Re: [HACKERS] Slony RPM issue

2005-10-06 Thread Devrim GUNDUZ
Hi, On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Philip Yarra wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:32 am, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: Thanks for the report. It will fixed in CVS and all the RPM sets later today. Always feel free to send me a patch if you want, I can apply your patch, too. OK, you got my previous email about why

[HACKERS] Query Regarding initdb

2005-10-06 Thread sandeep satpal
Hello all, I want to set a system level flag for my own purposes. What changes in initdb.c or any other files are expected. And When I will run my postgresql , how I get that system level flag. On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: Hi, On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Philip Yarra wrote: On Thu,

Re: [HACKERS] current_user versus current_role SOLVED

2005-10-06 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi, I used info from current_user for log. about some operations (who, when, ..). What I can see, current_user is equal current_role function. I had problem with it, because user (if is member of any group role) can change his identity. example: peter is member of role users. But peter can

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 00:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Qingqing Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1/ What types of prefix compression shall we support? Given the requirement of datatype independence, this idea seems a complete nonstarter to me... It would be possible to compress on similar

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Hannu Krosing
On K, 2005-10-05 at 13:21 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote: First I wanted to verify that pg's IO rates were inferior to The Competition. Now there's at least an indication that someone else has solved similar problems. Existence proofs make some things easier ;-) Is there any detailed programmer

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Hannu Krosing
On K, 2005-10-05 at 19:54 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote: +I made the from left field suggestion that perhaps a pg native fs format would be worth consideration. This is a major project, so the suggestion was to at least some extent tongue-in-cheek. This idea is discussed about once a year on

[HACKERS] version dependent compilation

2005-10-06 Thread Andreas Pflug
Apparently, there's currently no way to perform conditional compiling dependent on the version of pgsql. Currently we're facing the problem that ParseDateTime changed its parameters between 8.0.3 and 8.0.4, breaking backward compatibility (for good reasons in this case). IMHO it's quite

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
Now I've asked for the quickest path to detailed understanding of the pg IO subsystem. The goal being to get more up to speed on its coding details. Certainly not to annoy you or anyone else. Basically pg does random 8k (compile time blocksize) reads/writes only. Bitmap and sequential

[HACKERS] Outer where pushed down

2005-10-06 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Hi all, consider this view: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW v_current_connection AS SELECT ul.id_user FROM user_login ul, current_connection cc WHERE ul.id_user = cc.id_user; And this is the explain on a usage of that view: # explain select * from v_current_connection_test where

Re: [HACKERS] prepared queries in plperl

2005-10-06 Thread Dmitry Karasik
Hi Dmitry! On 27 Sep 05 at 16:16, Dmitry (Dmitry Karasik) wrote to Andrew Dunstan: Andrew Meanwhile, I will observe that this very desirable feature needs Andrew an interface with spi_fetchrow() I re-worked the patch ( http://www.karasik.eu.org/misc/plperl.diff ) and now there's also

[HACKERS] case insensitive joining in case of nested loop joins

2005-10-06 Thread Esha Palta
hi I want to know which files to be explored so as to do case insensitive joining in case of nested loop joins esha ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:32:32AM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 01:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: The idea of blocking during commit until shmem becomes available might work. There's some issues here about transaction atomicity, though: how do you guarantee that all or none

Re: [HACKERS] version dependent compilation

2005-10-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2005 12:50 schrieb Andreas Pflug: Apparently, there's currently no way to perform conditional compiling dependent on the version of pgsql. Currently we're facing the problem that ParseDateTime changed its parameters between 8.0.3 and 8.0.4, breaking backward

Re: [HACKERS] version dependent compilation

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:50:29AM +, Andreas Pflug wrote: Apparently, there's currently no way to perform conditional compiling dependent on the version of pgsql. Currently we're facing the problem that ParseDateTime changed its parameters between 8.0.3 and 8.0.4, breaking backward

Re: [HACKERS] version dependent compilation

2005-10-06 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 October 2005 13:47 To: Andreas Pflug Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Dave Page Subject: Re: [HACKERS] version dependent compilation Am Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2005 12:50 schrieb Andreas Pflug:

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, I don't really like the idea of blocking the backend for a potentially significant amount of time in a state half-way between committed and ready for the next query. I wonder whether we could use something comparable to pg_multixact or

Re: [HACKERS] Outer where pushed down

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW v_current_connection AS SELECT ul.id_user FROM user_login ul, current_connection cc WHERE ul.id_user = cc.id_user; # explain select * from v_current_connection_test where sp_connected_test(id_user) = FALSE; why

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:55:51PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: You've proven my point completely. This process is bottlenecked in the CPU. The only way to improve it would be to optimize the system (libc) functions like fread where it is spending most of it's time. Or to optimize its IO

Re: [Slony1-general] Re: [HACKERS] Slony RPM issue

2005-10-06 Thread Philip Yarra
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 05:10 am, elein wrote: Generally a short sed (or perl if you like) script will fix these up. But it is really pretty obscure trail for people to find the exact problem. Yeah, it's not that it's hard to fix when you know where to look, but my aim is to produce a site

[HACKERS] resource monitor

2005-10-06 Thread MOCHERLA LAKSHMI NARASIMHAM
hi i would like to know whether the feature for resource control is there or not... i mean controlling the allocated resources in pgsql sothat when a shortage is going tobe happened.. it automatically prompts the admin to kill some of the processes or preempt some of the resources ...

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It might be worth teaching the optimiser that if it has an index on an immutable function that if we have WHERE x = k and a functional index on f(x) then we can access the functional index with f(x) = f(k), as long as we also reapply the original WHERE

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:12:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, I don't really like the idea of blocking the backend for a potentially significant amount of time in a state half-way between committed and ready for the next query. I wonder whether

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
First of all, I'd like to give a name to the thing that a backend listens to. The code talks about listening to a relation, but as the comments there point out, the name doesn't actually identify a relation. I'm going to call it a topic from now on. I'd like to point out that we don't really

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 08:53:25AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: It would be possible to compress on similar values, since we know the output of the comparison in the final stage of the sort of the index build. That wouldn't need to rely upon anything to do with the datatype, since they are equal

[HACKERS] PG function call

2005-10-06 Thread smile khmer
Dear all, Does anyone know how index searching work in PG. I've explored the source code of PG, for btree, for searching, it will call the functions in file btcompare.c. As I've made a printf in the functions of the file btcompare.c. When I compile and run PG, it get into loop,. the

Re: [HACKERS] Outer where pushed down

2005-10-06 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Tom Lane wrote: Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW v_current_connection AS SELECT ul.id_user FROM user_login ul, current_connection cc WHERE ul.id_user = cc.id_user; # explain select * from v_current_connection_test where sp_connected_test(id_user)

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It might make sense to change the semantics so that we never lose a notification, if we're going to implement NOTIFY 'msg', but that's another discussion. That's pretty much a given --- the ability to pass some payload data in notifications has

Re: [HACKERS] PG function call

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:06:59AM -0500, smile khmer wrote: Dear all, Does anyone know how index searching work in PG. I've explored the source code of PG, for btree, for searching, it will call the functions in file btcompare.c. As I've made a printf in the functions of the file

[HACKERS] How PG_FUNCTION_ARG works in PG

2005-10-06 Thread sandeep satpal
Hi all, Whenever a function get called it receive one parameter as PG_FUNCTION_ARG ( as in nbtcompare.c ) I am not getting how it is interpreted and how it is used ?? thank u -- -- | Sandeep Satpal | | M.Tech Student | | Lab 212 KReSIT | --

Re: [HACKERS] How PG_FUNCTION_ARG works in PG

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
sandeep satpal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whenever a function get called it receive one parameter as PG_FUNCTION_ARG ( as in nbtcompare.c ) I am not getting how it is interpreted and how it is used ?? It's a pointer to a struct containing the actual arguments. You might find it helpful to

Re: [HACKERS] PG function call

2005-10-06 Thread smile khmer
- Original Message - From: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: smile khmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG function call Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:30:37 -0400 On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:06:59AM -0500, smile khmer wrote: Dear all, Does anyone know how index searching

[HACKERS] execution of nested loop joins

2005-10-06 Thread Esha Palta
Hi all, nodeNestloop.c executes nested loop joins. After getting a pair of inner and outer it test the inner and outer tuples to see if they satisfy the node's qualification using function ExecQual(joinqual, econtext, false). ExecQual evaluates join conditions one at a time.It captures one

Re: [HACKERS] execution of nested loop joins

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:14:02PM +0530, Esha Palta wrote: ExecQual evaluates join conditions one at a time.It captures one condition and passes it to function ExecEvalExpr which is actually a macro that invokes another function evalfunc(a method of ExprState structure). It's not a method

Re: [HACKERS] PG function call

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:01:55AM -0500, smile khmer wrote: but when I write the output to file (not standard out put), it won't finish, so I interupted and there're more than 50.000 lines,... What did you expect? PostgreSQL uses indexes for everything from looking up functions to finding

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Josh Berkus
Andreas, pg relys on the OS readahead (== larger block IO) to do efficient IO. Basically the pg scan performance should match a dd if=file of=/dev/null bs=8k, unless CPU bound. FWIW, we could improve performance by creating larger write blocks when appropriate, particularly on Unixes like

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 07:54:15PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote: I asked some questions about physical layout and format translation overhead being possibly suboptimal that seemed to be agreed to, but specifics as to where we are taking the hit don't seem to have been made explicit yet. This

[HACKERS] comments on prepared transactions ...

2005-10-06 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
i had to deal with oracle in the past couple of days (*mega sigh*) i have seen a very interesting feature which would make sense for PostgreSQL users. currently we have: test=# \h PREPARE TRANSACTION Command: PREPARE TRANSACTION Description: prepare the current transaction for two-phase

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Luke Lonergan
Andreas, On 10/6/05 3:56 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pg relys on the OS readahead (== larger block IO) to do efficient IO. Basically the pg scan performance should match a dd if=file of=/dev/null bs=8k, unless CPU bound. Which it is. Postgres will currently do a

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It might be worth teaching the optimiser that if it has an index on an immutable function that if we have WHERE x = k and a functional index on f(x) then we can access the functional index with f(x)

Re: [HACKERS] comments on prepared transactions ...

2005-10-06 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 19:13 +0200, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: i had to deal with oracle in the past couple of days (*mega sigh*) i have seen a very interesting feature which would make sense for PostgreSQL users. currently we have: test=# \h PREPARE TRANSACTION Command: PREPARE

Re: [HACKERS] comments on prepared transactions ...

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in oracle it is possible to comment transactions: COMMIT COMMENT 'ORA-2PC-CRASH-TEST-n'; if we added the possibility to comment prepared transactions it would be far easier for DBAs to find out what to do with prepared

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Indeed, one of the things on my list is to remove all the lseeks in favour of pread. Halving the number of kernel calls has got to be worth something right? Portability is an issue ofcourse... Being sure that it's not a pessimization is another

[HACKERS] LDAP Authentication?

2005-10-06 Thread Magnus Hagander
People, After writing dblink-ldap (http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dblink-ldap), several people have contacted me asking if this will give LDAP authentication to PostgreSQL, because they need this. And this is before I've even released it, so apparantly there are a lot of people who want this.

[HACKERS] Error messages

2005-10-06 Thread smile khmer
Dear all, I made some change ot the function in btcompare.c and compiling and installation is success, but when I start to run with /usr/local/pgsql/bin/initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data I've got this error message : creating template1 database in /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/1 ... FATAL:

Re: [HACKERS] fixing LISTEN/NOTIFY

2005-10-06 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like your suggestion of topic for the notify name, and am tempted to go fix the documentation to use that term right now ... Fwiw, I think the more conventional word here would be channel. But whatever. -- greg ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Are we awfully worried about people still using 2.0 kernels? And it would replace two calls with three in the worst case, we currently lseek before every read. That's utterly false. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:57:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Indeed, one of the things on my list is to remove all the lseeks in favour of pread. Halving the number of kernel calls has got to be worth something right? Portability is an issue

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:57:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Indeed, one of the things on my list is to remove all the lseeks in favour of pread. Halving the number of kernel calls has got to be worth something right? Portability is an issue

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

2005-10-06 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 04:25:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Are we awfully worried about people still using 2.0 kernels? And it would replace two calls with three in the worst case, we currently lseek before every read. That's utterly false.

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote: We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly. So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of this? ISTM that greatly reduces the usefulness, though I'm not objecting because compression

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FROM with CSV header

2005-10-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Instead of ignoring the first line of a COPY FROM ... WITH CSV HEADER, what about allowing the first line to be used as a list of field names? This means you wouldn't have to include field order in the COPY command if the names matched field names in the table. It was

[HACKERS] slower merge join on sorted data chosen over nested loop

2005-10-06 Thread Kevin Grittner
In both the 8.1beta2 and using a build from this morning's dev snapshot, this query ran slower than expected: select count(*) from DbTranRepository AS dtr inner join DbTranLogRecord AS dtlr on (dtlr.countyNo = dtr.countyNo and dtlr.tranImageSeqNo = dtr.tranImageSeqNo

[HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Just before 8.1beta2 went out, Neil made the following changes: Rename pg_complete_relation_size() to pg_total_relation_size(), for the sake of brevity and clarity. Make pg_reload_conf(), pg_rotate_logfile(), and pg_cancel_backend() return a boolean rather

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread mark
I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that were chosen for historical reasons, but are maintained only for compatibility, and either never did, or no longer apply. I'd rather you left it fixed. Returning

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Just before 8.1beta2 went out, Neil made the following changes: Rename pg_complete_relation_size() to pg_total_relation_size(), for the sake of brevity and clarity. Make pg_reload_conf(), pg_rotate_logfile(), and

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that were chosen for historical reasons, but are maintained only for compatibility, and either never did, or no longer

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote: Just before 8.1beta2 went out, Neil made the following changes: Rename pg_complete_relation_size() to pg_total_relation_size(), for the sake of brevity and clarity. Make pg_reload_conf(), pg_rotate_logfile(), and pg_cancel_backend()

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The plausible alternatives seem to be: 1. Leave it as-is. I vote for this. It's not an ideal situation, but the names should be changed at some point - better now than later, as it reduces the lifetime of the bad names. Put a large warning

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:27:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Just before 8.1beta2 went out, Neil made the following changes: Rename pg_complete_relation_size() to pg_total_relation_size(), for the sake of brevity and clarity. Make pg_reload_conf(), pg_rotate_logfile(),

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that were chosen for historical reasons, but are maintained only for compatibility, and either never did, or no longer apply. I'd rather

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
1. Leave it as-is. +1 From here.. Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG -

Re: [HACKERS] slower merge join on sorted data chosen over nested loop

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In both the 8.1beta2 and using a build from this morning's dev snapshot, this query ran slower than expected: There's a known issue that the planner tends to overestimate the cost of inner-index-scan nestloops, because it doesn't allow for the strong

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that were chosen for historical reasons, but are

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote: We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly. So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of this? ISTM that greatly reduces the usefulness, though I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] prefix btree implementation

2005-10-06 Thread Qingqing Zhou
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote: We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly. So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of this? ISTM that greatly reduces the

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
I don't see NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS defined in 8.0 or 8.1, so what system do you propose to allow you to set this value? --- Marc Munro wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. Tom, Thanks for your reponse. Unless I am

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: I don't see NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS defined in 8.0 or 8.1, so what system do you propose to allow you to set this value? I'd be willing to add the proposed patch in 8.1 (style note: NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS should be set in pg_config_manual.h not

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: I don't see NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS defined in 8.0 or 8.1, so what system do you propose to allow you to set this value? I'd be willing to add the proposed patch in 8.1 (style note: NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS should be set in

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: I'd be willing to add the proposed patch in 8.1 (style note: NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS should be set in pg_config_manual.h not lwlock.h). Shouldn't it be something we can put in postgresql.conf? No more than any of the other

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: I'd be willing to add the proposed patch in 8.1 (style note: NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS should be set in pg_config_manual.h not lwlock.h). Shouldn't it be something we can put in postgresql.conf? No more

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to justify the overhead of a GUC variable. True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature? Seems they would have to. How you figure that?

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to justify the overhead of a GUC variable. True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature? Seems they would have to.

Re: [HACKERS] Announcing Veil

2005-10-06 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 23:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature? Seems they would have to. They would need to recompile PostgreSQL to use more than the default number of user-defined LWLocks, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[HACKERS] How to delete Large Object from Database?

2005-10-06 Thread Premsun Choltanwanich
Dear All, I use '$libdir/lo' for manage my PostgreSQL Large Object. It work fine for me to get and put Large Object from and to database. However I found something that may not correct when I try to backup my data. It seem that I cannot delete Large Object from database. It seem the thing I can

Re: [HACKERS] slower merge join on sorted data chosen over

2005-10-06 Thread Kevin Grittner
I am absolutely sure that I never changed any of the enable_xxx settings other than enable_mergejoin during these tests. The only other setting I played with was random_page_cost, but the nested loop query always chose the plain index scan in my tests. There was one odd thing. I started

Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

2005-10-06 Thread Jonah H. Harris
Just my two cents... but I prefer option 1. 2005/10/6, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get generally annoyed