Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-11 Thread John Gray
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 16:52, Tom Lane wrote: > John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here's my current working draft (doesn't include material from the > > last couple of weeks): > > Please note that there's been pretty substantial revisions in comma

Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-11 Thread John Gray
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 15:33, Tom Lane wrote: > > > That shouldn't be too much of a problem in the next couple of weeks - if > > we can decide on a specific day I'll book it into my diary (Any day but > > Wednesday next week would be fine for me). > > I will try to have no uncommitted changes over

Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-12 Thread John Gray
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 03:33, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Fine. I'll work on that basis. I'll prepare a full-blown patch which can > > be applied Monday -unless anyone else is sitting on uncommitted changes > > to the directory that they want me to wait for? > > Nothing important. Shall I

Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-14 Thread John Gray
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 21:30, Rod Taylor wrote: > I'm not exactly sure what you're touching, but could it wait for the > below pg_depend patch to be either accepted or rejected? It lightly > fiddles with a number of files in the command and catalog directories. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/

Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-14 Thread John Gray
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 21:58, Rod Taylor wrote: > Sounds fair. I'd have brought it up earlier but was away last week. > > The changes I made are very straight forward and easy enough to redo. I've sent the patch to the -patches list -Please let me know if there are any queries -I will be able to

[HACKERS] commands subdirectory continued -code cleanup

2002-04-19 Thread John Gray
in the process. If this general outline is OK, I'll work on a patch -this shouldn't be quite as drastic as the last one :-) Regards John -- John Gray ECHOES: sponsored walks for Christian Aid to the highest Azuli ITpoints of English counties, 4th-6th

Re: [HACKERS] commands subdirectory continued -code cleanup

2002-04-20 Thread John Gray
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 20:34, Tom Lane wrote: > John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sequences still seem to work after they've had attributes renamed, but I > > see little value in being able to do this. Is it OK to prohibit the > > renaming of sequence column

Re: [HACKERS] commands subdirectory continued -code cleanup

2002-04-20 Thread John Gray
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 20:38, Fernando Nasser wrote: > John Gray wrote: > > > > and two macros: > > > > RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(relid); > > AlterTableDoSomething(childrel,...); > > RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN_END; > > > > (this seems more straightfor

[HACKERS] Build failure in current CVS (src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs)

2002-08-20 Thread John Gray
make target `../proc.mk'. Stop. Any suggestions. I've tried various things (cf. my previous message to -hackers but had no success -I really don't quite get all the details of the build or I would send a patch...) Regards John -- John Gray Azuli IT

[HACKERS] Accessing original TupleDesc from SRF

2002-08-30 Thread John Gray
by the XPath engine. This avoids having to have a function with varying arguments -instead you have a 'virtual table' that generates only the attributes requested. Does this sound completely crazy? Regards John -- John Gray Azuli IT www.azuli.co.uk --

[HACKERS] Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)

2001-04-10 Thread John Gray
y like the performance hints thing too. John -- John Gray Tel +44-7974-100-584 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

[HACKERS] Re: Storing XML in PostgreSQL

2001-07-25 Thread John Gray
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean-Michel POURE) wrote: > Hello friends, > > What is the best way to parse and store an XML document in PostgreSQL? I > would like to store fwbuilder (http://www.fwbuilder.org) objects in > PostgreSQL. > I think the best way depends on what

[HACKERS] Re: Re: Re: Storing XML in PostgreSQL

2001-07-27 Thread John Gray
In article <9jrn78$pbv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin 't Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Should we add this to /contrib? > > I think so, at least until we get something better. > I'm happy for you to add it, if you're willing to have it (It is meant to be under the PostgreSQL license). I agree

[HACKERS] Re: Re: Storing XML in PostgreSQL

2001-07-25 Thread John Gray
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?q?R=F8nning?=) wrote: > Do you have any documentation on your C functions ? I'm just interested > in knowing what functions they provide. > There are only two (so far). They're very basic. I have: pgxml_parse(text) returns

[HACKERS] Re: Re: Storing XML in PostgreSQL

2001-07-26 Thread John Gray
I've packaged up what I've done so far and you can find it at http://www.cabbage.uklinux.net/pgxml.tar.gz The TODO file included indicates what still remains to be done (a lot!). In particular, it would be good to implement more of the XPath grammar. However, once we get into the realm of more c

[HACKERS] Linking a shared library against a C function

2001-07-26 Thread John Gray
In the course of developing my XML parser hooks I've been using an external XML parser (expat) which is built as a shared library. The C functions I'm writing need to access functions within that library. Is it OK just to link the .so of my backend function against the expat library? i.e. to do

Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup

2002-04-03 Thread John Gray
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 09:39, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hi All, > > With regards to the proposed command.c refactoring... > ..about which I should apologise as I stuck my head above the parapet and then sat on my ideas (mixing metaphors a bit). > I've done it by removing command.c and rep

Re: [HACKERS] XML and postgres

2003-06-02 Thread John Gray
odule and help with developing. > > Oh, I sympathise completely. I have been able to do a little more work on contrib/xml for a company in my spare time (work which I hope we'll be able to release back) but my day job has no XPath in it now! (I am now a broadcast engineer, rather than an

Re: [HACKERS] The Contrib Roundup (long)

2005-06-08 Thread John Gray
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:53:32 -0300, Josh Berkus wrote: [Discussion snipped] > xml and xml2: both by John Gray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). John, why do we have > two of these? Otherwise, data_types/. contrib/xml2 is a lot better than /xml. When I submitted the new code, Bruce felt that /xml sho

Re: [HACKERS] PG Extensions: Must be statically linked?

2006-03-02 Thread John Gray
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:43:35 -0800, Craig A. James wrote: > I'm creating user-defined server extensions, written in C per the manual [snip] > Is this correct? Do Postgres extension need to be fully statically > linked? Or is there some configuration that will specify LD_LIBRARY_PATH > (or perha

[HACKERS] Minor point about contrib/xml2 functions "IMMUTABLE" marking

2005-10-10 Thread John Gray
Hi, I did see the message about the change of the function signatures to include IMMUTABLE and thought "Yes, that makes sense" - however, it has now occurred to me that: 1. xpath_table uses a SELECT query to fetch the data it uses, so should presumably be marked STABLE? 2. xslt_process is to be

[HACKERS] Port report: Fedora Core 3 x86_64

2004-12-12 Thread John Gray
All went mainly well - but a couple of gotchas on the build (these may be Fedora bugs rather than PG ones). This install is pretty much brand new (2 days old) with very little local configuration, so should represent an FC3 out of the box. 1. com_err.h is in /usr/include/et/com_err.h and isn't fo