On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Arnold.Zhu wrote:
Can I use DataAdapter.Fill() with refcursor. :-(
I have no idea what DataAdapter is, you will need to check your client
interface for support (and this probably isn't the place to do that), but
it's certainly possible. See for example The world's most
Hello Dennis,
Some french guy on IRC showed the site http://www.postgresql.fr/ that does
not contain anything about postgresql. I don't speak french so I can't
tell what the page is about. It looks linux related.
This doesn't really belong on the -hackers list but I don't know where to
send the
I seem to remember that some of you guys were in London or Oxford? I'm
in London at the moment and will be in Oxford on the weekend if anyone
wants to catch up?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Sent: 24 January 2005 09:41
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] Hackers in London/Oxford
I seem to remember that some of you guys were in London or
Hello, Kris Jurka
Thank you for your reply, I will go to Npgsql development team for help.
I have no idea what DataAdapter is, you will need to check your client
interface for support (and this probably isn't the place to do that), but
it's certainly possible. See for example The world's most
Hi,
I read recently a paper
Keir Fraser Tim Harris, Concurrent Programing without Locks, ACM
Journal Name, vol V, n° N, M 20YY, Page 1-48
About algorithm to manage structure (exemple about red-black tree, skip
list) with dead-lock free property, parallel read, etc.
Does this have been studied
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:52:51 +, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Currently, we have group commit functionality via GUC parameters
commit_delay
andcommit_siblings
And since 7.3 we have ganged WAL writes (c.f. the thread starting at
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:42 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This time setlocale() was needed to get the behaviour
I needed (database initdb'ed to 'C', my order set to 'pl_PL',
or whatever locale I need at given moment).
I would imagine that the performance is spectacularly
Lock free data structures are cool... but not really applicable to
databases. They have a high maintenance overhead, severe complexity,
and will fail when there are many concurrent inserts/deletes to the
structure. I messed with them a year or so ago, and that's what I found
in every
Here's a possible solution... though I'm not sure about whether you find
the pg_ prefix appropriate for this context.
-- Create a Test Relation
CREATE TABLE test_tbl (
test_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
test_value VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (test_id));
-- Create COUNT
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:49:22PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives...
How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in
one statement? Something like a combination of CREATE TRIGGER and
CREATE FUNCTION? Being able to
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part?
No, we have never stated that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of
Stephen Frost wrote:
The other difference would seem to be that user identifiers can't
be granted to users whereas role identifiers can be. Following
this, rolmembers must be NULL if rolcanlogin is true, no? That
breaks if roles can log in though. Or should we just allow granting
of user
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:42 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would imagine that the performance is spectacularly awful :-(.
Have you benchmarked it? A large sort on a unitext column,
for instance, would be revealing.
Why do you persist in
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part?
No, we have never stated that.
We do however point out in the docs that SELECT * is vulnerable to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is it time for 7.4.7? I've seen many commits to 7.4 branch nowadays.
Regards, Devrim
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Log Message:
---
Disallow LOAD to non-superusers. Per report from John Heasman.
Tags:
REL7_4_STABLE
Modified
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it time for 7.4.7? I've seen many commits to 7.4 branch nowadays.
I just started a discussion about that on the core list ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So it's slow but not spectacularly awful.
glibc is not the world.
Sorry, I should have said It's not *necessarily* spectacularly awful
I tried Dawid's functions on Mac OS X, being a
random non-glibc platform
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The results were
In C locale, SQL_ASCII encoding: 820 ms
In C locale, UNICODE encoding: 825 ms
Using Dawid's functions: 62010 ms
Stripped-down functions: 21010 ms
I don't think
Ok,
With 8.0 out the door, I'd like to reopen discussion re: userlock
contrib. module and propose to get it moved into the core database
sources. This was discussed a bit a few months back but it never made
it officially to the todo list. I'm not sure what the final consensus
was on the shared
3) Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema
objects
with one
Maybe this is apply schema changes to several objects with one
command. This seems reasonable.
Well, I don't know. IMO, what I would really like to see is for various
database objects to inherit permissions
I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump limit/offset
to int8. IMO, the flavors of fetch that take a numeric parameter need
this as well.
FWIW, trying to pass integer 2^31 to fetch gives a syntax error, which
is clearly wrong.
Merlin
---(end of
Is there a practical use for retrieving 2^31 records at once?
(this is a serious question, I'm not arguing that it should cause a
syntax error)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed the todo to bump
Jeff wrote:
Is there a practical use for retrieving 2^31 records at once?
(this is a serious question, I'm not arguing that it should cause a
syntax error)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I was browsing the TODO list and I noticed
FYI, I am doing training for SRA in New York City today (Monday) until
Wednesday. I might be behind in reading email and responding.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive,
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Benjamin Arai wrote:
What are the goals for 8.1?
Replace ARC ... anything else is a bonus ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:35 -0700, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Lock free data structures are cool... but not really applicable to
databases. They have a high maintenance overhead, severe complexity,
and will fail when there are many concurrent inserts/deletes to the
structure.
Can you
Neil,
Here is some pretty good info on lock-free structures... I'm pretty sure
I tested their code in a multithreaded high-concurrency environment and
experienced the problems I was discussing.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/lock-free/
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:35
On January 24, 2005 09:58 am, Tom Lane wrote:
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it time for 7.4.7? I've seen many commits to 7.4 branch nowadays.
I just started a discussion about that on the core list ...
If we are going to roll a 7.4.7 any chance we can roll the icc compiler fixes
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we are going to roll a 7.4.7 any chance we can roll the icc compiler fixes
-WI (if I recall right) into there as well?
You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that if you want
something applied to 7.4.7. A patch against REL7_4_STABLE
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 16:50 -0700, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Here is some pretty good info on lock-free structures... I'm pretty sure
I tested their code in a multithreaded high-concurrency environment and
experienced the problems I was discussing.
Fair enough, but my hope would be that those
Neil and others,
It might be interesting to look at some of the papers by Michael
Scott et al. I am not an expert on non-blocking data structures,
but the following page seems interesting:
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/scott/synchronization/
esp. (7) nonblocking dual data structures, which
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:12:49AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:49:22PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives...
How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in
one statement? Something like a
Speaking of other tricks and things missing; I'd like to see support for
named locks. If you're using locks for something other than row-level
locking, it's awkward at best to have to come up with an OID to identify
your lock with, and even that doesn't guarantee uniqueness. You're also
out of
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 19:36 -0600, Min Xu (Hsu) wrote:
In any case, I think only when contention is high the non-blocking
algorithms are worth looking at. So can someone shine some light
on where the contention might be?
The major point of contention that has been identified in the past is
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of other tricks and things missing; I'd like to see support for
named locks.
[ yawn... ] Create a table with a name column, put some rows in it,
lock the rows.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:40:30PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:12:49AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 03:49:22PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives...
How difficult would it be to
Someone at Fujitsu pointed out the following bug in 8.0:
begin;
savepoint x;
create table abc (a int);
insert into abc values (5);
declare foo cursor for select * from abc;
rollback to x;
fetch from foo; -- hits an Assert()
commit;
The stacktrace is:
#2 0x0826367b in ExceptionalCondition
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:43:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of other tricks and things missing; I'd like to see support for
named locks.
[ yawn... ] Create a table with a name column, put some rows in it,
lock the rows.
What would guarantee
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 Neil Conway wrote :
Amazingly, there *are* lock-free hash table
algorithms (e.g. [1]), but at first glance they seem pretty complex, and
It is a little scary when I read the lock-free hash table algorithm
needs a theorem prover to prove its correctness. I'd guess maintaining
contrib/ltree includes text2ltree and ltree2text functions, but no
implicit casts. Is there any particular reason for this?
--- ltree.sql.in.orig Mon Jan 24 22:47:01 2005
+++ ltree.sql.inMon Jan 24 22:58:40 2005
@@ -155,10 +155,14 @@
AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME'
LANGUAGE 'C' WITH
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:28:09 -0700, Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
UPDATE pg_user_table_counts
SET rowcount = rowcount + 1
WHERE schemaname = this_schemaname
AND tablename = TG_RELNAME;
This might work for small single user
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone at Fujitsu pointed out the following bug in 8.0:
begin;
savepoint x;
create table abc (a int);
insert into abc values (5);
declare foo cursor for select * from abc;
rollback to x;
fetch from foo; -- hits an Assert()
Offhand I'd say this should
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
contrib/ltree includes text2ltree and ltree2text functions, but no
implicit casts. Is there any particular reason for this?
Implicit casts to or from text are evil.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
44 matches
Mail list logo
