Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-01-31 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 01:12 -0600, Decibel! wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:09:13PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Decibel! wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:40:19AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: (for 8.4 ...) I'd like to introduce triggers that fire when we issue a truncate:

[HACKERS] BUG: type of xxxx does not match that when preparing the plan

2008-01-31 Thread Hubert FONGARNAND
Hi, We are testing PostGreSQL 8.3 RC2 on our beta plateform and we are facing some problems with plpgsql function. Here's a failing test case, which worked well on postgresql 8.1 : Create this function : CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test(param integer) RETURNS text AS $BODY$DECLARE

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Dave Page
On Jan 31, 2008 1:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re-reading the thread ... could that last point be significant? Are all four of these boxen set to auto-accept updates from Redmond? No. red_bat does not auto-accept anything. For future reference, my BF members do

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:28:21AM +, Dave Page wrote: On Jan 31, 2008 1:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re-reading the thread ... could that last point be significant? Are all four of these boxen set to auto-accept updates from Redmond? No. red_bat does not

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45:40AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, I have found the problem. It is this line, which I am amazed hasn't bitten us before: next unless /^\d/; The first field in the dumpbin output looks like a 3 digit hex number.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.3RC1 on windows missing descriptive Event handle names

2008-01-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:59:38PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Stephen Denne wrote: I said... On Windows XP, using Process Explorer with the lower pane showing Handles, not all postgres.exe processes are including an Event type with a description of what the process is doing. I've had

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: I also propose to have the gendefs.pl script save the dumpbin output so this sort of problem will be easier to debug. Agreed, but I suggest waiting till 8.4 is branched unless you are really sure about this addition. We freeze for 8.3.0 in less than 24 hours.

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-01-31 Thread Gregory Stark
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah, etc. Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change that's visible in the table definition afterwards. There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX, ATLER

Re: [HACKERS] Will PostgreSQL get ported to CUDA?

2008-01-31 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:56 -0800, Dann Corbit wrote: It's too bad that they have a restrictive license. Perhaps there is an opportunity to create an information appliance that contains a special build of PostgreSQL, a nice heap of super-speedy disk, and a big pile of GPUs for sort and

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-01-31 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:22 +, Gregory Stark wrote: Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah, etc. Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change that's visible in the table definition afterwards. Is it

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-01-31 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:22 +, Gregory Stark wrote: Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah, etc. Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change that's visible in the table definition afterwards. There are

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

2008-01-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Decibel! escribió: BTW, with autovacuum I don't really see why we should care about how long analyze takes, though perhaps it should have a throttle ala vacuum_cost_delay. Analyze already has vacuum delay points (i.e. it is already throttled). -- Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Will PostgreSQL get ported to CUDA?

2008-01-31 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:27:47PM +, Gregory Stark wrote: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was based on GPUSort: http://gamma.cs.unc.edu/GPUSORT/ I looked briefly at GPUSort a while back. I couldn't see how to shoehorn into POstgres the assumption that you're always

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, but keep in mind if we use synchronized_seqscans in pg_dump we will have to recognize that GUC forever. No, because it's being used on the query side, not in the emitted dump. We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people could override with -i. +1 to this idea. TODO for 8.4? -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For now I'm going try to fix it by changing it to: next unless $pieces[0] =~/^[A-F0-9]{3}$/; Yeah, nice catch. Wouldn't surprise me if we actually had this problem before, just that the dropped symbols were

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed, but I suggest waiting till 8.4 is branched unless you are really sure about this addition. We freeze for 8.3.0 in less than 24 hours. I am pretty damn sure it's OK. It's pretty low risk (change an unlink call to a rename call) and even if

[HACKERS] Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

2008-01-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs escribió: On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people could override with -i. +1 to this idea. TODO for 8.4? -1 without some more planning

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people could override with -i. +1 to this idea. TODO for 8.4? -1 without some more planning about the effects and

Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people could override with -i. Are you thinking about next major or

Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dimitri Fontaine wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. Hi, Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?: We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

2008-01-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would learn on the spot that they must install the newer pg_dump. I think a more moderate measure might

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

2008-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would learn on the spot that they must install the newer pg_dump. I think a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be *plenty* of evidence out there that the performance penalty would NOT be essentially zero. I can confirm that I have had performance tank because of boosting the

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For now I'm going try to fix it by changing it to: next unless $pieces[0] =~/^[A-F0-9]{3}$/; Yeah, nice catch. Wouldn't surprise me if we actually had this problem

[HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Roberts, Jon
select to_char(date, '-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms') as char, date from (select timestamp'2008-01-30 15:06:21.560' as date) sub 2008-01-30 15:06:21.560;2008-01-30 15:06:21.56 Why does the timestamp field truncate the 0 but when I show the timestamp as a character in the default timestamp

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed, but I suggest waiting till 8.4 is branched unless you are really sure about this addition. We freeze for 8.3.0 in less than 24 hours. I am pretty damn sure it's OK. It's pretty low risk (change an unlink call

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: type of xxxx does not match that when preparing the plan

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Hubert FONGARNAND [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are testing PostGreSQL 8.3 RC2 on our beta plateform and we are facing some problems with plpgsql function. Here's a failing test case, which worked well on postgresql 8.1 : Really? I get the 'does not match' error in every release back to 7.3.

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: type of xxxx does not match that when preparing the plan

2008-01-31 Thread Hubert FONGARNAND
I'm sorry, you're right it fails too with older version of postgresql Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008 à 10:35 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit : Hubert FONGARNAND [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are testing PostGreSQL 8.3 RC2 on our beta plateform and we are facing some problems with plpgsql function.

Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : I'm thinking next major. In principle there could be cases where a minor update could break pg_dump, but it seems unlikely enough that it's not reasonable to embed such a policy in the code. As for next major, though, the mere existence of the -i

Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Dimitri Fontaine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard error, rather than something people could override with -i.

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would learn on the spot that they must install the newer

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: select to_char(date, '-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms') as char, date from (select timestamp'2008-01-30 15:06:21.560' as date) sub 2008-01-30 15:06:21.560;2008-01-30 15:06:21.56

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b842y285(VS.71).aspx appears to suggest that the size of the field is fixed. That would imply that dumpbin fails at 4096 symbols per file. While I surely wouldn't put it past M$ to have put in such a limitation, I think it's more likely that

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

2008-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would learn on the spot that they must

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: It strikes me that the pattern needs to be {3,} or maybe just +. I dunno what this column is measuring, but if we are past 0xA00 then surely 0x1000 is not far away. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b842y285(VS.71).aspx appears

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These two fields should be consistent because they should be formatted the same way. Why would you think that? Indeed the whole *point* of

Re: [HACKERS] Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

2008-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b842y285(VS.71).aspx appears to suggest that the size of the field is fixed. That would imply that dumpbin fails at 4096 symbols per file. While I surely wouldn't put it past M$ to have put in such a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

2008-01-31 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Kevin Grittner wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be *plenty* of evidence out there that the performance penalty would NOT be essentially zero. I can confirm that I have had performance tank

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Roberts, Jon
-Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:48 AM To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:34 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If not to_char, what is the preferred method to convert a timestamp to a string? Your original post showed to_char apparently doing what you wanted, no? select to_char(date, '-mm-dd

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The default timestamp format appears to be -mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms Not to me: select now(); now --- 2008-01-31 12:31:40.568746-06 (1 row)

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Roberts, Jon
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:48 AM To: Kevin Grittner Cc: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Roberts, Jon
-Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:33 PM To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon

Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

2008-01-31 Thread Gregory Stark
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dimitri Fontaine wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. Hi, Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?: We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So on your db, run this query: select sub.t1, to_char(t1, '-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us') as char_t1 from ( select timestamp'2008-01-31 12:31:40.50' as t1 ) sub I bet you get this:

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:34 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: doesn't round the zeros off for timestamp Sorry to have been so slow, but I think this is the crux of it: A timestamp represents a moment in time, without storing any precision

[HACKERS] IDLE and waiting

2008-01-31 Thread Gurjeet Singh
Hi guys, I saw a strange behaviour on one of the production boxes. The pg_stat_activity shows a process as IDLE and yet 'waiting' !!! On top of it (understandably, since its IDLE), there are no entries for this pid in pg_locks! Following are the snapshots of the two system views.

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug

2008-01-31 Thread Roberts, Jon
-Original Message- From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:47 PM To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberts, Jon

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

2008-01-31 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:55, Kevin Grittner wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be *plenty* of evidence out there that the performance penalty would NOT be essentially zero. I can

[HACKERS] [Fwd: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp 8.3 in CVS.]

2008-01-31 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Yeah :) Thanks everyone who worked a lot for this release. Forwarded Message From: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp 8.3 in CVS. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:59:02 + (UTC) Log Message: --- Stamp 8.3 in CVS.