Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 15:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 12:06 -0700, Andrew Dunstan wrote: So given

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 16:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote: Can we at least have the xxx_to_json() functions try cast to json first and fall back to text if the cast fails. I think

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation for temp_file_limit

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 22:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: The new 9.2 GUC parameter temp_file_limit says it restricts temporary file usage per session, but it doesn't say what happens if a session needs to exceed that value --- it throws an error. Shouldn't we mention that? Yes, that would be

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:16 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Not sure where you got 24 hours: Tues http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00061.php Wed http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-05/msg00060.php Thur

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not actual testing, I assume. There were either essential pieces missing (e.g., no shared library support, or no Makefile.port), or we had received reports in the past the platform

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 13:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: For this particular case, I think you just need some place to store a pg_type - pg_proc mapping. I'm not exactly sure how to make that not a JSON-specific hack, since I certainly don't think we'd want to add a new catalog just for that. I

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 12:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yeah, what I've been thinking about in conjunction with similar problems is some sort of type registry, so that we could code for non-builtin types in certain cases. It certainly seems to come up a lot, but I'm not sure whether the two

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-05-04 at 15:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Can we at least have the xxx_to_json() functions try cast to json first and fall back to text if the cast fails. I think the idea that you can involve the casting machinery in this is misguided. sometextval::json has got to mean that

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:59:54AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not actual testing, I assume. There were either essential pieces missing (e.g., no shared library support, or

Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase tab completion keywords in psql?

2012-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:46:28PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tor, 2012-05-03 at 15:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter, where are we on this? I hadn't received any clear feedback, but if no one objects, I can commit it. I think there were enough people that wanted some kind of

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 12:16 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On fre, 2012-05-04 at 15:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Can we at least have the xxx_to_json() functions try cast to json first and fall back to text if the cast fails. I think the idea that you can involve the casting

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old uncommon

Re: [HACKERS] JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

2012-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes: CAST is something that should convert one type to another, in this case a textual type to its json value representation and back. 'sometext'::text::json -- 'sometext' and 'sometext'::json::text -- 'sometext' Well, that's a pretty interesting

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the sco and unixware ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template. Unixware was

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 5 May 2012 09:59, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other platforms on my original marginal list? irix Well, there hasn't been an IRIX release since 2006, and silicon graphics is defunct. The SGI brand lives on, though I

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the sco and unixware ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running SCO

Re: [HACKERS] smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown)

2012-05-05 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name smart for the new behavior, so that what we have to find a name for is the old smart behavior.  

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the sco and unixware ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running SCO

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python result set slicing broken in Python 3

2012-05-05 Thread Jan Urbański
On 04/05/12 20:00, Jan Urbański wrote: On 03/05/12 11:04, Jan Urbański wrote: On 02/05/12 20:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote: This doesn't work anymore with Python 3: rv = plpy.execute(...) do_something(rv[0:1]) Sounds ugly. I'll take a look. I found some instructions on how to deal with the

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006). I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more. It won't hurt anything much to leave these

Re: [HACKERS] remove dead ports?

2012-05-05 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Well, absent user feedback, we could use our own 5-year rule and keep sco and unixware, and remove irix (2006). I think we should err on the side of removing