Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Luke Lonergan
+1 UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then we'd be able to claim complete support for partitioning, but this is a big deal improvement. - Luke On 8/3/06 9:30 PM, Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lot of the things on Tom's list are new bits of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is there in 8.2 like that? [ shrug... ] Five out of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 00:46, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is there in 8.2 like

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Luke Lonergan
David, On 8/3/06 11:02 PM, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Splitting queries among CPUs--possibly even among machines--for OLAP loads * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade) * Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project will eventually endorse and ship *

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Josh Berkus
All, grin Aren't I, the marketing geek, supposed to be the one whining about this? Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
David Fetter skrev: As far as big missing features go, here's a short list: * Windowing functions If we are to wish for things the window functions and a proper collation/locale support is what I miss the most. /Dennis ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:27:02AM +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote: If we are to wish for things the window functions and a proper collation/locale support is what I miss the most. Agreed. The complaints about collation/locale support have been continuous over the years, and it really is quite

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Andreas Pflug
Bruce Momjian wrote: Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features. I'm not too happy about the label usability. Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say. Regards, Andreas ---(end

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Adrian Maier
On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features. I'm not too happy about the label usability. Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Guillaume Smet
On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My ordering of this list in terms of priority is: 1) Windowing functions 2) MERGE 3) Index only access (new) 4) In-place upgrades And what about compression of on-disk sorting? There has been a long thread about this idea. Is there any news

Re: [HACKERS] New ecpg warnings

2006-08-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:45:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am seeing two new warnings from ecpg: dyntest.pgc:66: WARNING: nullable is always 1 dyntest2.pgc:72: WARNING: nullable is always 1 Are they to be expected? I looked at where they are being generated but didn't

[HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-04 Thread alfranio correia junior
Hi, We have just released an add-on to PostgreSQL supporting the GORDA Architecture and Programming Interface (GAPI). This opens up support for DBMS independent replication middleware, aimed at eager and multi-master replication in clusters and WANs. The implementation of the GAPI is achieved in

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Rocco Altier wrote: BTW, I do have --enable-integer-datetimes configured for this machine, which might explain the timestamp differences. Yes, that might be the reason. What effect does it have if you run the backend regression suite? The remaining

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector

2006-08-04 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems fairly invasive, as well as confused about whether it's an #ifdef'able thing or not. You can't have system views and pg_proc entries conditional on a compile-time #ifdef, so in a default build we would have a lot of nonfunctional cruft exposed to

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector (was: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2)

2006-08-04 Thread Katsuhiko Okano
Tom Lane wrote: I'm confused ... is this patch being proposed for inclusion? I understood your previous message to say that it didn't help much. This is only the patch for carving where there is any problem. The patch is buggy as posted, because it will try to do this: if

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

2006-08-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Patch included to implement xlog switching, using an xlog record processing instruction and forcibly moving xlog pointers. Just to be clear --- does this fully supersede your draft patch of 27-July,

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get ready to be disappointed by every future release. It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that we haven't

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Josh Berkus wrote: Oh, and if it makes it, Tzadhi's FULL DISJUNCTIONS patch is newsworthy. Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had better get in damn fast, I guess. cheers andrew ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Robert Treat
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Josh Berkus wrote: Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this release has less checklist features

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had better get in damn fast, I guess. Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had better get in damn fast, I guess. Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze. Ah. good. Probably was when my mail was down for about 12

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-04 Thread Teodor Sigaev
But that makes NUMERIC(x,y) impossible to represent. Well, we have to special-case INTERVAL anyway (because its cramming some truly bizarre things into typmod), and it wouldn't bother me too much to special-case NUMERIC as well. We have a lot of special transformation of type based on typmod

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have hierarchical queries (one of them wasn't even

Re: [HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-04 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary functionality with minimal intrusion. I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have anything against it? I personally like the triggers and

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have hierarchical

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php Certainly there's been a ton of effort spent

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-04 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: PostgreSQL provides a way to load C extension modules with its internal FMGR. Unfortunately there is no portable way for an extension module to initialize (directly after the

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Here's the ecpg regression test diffs as of CVS tip on an HPUX box. regards, tom lane *** expected/complex-test4.stdout Wed Aug 2 10:14:02 2006 --- results//complex-test4.stdout Fri Aug 4 10:12:19 2006 *** *** 1,4 ! Found f=14,07

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-04 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:37:21PM -0700, elein wrote: I can think of histograms as a data type which may take more than one argument, maybe even an array for boundary information. I think the direction *in the long term* should be to allow multiple arguments (as a ROW type?) and other base

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Teodor Sigaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a chance to commit this patch to 8.2? No. It's not within hailing distance of done, and by the time it was done we'd be stretching the feature freeze deadline beyond all reason. I encourage you to work on it with an eye to 8.3 though.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Luke Lonergan wrote: +1 UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then we'd be able to claim complete support for partitioning, but this is a big deal improvement. I haven't be following this but.. does the above mean that if CE is turned on and they are

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project will eventually endorse and ship This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy, documentation and will power we put into it. * On-the-fly in-line calls out to PL/your_choice without needing to issue

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
3) Index only access (new) Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info? Joshua D. Drake We already have splitting queries among CPUs and machines. Yes, YOU do. We don't. Joshua D.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Andreas Pflug wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features. I'm not too happy about the label usability. Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say. Good point... What about

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a business-like, what are we going to have in the next release perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just see what patches come in and we apply what we

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have hierarchical queries

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Luke Lonergan
Josh, On 8/4/06 7:47 AM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) Index only access (new) Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info? Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jan de Visser
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:37, Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Adrian Maier wrote: On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features. I'm not too happy about the label usability. Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long

Re: [HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary functionality with minimal intrusion. I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have anything

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems fairly invasive, as well as confused about whether it's an #ifdef'able thing or not. You can't have system views and pg_proc entries conditional on a compile-time #ifdef, so in a default build we would

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say. I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now. _improved_ usability I still don't like it.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get ready to be disappointed by every future release. It's a pity that some expectations have been raised

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say. I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now. _improved_ usability

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :) Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability improvements aren't a big item, but

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :) Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Merlin Moncure wrote: On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php Certainly there's

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :) Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a business-like, what are we going to have in the next release perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just

Re: [HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-04 Thread José Orlando Pereira
On Friday 04 August 2006 16:46, Tom Lane wrote: We haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication without the barrier of a standard database-agnostic API, so I kinda doubt that it will work all that much better with one. See Slony-II. I would argue that people haven't

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what about compression of on-disk sorting? That's purely a performance issue, which some people seem to want to define as not a new feature ... which is not *my* view of what's important ... regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector

2006-08-04 Thread Robert Lor
Tom Lane wrote: I think the actual wave of the future for analyzing behavior at the LWLock level is going to be DTrace. It seems way more flexible than an aggregate-statistics view can be. CVS head now has the following LWLock probes, and more can easily be added. These probes can be

[HACKERS] Fwd: Standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, This just came out of the GORDA project. I'd love to see the comments of our replication/clustering geeks here on the list. --Josh -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [Hackers] Standard interfaces for replication providers Date: Friday 04 August 2006 02:09 From: Jose

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
BTW, I tried building with HP's cc instead of gcc, and got slightly different regression failures (same HPUX/HPPA machine): *** expected/complex-test4.stdout Wed Aug 2 10:14:02 2006 --- results//complex-test4.stdout Fri Aug 4 12:56:13 2006 *** *** 1,4 ! Found

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Luke, Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number of good ideas on how to do it, we are in a position to bang it out now IMO. Actually, a group of us discussed this at the Code Sprint in Toronto, and came up with a plan which will also reduce row overhead on large tables. I can't

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread mdean
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :) Fine, I am all ears. Also, a

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Luke Lonergan
Cool! Then let's make a stronger claim about the feature: 'data management using partioning now with transparent insert/update/delete support in addition to the already proven performance acceleration in previous releases. - Luke Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned. I think what Luke means, is that an INSERT into the base table of the inheritance hierarchy

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote: On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My ordering of this list in terms of priority is: 1) Windowing functions 2) MERGE 3) Index only access (new) 4) In-place upgrades And what about compression of on-disk

[HACKERS] Bug in sql_fmgr when envoked via copy

2006-08-04 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import a dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint. This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work fine. Find attached a simple self contained test case. gdb

pg_upgrade (was: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status)

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade) BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted. How would such a thing handle changes to page formats? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[HACKERS] Database Objects States

2006-08-04 Thread Adnan DURSUN
Our database has about 700 objects (tables,views, stored functions, types etc), we want to make a change on a view or tables, it said that there were a lot of depended obejcts. I know that depended object must be dropped and then created to solve this. But, It has too many dependecies

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be unmeasurable hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning! Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about. So could you say something

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is there in 8.2 like that? [ shrug... ] Five out of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status -- Please Take the PR discussion to Advocacy List!

2006-08-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Guys, I still don't like it. Usability is an opinion based thing. Personally I find MySQL confusing and illogical. However I know many people love it for that very same reason. As the person who's leading the draft of the press release, let me say that any theme discussions which happen on

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get ready to be disappointed by every future

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread mdean
Joshua D. Drake wrote: I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be unmeasurable hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning! Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about. So

Re: pg_upgrade (was: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status)

2006-08-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade) BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted. How would such a thing handle changes to page formats? Couldn't this be

[HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions it generates for a simple partitioning layout. In particular it's generating scans involving

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to be unkind, but AFAIR all the unmet expectations in this release cycle came from commercially-sponsored developers who said they'd do X and then didn't finish it. FYI, I am not commercially sponsered. I am a full-time employee devoted to

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
The community cannot ask anyone to work harder. What we do ask is that if you start working on an item, let us know, and if you stop working on it, let us know soon so others can work on it. Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to shoot signal rockets to tell

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-04 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 14:40, kirjutas Tom Lane: I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions it generates for a simple partitioning

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET ROW for 8.2? o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating multiple columns --- Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in, no? There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet, so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread comments about promising things in advance of them hitting CVS

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told otherwise. True, but stating that you

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:27:49AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned. I think what Luke means, is that

Re: pg_upgrade (was: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status)

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade) BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:18:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in, no? There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet, so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: which it seems we ought to be bright enough to notice. In particular I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we ought not expend the cycles. I

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get ready to be disappointed by every future

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Jonah, If I would've known a good number of people were asking for WITH RECURSIVE (as Josh mentioned), I would've had more incentive to work on it. You didn't ask. If you had asked, you would have got a response. People knew you were working on it, and assumed that it would be done, since

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told otherwise.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I'm picturing something like this: 1. Each person taking an item agrees to write at least one email each week to -hackers detailing progress or lack of same on the item. 2. Should someone wish to relinquish a claim on a feature, there needs to be some standard way to do a hand-off of whatever

Re: pg_upgrade (was: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status)

2006-08-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: How would such a thing handle changes to page formats? Couldn't this be done by converting a table/partial-table at a time? It wouldn't be

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 07:45:56AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: * Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project will eventually endorse and ship This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy, documentation and will power we put into it. It will, but

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WIP archive_timeout patch

2006-08-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WIP archive_timeout. All we need to do is add LWLock support to archiver. Thoughts/ideas/hints welcome. Hint: this isn't the archiver's

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
issue DDL You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)? Something like this: SELECT a, b, c FROM ( EXECUTE IMMEDIATE LANGUAGE plperl $$...$$ ) AS (a int, b point, c text) JOIN ... Anyhow, the idea is to be able to call PL functionality in-line without having to create a

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:41:42PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: issue DDL You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)? Something like this: SELECT a, b, c FROM ( EXECUTE IMMEDIATE LANGUAGE plperl $$...$$ ) AS (a int, b point, c text) JOIN ... Anyhow, the idea is

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length)

2006-08-04 Thread Jeff Davis
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Does anyone have examples of real user-defined types that would need two fields? If not it may not be worth spending time on. What about if someone wanted to implement a relation as a type? I could see perhaps something like: CREATE TABLE (

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as claiming items goes. Agreed. I'm picturing something like this: 1. Each person taking an

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as claiming items goes. Agreed. I'm picturing something like this:

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in sql_fmgr when envoked via copy

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import= a dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint= . This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work= fine.

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote: While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as claiming items goes. What say? I think this is a good plan for adding additional process overhead,

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
What say? It's a shame to have a person burn cycles on this, but anything would be an improvement over what we've got now. Really? I lot of this could be automated with a web app. The web app takes the todo, a hacker signs up. Hacker takes todo. Web app reminds

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we ought not expend the cycles. I have a preliminary patch

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote: While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as claiming items goes. What say?

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol prepare/bind/execute

2006-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I modified the code to store the user statement name in the portal for protocol execute, so I can print the user name at that time. Please forget that and print the portal name. I'm getting tired of repeating it, but: there are two different names here

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-04 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, my thought is that you'd rename PL/R's init function to PG_init, and then it'd get called automagically without needing to assume that the DBA remembers to specify it in preload_libraries. If there's a reason *not* to do that then it'd be a strike

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-04 Thread Lukas Smith
David Fetter wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote: While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as claiming items

  1   2   >