on 2010-11-24 at 15:56, Tom Lane wrote:
Bug #5766 points out that we're still not there yet in terms of having
sane behavior for locale-specific regex operations in Unicode
encoding. The reason it's not working is that regc_locale does this to
expand the set of characters that are considered
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 19:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info writes:
This query:
SELECT ARRAY[-1,3,1] ARRAY[1, 2];
should give {1} as a result.
But, on HEAD (and according to his tests, on 9.0.6 and 9.1.2), it
appears to give en empty array.
On 16.02.2012 01:06, Tom Lane wrote:
In bug #6457 it's pointed out that we *still* don't have full
functionality for locale-dependent regexp behavior with UTF8 encoding.
The reason is that there's old crufty code in regc_locale.c that only
considers character codes up to 255 when searching for
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Wait, we already have ALTER TRIGGER bob ON ANY COMMAND SET DISABLED;
Eh, so what happens then if someone sets a command trigger on ALTER TRIGGER?
We should remove support for command triggers on alter command triggers.
Well I could also go with the GUC
On 16.02.2012 13:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, when I ran the test on my Ubuntu, I could not reproduce the problem.
I could reproduce the problem only in MacOS.
+ nextslot = Insert-nextslot;
+ if
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. It is not possible to change the query in our
environment. So we need to do casting. I'm a new bee, so it will be more
helpful if you give me some simple examples.
--
View this message in context:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I'm going to push this now anyway, thanks.
This patch adds a count of the number of buffers dirtied to VACUUM,
but it strikes me that
Shigeru Hanada wrote:
- Since a rescan is done by rewinding the cursor, is it necessary
to have any other remote isolation level than READ COMMITED?
There is only one query issued per transaction.
If multiple foreign tables on a foreign server is used in a local
query,
multiple
On 02/17/2012 04:22 AM, premanand wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. It is not possible to change the query in our
environment. So we need to do casting. I'm a new bee, so it will be more
helpful if you give me some simple examples.
That's not what this list is for, You should be asking in
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
... after looking at it more closely, I think only this line needs to be
in a separate file:
typedef struct CommandContextData *CommandContext;
Files like src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c and others need both the
structure and the pointer, so
Hi,
This may have already been discussed before, but I can't find any
mention of it. Would it be desirable to add support for triggers that
contain their own anonymous functions (i.e. DO)?
So instead of
CREATE TRIGGER...
EXECUTE PROCEDURE functioname();
you'd have:
CREATE TRIGGER...
DO $$
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
I didn't like the new cmdtrigger.h file. It's included by a lot of
other headers, and it's also itself including execnodes.h and
It turns around that this file does not need including execnode.h, I've
cleaned that up now (compile ok, make
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Wait, we already have ALTER TRIGGER bob ON ANY COMMAND SET DISABLED;
Eh, so what happens then if someone sets a command trigger on ALTER TRIGGER?
We should remove
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Btw, we already have a GUC for triggers: session_replication_role,
how will the command triggers follow that?
Note that the replica here in my mind would have been an Hot Standby
node, and having the standby run the replica/always command triggers is
not
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Wait, we already have ALTER TRIGGER bob ON ANY COMMAND SET DISABLED;
Eh, so what happens then if someone sets a command trigger on ALTER TRIGGER?
We should remove support
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Btw, we already have a GUC for triggers: session_replication_role,
how will the command triggers follow that?
Note that the replica here in my mind would have been an Hot
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Here's a wild idea: keep the class of each codepoint in a hash table.
Initialize it with all codepoints up to 0x. After that, whenever a
string contains a character that's not in the hash table yet, query the
class of that
On 02/17/2012 09:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Here's a wild idea: keep the class of each codepoint in a hash table.
Initialize it with all codepoints up to 0x. After that, whenever a
string contains a character that's not in the
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Here's a wild idea: keep the class of each codepoint in a hash table.
Initialize it with all codepoints up to 0x. After that, whenever a
string contains a character that's not in the hash table
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Of course, the best fix would be to change your queries. It's quite sloppy
to rely on integer LIKE text without an explicit cast in the query.
Why?
I understand why it's a bad idea to rely on integer
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Recompiling is expensive, but if you cache the results for the session, it
would probably be acceptable.
What if you did this ONCE and wrote the results to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I understand why it's a bad idea to rely on integer = text doing
anything sane - is that text equality or numeric equality?
And in theory the same issue could exist here if there were another
meaning for LIKE. But there isn't.
Really? LIKE is just
I'm basing an extension off contrib/cube. I'm going to open-source it under
the existing PostgreSQL license, but I'm not sure how the copyright notice
should look - there isn't one at the moment. (In fact, there's no LICENSE or
COPYRIGHT file at all.)
Should it be something like
Portions
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other triggers... or is this of dubious
benefit?
+1, though I imagine it would just give
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Should it be something like
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
Q: May
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other triggers... or is this of dubious
On 17 February 2012 16:29, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other
On 17 February 2012 16:43, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function
Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Should it be something like
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I understand why it's a bad idea to rely on integer = text doing
anything sane - is that text equality or numeric equality?
And in theory the same issue could exist here if there
On 02/17/2012 11:46 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 16:43, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
I think it would be better to bail on trying to use CREATE TRIGGER and
DROP TRIGGER as a basis for this functionality, and instead create
completely new toplevel statements CREATE COMMAND TRIGGER and DROP
COMMAND TRIGGER. Then, you could decide
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Done. Of course at the time the command trigger is created you can't
distinguish if the CREATE INDEX command will be run CONCURRENTLY or not,
so I've decided to issue a WARNING about it.
That seems icky.
Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
Marti Raudsepp wrote:
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?
To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN
and GitHub, not for a
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What if you did this ONCE and wrote the results to a file someplace?
That's still a cache, you've just defaulted on your obligation to think
about what conditions require the cache to be flushed.
Yep. Unfortunately, I don't
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I remember there was a time when you couldn't say SELECT a x FROM
foo in PostgreSQL. We told people that it was because our syntax was
more flexible - we have postfix operators, or something.
Which it was, and yes that was the reason. We eventually
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are review comments:
The document about EXPLAIN needs to be updated.
You forgot to add the long-integer-valued property of
shared/local_blks_dirtied.
So when I ran EXPLAIN and used json as a format, no
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 13:22 +, Thom Brown wrote:
So instead of
CREATE TRIGGER...
EXECUTE PROCEDURE functioname();
you'd have:
CREATE TRIGGER...
DO $$
...
$$;
I had wished for this many times and was about to propose something
similar.
We might wish to review the SQL standard
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, the fact that LIKE is another spelling for ~~ is
a
PostgreSQL implementation detail with which users ought not to be
burdened.
+1
LIKE is well defined by the standard, and the ~~ operator is not
mentioned there anywhere.
On the
2012/2/17 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, the fact that LIKE is another spelling for ~~ is
a
PostgreSQL implementation detail with which users ought not to be
burdened.
+1
LIKE is well defined by the standard, and the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Done. Of course at the time the command trigger is created you can't
distinguish if the CREATE INDEX command will be run CONCURRENTLY or not,
so I've decided to issue a
On 17 February 2012 17:26, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 13:22 +, Thom Brown wrote:
So instead of
CREATE TRIGGER...
EXECUTE PROCEDURE functioname();
you'd have:
CREATE TRIGGER...
DO $$
...
$$;
I had wished for this many times and was about to
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I don't know whether a similar improvement is
possible in this area, but we're certainly not going to get there by
labeling the user's expectations as unreasonable. I don't think they
are, and the people who wrote MySQL and
On 02/17/2012 12:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I don't know whether a similar improvement is
possible in this area, but we're certainly not going to get there by
labeling the user's expectations as unreasonable. I don't think
Greetings,
My biggest concern is whether we
might paint ourselves into a corner by including such an
extension. It might shut off avenues for other cool features
because anyone using the extension would have conflicts. Perhaps
such a thing would be more appropriate on PGXN with
Tom Lane wrote:
Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
- Does KNN-GiST run into problems when- returns values that don't make
sense in the physical world?
If the indexed entities are records, it would be
entirely your own business how you handled individual fields being NULL.
This turns
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking the opposite. That -i should only print progress
indication when -d is given. Or at least knock an order of magnitude
or two off of how often it does so.
I'd be in all in favor of having -i emit
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
- Does KNN-GiST run into problems when- returns values that don't
make
sense in the physical world?
If the indexed entities are records, it would be
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Assuming we had the cast, What would intval like '1%' mean? You're going
to match 1, 10..19, 100..199, 1000..1999 ...
Now maybe there's a good use for such a test, but I'm have a VERY hard time
imagining what it might
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com
mailto:jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
At first I thought this posed a challenge for union; if I have these
points:
(1,2)
(2,1)
(1,NULL)
what's the union? I think the answer is to
On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Christopher Browne wrote:
And I have *zero* confidence that for PostgreSQL to rule out LIKE
'1%' is preventing those designs from getting built...
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, How would the Lone Ranger handle
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com
mailto:jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
At first I thought this posed a challenge for union; if I have these
points:
On 02/17/2012 02:28 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Assuming we had the cast, What would intval like '1%' mean? You're going
to match 1, 10..19, 100..199, 1000..1999 ...
Now maybe there's a good use for such a test, but
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Assuming we had the cast, What would intval like '1%' mean? You're going
to match 1, 10..19, 100..199, 1000..1999 ...
Yep.
Now maybe there's a good use for such a test, but I'm have a VERY hard time
imagining what it
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Assuming we had the cast, What would intval like '1%' mean? You're
going to match 1, 10..19, 100..199, 1000..1999 ...
Now maybe there's a good use for such a test, but I'm have a VERY hard
time imagining what it might be.
Yeah, that's another
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Strings of digits used that way should not be stored in numeric fields at
all, IMNSHO, just as zip codes and phone numbers should not be. They should
be text in the first place, and if the OP had done that he wouldn't
On 02/17/2012 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
If we really believed that implicit casts any form were evil, we would
have removed them entirely instead of trimming them back. I don't see
why it's heretical to suggest that the 8.3 casting changes brought us
to exactly that point in the universe
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the same as a function.
I like that. How do you tell which language the trigger is written in?
I'm not so sure about
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com
Ah, yes, exactly the same problem. So what led you to add a flag instead
of using the range NULL..NULL? I'm on the fence about choosing.
At first, range bounds can't be NULL :) At second, if
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the same as a function.
I like that. How
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thom Brownt...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the
On 17 February 2012 21:07, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Thom Brownt...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I'm not so sure about other function properties (SET, COST, ROWS,
SECURITY DEFINER etc) because applying default and punting users to
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and
use that by default? In that case we might want to force people
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and
use that by
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
v8 attached
It's hard to believe that this version has been tested terribly
thoroughly, because it doesn't compile.
I'm just back home from a
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
this is what i found there
trigger definition ::=
CREATE TRIGGER trigger name trigger action time
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Before going much further with this, we should probably do some timings
of 64K calls of iswupper and friends, just to see how bad a dumb
implementation will be.
Can't hurt.
The
Hi all,
Is the following code well formed?
oldContext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(newContext);
if (something_bad) {
elog(ERROR, ...);
}
...
MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldContext);
or do I have to ripristinate the oldContext before to issue the elog ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
--
Sent via
Gaetano Mendola mend...@gmail.com writes:
or do I have to ripristinate the oldContext before to issue the elog ?
No.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 2/17/12 12:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
The argument isn't about whether the user made the right design
choices; it's about whether he should be forced to insert an explicit
type cast to get the query to do what it is unambiguously intended to
do.
I don't find INTEGER LIKE '1%' to be
On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 2/17/12 12:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
The argument isn't about whether the user made the right design
choices; it's about whether he should be forced to insert an explicit
type cast to get the query to do what it is unambiguously intended to
I wrote:
The answer, on a reasonably new desktop machine (2.0GHz Xeon E5503)
running Fedora 16 in en_US.utf8 locale, is that 64K iterations of
pg_wc_isalpha or sibling functions requires a shade under 2ms.
So this definitely justifies caching the values to avoid computing
them more than once
73 matches
Mail list logo
