Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Luke Lonergan
I think we do know, have you reviewed the results in the briefing? - Luke Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 01:09 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] Units in postgresql.conf -- How to report?

2006-07-25 Thread Albe Laurenz
Peter Eisentraut wrote: So assuming we allowed units in postgresql.conf, how would you report them with SHOW? 1. The way they were set (hard) 2. Without units (not user-friendly) 3. Always in base units (seconds or bytes) 4. The largest unit that gives an integer (4) seems the

Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

2006-07-25 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the only serious objection to this would be that it'd mean that tuples that should have an index entry might not have one. This can occurs when we do REINDEX after DELETE, because dead tuples are excluded on REINDEX. So we cannot guarantee that all

[HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Gevik Babakhani
I would like to start a discussion about having an extra option in PG which makes possible to bypass (or not check) whether the current user has root/administrative privileges especially (or only) for Windows. The following is the situation: It would be great to be able to distribute PG as

Re: [HACKERS] why toast tables are not reindexed while clustering?

2006-07-25 Thread SAKATA Tetsuo
Thank you for your quick answering my question. Tom. Tom Lane wrote: SAKATA Tetsuo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll be pleased if someone tell me the reason why when a table is clustered the toast table is not reindexed. It's not obvious that those two things should be related. You can

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 12:01 schrieb Gevik Babakhani: I would like to start a discussion about having an extra option in PG which makes possible to bypass (or not check) whether the current user has root/administrative privileges especially (or only) for Windows. This has been shot down

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Gevik Babakhani
This has been shot down many times before, and the arguments you are presenting are not new. Has there been a solution found for the arguments/issues. Is there any history about why at some point we decided to enforce the security option? ---(end of

[HACKERS] 64-bit integers for GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
ISTM that before long someone will want to use more than 2 GB for work_mem. Currently, you can't set more because it overflows the variable. I'm not sure a wholesale switch of GUC integers to 64 bit is the solution. Maybe changing some of the variables to reals would work. Comments? --

[HACKERS] column-level privilege

2006-07-25 Thread jkzhao
Dear hackers, I am a PostgreSQL lover at China, I'd like to know when the column-level privilege can be added to a release version of PostgreSQL? and is there someone who is working on the problem? Thanks Best Regards. jkzhao 2006-07-25

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Gevik Babakhani
Removing or disabling the test without removing some of the dangerous capabilities would be a major security hole. For example: postgres can deliver to any authenticated user the contents of any text file on the system that the database user can read. Do you want the responsibility of

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This has been shot down many times before, and the arguments you are presenting are not new. Has there been a solution found for the arguments/issues. Is there any history about why at some point we decided to enforce the security option? Read the

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Gevik Babakhani
Humm, perhaps it would be great learning curve for me to begin with something to be like a Embedded PG for Windows or PG Light for Windows...(Daydreaming now..) On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 08:26 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Gevik Babakhani wrote: Removing or disabling the test without

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit integers for GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 14:15 schrieb Tom Lane: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ISTM that before long someone will want to use more than 2 GB for work_mem. Currently, you can't set more because it overflows the variable. Yes you can, because the value is measured in KB.

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 06:55 schrieb Bruce Momjian: Or maybe CREATE INDEX x ON tab NOLOCK Having the NOLOCK associated with the table name makes sense. Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with CREATE INDEX, so having it as third word would make sense,

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Gevik Babakhani wrote: Removing or disabling the test without removing some of the dangerous capabilities would be a major security hole. For example: postgres can deliver to any authenticated user the contents of any text file on the system that the database user can read. Do you want the

[HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Where are we on these TODO items: o Allow point-in-time recovery to archive partially filled write-ahead logs [pitr] Currently only full WAL files are archived. This means that the most recent transactions aren't available for recovery in case

[HACKERS] buildfarm web extensions - help wanted

2006-07-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I am looking for assistance in extending the buildfarm web app in two directions that need expertise that I lack. First, I want to build a search engine for the log files. I recently started storing these in a table, one row per log file, rather than as a single gzipped tar blob per run.

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit integers for GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 14:15 schrieb Tom Lane: I'd be fairly worried about whether that wouldn't mean we fail completely on INT64_IS_BROKEN platforms ... I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB of memory

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 06:55 schrieb Bruce Momjian: Or maybe CREATE INDEX x ON tab NOLOCK Having the NOLOCK associated with the table name makes sense. Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with CREATE INDEX, so having it

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on these TODO items: o Allow point-in-time recovery to archive partially filled write-ahead logs [pitr] I believe we'd agreed that the necessary infrastructure for this is just a function to tell the current WAL

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Csaba Nagy
Semantically, NOLOCK (or whatever word) seems most closely associated with CREATE INDEX, so having it as third word would make sense, and it would be quite easy to parse for psql. Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-) In this case CREATE INDEX

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Gevik Babakhani wrote: This has been shot down many times before, and the arguments you are presenting are not new. Has there been a solution found for the arguments/issues. Is there any history about why at some point we decided to enforce the security option? There is nothing new

Re: [HACKERS] plPHP and plRuby

2006-07-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:45:23AM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 10:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: On the other hand, if we include PL/Perl, Tcl and Python but exclude Ruby from the main package we are effectively making a statement to Ruby users that their language is

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on these TODO items: o Allow point-in-time recovery to archive partially filled write-ahead logs [pitr] I believe we'd agreed that the necessary infrastructure for this is just a function to

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I assumed we would have a function like pg_finish_wal_segment(), and server stop and stop_backup would call it too, That idea is *exactly* what I'm objecting to. the reason being, it would greatly simplify our documentation on how to use PITR if these

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 10:51, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Where are we on these TODO items: o Add reporting of the current WAL file, perhaps as part of partial log file archiving It would be nice to have a function that tells both filename and offset of

Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the only serious objection to this would be that it'd mean that tuples that should have an index entry might not have one. This can occurs when we do REINDEX after DELETE, because dead tuples are excluded on

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove hard-wired lists of timezone abbreviations in favor of

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: test= set timezone_abbreviations to 'India'; WARNING: time zone abbreviation ist is multiply defined DETAIL: Time zone file Default, line 282 conflicts with file India, line 11. ERROR: invalid value for parameter timezone_abbreviations: India

Re: [HACKERS] column-level privilege

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 09:13 schrieb jkzhao: I am a PostgreSQL lover at China, I'd like to know when the column-level privilege can be added to a release version of PostgreSQL? and is there someone who is working on the problem? It would certainly be a welcome feature, but there are no

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I assumed we would have a function like pg_finish_wal_segment(), and server stop and stop_backup would call it too, That idea is *exactly* what I'm objecting to. the reason being, it would greatly simplify our documentation on

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Csaba Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-) In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call it ;-) That reads well to me too. We'd need to

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 10:51, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Where are we on these TODO items: o Add reporting of the current WAL file, perhaps as part of partial log file archiving It would be nice to have a function that tells

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, if you do pg_stop_backup(), in what cases would you not also call pg_finish_wal_segment()? I can't think of one. I can't see why you would need to, unless your intention is not to run PITR at all but only to make a filesystem backup instead

Re: [HACKERS] column-level privilege

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 09:13 schrieb jkzhao: I am a PostgreSQL lover at China, I'd like to know when the column-level privilege can be added to a release version of PostgreSQL? and is there someone who is working on the problem? It would

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on these TODO items: o Allow point-in-time recovery to archive partially filled write-ahead logs [pitr] I believe we'd agreed that

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:26, kirjutas Tom Lane: Csaba Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-) In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although the whole feature sounds nice any way

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where are we on these TODO items: o Allow point-in-time recovery to archive partially filled write-ahead logs [pitr] I believe we'd agreed that the necessary infrastructure

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent: 25/07/06 11:27 Subject: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option. I would like to start a discussion about having an extra option in PG which makes possible to bypass

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Bort, Paul
Tom Lane wrote: psql could actually tell these apart if it worked just a bit harder. CLUSTER with no arguments is the one case, CLUSTER with anything after it is the other. Not sure why we couldn't be bothered to get that right in psql the first time :-(. Should this go on the to-do

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Gevik Babakhani wrote: Removing or disabling the test without removing some of the dangerous capabilities would be a major security hole. For example: postgres can deliver to any authenticated user the contents of any text file on the system that the database user can read. Do you want

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:27, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 10:51, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Where are we on these TODO items: o Add reporting of the current WAL file, perhaps as part of

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit integers for GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ISTM that before long someone will want to use more than 2 GB for work_mem. Currently, you can't set more because it overflows the variable. Yes you can, because the value is measured in KB. Now, if you were to redefine it as being measured in

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:27, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 10:51, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Where are we on these TODO items: o Add reporting of the current WAL file, perhaps as

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I see no need for that to be automatic. I'd vote for a simple function pg_finish_wal_segment() or something like that, which you call just after pg_stop_backup() if you want this behavior. Trying to tie

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, if you do pg_stop_backup(), in what cases would you not also call pg_finish_wal_segment()? I can't think of one. I can't see why you would need to, unless your intention is not to run

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I see no need for that to be automatic. I'd vote for a simple function pg_finish_wal_segment() or something like that, which you call just after pg_stop_backup() if you want this

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was planning to add a new GUC archive_timeout (integer) = max # secs between log file switches That's fine, but feature freeze is in a week and we don't even have the basic function for manually doing a log file switch. Let's get that done first

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was planning to add a new GUC archive_timeout (integer) = max # secs between log file switches That's fine, but feature freeze is in a week and we don't even have the basic function for manually doing a log file switch. Let's

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, perhaps, though I can envision a GUC that does regularly partial archiving. I will add a question mark to the item. I was planning to add a new GUC archive_timeout (integer) =

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, if you do pg_stop_backup(), in what cases would you not also call pg_finish_wal_segment()? I can't think of one. I can't see why you would need to, unless your

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Csaba Nagy
OK, offset added to TODO item. What would the offset give us? The last offset could be remembered by the external program, and it only has to transfer from the last offset to the new one. It allows incremental streaming of the WAL files... of course the external program will be a lot more

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, makes sense. That is much more sophisticated that I imagined. --- Csaba Nagy wrote: OK, offset added to TODO item. What would the offset give us? The last offset could be remembered by the external program, and

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: That's fine, but feature freeze is in a week and we don't even have the basic function for manually doing a log file switch. Let's get that done first and then think about automatic switches. Agreed. -- Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:48, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 11:27, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 10:51, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Where are we on these TODO items:

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: there are scenarios in which you don't need a WAL switch at the end of a backup. My mind's blank today, so forgive me that I cannot see what that might be. Assuming such a case, would it be possible to have two functions? pg_stop_backup()

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: My point here is that forcing the current segment to archive is a function of whatever your continuous-archiving process is, and it's not necessarily tied to backups. We should not prejudge when people

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 17:52, kirjutas Csaba Nagy: OK, offset added to TODO item. What would the offset give us? The last offset could be remembered by the external program, and it only has to transfer from the last offset to the new one. It allows incremental streaming of

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:57 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was planning to add a new GUC archive_timeout (integer) = max # secs between log file switches That's fine, but feature freeze is in a week and we don't even have the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
William ZHANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When I tried to compile pgsql-8.2devel with VS.Net 2005 and do regression tests, I found the problem. It's a bug inVS.Net 2005: http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=99694 So why don't you use the fixed version

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: -Original Message- From: Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent: 25/07/06 11:27 Subject: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option. I would like to start a discussion about having an extra option in PG which makes

Re: [HACKERS] plPHP and plRuby

2006-07-25 Thread Marcin Mank
Ultimately, I really think we need something akin to CPAN so that we don't have to bundle all kinds of stuff in the core package. In the meantime, adding PLs that we can is better than not, but we do need to be mindful of the impression it might leave on users. A page that lists the status

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: My point here is that forcing the current segment to archive is a function of whatever your continuous-archiving process is, and it's not necessarily tied to backups. We should not

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Csaba Nagy
The problems I see with this is if in this case the normal postgres WAL archiving won't conflict with this streaming ? You are not forced to use it if your shell scripts do conflict. What I envisioned, was that the current WAL archiving shell script would just do some CRC check over

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:57 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was planning to add a new GUC archive_timeout (integer) = max # secs between log file switches That's fine, but feature freeze is in a

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming such a case, would it be possible to have two functions? pg_stop_backup() pg_stop_backup(boolean); --parameter says log switch or not Well, it seems everyone but me thinks that pg_stop_backup should force a WAL switch, so I'll yield on that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug

2006-07-25 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi. William ZHANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] When I tried to compile pgsql-8.2devel with VS.Net 2005 and do regression tests, I found the problem. It's a bug inVS.Net 2005: http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=99694

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming such a case, would it be possible to have two functions? pg_stop_backup() pg_stop_backup(boolean); --parameter says log switch or not Well, it seems everyone but me thinks that pg_stop_backup should force a WAL switch, so

Re: [HACKERS] Loading the PL/pgSQL debugger (and other plugins)

2006-07-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 1) I think the most straightforward way to load an instrumentation plugin is to define a new custom GUC variable (using the custom_variable_classes mechanism). This seems a bit messy and special-purpose. I see no good reason to

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Albe Laurenz
Tom Lane wrote: The point is until that last WAL file is backed up, the whole backup is useless. It isn't good policy to have a backup's value be contingent on some future event. You are assuming here that the continuous archiving process is identical to the WAL part of the base-backup

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug

2006-07-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Hiroshi Saito wrote: Hmm, It seems to be the bug of very unpleasant Microsoft.:D I think that the following is desirable as an evasion measure to add. #if defined(_MSC_VER) _MSC_VER == 1400 To be sure, it was only VS2005. Why is this better than: #if _MSC_VER == 1400 Surely this

Re: [HACKERS] Loading the PL/pgSQL debugger (and other plugins)

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another possibility would be allowing users to specify certain GUC settings for backends that match certain criteria when they're spawned, such as what IP the client is connecting from, or what user it's authenticating as. ALTER USER SET ...

Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-25 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tom Lane wrote: You are assuming here that the continuous archiving process is identical to the WAL part of the base-backup process. If what you want is an identifiable self-contained base backup then you copy off the WAL files along with the

Re: [HACKERS] Freezing tuples on pages dirtied by vacuum

2006-07-25 Thread Jim Nasby
On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: One possibility is that early freeze is at 1B transactions and we push forced-freeze back to 1.5B transactions (the current forced-freeze at 1B transactions seems rather aggresive anyway, now that the server will refuse to issue new commands rather

Re: [HACKERS] Help! - Slony-I - saving/setting/restoring GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Eisentraut) writes: Chris Browne wrote: In support of PG 8.2, we need to have the log trigger function do the following: - Save value of standards_conforming_string - Set value of standards_conforming_string to FALSE - proceed with saving data to sl_log_? -

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we do know, have you reviewed the results in the briefing? I find those results moderately unconvincing, primarily because they are based on choosing the least efficient possible data representation (viz char(n)), and thus the btree indexes suffer

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug

2006-07-25 Thread Hiroshi Saito
From: Andrew Dunstan Hiroshi Saito wrote: Hmm, It seems to be the bug of very unpleasant Microsoft.:D I think that the following is desirable as an evasion measure to add. #if defined(_MSC_VER) _MSC_VER == 1400 To be sure, it was only VS2005. Why is this better than:

Re: [HACKERS] Help! - Slony-I - saving/setting/restoring GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately (perhaps) standards_conforming_strings does not appear to be exported, so I'm not sure how to do this otherwise. Perhaps your problem is one of spelling? It's standard_conforming_strings, and it's certainly a global variable. You still

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 05:35:37PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: We presented them at the Postgres Anniversary summit talk (Bruce M. was there) and the reaction was let's get this into 8.2 because many people there (more than 5) really wanted to use it as a standard feature. A version of the

Re: [HACKERS] Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm

2006-07-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:52:14PM -0400, Bort, Paul wrote: -hackers, With help from Andrew Dunstan, I'm adding the ability to do a pgbench run after all of the other tests during a buildfarm run. Andrew said I should solicit opinions as to what parameters to use. A cursory search

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we can resurrect his idea because we will scan btree pages at-atime now; the missing-restarting-point problem went away. Have I missed something? Comments welcome. I was thinking for awhile just now that this would break the interlock that

Re: [HACKERS] Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm

2006-07-25 Thread Bort, Paul
Jim Nasby wrote: Why is it being hard-coded? I think it makes a lot more sense to allow pg_bench options to be specified in the buildfarm config. Even better yet would be specifying them on the command line, which would allow members to run a more rigorous test once a day/week (I'm thinking

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 12:49, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby: On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 05:35:37PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: We presented them at the Postgres Anniversary summit talk (Bruce M. was there) and the reaction was let's get this into 8.2 because many people there (more than

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit integers for GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB of memory anyway. To be quite frank, current PostgreSQL can't effectively use more than 256mb of work_mem anyway. We'd like to fix that, but it's not fixed yet AFAIK. --Josh

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 13:06, kirjutas Tom Lane: Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we do know, have you reviewed the results in the briefing? I find those results moderately unconvincing, primarily because they are based on choosing the least efficient possible

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, (I'm also wondering whether this doesn't overlap the use-case for GIN.) It does not. GIN is strictly for multi-value fields. I can think of applications where either GIN or Bitmaps would be an option, but for the majority, they wouldn't. One particular compelling situation for

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Gevik Babakhani
Which user does it switch to? I was under the impression that Gevik wanted not to have to create any extra users.Or does it abandon privileges without switching personality (if that's possible)? Correct, With the bypass option I had in mind, I wouldn't need to create an extra user. Just run

Re: [HACKERS] Help! - Slony-I - saving/setting/restoring GUC

2006-07-25 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes: Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately (perhaps) standards_conforming_strings does not appear to be exported, so I'm not sure how to do this otherwise. Perhaps your problem is one of spelling? It's standard_conforming_strings, and it's

Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option.

2006-07-25 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk Cc: Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent: 25/07/06 17:21 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] root/administartor user check option. Dave Page wrote:

[HACKERS] status of yet another timezone todo item

2006-07-25 Thread Joachim Wieland
Hi, what do people think about this TODO item: o Merge hardwired timezone names with the TZ database; allow either kind everywhere a TZ name is currently taken I think it is kind of done. The hardwired timezone names are no longer hardwired and the America/New_York syntax is

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Marko Kreen
On 7/25/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Csaba Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strictly speaking, however, it would have to be NOLOCKLY in that case. :-) In this case CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... sounds better to me, although the whole feature sounds nice any way you will finally call

Re: [HACKERS] Getting current transaction id

2006-07-25 Thread Marko Kreen
On 7/24/06, Nicolai Petri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in the need for my custom written replication engine to obtain the current transaction id from a trigger function. As far as I'm told it's not possible today. Would people object much if this functionality was added for 8.2 ? It's the last

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by non-locking variant, No, I don't think so. Given that the concurrent form is much slower (extra table scan) and can't be wrapped into a transaction block, it'll always be a special option.

Re: [HACKERS] status of yet another timezone todo item

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what do people think about this TODO item: o Merge hardwired timezone names with the TZ database; allow either kind everywhere a TZ name is currently taken I think it is kind of done. Not quite --- SET TIMEZONE doesn't take the

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-07-25 kell 13:06, kirjutas Tom Lane: The reason I have such high sales resistance is that we've carried the hash and rtree AMs for years, hoping that someone would do the work to make them actually worth using, with little

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Luke Lonergan
Tom, On 7/25/06 1:31 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, we finally gave up on rtree entirely. I don't want to see any other index AMs languishing in the closet like that. If bitmap can hold its own to the extent that people are interested in working on it/improving it, then great,

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk bitmap index patch

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes: One particular compelling situation for on-disk bitmaps is for terabyte tables where a btree index would not fit into memory. Index performance for an index which is 10x or more the size of RAM really sucks ... I can come up with some test results if

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a revised patch originated by Junji TERAMOTO for HEAD. [BTree vacuum before page splitting] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00301.php I think we can resurrect his idea because we will scan btree pages at-atime now;

Re: [HACKERS] effective_cache_size is a real?

2006-07-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to integer)? Yes --- the planner generally does all that stuff in float arithmetic to avoid worrying about overflow. Point taken, but I'm inclined to convert it to

[HACKERS] Change in Pervasive's PostgreSQL strategy

2006-07-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
Today Pervasive announced that it is stepping away from PostgreSQL support and services. There's an open letter to the community at http://pervasivepostgresql.com with more info, so I won't really go into that. There are a few things I wanted to mention, though. First, I'm now officially looking

Re: [HACKERS] effective_cache_size is a real?

2006-07-25 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Point taken, but I'm inclined to convert it to an integer anyway, because that will make the units support much easier. The variable is only used in exactly one place anyway, so making sure the calculation works right should be easy. Casting it

  1   2   >