Re: [HACKERS] make error - libpqdll.def No such file or directory

2016-01-17 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
p.s. -- On 1/17/2016 3:24 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: When running make I encounter the following error: gcc.exe: error: libpqdll.def: No such file or directory /home/Admin/sources/postgresql-9.5.0/src/Makefile.shlib:393: recipe for target 'libpq.dll' failed make[3]: *** [libpq.dll] Error 1

Re: [HACKERS] Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type

2016-01-18 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/18/2016 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: The relevant portion of config.log seems to be this: I do not think configure pays attention to mere warnings for this type of test. The real problem here seems to be the "permission denied" errors, which to me

Re: [HACKERS] Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type

2016-01-18 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
It looks like Tom is correct. I added the directory tree to an exclude list of Microsoft Security Essentials and ran `configure` without any flags and it completed successfully this time. Thank you both for your time and expertise, Igal On 1/18/2016 11:23 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: On 1

Re: [HACKERS] Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type

2016-01-17 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
, the thread I mentioned in the previous email can be found at http://postgresql.nabble.com/Setting-Werror-in-CFLAGS-td5118384.html Igal Sapir Lucee Core Developer Lucee.org <http://lucee.org/> On 1/17/2016 12:07 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: Hi, I'm trying to build Postgres with GCC 5.

[HACKERS] Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type

2016-01-17 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
Hi, I'm trying to build Postgres with GCC 5.3.0 on Windows (a-la MinGW-64) and when I ran "configure" I received the following error: "configure: error: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type." The config.log file can be seen at

[HACKERS] make error - libpqdll.def No such file or directory

2016-01-17 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
When running make I encounter the following error: gcc.exe: error: libpqdll.def: No such file or directory /home/Admin/sources/postgresql-9.5.0/src/Makefile.shlib:393: recipe for target 'libpq.dll' failed make[3]: *** [libpq.dll] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory

[HACKERS] Developing and Building PostgreSQL in an IDE on Windows

2016-01-16 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
Hi, Java developer here with very basic knowledge of C and C++ and therefore some noob questions, so please bear with me (to further complicate things -- I am using Windows). My goal is to be able run PostgreSQL in an IDE like Eclipse CDT or Code::Blocks so that I can run it in debug mode

Re: [HACKERS] system mingw not recognized

2016-01-18 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
from: --host=x86_64-w64-mingw to: --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 Not sure where to report that? On 1/18/2016 12:52 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: Per the docs at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/installation-platform-notes.html#INSTALLATION-NOTES-MINGW "To build 64 bit bin

Re: [HACKERS] system mingw not recognized

2016-01-18 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
I posted the error in the docs to pgsql-d...@postgresql.org If it's possible to update it myself via git, or if it should be reported elsewhere -- please advise. On 1/18/2016 12:59 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: It looks like the docs are indeed wrong. According to http://sourceforge.net/p

[HACKERS] system mingw not recognized

2016-01-18 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
Per the docs at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/installation-platform-notes.html#INSTALLATION-NOTES-MINGW "To build 64 bit binaries using MinGW ... and run configure with the --host=x86_64-w64-mingw option" But when I try to run: $ ~/sources/postgresql-9.5.0/configure

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 8:07 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: I guess getting some time in playing with PostgreSQL and installing PL/Java would be the right way to start. Discussion that's specific to PL/Java and might not interest all of -hackers can also happen on pljava-...@lists.pgfoundry.org. Sounds like a

[HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
Hi all, We have an open source scripting engine named Lucee that is used primarily for web application -- https://github.com/lucee/Lucee -- it is written in Java and is usually run as a servlet, but can be accessed in other ways (like JSR-223). You can think of the language as a combination

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 8:40 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: Why do you want that at the database level? Do you have end-to-end scenario that benefits from using Lucee? Lucee is very intuitive and powerful, so it's more for ease of use than anything, and to attract more Lucee users to use PostgreSQL (most of

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 9:57 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: That is a good question. ChakraCore has been open sourced recently. It might be easier to build under Windows. interesting. but now we will need to write an extension for that, e.g. PL/Chakra, which brings back my original question: are there any

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 9:58 AM, jflack wrote: I just did a quick search on Lucee and what I found suggests that it compiles to JVM bytecode and runs on a JVM. If that is the case, and it can compile methods that will have the sort of method signatures PL/Java expects, and you can put the .class files in a

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 10:48 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: Ok, if your 233 support is already in beta, you'll get there before we do, but the paths should intersect eventually. :) Actually, once your support for JSR-223 is implemented (it's two-twenty-three, not thirty ;)), we will be able to use

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 10:41 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2016-01-27 19:37 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule >: David Fetter wrote some presentation - some years ago was popular to write own PL me too

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 11:47 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: Thanks. :) On occasions in the past I have written it correctly ... there is evidence in the archives I believe that! I actually never remember if it's 223 or 233 and I always google it before I post, so in a way I cheated ;) we will be

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing a new Scripting Language

2016-01-27 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/27/2016 7:12 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: Now that you mention it, it isn't officially in a ticket. Though it's not like I was going to forget. :) I can guarantee it won't be in 1.5... Speaking of tickets, I should probably make actual tickets, for after 1.5.0, out of all the items now

Re: [HACKERS] make error - libpqdll.def No such file or directory

2016-01-19 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/19/2016 10:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Yes, probably something like that. I think it failed the first time because there was a bug (the one I introduced in a967613911f7), then probably changed to src/backend and ran compiles there which probably worked fine, leading to commit

Re: [HACKERS] make error - libpqdll.def No such file or directory

2016-01-19 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/17/2016 8:17 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: On 1/17/2016 3:24 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: When running make I encounter the following error: gcc.exe: error: libpqdll.def: No such file or directory /home/Admin/sources/postgresql-9.5.0/src/Makefile.shlib:393: recipe for target 'libpq.dll

Re: [HACKERS] make error - libpqdll.def No such file or directory

2016-01-19 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 1/19/2016 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: So when I try to run `make` I still get that error. Please note that I am doing a VPATH build (the build in a separate directory from the downloaded sources), which might play a role here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe: error

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-09 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/8/2016 5:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: One of the worst problems (IMO) is in the driver architecture its self. It attempts to prevent blocking by guestimating the server's send buffer state and its recv buffer state, trying to stop them filling and causing the server to block on writes. It

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-10 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/8/2016 4:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 9 March 2016 at 05:40, Igal @ Lucee.org <i...@lucee.org <mailto:i...@lucee.org>> wrote: I will try to gather more information about the other DBMSs and drivers and will post my findings here when I have them. Thanks. I

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

2016-03-10 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/10/2016 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: But I still don't know "meh" means. Maybe this helps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh LOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-11 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/11/2016 12:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: That's why (sorry, Igal) I'd like to see some more tests for cases other than identity columns. How is GENERATED ALWAYS handled, if supported? What about if it's on a UNIQUE column? How about a PRIMARY KEY whose value is assigned by a DEFAULT or by

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-07 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/7/2016 1:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. I'm rather suspicious of this proposal; I do not think it's actually very useful to return a primary-key value without any indication of what the primary key is. There are also corner cases where it seems pretty ill-defined. For example, suppose you

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-07 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/7/2016 12:45 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: I agree that the problem is that you don't always know what the primary key is. I would argue the solution is to check before you write the query. Sure, that would be great, but perhaps I should have give some more context: We have an

[HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-07 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
THE ISSUE: In JDBC there is a flag called RETURN_GENERATED_KEYS -- https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/sql/Statement.html#RETURN_GENERATED_KEYS Which is left quite ambiguous, but in general it is used to return the "generated" Primary Key on INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE -- which is mostly

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-07 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
Ian, On 3/7/2016 4:17 PM, Ian Barwick wrote: FYI something similar has been proposed before: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53953efb.8070...@2ndquadrant.com The linked thread might provide more insights into the issues surrounding this proposal. It's funny how I've encountered the

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-03-08 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 3/8/2016 12:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I agree that some research should be done on how this works in other systems, but I think we have a general problem with the server lacking certain capabilities that make it easy to implement a high-quality JDBC driver. And I think it would be good to

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-04-03 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 4/3/2016 8:21 AM, Dave Cramer wrote: On 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer > wrote: On 3/8/2016 5:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: Are there good reasons to use pgjdbc over pgjdbc-ng then? Maturity, support for older

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

2016-04-03 Thread Igal @ Lucee.org
On 4/3/2016 4:34 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: On 4/3/2016 8:21 AM, Dave Cramer wrote: I'd like to turn this question around. Are there good reasons to use -ng over pgjdbc ? As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more performant than ng. That's good