Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Custom code int(32|64) => text conversions out of performance reasons

2010-11-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On sön, 2010-10-31 at 22:41 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > * I renamed pg_[il]toa to pg_s(16|32|64)toa - I found the names > confusing. Not sure if its worth it. Given that there are widely established functions atoi() and atol(), naming the reverse itoa() and ltoa() makes a lot of sense. The chan

Re: [HACKERS] SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy

2010-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 02.11.2010 00:47, Tom Lane wrote: Greg Stark writes: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first WAL segment, with log==seg==0. This smells very much like http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.

[HACKERS] B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints

2010-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
We have the rm_safe_restartpoint mechanism to ensure that we don't use a checkpoint that splits a multi-level B-tree insertion as a restart point. But to my surprise, we don't have anything to protect against the analogous case during normal operation. This is possible: 1. Split child page. Wr

[HACKERS] Intelligent RDBMS

2010-11-02 Thread ghatpande
Hello All, I am Vijay Ghatpande from Pune, India. I am in IT field for last 30 years and mainly in ERP design, development and implementation. I have worked on JD Edwards, Oracle Apps and SAP. I was involved in design and development of ERP package called ISP – Integrated Software for Productio

[HACKERS] timestamp of the last replayed transaction

2010-11-02 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know how far transactions have been replayed in the standby in timestamp rather than LSN. So I'm thinking to include the function which returns the timestamp of the last applied transaction (i.e., commit/abort WAL record) in the core

Re: [HACKERS] timestamp of the last replayed transaction

2010-11-02 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Fujii Masao writes: > After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know > how far transactions have been replayed in the standby in timestamp > rather than LSN. So I'm thinking to include the function which returns > the timestamp of the last applied transaction (i.e., commit/abort

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Custom code int(32|64) => text conversions out of performance reasons

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On sön, 2010-10-31 at 22:41 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> * I renamed pg_[il]toa to pg_s(16|32|64)toa - I found the names >> confusing. Not sure if its worth it. > Given that there are widely established functions atoi() and atol(), > naming the reverse itoa() and lto

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > This patch requires GNU make 3.80, because of the above "|" feature and > the $(eval) function. Version 3.80 is dated October 2002, so it should > be no problem, but I do occasionally read of make 3.79 around here; > maybe it's time to get rid of that. I did put in a c

Re: [HACKERS] B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > I think we can fix this by requiring that any multi-WAL-record actions > that are in-progress when a checkpoint starts (at the REDO-pointer) must > finish before the checkpoint record is written. What happens if someone wants to start a new split while the checkpoin

Re: [HACKERS] B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints

2010-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 02.11.2010 16:30, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: I think we can fix this by requiring that any multi-WAL-record actions that are in-progress when a checkpoint starts (at the REDO-pointer) must finish before the checkpoint record is written. What happens if someone wants to star

Re: [HACKERS] Starting off with the development

2010-11-02 Thread Kevin Grittner
Vaibhav Kaushal wrote: > What version should I start from? I guess postgresql 9.1 alpha > would be good. The HEAD of the master branch of the git repository is where development normally takes place. You should start by developer section of the main PostgreSQL web site and the pages to which

Re: [HACKERS] Tracking latest timeline in standby mode

2010-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 02.11.2010 07:15, Fujii Masao wrote: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Yeah, that's one approach. Another is to validate the TLI in the xlog page header, it should always match the current timeline we're on. That would feel more robust to me. Yeah, that seems bette

Re: [HACKERS] create custom collation from case insensitive portuguese

2010-11-02 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Alexandre Riveira escreveu: > I've achieved some success in changing collate operating system (linux) > to generate sort of way of Brazil Portuguese hopes by adding the > following code in LC_COLLATE > This was already discussed; search the archives [1] [2]. > So far, I understood the mechanism o

[HACKERS] ALTER TYPE recursion to typed tables

2010-11-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I'm working on propagating ALTER TYPE commands to typed tables. This is currently prohibited. For example, take these regression test cases: CREATE TYPE test_type2 AS (a int, b text); CREATE TABLE test_tbl2 OF test_type2; ALTER TYPE test_type2 ADD ATTRIBUTE c text; -- fails ALTER TYPE test_type2

Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with "true" in source code

2010-11-02 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > There are some "== true" in the codes, but they might not be safe > because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? > ... > src/interfaces/ecpg/ecpglib/connect.c(168): if (con->autocommit == > true && str

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund wrote: > * You wont see an error if the next command after the IDLE in > transaction is a COMMIT/ROLLBACK. I don*t see any sensible way > around that. Well, on a ROLLBACK I'm not sure it's a problem. On a COMMIT, couldn't you call a function to check for it in CommitTransaction

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TYPE recursion to typed tables

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I'm working on propagating ALTER TYPE commands to typed tables.  This is > currently prohibited.  For example, take these regression test cases: > > CREATE TYPE test_type2 AS (a int, b text); > CREATE TABLE test_tbl2 OF test_type2; > ALTER

Re: [HACKERS] create custom collation from case insensitive portuguese

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Alexandre Riveira escreveu: >> I've achieved some success in changing collate operating system (linux) >> to generate sort of way of Brazil Portuguese hopes by adding the >> following code in LC_COLLATE >> > This was already discus

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > marcin mank writes: >> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> 3. To hash, apply the element type's hash function to each array >>> element.  Combine these values by rotating the accumulator left >>> one bit at each step and xor'in

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TYPE recursion to typed tables

2010-11-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:54 -0700, Robert Haas wrote: > What do you plan to do about this case? > > CREATE TYPE test_type AS (a int, b text); > CREATE TABLE test_tbl (x test_type); > ALTER TYPE test_type ADD ATTRIBUTE c text; This is currently prohibited, and I'm not planning to do anything about

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> marcin mank writes: >>> This would make the hash the same for arrays with elements 32 apart swapped. >> >> Well, there are *always* going to be cases where you get the same hash >> value for two different inputs; it's un

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar nov 02 15:21:31 -0300 2010: > What concerns me about that is that it tends to push the bits to the > left --- I think the effects of the earlier inputs are going to overflow > out as you incorporate a lot of newer inputs. What you want is a scheme > where e

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> marcin mank writes: This would make the hash the same for arrays with elements 32 apart swapped. >>> >>> Well, there are *always* going to be cases where yo

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> The goal is to make those hard to predict, though. >> >> Really? I think "I don't understand when this fails" isn't >> obviously better than being able to predict when it fails ... > > Isn't that the whole point of hash function

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TYPE recursion to typed tables

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:54 -0700, Robert Haas wrote: >> What do you plan to do about this case? >> >> CREATE TYPE test_type AS (a int, b text); >> CREATE TABLE test_tbl (x test_type); >> ALTER TYPE test_type ADD ATTRIBUTE c text; > > This i

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas writes: > The goal is to make those hard to predict, though. >>> >>> Really?  I think "I don't understand when this fails" isn't >>> obviously better than being able to predict wh

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: >> There's no reason that the hash value of an integer of the same >> size as the hash shouldn't be the integer itself, for example. >> It's hard to get more predictable than that, yet it works well >> for hash lookups. > > Well, no, not really. For example, it may be that

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Really?  I think "I don't understand when this fails" isn't obviously >> better than being able to predict when it fails ... > Isn't that the whole point of hash functions? Collisions are > inevitable, but you want them t

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Kenneth Marshall
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:42:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? ?I think "I don't understand when this fails" isn't obviously > >> better than being able to predict when it fails ... > > > Isn't that the whole poin

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > However, this is largely beside the point, because that theory, as well > as the Java code you're arguing from, has to do with the initial hashing > of a raw sequence of input items. Not with combining some existing hash > values. The rotate-and-xor

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Andres Freund
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 18:33:15 Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > * You wont see an error if the next command after the IDLE in > > transaction is a COMMIT/ROLLBACK. I don*t see any sensible way > > around that. > Well, on a ROLLBACK I'm not sure it's a problem. On a COMMIT, >

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, this is largely beside the point, because that theory, as well >> as the Java code you're arguing from, has to do with the initial hashing >> of a raw sequence of input items. Not with combining some existing hash >> v

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of mar nov 02 18:36:19 -0300 2010: > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 18:33:15 Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > * You wont see an error if the next command after the IDLE in > > > transaction is a COMMIT/ROLLBACK. I don*t see any sensible way >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 18:33:15 Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Well, on a ROLLBACK I'm not sure it's a problem. On a COMMIT, >> couldn't you call a function to check for it in CommitTransaction >> and PrepareTransaction? > Sure, throwing an error somewhere wouldnt be that

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Sam Mason
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > marcin mank writes: > > This is what boost does: > > http://www.systomath.com/include/Boost-1_34/doc/html/boost/hash_combine.html > > Hmm. I am reminded of Knuth's famous dictum: "never generate random > numbers with a method chosen at

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Andres Freund
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 22:59:15 Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Does anybody have any idea why COMMIT is allowed there? Seems > > pretty strange to me. > > > So that the "failed transaction" state can be cleared. The > transaction as a whole has failed, but you don't want the connection > to bec

Re: [HACKERS] create custom collation from case insensitive portuguese

2010-11-02 Thread Alexandre Riveira
Thank you all for your help ! When mentioned in Portuguese case-insensitive in fact we are also talking about accent-insensitive A common example is that the name Jose and José also can be written, citext or ilike only not solve the problem My progress is ... Edit file /usr/share/i18n/loca

Re: [HACKERS] create custom collation from case insensitive portuguese

2010-11-02 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Alexandre Riveira writes: > When mentioned in Portuguese case-insensitive in fact we are also talking > about accent-insensitive See unaccent dictionary, but don't use only this one in your text search configuration, IIRC. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9/static/unaccent.html Regards, -- Dim

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 22:59:15 Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Does anybody have any idea why COMMIT is allowed there? Seems >>> pretty strange to me. >> So that the "failed transaction" state can be cleared. The >> transaction as a whole has failed, but you don't want th

Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for arrays

2010-11-02 Thread Ron Mayer
Tom Lane wrote: > It's possible that the multiply-by-31 method is as good as the > rotate-and-xor method by that measure, or even better; but it's far from > obvious that it's better. And I'm not convinced that the multiply > method has a pedigree that should encourage me to take it on faith. Sho