On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Add missing format attributes
>
> Add __attribute__ decorations for printf format checking to the places that
> were missing them. Fix the resulting warnings. Add
> -Wmissing-format-attribute to the standard set of warnings for GCC, so t
>> CHECK FUNCTION function_name(arglist);
>>
>
> I proposed a stored procedure "check_function(name, arglist)", but
> CHECK FUNCTION is ok for me too. Is easy implement it. Maybe there is
> issue - "CHECK" will be a keyword :(
>
CHECK is reserved keyword now, so this is issue.
sorry for no
Tom Lane writes:
> I'm not that happy with overloading the ANALYZE keyword to mean this
> (especially not since there is already meaning attached to the syntax
> "ANALYZE x(y)"). But we could certainly use some other name --- I'm
> inclined to suggest CHECK:
>
> CHECK FUNCTION function_name
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:03:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm considering inventing a new mcxt.c primitive,
>
> void MemoryContextSetParent(MemoryContext context, MemoryContext new_parent);
>
> which would have the effect of delinking "context" from its current
> parent context and attaching it
On sön, 2011-09-11 at 16:11 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Add missing format attributes
> >
> > Add __attribute__ decorations for printf format checking to the places that
> > were missing them. Fix the resulting warnings. Add
> > -Wmiss
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:20:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> In the "refactoring Large C files" discussion one of the biggest
> files Bruce mentioned is pg_dump.c. There has been discussion in the
> past of turning lots of the knowledge currently embedded in this
> file into a library, whic
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In the "refactoring Large C files" discussion one of the biggest files Bruce
> mentioned is pg_dump.c. There has been discussion in the past of turning
> lots of the knowledge currently embedded in this file into a library, which
> would make
On 09/11/2011 10:25 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:20:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the "refactoring Large C files" discussion one of the biggest
files Bruce mentioned is pg_dump.c. There has been discussion in the
past of turning lots of the knowledge currently embe
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> One example of what I'd like to provide is something this:
> char * pg_get_create_sql(PGconn *conn, object oid, catalog_class
> oid, pretty boolean);
> Which would give you the sql to create an object, optionally pretty
> printing it.
I think the major problem wi
Here's a couple of ideas I had recently about making psql a bit more
user friendly.
First, it would be useful to be able to set pager options and possibly
other settings, so my suggestion is for a \setenv command that could be
put in a .psqlrc file, something like:
\setenv PAGER='less'
On 09/11/2011 02:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I think that discovering a safe dump order for a selected
set of objects is a pretty key portion of pg_dump's functionality.
Do we really want to assume that that needn't be included in a
hypothetical library?
Maybe. Who else would need i
Hackers,
I've got my patch with double sorting picksplit impementation for GiST into
more acceptable form. A little of testing is below. Index creation time is
slightly higher, but search is much faster. The testing datasets were
following:
1) uniform dataset - 10M rows
2) geonames points - 7.6M r
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/11/2011 10:25 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:20:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> In the "refactoring Large C files" discussion one of the biggest
>>> files Bruce mentioned is pg_dump.c. There has
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:49 +0300, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> Is there a plan to wrap up 9.2 Alpha 1 before the next commitfest?
<...>
Ok, so if noone is willing to produce alpha's (which is sad), we need to
change the text in here:
http://www.postgresql.org/developer/alpha
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Princi
Marti Raudsepp writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 01:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The patch as given has a bunch of implementation issues
> This is my first patch that touches the more complicated internals of
> Postgres. I'm sure I have a lot to learn. :)
Well, people seem to think that this is worth
On 09/09/2011 11:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO?
I think so.
Added to TODO:
Address problem where superusers are assumed to be members of all groups
http://archives.postgresql
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> > Address problem where superusers are assumed to be members of all groups
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00337.php
>
> This turns out to be a one-liner.
I really don't know that I agree with removin
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
>> > Address problem where superusers are assumed to be members of all
>> > groups
>> >
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00337.php
>>
>> This turns out to
On 09/11/2011 10:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
Address problem where superusers are assumed to be members of all groups
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00337.php
This turns out to be a one-liner.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Here's a couple of ideas I had recently about making psql a bit more user
> friendly.
>
> First, it would be useful to be able to set pager options and possibly other
> settings, so my suggestion is for a \setenv command that could be put in
Hackers,
Later this week I'm giving a [brief][] for an audience of what I hope will be
corporate PostgreSQL users that covers how to get a feature developed for
PostgreSQL. The idea here is that there are a lot of organizations out there
with very deep commitments to PostgreSQL, who really take
On 10/09/2011, at 1:30 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On 9. September 2011 10:27:22 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> On the whole I think you'd be better off lobbying your NFS implementors
>> to provide something closer to the behavior of every other filesystem on
>> the planet. Or checking to see if yo
On Sep12, 2011, at 06:30 , George Barnett wrote:
> On 10/09/2011, at 1:30 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
>> --On 9. September 2011 10:27:22 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> On the whole I think you'd be better off lobbying your NFS implementors
>>> to provide something closer to the behavior of every oth
On 12/09/2011, at 3:59 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
> If you really meant to say "intr" there (and not "nointr") then that probably
> explains the partial writes.
>
> Still, I agree with Noah and Kevin that we ought to deal more gracefully with
> this, i.e. resubmit after a partial read() or write(
24 matches
Mail list logo
