aw Smogurarsmog...@softperience.eu wrote: I have implemented initial concept of 2nd level cache. Idea is to keep some segments of shared memory for special buffers (e.g. indices) to prevent overwrite those by other operations. I

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-24 Thread rsmogura
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:38:35 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes: Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved mask, as well definition is

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread rsmogura
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still unconvinced about the use-case. Do we want to intentionally make binary

Re: [HACKERS] Void binary patch

2011-02-22 Thread rsmogura
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:01:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Radosław Smogura rsmog...@softperience.eu wrote: Just patch for missing procedures for void send/recv What problem does this fix? Can not execute stored procedures in JDBC with out arguments, I think

Re: [HACKERS] Void binary patch

2011-02-22 Thread rsmogura
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:12:23 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Radosław Smogura rsmog...@softperience.eu wrote: Just patch for missing procedures for void send/recv What problem does this

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
Something like this, Everything must be done on call, due to polymorphic signatures, this can be kept in short living cache, but bear in mind user can alter procedure in meantime. When JDBC driver will detect if procedure call statement is created. 1. Determine procedure oid - how?

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
Yes new node should be created and added for 8.x and 9.x releases... On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:53:19 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2011/2/17 Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org: On Feb17, 2011, at 10:30 , rsmogura wrote: When JDBC driver will detect if procedure call statement is created. 1. Determine

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
Maybe change in backend to treat complex types marked in relation as COMPLEX in same way as scalar values is solution, actually I don't know. This can be determined by GUC variable so every one can be happy :) On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:08:13 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote: Lukas Eder wrote: The

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and number of resulted parameters (even check types of those), to prevent programming errors. On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:15:07 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote: Florian Pflug wrote: On Feb17, 2011, at 01:14 , Oliver Jowett wrote: Any suggestions

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:06:22 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote: On 17/02/11 23:18, rsmogura wrote: Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and number of resulted parameters (even check types of those), to prevent programming errors. And..? Oliver And it will throw exception

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:44:07 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote: On 18/02/11 00:37, rsmogura wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:06:22 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote: On 17/02/11 23:18, rsmogura wrote: Yes, but driver checks number of declared out parameters and number of resulted parameters (even check types

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-17 Thread rsmogura
snip testdb=# CREATE FUNCTION p_enhance_address4 (address OUT u_address_type) AS $$ BEGIN address := (SELECT t_author.address FROM t_author WHERE first_name = 'George'); END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE FUNCTION testdb=# SELECT * FROM p_enhance_address4(); street | zip |

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-02-16 Thread rsmogura
If I may give some suggestion, I was tried to investigate this, and maybe some this will help When you create procedure with out parameters then return type of this is implicit calculated and may be record or base type (if exactly one out param is defined). In many places I saw comparison of

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-01-25 Thread rsmogura
Hi, I don't know if this is a bug, but at least I haven't found any clear statement in documentation about; this should be wrote with big and bold letters. In any way I think this is bug or big inconsistency, because of, as was stated in previous mail test=# CREATE FUNCTION

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

2011-01-12 Thread rsmogura
Dear hackers :) Could you look at this thread from General. --- I say the backend if you have one row type output result treats it as the full output result, it's really bad if you use STRUCT types (in your example you see few columns, but this should be one column!). I think backend should