On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:55:09PM +, Richard Huxton wrote:
According to the docs [1], you should escape embedded colons in
.pgpass (fair enough). Below is PG 9.1.1
user = te:st, db = te:st, password = te:st
$ cat ~/.pgpass
*:*:te:st:te:st:te:st
$ psql91 -U te:st -d te:st
Hi Alvaro,
The patch looks ok to me. I see that we now sort the constraints by
conisonly value too:
@@ -1781,12 +1781,20 @@ describeOneTableDetails(const char *schemaname,
/* print table (and column) check constraints */
if (tableinfo.checks)
{
+char
Am 20.11.2011 23:54, schrieb Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum:
FOSDEM 2012 - PostgreSQL Devroom: Call for Speakers
The PostgreSQL project will have a Devroom at FOSDEM 2012, which takes
place on February 4-5 in Brussels, Belgium. The Devroom will mainly
cover topics for PostgreSQL users, developers
Am 11.11.2011 16:14, schrieb Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum:
like the last years we will have a devroom at FOSDEM 2012.
We also look forward to have a booth.
We made a group reservation in the Agenda Louise hotel:
Hotel Agenda Louise
rue de Florence 6
B-1000 Brussels
Tel: + 32.2.539.00.31
Fax: +
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am also not entirely sure I believe that this is plugging all the
failure cases. I think that it may just be making the failure cases
more obscure, rather than really getting rid of them. Consider
something like the
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
In the spirit of Simon's suggestion that we JFDI, I cooked up a patch
today that JFDI. See attached.
Which looks very good.
Comments
* Comment for IDENTIFICATION of json.c says contrib/json/json.c
* json.c contains a
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
I also wonder how much this throws some previous performance tests into
suspicion. If it's not uncommon for performance improvement attempts to shift
a bottleneck to a different part of the system and marginally hurt
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 21:32, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Actually i tried some benchmarks with the original version of the
patch and saw some regression with normal pgbench runs, but it wasn't
much... so i was trying to found out some queries that show benefit
now that we
2011/12/16 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
one small update - better emulation of environment for security
definer functions
Patch applies and compiles fine, core functionality works fine.
I found a little bug:
In backend/commands/functioncmds.c,
function
Attached is a patch that addresses the todo item Improve relation
size functions such as pg_relation_size() to avoid producing an error
when called against a no longer visible relation.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-10/msg00332.php
Instead of returning an error, they now
2011/12/16 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com:
I just poked at this a bit myself to see how the patch looked. There's just
over 4000 lines in the diff. Even though 1/4 of that is tests, which is
itself encouraging, that's still a good sized feature. The rate at which
code here has still been
Hello
You have the option fatal_errors for the checker function, but you
special case it in CheckFunction(CheckFunctionStmt *stmt) and turn
errors to warnings if it is not set.
Wouldn't it be better to have the checker function ereport a WARNING
or an ERROR depending on the setting?
Folks,
What:
Please find attached a patch for 9.2-to-be which implements page
checksums. It changes the page format, so it's an initdb-forcing
change.
How:
In order to ensure that the checksum actually matches the hint
bits, this makes a copy of the page, calculates the
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
The way forward here is to maintain this as an extension, provide debs
and rpms, and show that that is maintainable. I can see numerous
advantages in maintaining a PL outside the core; especially if you are
still starting up and want to iterate
Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru writes:
[ spgist patch ]
I've applied this after a lot of revisions, some cosmetic (better
comments etc), some not so much (less bogus vacuum and WAL handling).
There are still a number of loose ends that need to be worked on:
* The question of whether to store
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I'd like to add some confusion on the implementation choice, because it
looks damn too easy now… Guile 2.0 offers an implementation of the
ECMAscript language and plscheme already exists as a PostgreSQL PL
On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Which looks very good.
Love having the start here. I forwarded this message to Claes Jakobsson,
creator of the jansson-using pg-json extension. He’s a bit less supportive. He
gave me permission to quote him here:
Frankly I see the inclusion of
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
Love having the start here. I forwarded this message to Claes Jakobsson,
creator of the jansson-using pg-json extension. He’s a bit less supportive.
He gave me permission to quote him here:
Frankly I see the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com
wrote:
Love having the start here. I forwarded this message to Claes Jakobsson,
creator of the jansson-using pg-json extension. Hes a bit less supportive.
He gave me permission
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, I think that that's exactly the question here: if we do something
in core, will it foreclose options for people who want to do add-ons?
Why would it? They would just have to use a different name.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:42 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, I think that that's exactly the question here: if we do something
in core, will it foreclose options for people who want to do add-ons?
Why would it? They would
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 12/01/2011 05:48 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
xfer timePeak RSS
Original : 6.02s 850MB
libpq patch + Original dblink: 6.11s 850MB
full patch : 4.44s 643MB
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
... If you assume someone can run through all the
PIDs between those checks and the kill, the system is already broken that
way.
From a theoretical point of view, I believe it to
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Here again, trying to generalize before we have anything useful is a
recipe for failure. I concur that ?Process Utility Top-Level Only
Command Triggers? is a pretty limited feature in scope, yet that's what
I want to obtain here, and I think it's useful enough on its
24 matches
Mail list logo
