Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I'm constantly amazed at the way people get worked up about X-is-not-there *after* feature freeze. If you wanted it in 8.2, the time to be throwing resources at the problem was six months ago. It's not like Oleg and Teodor haven't let it be known that they could use financing. I would say

[HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello I suggest enhance plpgsq to simultaneous assignment. Main reason is missing parameter passing by reference and less readable getting values from functions with OUT parameters. Currently I have to write SELECT: SELECT INTO a,b,c out3fce(1) a,b,c := out3fce(1); -- Simultaneous

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent: 07/08/06 04:42 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status I'm constantly amazed at the way people get worked up about

[HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello Package contains package's variables, shared protected functions and initialisation part, which is executed when any public function attached to package is called. Every package has defined only one language. The reason for this is binary compatibility of package's variables. Private

Re: [HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-07 Thread Markus Schiltknecht
Hi, José Orlando Pereira wrote: I would argue that people haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication, in part, due to the barrier of not having a standard database-agnostic API. :-) In fact, the problem is not the lack of a standard API but the lack of an API at

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

2006-08-07 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is very much hope of an in-place upgrade for scenarios involving changes in contents of user tables. In particular, what of a change that requires more space than before, such as adding a locale indicator to text fields? There's no

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Richard Huxton
Pavel Stehule wrote: Package is similar to schema. Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the outside. That is, if I have package foo then I can't also have a schema foo? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Pavel Stehule wrote: Package is similar to schema. Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the outside. That is, if I have package foo then I can't also have a schema foo? Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names. Pavel

[HACKERS] Another Ltree/GiST problem

2006-08-07 Thread Mario Weilguni
I've a table that stores hierarchical information in a ltree field for fast access, indexed with a GiST index. Interesting Problem with ltree/GiST index: sometimes, the index will get corrupt, as seen by the examples below: WRONG db=# SELECT path from strukturelemente where path ~

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent make check failures on hyena

2006-08-07 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I see one occurrence in the 8.1 branch on hyena, but the failure probability seems to have jumped way up in HEAD since we put in the C-coded pg_regress. This lends weight to the idea that it's a timing-related issue, because pg_regress.c is presumably

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a,b,c := out3fce(1); -- Simultaneous assignment I thought we rejected that idea once already, on the grounds that it would make it too hard to tell the difference between intended code and typos. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the outside. That is, if I have package foo then I can't also have a schema foo? Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names. What if the package needs some tables

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

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: [ concerning handling a change in a single datatype's representation ] 1. Under old system, munge the system catalog to add code for new inet type with new OID. Probably needs a shared lib (if you could create type input/output function with

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for

2006-08-07 Thread andrew
Tom Lane wrote: Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a,b,c := out3fce(1); -- Simultaneous assignment I thought we rejected that idea once already, on the grounds that it would make it too hard to tell the difference between intended code and typos. In any case, I had some questions: .

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How many cycles are we talking about here? Is it even worth the GUC? I think so. On simple queries the optimization will *never* fire, and there's no point in doing the search. People who are running complex

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a,b,c := out3fce(1); -- Simultaneous assignment I thought we rejected that idea once already, on the grounds that it would make it too hard to tell the difference between intended code and typos. Yes, because wasn't procedures with out params, my

[HACKERS] Simplifying standby mode

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
I'm in process of reviewing the restartable-recovery patch, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00356.php and I'm wondering if we really need to invent a standby mode boolean to get the right behavior. The problem I see with that flag is that it'd be static over a run, whereas

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

2006-08-07 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:37:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Probably easier and more flexible just to include both versions of the datatype in the new release, and tell people they'd better ALTER COLUMN TYPE sometime before updating to release N+2. Right, but I wasn't sure if that'd be

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the outside. That is, if I have package foo then I can't also have a schema foo? Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names. What if the package needs some tables associated with it? I think you need to

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Tom Lane wrote: Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a,b,c := out3fce(1); -- Simultaneous assignment I thought we rejected that idea once already, on the grounds that it would make it too hard to tell the difference between intended code and typos. In any case, I had some questions:

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:11:48PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: The best of is implementation of CALL statement, where I can transmit values by references. But it's not possible in Postgres :-(. I can't to select unambiguously called procedure. I can, if I accept SQL Server syntax, where

[HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Mark Wong
I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information retrieval oriented for non-commercial research use only but could potentially be an interesting data set to test with. Mark

Re: [HACKERS] Simplifying standby mode

2006-08-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm in process of reviewing the restartable-recovery patch, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00356.php and I'm wondering if we really need to invent a standby mode boolean to get the right behavior. The problem I see

Re: [HACKERS] Corner case in xlog stuff: what happens exactly at a

2006-08-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 23:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Rather than expecting user-level scripts to get this corner case right, I suggest that we ought to modify pg_stop_backup and friends so that what they return is the last used byte address of WAL, not the first unused byte address

Re: [HACKERS] Simplifying standby mode

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll again. When a file arrives we mark a restartpoint each checkpoint. We need the standby_mode to signify the

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 14:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:57:03AM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] Simplifying standby mode

2006-08-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll again. When a file arrives we mark a restartpoint each

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:31:24AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: The fact is, the existing system worked as it should, though it is often invisible. We didn't get all the features we wanted, but that isn't because the system isn't working. Thank you Bruce. That is good

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:58:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg, you are on an utterly wrong track here. Try to look about a bit more broadly. FWIW, I tend to agree with Greg. This project has gotten to where it is with a very loose structure, and I think that

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:30:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I was saying on #postgresql, the current system works well for a small group of developers. I don't think there is any arguing that. However, there is a larger group out there, that

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 03:55:17PM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Mayer wrote: We have not had that many cases where lack of communication was a problem. One could say too much communication was the problem this time. I get the impression people implied they'd do

Re: [HACKERS] Corner case in xlog stuff: what happens exactly at a seg boundary?

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 23:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: After further thought I desisted from that plan: changing the result convention of existing functions like pg_stop_backup() will break any existing archiving scripts that do get it right. Instead, we can

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Lukas Smith
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Going one step further, if that item was in a system that allowed people to get emails any time status changed then *everyone* who was interested in that feature would immediately know that help was needed. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Or maybe even more

Re: [HACKERS] Another Ltree/GiST problem

2006-08-07 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Reindexing the index also fixes the problem, but regular reindexing cannot be a solution, since there is still a timeframe where wrong results are returned. I've made a copy of the index-file when it was broken, after the update and after reindexing. Is there a tool for getting a human-readable

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

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:05:30AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is very much hope of an in-place upgrade for scenarios involving changes in contents of user tables. In particular, what of a change that requires more space than before,

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, The fact is, the existing system worked as it should, though it is often invisible. We didn't get all the features we wanted, but that isn't because the system isn't working. But it's exactly the invisibility of the process which people are complaining about. If the postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:26:17AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information retrieval oriented for non-commercial research use only but could potentially be an

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Restartable Recovery

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've implemented this for BTree, GIN, GIST using an additional rmgr function bool rm_safe_restartpoint(void) ... Recovery checkpoints are now renamed restartpoints to avoid confusion with checkpoints. So checkpoints occur during normal processing

Re: [HACKERS] interesting article: Leverage your PostgreSQL V8.1 skills to learn DB2, Version

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:42:23AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 10:01:30AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: I found maybe interesting article http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0603wasserman2/ That for the article. I had been meaning to

Re: [HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Mark Wong
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:26:17AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information retrieval oriented for non-commercial research use only but could

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Well, you can implement it. After all, the CALL syntax is merely syntactic sugar. You could (if you wanted to) do the following: CREATE FUNCTION foo( a TEXT IN, b TEXT INOUT, c TEXT OUT ) as blah... And in a pl/pgsql function, translate: CALL

Re: [HACKERS] AOL Research open-research

2006-08-07 Thread Joshua Reich
http://jdigittl.blogspot.com/2006/08/tsk-tsk-aol.html Mark Wong wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:26:17AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I got notice of this from a local database reading group: http://research.aol.com Looks like the data they are providing is information

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

2006-08-07 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi, [ concerning handling a change in a single datatype's representation ] 1. Under old system, munge the system catalog to add code for new inet type with new OID. Probably needs a shared lib (if you could create type input/output function with pl/pgsql it would help here). 2. Execute ALTER

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: Well, you can implement it. After all, the CALL syntax is merely syntactic sugar. You could (if you wanted to) do the following: CREATE FUNCTION foo( a TEXT IN, b TEXT INOUT, c TEXT OUT ) as blah... And in a pl/pgsql function, translate:

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 16:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 14:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A simple way of doing this might be to use a minimum cost number? But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5:

Re: [HACKERS] Another Ltree/GiST problem

2006-08-07 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Oops, wait a bit: problem is founded in gist_between() call. Fixed in 7.3 - HEAD versions. Thank you for feedback: those bugs can be found only on high-loaded boxes. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 13:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A simple way of doing this might be to use a minimum cost number? But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Isn't it possible to find the cost using the straight forward

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0 and 8.1

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *) why the large difference in the build-flags ? CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't. I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of lack of testing, but if we have buildfarm coverage I think it'd be OK to

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To achieve the indexed partition pruning, we'd need - a way to specify that all constraints are mutually exclusive - a declarative approach for saying something like arranged in date sequence - preferably a way to have this happen at run-time so we can

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *) why the large difference in the build-flags ? CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't. I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of lack of testing, but if we have

Re: [HACKERS] standard interfaces for replication providers

2006-08-07 Thread Jose Orlando Pereira
On Monday 07 August 2006 10:58, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Where do I find the included technical report? Sorry, stuff was put twice in the zip file making it somewhat confusing. It is in postgresql-g-0.1/javasrc/GordaInterfaces/docs/gapi.pdf or directly on the web site at

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jeremy Drake wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *) why the large difference in the build-flags ? CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't. I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of

Re: [HACKERS] CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2

2006-08-07 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: I'm wondering about doing something similar to what TransactionIdIsInProgress does, ie, make use of the PGPROC lists of live subtransactions. Suppose that GetSnapshotData copies not only top xids but live subxids into the snapshot, and adds a flag indicating whether the

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *) why the large difference in the build-flags ? CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't. I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of lack of testing, but if we have

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: the just added new buildfarm member leveret (fedora core5 x86_64) is building with the recently released Intel C-compiler version 9.1. It passes all tests on -HEAD but fails on make check in both REL8_1_STABLE and REL8_0_STABLE. The logs of the

Re: [HACKERS] Corner case in xlog stuff: what happens exactly at a seg boundary?

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:59:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Rather than expecting user-level scripts to get this corner case right, I suggest that we ought to modify pg_stop_backup and friends so that what they return is the last used byte address of WAL, not the first unused byte

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Jeremy Drake wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: *) why the large difference in the build-flags ? CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't. I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of lack of

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 03:57:05PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the outside. That is, if I have package foo then I can't also have a schema foo? Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names. What if the

Re: [HACKERS] CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I'm wondering about doing something similar to what TransactionIdIsInProgress does, ie, make use of the PGPROC lists of live subtransactions. Well, that sounds awfully more expensive than setting local-to-my-database Xmins as well as

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent make check failures on hyena

2006-08-07 Thread Josh Berkus
Zdenek, However what happened? I think that following scenarios occurred. Postmaster listen only in one process and there are many clients run really parallel. T2000 server has 32 threads ( 8 core and each has 4 threads). These clients generate more TCP/IP request at one time, than

Re: [HACKERS] Corner case in xlog stuff: what happens exactly at a seg boundary?

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should we ask users if anyone is currently doing this? It seems pretty ugly to have most functions return the last used WAL byte with only stop_backup returning the first unused byte. No, you misunderstood. All the functions that return WAL location

Re: [HACKERS] CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2

2006-08-07 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I'm wondering about doing something similar to what TransactionIdIsInProgress does, ie, make use of the PGPROC lists of live subtransactions. Well, that sounds awfully more expensive than setting

Re: [HACKERS] buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Jeremy Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Plus if it is backported, I can enable 8.x builds on mongoose (my x86 icc buildfarm box). Please do --- I've applied the changes in 8.1 and 8.0 branches. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was thinking at what time was the most appropiate to insert or remove an Xid from the cache. We can do without any excl-locking because 1) we already assume the storing of an Xid to be atomic, and 2) no one can be interested in querying for an Xid

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL performance enhancement when query planner fails to guess the right plan

2006-08-07 Thread Constantin Teodorescu
Hello all, hope you are remembering me, some years ago I've designed the PgAccess , the Tcl/Tk visual interface to PostgreSQL. Thought you haven't received any news from me, I continued working with PostgreSQL, being involved in very big projects in Romania. Right now, the national

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL performance enhancement when query planner fails to

2006-08-07 Thread Lukas Smith
Constantin Teodorescu wrote: EXPLAIN VARIANTS SELECT .. (and so on) that will display the different query plans analyzed by the planner and their estimated time values , not just the best guess . assuming that the EXPLAIN VARIANTS will show 3 or 4 different query plans, the database

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A simple way of doing this might be to use a minimum cost number? But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Couldn't this work similar to geqo_effort? The planner could try planning the query using only cheap

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Couldn't this work similar to geqo_effort? The planner could try planning the query using only cheap algorithmns, and if the cost exceeds a certain value, it'd

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

2006-08-07 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 22:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Couldn't this work similar to geqo_effort? The planner could try planning the query using only cheap

Re: [HACKERS] CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2

2006-08-07 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
This is an additional information. I wrote: If we want to resolve the probmen fundamentally, we might have to improve SubTrans using a better buffer management algorithm or so. The above is maybe wrong. I checked each lwlock of pg_subtrans's buffers. All lwlocks are uniformly acquired and I

Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

2006-08-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
What is problem? I can attach table or sequence. What can be problem is visibility of nesteded objects (if can be different than functions). My proposal is only concept, and I my first goal is find way for secure storing session's variables and shared native functions, like my sample. I

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, The fact is, the existing system worked as it should, though it is often invisible. We didn't get all the features we wanted, but that isn't because the system isn't working. But it's exactly the invisibility of the process which people are complaining

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: The fact is, the existing system worked as it should, though it is often invisible. We didn't get all the features we wanted, but that isn't because the system isn't working. Well that kind of comes back to my point of better communication. Perhaps a lot of