Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Dave Page
Bruce Momjian wrote: Sounds interesting, but I am not sure how that is going to track multiple versions of the patch, They could easily be submitted through the web interface as revisions to the original version. or changes in the email subject. We'd need to keep the reference number in

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: Henry B. Hotz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't you want to maintain some interoperability between 8.2 client/ server and 8.3 server/client at least? Hm, you mean that what you called a C API change actually break^H^H^H^H^Hchanges the on-the-wire protocol as well? That

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Henry B. Hotz wrote: OK, so posted. ;-) snip Would you like a new version of the patch with the incomplete functionality commented out (or otherwise removed)? Yes please :-) I was going to try to do one of those myself, but since you already know your way around the code, please do it. And

[HACKERS] How to hidde the column from the user

2007-05-01 Thread rupesh bajaj
Hi, I want to add a column in the table and also want to hidde that column from the user. So that user's normal insertion and update goes on (means user will not supply the value for my hidden column). Is there any way to hidde the column from the user. I tried to make my column (attisdropped

Re: [HACKERS] How to hidde the column from the user

2007-05-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
rupesh bajaj wrote: Hi, I want to add a column in the table and also want to hidde that column from the user. So that user's normal insertion and update goes on (means user will not supply the value for my hidden column). Is there any way to hidde the column from the user. I tried to make my

Re: [HACKERS] How to hidde the column from the user

2007-05-01 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:09:17PM +0530, rupesh bajaj wrote: Hi, I want to add a column in the table and also want to hidde that column from the user. So that user's normal insertion and update goes on (means user will not supply the value for my hidden column). Is there any way to hidde the

Re: [HACKERS] How to hidde the column from the user

2007-05-01 Thread Oleg Bartunov
On Tue, 1 May 2007, rupesh bajaj wrote: Hi, I want to add a column in the table and also want to hidde that column from the user. So that user's normal insertion and update goes on (means user will not supply the value for my hidden column). Is there any way to hidde the column from the user. I

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? I'm happy with forensics myself. Bruce Momjian wrote: Sounds good, though I am worried that forensics will not be a word easily understood by non-native English speakers. --- Heikki

Re: [HACKERS] SOS, help me please, one problem towards the postgresql developement on windows

2007-05-01 Thread shieldy
thankyou very much. but the method, you said, is adding a alias name, so it can not work. and as i need to add many functions likes this, so the best way is to compile the whole postgresql. eventhough, i did, it didnot work, so i am puzzled, can add a function directly in the source file, and

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dave Page wrote: The bottom line is that there is a lot of thinking that the patch queue is so large because no one knows what to do. Oh, if we were better communicators, more would be done. The patch queue is large because we have lots of March 31 patches, and because we don't have

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? Yes, I like diagnostics, or internals. I just think forensics isn't going to be understood by the average native English speaker, let alone non-English speakers.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Naz Gassiep wrote: I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran on known, sane patches. How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane? What is more, we often run into situations where patch a will require changes in patch b, so testing them

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Marc Munro
On Tue, 2007-01-05 at 02:54 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: Naz Gassiep [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even if the patch inventory wasn't kept right up to date, this system could potentially help many regression issues or bugs to surface sooner, I just don't understand what this would accomplish.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Dave Page
Bruce Momjian wrote: The bottom line is if you had a system that was 100% perfect in capturing all information about a patch, it only helps us 2% toward reviewing the patch, and what is the cost of keeping 100% information? 2% for you or Tom reviewing a recently discussed, run-of-the mill

[HACKERS] Another problem with result type selection in inline_function

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
I just realized that there's a problem with the patch I applied here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-03/msg00057.php to ensure that the result type of an inline'd SQL function is correctly marked in the resulting expression tree. To wit, it doesn't work for functions

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? Yes, I like diagnostics, or internals. I just think forensics isn't going to be understood by the average native English speaker, let alone non-English speakers. diagnostics is a two-dollar

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? Yes, I like diagnostics, or internals. I just think forensics isn't going to be understood by the average native English speaker, let alone non-English speakers. diagnostics

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, The bottom line is if you had a system that was 100% perfect in capturing all information about a patch, it only helps us 2% toward reviewing the patch, and what is the cost of keeping 100% information? 2% for you or Tom reviewing a recently discussed, run-of-the mill patch. I

Re: [HACKERS] temporal variants of generate_series()

2007-05-01 Thread Jim Nasby
On Apr 28, 2007, at 8:00 PM, David Fetter wrote: Here's an SQL version without much in the way of bounds checking :) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION generate_series ( start_ts timestamptz, end_ts timestamptz, step interval ) RETURNS SETOF timestamptz LANGUAGE sql AS $$ SELECT CASE

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Jim Nasby
Two more ideas for the manager, now that we seem to have consensus to build one. On Apr 30, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: -- We could save the patches by applied date and index them, and then have a place to point users when they ask: When was X fixed? Do I *have* to upgrade to 8.1

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? Yes, I like diagnostics, or internals. I just think forensics isn't going to be understood by the average native English speaker, let alone

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Dave Page
Josh, Josh Berkus wrote: Is there a reason why the system needs to be primarily based on e-mail? I was thinking that the patch manager would be entirely a web tool, with people submitting and modifying a patch directly through a web interface. This would be lots easier to build than an

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Dave, The reason for basing the system on email is simply that it minimises the changes required in the community process. If it were entirely web based, we'd have to change the way we all work to discuss patches in a forum style, rather than a list style. I have a sneaking suspicion that at

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Zdenek Kotala wrote: I did not find forensics in translator and It mentions in Oxford vocabulary but explanation is not clear for me. I agree with Bruce It is not good name. What about short form of diagnostic diag? Doesn't forensics basically mean to find the cause of something *after* it

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 09:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: The current patch-queue process is failing to scale with the project: every release it gets to be more work for you Tom to integrate the patches. We need to think of new approaches to make the review process scale. As a pointed

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Henry B. Hotz
On May 1, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Henry B. Hotz wrote: OK, so posted. ;-) snip Would you like a new version of the patch with the incomplete functionality commented out (or otherwise removed)? Yes please :-) I was going to try to do one of those myself, but since you

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doesn't forensics basically mean to find the cause of something *after* it happened, based on traces that the event left behind? Hmm ... the Oxford English Dictionary defines forensic as pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law. There

Re: [HACKERS] Another problem with result type selection in inline_function

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I think the correct thing is to do nothing, and assume the expanded expression must have the right type already, if the function is declared to return a pseudotype. The only pseudotypes allowed as SQL-function results are RECORD, VOID, and polymorphic, and this seems OK and maybe

Re: [HACKERS] Heap page diagnostic functions

2007-05-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Zdenek Kotala wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Any suggestions? pgdiagnostics? Yes, I like diagnostics, or internals. I just think forensics isn't going to be understood by the average native English

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Magnus, I'd also vote for changing the name of the non encrypted version to just gss instead of gss-np. I don't. We'll want to support GSS encryption once we have the code, so we should leave the namespace open to address that. Oh, and I do think putting in GSSAPI authentication only (and

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Henry B. Hotz wrote: On May 1, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Henry B. Hotz wrote: Would you like a new version of the patch with the incomplete functionality commented out (or otherwise removed)? Yes please :-) I was going to try to do one of those myself, but since you

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Josh Berkus wrote: Magnus, I'd also vote for changing the name of the non encrypted version to just gss instead of gss-np. I don't. We'll want to support GSS encryption once we have the code, so we should leave the namespace open to address that. I agree that we should do this, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Josh Berkus wrote: If many people are going to block on using a web tool for submitting new versions of a patch, claiming responsibility for review, etc., though, then we should probably abandon this discussion right here. No new tool is going to work if we have people who won't make any

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Josh Berkus wrote: Magnus, I'd also vote for changing the name of the non encrypted version to just gss instead of gss-np. I don't. We'll want to support GSS encryption once we have the code, so we should leave the namespace open to address that. Oh, and I do think putting in GSSAPI

Re: [HACKERS] MSVC

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Now that we seem to have MSVC building working tolerably well, I think we need a bit of cleanup. In particular, I think the config setup needs to be more like the arguments we pass to the standard configure script. Why? I'm not saying I'm against it, I'd just like to

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Josh Berkus wrote: Dave, The reason for basing the system on email is simply that it minimises the changes required in the community process. If it were entirely web based, we'd have to change the way we all work to discuss patches in a forum style, rather than a list style. I have a

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josh Berkus wrote: For now, yes. In the long run, we want to provide users with other methods of encrypted connections than the rather flaky and not-available-on-every-platform OpenSSL. I'm curious - on what platform is OpenSSL NOT available

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Andrew, So if the commercial backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they need to find some resources to help out. I don't think they really care, or we'd have heard something by now. I think this is up to us PG developers. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would call them gss and gss-sec. Or possibly gss-enc. I think that's a lot more clear than gss-np (something ending with -sec is a giveaway) +1 regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] MSVC

2007-05-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Now that we seem to have MSVC building working tolerably well, I think we need a bit of cleanup. In particular, I think the config setup needs to be more like the arguments we pass to the standard configure script. Why? I'm not saying I'm

Re: [HACKERS] MSVC

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why? I'm not saying I'm against it, I'd just like to know why? Personally, I find the store-in-a-file a whole lot more handy. I am only talking about the names. I want the hash key names to be the same as the configure argument names. Oh, misunderstood you there.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Josh Berkus wrote: Andrew, So if the commercial backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they need to find some resources to help out. I don't think they really care, or we'd have heard something by now. I think this is up to us PG developers.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Dave Page
--- Original Message --- From: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/05/07, 21:10:07 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report So if the commercial backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they need

Re: [HACKERS] temporal variants of generate_series()

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure the case statements are needed? It seems it would be better to just punt to the behavior of generate_series (esp. if generate_series eventually learns how to count backwards). What's this eventually? regression=# select * from

[HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Simon Riggs
I notice that we have two versions of not INHERITing: ALTER ROLE meek NOINHERIT earth; ALTER TABLE meek NO INHERIT earth; Is there some merit in deciding on just one of these syntaxes? It seems like we will have to support both the above, but we should encourage just one common way, just for

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, And even more curious to see you defend that offhanded bashing of OpenSSL, a tool a whole lot of people (including me) depend on all day every day. If Postgres had the market penetration of OpenSSL, our lives would be a lot different. Have you got even a shred of evidence that GSSAPI

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Henry B. Hotz
On May 1, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would call them gss and gss-sec. Or possibly gss-enc. I think that's a lot more clear than gss-np (something ending with -sec is a giveaway) +1 If we settle on gss-np and gss-sec is that a good

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Josh Berkus wrote: Tom, And even more curious to see you defend that offhanded bashing of OpenSSL, a tool a whole lot of people (including me) depend on all day every day. If Postgres had the market penetration of OpenSSL, our lives would be a lot different. Have you got even a shred of

Re: [HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I notice that we have two versions of not INHERITing: ALTER ROLE meek NOINHERIT earth; ALTER TABLE meek NO INHERIT earth; Where are you reading that? regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Henry B. Hotz wrote: On May 1, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would call them gss and gss-sec. Or possibly gss-enc. I think that's a lot more clear than gss-np (something ending with -sec is a giveaway) +1 If we settle on gss-np and

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Henry B. Hotz
On May 1, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Henry B. Hotz wrote: On May 1, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would call them gss and gss-sec. Or possibly gss-enc. I think that's a lot more clear than gss-np (something ending with - sec

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Henry B. Hotz wrote: I would call them gss and gss-sec. Or possibly gss-enc. I think that's a lot more clear than gss-np (something ending with -sec is a giveaway) +1 If we settle on gss-np and gss-sec is that a good compromise? I still think the -np part is unclear - it's not easily

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Henry B. Hotz
On May 1, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josh Berkus wrote: For now, yes. In the long run, we want to provide users with other methods of encrypted connections than the rather flaky and not-available-on-every-platform OpenSSL. I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Long Answer: I've been dealing with OpenSSL binary incompatibility issues for the last few Solaris builds and it's made me very unhappy with the upgrade/versioning/linking of OpenSSL, and explained a lot of issues I've had around using OpenSSL with

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Short answer: Existing Kerberos libs with GSSAPI may have the same issues; I don't know. What I was speaking in favor of was having several encryption mechanisms available so that at least one of them would be available on the user's system at installation time. For that matter, I think we

Re: [HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Gregory Stark
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Yes, I understand the word means totally different thing in each case). Geez, you had me worried. So it's just the spelling that you're noting? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Henry B. Hotz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Windows? I don't do Windows, so I'm guessing. If you accept that Microsoft's SSPI is a flavor of GSSAPI, then GSSAPI is more widely supported and probably more stable on Windows machines than OpenSSL is. I can't speak to the situation on Windows

Re: [HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I notice that we have two versions of not INHERITing: ALTER ROLE meek NOINHERIT earth; ALTER TABLE meek NO INHERIT earth; Where are you reading that?

Re: [HACKERS] Where to find kind code for STATISTIC_KIND GEOMETRY?

2007-05-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Ale Raza wrote: Simon, I am forwarding this to pgsql-hackers. I can send the requirements once I get the right contact. This is it, but as Simon stated, you probably want to get the PostGIS guys involved too, so that duplicates can be sorted out. -- Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, Josh, Magnus. I can't speak to the situation on Windows either; if OpenSSL isn't commonly used on Windows that may be a sufficient reason for supporting GSSAPI too. I'm just unconvinced by any argument that suggests we'll replace our SSL support with it. I can't imagine we will either.

Re: [HACKERS] temporal variants of generate_series()

2007-05-01 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:08:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you sure the case statements are needed? It seems it would be better to just punt to the behavior of generate_series (esp. if generate_series eventually learns how to count backwards).

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
Also, last I checked OpenSSL didn't ship with Windows and Kerberos encryption did. How long ago did you check? I've been using OpenSSL on windows for many years. Actually, it was supported just fine on Windows back when it was added to PostgreSQL *at least*. I didn't say *available for

Re: [HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:36 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Yes, I understand the word means totally different thing in each case). Geez, you had me worried. So it's just the spelling that you're noting? Yes, the space appears to be mis spelled. --

Re: [HACKERS] NO INHERIT

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I notice that we have two versions of not INHERITing: ALTER ROLE meek NOINHERIT earth; ALTER TABLE meek NO INHERIT earth; Where are you reading that?

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: Andrew, So if the commercial backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they need to find some resources to help out. I don't think they really care, or we'd have heard something by now. I think

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: [PATCHES] Preliminary GSSAPI Patches

2007-05-01 Thread Henry B. Hotz
On May 1, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Also, last I checked OpenSSL didn't ship with Windows and Kerberos encryption did. How long ago did you check? I've been using OpenSSL on windows for many years. Actually, it was supported just fine on Windows back when it was added to

Re: [HACKERS] Where to find kind code for STATISTIC_KIND GEOMETRY?

2007-05-01 Thread Paul Ramsey
For all that Tom reserved 100 numbers for us, we're only using one right now. lwgeom_estimate.c:47:#define STATISTIC_KIND_GEOMETRY 100 Paul Alvaro Herrera wrote: Ale Raza wrote: Simon, I am forwarding this to pgsql-hackers. I can send the requirements once I get the right contact.

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Arturo Perez
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Nasby) wrote: Two more ideas for the manager, now that we seem to have consensus to build one. One other thing a webapp would allow that would help grow the community. If the patches are all in a public place then reviewer wannabees

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum does not start in HEAD

2007-05-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: I wrote: I found that autovacuum launcher does not launch any workers in HEAD. The attached autovacuum-fix.patch could fix the problem. I changed to use 'greater or equal' instead of 'greater' at the decision of next autovacuum target. I developed a different fix,

[HACKERS] Patch queue triage

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FYI, Tom, Heikki, I need one of you to post the list of patches and where we think we are on each one, even if the list is imperfect. This message is an attempt to sort out which patch queue entries have no hope of getting into 8.3 (and so we shouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] strange buildfarm failures

2007-05-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, another thing that I think may be happening is that the stack is restored in longjmp, so it is trying to report an error elsewhere but it crashes because something got overwritten or something; i.e. a bug in the error recovery

Re: [HACKERS] Patch queue triage

2007-05-01 Thread Greg Smith
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Tom Lane wrote: * Re: [PATCHES] Synchronized Scan WIP patch /Simon Riggs/ Heikki is reviewing this one. Also I believe Greg Smith is doing more performance testing. Actually it was the Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages patch from Itagaki Takahiro I've

Re: [HACKERS] strange buildfarm failures

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more robust to define a longjmp target block before calling BaseInit(), and have it exit cleanly in case of failure (which is what you say elog.c should be doing if there is no target block). No, because elog is already

Re: [HACKERS] Patch queue triage

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 1 May 2007, Tom Lane wrote: * Re: [PATCHES] Synchronized Scan WIP patch /Simon Riggs/ Heikki is reviewing this one. Also I believe Greg Smith is doing more performance testing. Actually it was the Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages

Re: [HACKERS] strange buildfarm failures

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Hmm ... I was about to say that the postmaster never sets PG_exception_stack, but maybe an error out of a PG_TRY/PG_RE_THROW could do it? Does the postmaster ever execute PG_TRY? Doh, I bet that's it, and it's not the postmaster that's at issue but PG_TRY blocks executed during

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Naz Gassiep
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Naz Gassiep wrote: I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran on known, sane patches. How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane? Same way as happens now. I would assume this mechanism would only be applied to patches that

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, As an example, how is patch information going to help us review HOT or group-item-index? There is frankly more information about these in the archives than someone could reasonable read. What someone needs is a summary of where we are now on the patches, and lots of time. The idea

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Naz Gassiep [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew Dunstan wrote: How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane? Same way as happens now. I would assume this mechanism would only be applied to patches that had already been approved to contrib, or some other measure that can be

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, that can happen with the current system. The real blocker there is that some people, particularly Tom, work so fast that there's no chance for a new reviewer to tackle the easy stuff. Maybe the real solution is to encourage some of our other

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report

2007-05-01 Thread Naz Gassiep
What is approved to contrib? The problem here is that having reasonable certainty that a patch is not malicious requires having gone over it in some detail; at which point you might as well apply the thing. Or if you didn't apply it, you bounced it for reasons that are unlikely to have

Re: [HACKERS] Patch queue triage

2007-05-01 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On 5/2/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * [pgsql-patches] Ctid chain following enhancement /Pavan Deolasee/ I'm not very excited about this --- it seems to me to complicate the code in some places that are not in fact performance-critical. While it doesn't seem likely to break