Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

2017-08-03 Thread Rod Taylor
" on an entry so that it spans more > rows. > Done. I couldn't figure out a morecols=1 equivalent to keep everything under the Policy heading without a full colspec. > For empty cells, maybe a dash would be clearer. Not sure. Looked cluttered to me. Tried N/A first which was ev

Re: [HACKERS] Open Sourcing pgManage

2003-11-04 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 14:14, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, As Command Prompt is about to release it's Replication product we are open sourcing our pgManage. pgManage is similar to pgAdmin but as it is java based it is truly cross platform and should easily support most if not all of

[HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner

2003-11-05 Thread Rod Taylor
Since this is a large query, attachments for the explains / query. Configuration: dev_iqdb=# select version(); version PostgreSQL 7.4beta1 on

Re: [HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner

2003-11-05 Thread Rod Taylor
I'm not sure if that will actually change the default_statistics_target of the tables you're analyzing, I think it will only apply to newly created tables. I believe you have to alter table alter column set statistics 1000 for each column you want a statistic of 1000. You might wanna

Re: [HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner

2003-11-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure if that will actually change the default_statistics_target Hmm.. I was under the impression that it would work for any tables that haven't otherwise been overridden. It will. I think Scott

Re: [HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner

2003-11-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 19:18, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Effectively, the planner has amazingly inaccurate row estimates. It seems the key estimation failure is in this join step: - Hash Join (cost=1230.79..60581.82 rows=158 width=54) (actual time

[Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner]

2003-11-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 10:35, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Hash Join (cost=3D1230.79..60581.82 rows=3D158 width=3D54)= (actual time=3D1262.35..151200.29 rows=3D1121988 loops=3D1) Hash Cond: (outer.account_id =3D inner.account_id) - Hash Join (cost=3D1226.78

Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: Very poor estimates from planner]

2003-11-06 Thread Rod Taylor
Could we see the pg_stats rows for service.account_id and account.account_id? Sorry, ignore previous numbers. My prior tests were done in a transaction (to roll back stats changes) and I forgot to re-analyze. relname | attname | stanullfrac | stawidth | stadistinct | stakind1 | stakind2

Re: [HACKERS] What do you want me to do?

2003-11-08 Thread Rod Taylor
there are a number of people out there who would be willing to do this, myself included. -- Rod Taylor pg [at] rbt [dot] ca Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your

Re: [HACKERS] Very poor estimates from planner

2003-11-09 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 10:35, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Hash Join (cost=3D1230.79..60581.82 rows=3D158 width=3D54)= (actual time=3D1262.35..151200.29 rows=3D1121988 loops=3D1) Hash Cond: (outer.account_id =3D inner.account_id) - Hash Join (cost=3D1226.78

Re: [HACKERS] About the partial tarballs

2003-11-11 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 14:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Marc G. Fournier writes: Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by them than use them. on ftp.postgresql.org itself, since June

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-13 Thread Rod Taylor
-- moved to -hackers On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 11:35, Hannu Krosing wrote: Rod Taylor kirjutas N, 13.11.2003 kell 16:59: Can you please suggest a better term to use in place of TRANSFORM? Perhaps UPDATE WITH? or perhaps USING, based loosely on our use of USING in CREATE INDEX ? USING

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-16 Thread Rod Taylor
-- moving to -hackers Do you have special cases for type changes which don't need data transforms. I mean things like changing VARCHAR(10) to VARCHAR(20), dropping the NOT NULL constraint or changing CHECK A 3 to CHECK A 4. There are basically 3 types of change. The first is simple, a

Re: [HACKERS] logical column position

2003-11-17 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 20:24, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Right -- AFAICS, the only change in COPY compatibility would be if you COPY TO'd a table and then changed the logical column order in some fashion, you would no longer be able to restore the dump (unless you specified a column

Re: [HACKERS] Sponsoring enterprise features

2003-11-18 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 14:33, James Rogers wrote: Hi folks, Is there any pre-existing protocol for a company to pay for specific features to be added to PostgreSQL? There are several people who do this type of work (Neil, Joe, David, the folks are Command Prompt Inc., etc.). Personally, I

[HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-17 Thread Rod Taylor
The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright from the website (2 clause) applied

Re: [HACKERS] question about fixes in v7.4...

2003-11-19 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:17, Don Sceifers wrote: My company is fairly new at Postgresql, but we have hit a problem, where we modify a table using ALTER, and our stored procedures stop working. We have a grasp as to why this happens, but I was wondering if this v7.4 upgrade fixes this issue?

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Rod Taylor
I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. Everyones names should be in the copyright for the

Re: [HACKERS] logical column position

2003-11-20 Thread Rod Taylor
I don't have a better choice of name offhand, but if we spend 1% of the time already spent arguing about these issues on finding a better name, I'm sure we can think of one ;-) virtual (attvirtnum) external (attextnum) atttisoywnum - attribute this is the one you want number

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone working on pg_dump dependency ordering?

2003-11-22 Thread Rod Taylor
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 16:53, Andreas Pflug wrote: Stephan Szabo wrote: You're going to potentially have the constraints scattered in any case due to circular dependency chains. I'd think that having all the constraints in one place would be easier than trying to go through the list of tables

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone working on pg_dump dependency ordering?

2003-11-22 Thread Rod Taylor
CREATE TABLE a (col integer primary key); CREATE TABLE b (col integer primary key); ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (col) REFERENCES b INITIALLY DEFERRED; ALTER TABLE b ADD FOREIGN KEY (col) REFERENCES a; Still, using cyclic references is IMHO bad design style. I can't accept They're

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER SEQUENCE enchancement

2003-11-24 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 01:07, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Hi, Is there demand for this syntax: ALTER SEQUENCE ON table(col) CYCLE 100; It would allow us to become sequence-name independent... I think the right approach to this problem would be to implement IDENTITIES and GENERATORS

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-26 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:34, Rod Taylor wrote: I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us

Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 Plans

2003-11-26 Thread Rod Taylor
So, what does changing it to $PostgreSQL$ do? Or am I reading the wrong part of the manual? After applying the patch in -patches to CVSROOT and running the update script... It will allow Chris and other to import the PostgreSQL source into their own CVS tree without having do to a ton of diff

Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 Plans

2003-11-26 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 23:32, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Rod Taylor wrote: So, what does changing it to $PostgreSQL$ do? Or am I reading the wrong part of the manual? After applying the patch in -patches to CVSROOT and running the update script... It will allow

Re: [HACKERS] $Id$ - $PostgreSQL$ Change

2003-11-27 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 00:50, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Based on discussions on -hackers, and baring any objections betwen now and then, I'm going to go through all files in CVS and change: $Id$ - $PostgreSQL$ I will do this the evening of Friday, November 29th ... I presume you will

Re: [HACKERS] Functions with COPY

2003-11-27 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 09:28, Stephen Frost wrote: * Bruno Wolff III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:15:20 -0500, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe it's possible, currently, to correctly import this data with copy. I'm not sure the date

Re: [HACKERS] $Id$ - $PostgreSQL$ Change

2003-11-28 Thread Rod Taylor
Looks good. Once you are comfortable with the changes, you will need to add another line to CVSROOT/options to disable processing of the $Id$ and $Header$ tags should one accidentally be added. tagexpand=iPostgreSQL 'K, where do you find docs on the options file? there is

Re: [HACKERS] $Id$ - $PostgreSQL$ Change

2003-11-28 Thread Rod Taylor
k, there was no options file already, so I just added it containing the one line ... And tested in on GNUMakefile.in, and appears okay: # # $PostgreSQL: pgsql-server/GNUmakefile.in,v 1.36 2003/11/28 20:32:09 pgsql Exp $ # Looks good. Once you are comfortable with the changes, you will

Re: [HACKERS] Why isn't DECLARE CURSOR ... FOR UPDATE supported?

2003-12-18 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote: Is there any good reason for this restriction? regression=# begin; BEGIN regression=# declare c cursor for select * from tenk1 for update; ERROR: DECLARE CURSOR ... FOR UPDATE is not supported DETAIL: Cursors must be READ ONLY. While I have

Re: [HACKERS] cascading column drop to index predicates

2003-12-22 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 10:55, Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that sample mentioned the index might be used mostly with a,b columns. Dropping the index silently might damage the application because it relies on an (a,b) index to be present. IMHO only Indexes

Re: [HACKERS] psql \d option list overloaded

2004-01-08 Thread Rod Taylor
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they reflect my intensions directly and 'make sense'. Can you remember how to get a list of indexes on a particular table? How about a specific indexes

Re: [HACKERS] Encoding problems in PostgreSQL with XML data

2004-01-09 Thread Rod Taylor
Rewriting the ?xml? declaration seems like a workable solution, but it would break the transparency of the client/server encoding conversion. Also, some people might dislike that their documents are being changed as they are stored. I presume that the XML type stores the textual

Re: [HACKERS] Disaster!

2004-01-23 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 16:00, Tom Lane wrote: Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now I can start it up! Thanks! What should I do now? Go home and get some sleep ;-). If the WAL replay succeeded, you're up and running, nothing else to do. Granted, running out of

Re: [HACKERS] Named arguments in function calls

2004-01-25 Thread Rod Taylor
The only question now is if it should be that we call the function with the variable x AS the value 13, or if we call the function with 13 AS the variable x. I.e. ... I don't know if one is more natural then the other in english. To my swedish ear both sounds as good. I like (x as 13) a

Re: [HACKERS] Another optimizer question

2004-01-27 Thread Rod Taylor
As a more direct response, there *are* reasons for people to put ORDER BY in a subselect and expect it to be honored. The typical example that's been discussed several times in the archives is that you want to use an aggregate function that is sensitive to the ordering of its input Not to

Re: [HACKERS] Idea about better configuration options for sort

2004-02-03 Thread Rod Taylor
the only resource intensive program running. If this was done, could we not work closer with the kernel? Ask the kernel how much Free + Buffer memory there is, knock it down by 75% and use that for our sort memory value (total sort memory for individual backend -- not operation). -- Rod Taylor rbt

Re: [HACKERS] Preventing duplicate vacuums?

2004-02-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:37, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, Just occurred to me that we have no code to prevent a user from running two simultaneos lazy vacuums on the same table.I can't think of any circumstance why running two vacuums would be desirable behavior; how difficult would it

Re: [HACKERS] PITR Dead horse?

2004-02-07 Thread Rod Taylor
(and I have no idea how to do it) is a This hardware is not appropriate for a database test kit. Something to detect lying disks, battery backed write cache that isn't so battery backed, etc. -- Rod Taylor rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL PGP Key

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support

2004-02-08 Thread Rod Taylor
The fact is, there are situations in which such extreme traffic is warranted. My concern is that I am not able to use postgres in such situations because it cannot scale to that level. I feel that it would be possible to reach that level with support in the postmaster for replication.

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support

2004-02-08 Thread Rod Taylor
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote: On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or DELETES, master / slave

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support

2004-02-08 Thread Rod Taylor
replication. Am I hearing that nobody believes scalability is a concern? I think many of us would like to see features that would allow large scale installations to be more practical. I also think most of us would agree that the current graft-on replication methods are sub-ideal. You really

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support

2004-02-09 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 01:54, Alex J. Avriette wrote: On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:20:07PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote: On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: Replication won't help if those are all mostly write

Re: [HACKERS] MS SQL features for new version

2004-02-10 Thread Rod Taylor
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/yukon/productinfo/top30features.asp Notice the Snapshot Isolation. Sounds like MVCC for MSSQL? Actually, the one I noticed was the ability to add or rebuild indexes on the fly. That is a pretty slick trick. ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] MS SQL features for new version

2004-02-10 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 15:37, Robert Treat wrote: On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 13:20, Rod Taylor wrote: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/yukon/productinfo/top30features.asp Notice the Snapshot Isolation. Sounds like MVCC for MSSQL? Actually, the one I noticed was the ability to add or rebuild

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There have been a few discussions about triggers on system tables in the past and the problems with such triggers seem to be: I think the killer problem is that we couldn't allow triggers on system tables

Re: [HACKERS] How can I have 2 completely seperated databases in

2004-02-12 Thread Rod Taylor
But for seperating out applications from each other, there's really nothing to be gained by putting each seperate database application into it's own cluster. I believe the initial email requested individual logs, and presumably the ability to grant superuser access without risking a user

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction aborts on syntax error.

2004-02-12 Thread Rod Taylor
BEGIN WORK; LOCK oldtab; CREATE_X TABLE newtab AS SELECT * FROM oldtab; DELETE oldtab; COMMIT In this case, you would want the database to abort on a syntax error, right? Certainly not if I was typing this from the command line. Imagine the frustration if the

Re: [HACKERS] How can I have 2 completely seperated databases in

2004-02-14 Thread Rod Taylor
and I'm willing to entertain other suggestions. Very nice, but you missed the most important. Command Tag. -- Rod Taylor rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: [HACKERS] Slow DROP INDEX

2004-02-16 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 13:03, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The real question is why does DROP INDEX take more than a couple of seconds to complete? It is not held up by locked. AFAICS it shouldn't take any time to complete. I think you're mistaken

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...

2004-02-18 Thread Rod Taylor
The question is whether we should have a GUC variable to control no waiting on locks or add NO WAIT to specific SQL commands. Does anyone want to vote _against_ the GUC idea for nowait locking. (We already have two voting for such a variable.) I vote against. We got bit by both the regex

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] NO WAIT ...

2004-02-19 Thread Rod Taylor
I vote for the GUC. Imho it is not comparable to the autocommit case, since it does not change the way your appl needs to react (appl needs to react to deadlock already). Wrote one program a while ago that was very time sensitive. By the time deadlock detection had been kicked off, the data

Re: [HACKERS] Renaming tables to other schemas

2004-02-20 Thread Rod Taylor
Rod, can you lay out some psdueo code / logic involved in the process? I'm guessing you lock the entry in pg_class, you up dependent objects, lock them, update them all... is there more to it? It was one an offline database at the time with only a single user -- so locking wasn't a concern

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK constraints inconsistencies

2004-03-01 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 20:43, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 20:28:02 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Glaesemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In both cases, the CHECK constraint uses a function that is stable or volatile. It was suggested that functions

Re: [HACKERS] question about selecting across multiple dbs

2004-03-08 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 11:57, Joe Maldonado wrote: Hello, I see that there is an item Queries across databases or servers (two-phase commit) on the todo list's urgent header. I have tried asking this question on the other lists and have not yet gotten a suitable answer to this

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_line_info

2004-03-09 Thread Rod Taylor
After this is applied (fingers crossed) and everyone is happy, I will submit a patch to remove log_timestamp, log_pid and (if we are agreed on it) log_source_port. Is there agreement on removing these 3 config vars? There is from me. ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Performance and WAL on big inserts/updates

2004-03-11 Thread Rod Taylor
If a transaction will do large updates or inserts, why don't we just log the parsed statements in the WAL instead of the individual data blocks UPDATE table SET col = random(); ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once

Re: [HACKERS] Performance and WAL on big inserts/updates

2004-03-11 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 21:04, Marty Scholes wrote: I can see that and considered it. The seed state would need to be saved, or any particular command that is not reproducible would need to be exempted from this sort of logging. Again, this would apply only to situations where a small SQL

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

2004-03-12 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:52, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote: foundry.postgresql.org? Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as well. I don't understand why. Presumably the postgresql.org website will

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

2004-03-12 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult find the subproject in the first place

Re: [HACKERS] Log rotation

2004-03-13 Thread Rod Taylor
I can see that in a multipostmaster setting how you might want some differentiation between postmasters, but ISTM that the tool reading these logs should be trained in how to separate loglines out. snip Different postmasters = different conf files. Just set your syslog_facility and/or

Re: [HACKERS] WAL write of full pages

2004-03-15 Thread Rod Taylor
I suspect (but cannot prove) that performance would jump for systems like ours if WAL was done away with entirely and the individual data files were synchronized on commit. You know.. thats exactly what WAL is designed to prevent? Grab a copy of 7.0 and 7.1. Do a benchmark between the 2 with

Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

2004-04-06 Thread Rod Taylor
%'; -- Rod Taylor rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/signature.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [HACKERS] zero knowledge users

2004-04-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 10:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have been doing some experimentation for a series of articles I am writing, and want to create a user with as little privilege as possible who can still do the things I explicitly want him/her to be able to do. In particular, I wanted to

Re: [HACKERS] what do postgresql with view ?

2004-04-06 Thread Rod Taylor
In fact the probleme is when i have more than 11 tables in the query... Please post the EXPLAIN ANALYZE results of the problematic query, as well as the definition of any views it uses. Also, SHOW from_collapse_limit; ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

2004-04-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom thinks there will be any significant support troubleshooting involved for the latter. So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into

Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

2004-04-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:10, Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, OK, you have a runaway report. You want to stop it. Query cancel is only going to stop the current query, and once you do that the next query is fed in so there is no way to actually stop the report, especially if the report is not

Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

2004-04-08 Thread Rod Taylor
application which has the issue but the support contract is such that you cannot affect the application itself (their support staff deals with it). If you need connections in the database for other applications and this 3rd party program is idling on several slots... -- Rod Taylor rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca

Re: [HACKERS] sql_sizing

2004-04-15 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 14:34, Chris Bowlby wrote: Hi All, I've got an issue that I've been trying to track down some results to. I've noticed that on a recent PostgreSQL server that I've been working on has a few relations that do not exist: I suggest you read up on the information_schema.

Re: [HACKERS] Unable to create an array of a domain

2004-04-20 Thread Rod Taylor
Is there any reason why a domain cannot use another domain as it's base type? It hasn't been written yet, but Tom has spent some time ensuring the system could be expanded to deal with this. And why isn't an array type created for a domain? (Is there a way to create an array for a domain

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR action extension for rules?

2004-04-20 Thread Rod Taylor
CREATE RULE PasTouche AS ON UPDATE TO foo WHERE old.locked=TRUE DO INSTEAD ERROR; I think this simple new rule action could be added to pg. I'm planning to do it, if there is no opposition. Any comments on this proposed new rule action? Or did I missed something obvious

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-21 Thread Rod Taylor
I think most of the current contrib projects are more missing the advantage version independence would have for the ease of sitting in contrib and having the whole project management around them just done. Yes, doing your own gborg project costs time. You have to maintain pages, do your

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-21 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 21:29, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: I think most of the current contrib projects are more missing the advantage version independence would have for the ease of sitting in contrib and having the whole project management around them

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Rod Taylor
The point of projects.postgresql.org is that if someone *is* looking for an addon, they should be pointed to projects.postgresql.org ... if you try and merge everything into the -core distribution, you are either going to miss something that *someone* wants to use at some point, *or* one

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 20:09, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: I guess that is where we differ in opinion. pgadmin is not addon or an enhancement, it is a part of the core project every bit as much as the gnome-panel is a part of gnome. Sure, gnome-libs does

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-23 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 23:05, Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 22 April 2004 13:55, Barry Lind wrote: I think the solution lies in improving www.postgresql.org. At the end of the day it doesn't matter where source code lives, what matters is can people find what they are expecting. Given we

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-23 Thread Rod Taylor
The difference is that a better admin tool is very subjective where as a buffer strategy is not... or maybe the difference is really that everyone thinks they are qualified to pick a better admin tool, but very few can really argue as to a better buffer strategy. While I think your criteria

Re: [HACKERS] Bringing PostgreSQL torwards the standard regarding

2004-04-25 Thread Rod Taylor
5. If the identifier is lowercase only, convert it to uppercase only. I am assuming here that the authors of the client code chose an uppercase-folding database, so they should know what they are doing when accessing stuff from the standard offering. You've just broken one of my databases.

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE TODO items

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
Also, should the syntax be SET TYPE, not just TYPE? Shrug ... I dunno whether Rod had a precedent for that choice or not. FireBird: ALTER COLUMN column TYPE type DB2:ALTER COLUMN column SET DATA TYPE type. Oracle: MODIFY column type MSSQL: ALTER COLUMN column type constraints MySQL:

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE TODO items

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
I did say we needed more docs effort Yes, where should the docs for this go? The Alter table reference page, or Chapter 5.5 titled Modifying Tables? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump 7.4

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
CREATE DOMAIN doc_ident AS bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('doc.seq_doc_id'::text) CONSTRAINT cnst_chk_doc_id CHECK ( fn_chk_doc_id(VALUE) ) ; I did not notice any similar error report on the list, so I believe that this is not fixed yet ? It comes out right for me in 7.4.2.

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
However, when I tried TCP socket, Pgpool was actually slower by 15x !! Perhaps you can clarify why the TCP socket is so much slower? How did you have pgpool configured to connect to the database? Domain socket or tcpip? ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] alter table alter columns vs. domains

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
Is it feasible or practical to consider adding ALTER DOMAIN TYPE type? (basically following the same rules as ALTER TABLE). Interesting --- you would have to rebuild every table that uses the domain, and map from-to for all stored values of the domain. TODO item? Yes. This is

Re: [HACKERS] alter table alter columns vs. domains

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 13:23, Merlin Moncure wrote: Yes. This is something I was going to look at doing in the next release. Quick question: With your potential changes, you would then be able to alter a domain that is involved in RI constraints between 2 or more tables without bringing

Re: [HACKERS] alter table alter columns vs. domains

2004-05-06 Thread Rod Taylor
If we were willing to abuse the ALTER TABLE syntax some more, it would be possible to support changing the datatypes of f1 and f2 simultaneously, thereby allowing the above to work. The infrastructure for hacking multiple tables in parallel is already there in CVS tip, but it only gets

Re: [HACKERS] Multiple Xids in PGPROC?

2004-05-04 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 00:45, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Yup.. And some of us intend on wrapping every single statement in a subtransaction so we can rollback on an error without aborting the main transaction. Point there being main transaction. What i'm saying is that the vast

Re: [HACKERS] Multiple Xids in PGPROC?

2004-05-04 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 00:22, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: I hope not, because for many of us there will be as many (if not more) subtransactions than standard transactions. How can that possibly be true? Every statement executed in postgres is a transaction how many subtransactions

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
And preforking makes this different, how ? Perhaps having a pool of processes ready to be handed a query to a specific database, where you configure N connections to db1, M to db2 etc. still means lots of resource usage. In effect a preforked database server *is* an idle connection, just

Re: [HACKERS] Multiple Xids in PGPROC?

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
Is there some solution whereby the common case (99.999% of transactions won't be subtransactoins) is fast, and the uncommon case of being in a subtransaction is slower? I hope not, because for many of us there will be as many (if not more) subtransactions than standard transactions. -- Rod

[HACKERS] Broken Catalog? -- 7.4.2

2004-04-26 Thread Rod Taylor
The function format_type() fails only for interval when used on the interval type template1=# select format_type(oid, typlen) from pg_type; ERROR: invalid INTERVAL typmod: 0xc template1=# select format_type(oid, typlen) from pg_type where typname != 'interval'; -- Many results

Re: [HACKERS] Broken Catalog? -- 7.4.2

2004-04-27 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 22:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: The function format_type() fails only for interval when used on the interval type template1=# select format_type(oid, typlen) from pg_type; select format_type(oid, typtypmod

Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 features

2004-04-27 Thread Rod Taylor
How's Jans' Slowny-I doing? Any chance of getting it at least in the contribs (depending on how stable it gets)? Zero chance ... Slony-I is *a* replication solution, not *the* replication solution ... unless someone ever comes up with an 'end all and Not to mention Jan doesn't want it to

Re: [HACKERS] PITR Phase 2 - Design Planning

2004-04-27 Thread Rod Taylor
Overall, I'd refer back to the points Bruce raised - you certainly do need a way of finding out the time to recover to, and as others have said also, time isn't the only desirable recovery point. Wouldn't it be sufficient to simply use the transaction ID and ensure that all the parameters the

Re: [HACKERS] PITR Phase 2 - Design Planning

2004-04-27 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 21:56, Rod Taylor wrote: Overall, I'd refer back to the points Bruce raised - you certainly do need a way of finding out the time to recover to, and as others have said also, time isn't the only desirable recovery

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
I know the issue of pre-fork PostgreSQL has been discussed previously. Someone mentionned pre-fork can be implemented when schemas become available Any chance of that happening for 7.5? 0 chance unless you have a patch ready now. ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
Or, you run several seperate Apache webservers. The ones that serve static content or don't need database connections don't run with the ones that do. And just like each idle Apache process uses memory and other resources, each idle PostgreSQL connection does to. So managing the number of

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:57, Greg Stark wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cutting that count down to 10 idlers in total by having PostgreSQL prefork a specific database would make a significant difference. Well it would be 10 for each database. Since as has been pointed out

Re: [HACKERS] initdb failure in CVS

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 13:48, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am seeing the following failure of initdb in CVS: FATAL: invalid value for parameter client_encoding: I get the same thing. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
And, of course, most development environments (perl, php, java etc) have their own language specific connection pooling solutions. Yes, the one for php is what I was thinking of when I made my statement. They work on a per backend basis as Apache does not allow for the type of communication

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup

2004-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
I cannot tell if mod_pg_pool works across Apache forked backends or is still bound to a single process. They state it is intended for sharing connections across modules, so it is probably still backend specific. Have you looked at sqlrealy.sourceforge.net? IT looks like it might do

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >