[HACKERS] PATCH: psql boolean display

2012-08-19 Thread Phil Sorber
Hello all, I am providing a patch to allow you to change the output of a boolean value in psql much like you can do with NULL. A client requested this feature and we thought it may appeal to someone else in the community. The patch includes updated docs and a regression test. The code changes


2012-08-19 Thread Tom Lane
Six years ago, we punted on allowing rules to use OLD and NEW in multi-row VALUES constructs, because we didn't have LATERAL: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-08/msg00044.php I thought maybe that restriction could be fixed now that we do have LATERAL, and indeed the attached

Re: [HACKERS] SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:10 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch now, but left out the support for adjacent for now. Not because there was necessarily anything

[HACKERS] Unexpected plperl difference between 8.4 and 9.1

2012-08-19 Thread Joel Jacobson
After upgrading from 8.4 to 9.1, one of my plperl functions stopped working properly. For some reason, when matching a string using a regex, the $1 variable cannot be returned directly using return_next() but must be set to a variable first. If returned directly, it appears to be cached in some

[HACKERS] Tab completion for DROP CONSTRAINT

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Janes
Interactively dropping primary key constraints has been annoying me. I believe this patch fixes that, hopefully for other kinds of cataloged constraints as well. I believe this finishes, at least for a while, my tab-completion related gripes. Cheers, Jeff drop_constraint_complete_v1.patch

Re: [HACKERS] SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 17:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: which would come back to bite us if we ever try to support index-only scans with SPGiST. I'm confused: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=92203624934095163f8b57b5b3d7bbd2645da2c8 And the patch that was just

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER VERBOSE tab completion

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: tab completion will add USING after CLUSTER VERBOSE, as if VERBOSE were the name of a table. Instead of just making it not do the wrong thing, I tried to make it actually do the right thing. It doesn't fill in the

Re: [HACKERS] Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges

2012-08-19 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 15.08.2012 11:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Ok, we've to decide if we need standard histogram. In some cases it can be used for more accurate estimation of and operators. But I think it is

Re: [HACKERS] temporal support patch

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 17:46 +0900, Vlad Arkhipov wrote: It's not sufficient to store only a period of validity for a row. If two transactions started in the same time change the same record, you have a problem with TSTZRANGE type because it's normalized to empty interval. That's an

Re: [HACKERS] gistchoose vs. bloat

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 15:12 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Hackers, While experimenting with gistchoose I achieve interesting results about relation of gistchoose behaviour and gist index bloat. ... Current implementation of gistchoose select first index tuple which have minimal

Re: [HACKERS] temporal support patch

2012-08-19 Thread Pavel Stehule
If there is some syntax that offers a convenient shorthand for WHERE, that's fine with me. Or using two tables, one called foo and one called foo_history, is also fine. But I don't want the DML syntax to introduce new mechanisms that aren't available without the fancy syntax (though new DDL

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-19 Thread Craig Ringer
On 08/19/2012 03:01 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: Or would you instead say that changes made to a sequence are immediately visible to all other transactions ? Yes, that sounds better. OK, how about the attached series, then? The 2nd probably needs improvement - and I expect I've missed some other