Hello, I fonund that pg_proc.h got modified so rebased and
rearranged the patchset merging the recent fixes.
regards,
I sent the previous mail unfinished.
At Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:25:10 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote in
Hello, sorry for the absence. I changed the regnamespace's
behavior as the same as the other reg* types. And I attached a
patch as separate one that fixes regroleout to do the same as the
other reg* types, because I have
0001-Add-regrole_v6.patch : fix regnamespace to behave as the
same as
I sent the previous mail unfinished.
At Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:25:10 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote in
20150409.172510.29010318.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Hello, sorry for the absence. I changed the regnamespace's
behavior as the same as
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the emails
it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all, especially
from Tom and Robert.
I confess I have often wanted regnamespace,
On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
trending in that direction.
Or in short,
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are
On 04/01/2015 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if
Hello,
At Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:48:18 -0400, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote in
26969.1427834...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Hmm. We can ignore pg_attribute and pg_pltemplate, which don't have OIDs
and thus aren't candidates anyway. And we can ignore the ones
corresponding to the already-existing regFOO
On 03/29/2015 02:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the
emails it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all,
especially from Tom and Robert.
I confess I have often wanted
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/29/2015 02:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It may be that these two cases are so much more useful than any other
conceivable cases that we can do them and stop, but I don't think that
argument has been made convincingly.
Well, here's a list of all the
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the
emails it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all,
especially from Tom and Robert.
I confess I have often wanted regnamespace, particularly, and
On 03/10/2015 04:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Thank you for the correction.
At Wed, 4 Mar 2015 01:01:48 -0600, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote in
54f6addc.8030...@bluetreble.com
On 3/3/15 8:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Note: The OID alias types don't sctrictly comply the
Hello, Thank you for reviewing, and sorry to have overlooked
this.
# I hope the CF app to add the author as a receiver when issueing
# a mail.
regards,
At Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:06:29 +, Jeevan Chalke jeevan.cha...@gmail.com
wrote in 20150312110629.2540.70807.p...@coridan.postgresql.org
The
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
# I hope the CF app to add the author as a receiver when issueing
# a mail.
Moreover, it should add everyone who was in To, From, CC in the email
that the commitfest app is replying to; if the patch authors are not
listed, add them as well.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
Looks good. Passing it to committer.
The new status of this
Thank you for the correction.
At Wed, 4 Mar 2015 01:01:48 -0600, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote
in 54f6addc.8030...@bluetreble.com
On 3/3/15 8:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Note: The OID alias types don't sctrictly comply the transaction
isolation rules so do not use them
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
1.
+#include utils/acl.h
Can you please
On 3/3/15 8:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Note: The OID alias types don't sctrictly comply the transaction
isolation rules so do not use them where exact transaction
isolation on the values of these types has a
significance. Likewise, since they look as simple constants to
planner
Hello, I attached the latest patches missing in the previous mail.
Thanks for pointing Jeevan.
0001-Add-regrole_v4.patch
0002-Add-regnamespace_v4.patch
Jim BTW, I think the potential for MVCC issues should be mentioned in the
Jim docs
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Two reasons this isn't terribly compelling are (1) it's creating a
join in a place where the planner can't possibly see it and optimize
it, and (2) you risk MVCC anomalies because the reg* output routines
would not be using
On 2015-03-02 16:42:35 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Two reasons this isn't terribly compelling are (1) it's creating a
join in a place where the planner can't possibly see it and optimize
it, and (2) you risk MVCC anomalies
On 3/2/15 3:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-02 16:42:35 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Two reasons this isn't terribly compelling are (1) it's creating a
join in a place where the planner can't possibly see it and optimize
The attatched are the fourth version of this patch.
0001-Add-regrole_v4.patch
0002-Add-regnamespace_v4.patch
Seems like you have missed to attach both the patches.
--
Jeevan B Chalke
Principal Software Engineer, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hello, thank you for reviewing.
The attatched are the third version of this patch.
0001-Add-regrole_v3.patch
0002-Add-regnamespace_v3.patch
- Rearranged into regrole patch and regnamespace patch as seen
above, each of them consists of changes for code, docs,
regtests. regnamespace patch
Sorry, I fixed a silly typo in documentation in the previous version.
- of theses types has a significance...
+ of these types has a significance...
# My fingers frequently slip as above..
I incremented the version of this revised patch to get rid of
confusion.
===
Hello, thank
At Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:11:28 +0900, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote in cab7npqt6ox3mv++hgmbd3ydu_5-1y5hcddmstk+qdya_mjp...@mail.gmail.com
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/
Did you fix that manually for me?
Looking at the log entry:
2015-02-19 21:11:08 Michael
Hi,
Personally, I was looking for something like this as I need to see rolename
and namespace name many times in my queries rather than it's oid.
But making a JOIN expression every-time was a pain. This certainly makes it
easier. And I see most DBAs are looking for it.
I agree on Tom's concern
Reviewed posted directly on mail thread instead of posting it on commitfest app.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hello,
At Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:30:53 -0500, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote in
54e647fd.5000...@gmx.net
On 2/18/15 3:44 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this feature.
0001-Add-regrole.patch
0002-Add-regnamespace.patch
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
At Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:30:53 -0500, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
wrote in 54e647fd.5000...@gmx.net
On 2/18/15 3:44 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this
On 2/18/15 3:44 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Sorry, I sent the previous mail without patches by accident. The
patches are attached to this mail.
Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this feature.
0001-Add-regrole.patch
Adding regrole as the name says.
0002-Add-regnamespace.patch
Sorry, I sent the previous mail without patches by accident. The
patches are attached to this mail.
Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this feature.
0001-Add-regrole.patch
Adding regrole as the name says.
0002-Add-regnamespace.patch
Adding regnamespace. This depends on 0001 patch.
Hello, this is the patchset v2 of this feature.
0001-Add-regrole.patch
Adding regrole as the name says.
0002-Add-regnamespace.patch
Adding regnamespace. This depends on 0001 patch.
0003-Check-new-reg-types-are-not-used-as-default-values.patch
Inhibiting the new OID aliss types from being
Hello, thank you for the comment.
The current patch lacks change in documentation and dependency
stuff. Current framework doesn't consider changing pg_shdepend
from column default expressions so the possible measures are the
followings, I think.
1. Make pg_shdepend to have refobjsubid and add
Hello, I changed the subject.
This mail is to address the point at hand, preparing for
registering this commitfest.
15 17:29:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote in
20150204.172914.52110711.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Tue, 03 Feb 2015
On 2/12/15 5:28 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, I changed the subject.
This mail is to address the point at hand, preparing for
registering this commitfest.
15 17:29:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote in
Thank you for your comment.
Sorry for the silly typo in the subject.
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:12:12 -0500, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote in
2540.1422976...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Most of OID types has reg* OID types. Theses are very convenient
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Most of OID types has reg* OID types. Theses are very convenient
when looking into system catalog/views, but there aren't OID
types for userid and namespace id.
What do you think about having these new OID types?
I'm not really
40 matches
Mail list logo
