Re: [HACKERS] open items list cleanup

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:23:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items > > Here's what I did: > * Split up the remaining open items into sections. > * Added a comment with current status to many, but not all, of the > items. (I would have done t

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 09/30/2014 09:10 PM, Gregory Smith wrote: On 9/29/14, 2:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Can we explain those reasons in the form of documentation? Yes. Try and benchmark it. It'll be hardware and workload dependant. I missed this whole thing, and eventually I have to circle back to it. I could

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 9/29/14, 2:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Can we explain those reasons in the form of documentation? Yes. Try and benchmark it. It'll be hardware and workload dependant. I missed this whole thing, and eventually I have to circle back to it. I could do it this week. Could you (or someone el

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 09/30/2014 04:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > There seems to be no decisive consensus here. I'm going to put my foot > on the ground and go remove it, as I'm leaning towards that option, and > we need to get the release out. But if someone objects loudly enough to > actually write the documen

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 09/29/2014 11:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-09-29 16:35:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like "wal_buffers / 8". Because that'd be horrible performancewise on

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > The items I see are: > > > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > > > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this > > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 2014-09-29 16:35:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like > >> "wal_buffers / 8". > > > Because that'd be horrible performancewise on a system with many > > wal_buf

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like >> "wal_buffers / 8". > Because that'd be horrible performancewise on a system with many > wal_buffers. There's several operations where all locks are checked

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the > >> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime? > > > That right now it can make quite noti

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the >> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime? > That right now it can make quite noticeable differences in > scalability. And we have not much

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > The items I see are: > > > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > > > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this > > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to kee

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> The items I see are: > >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > >> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this >> point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

Robert Haas writes: > The items I see are: > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the > GUC, but if we're going to remove it it should proba

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 2014-09-29 11:28:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 09/29/2014 08:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > >> > > >> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this > >> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 09/29/2014 08:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! >> > >> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this >> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the >> > GUC, but if we're going to remove it

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

Dne 29.9.2014 18:00 "Magnus Hagander" napsal(a): > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> The items I see are: > >> > >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > >> > >> The text seems to indicate that

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > - pg_dump fails with --if-exists and blobs > > > > This looks like a 9.4 regression. > > Alvaro, IIRC you were looking at this one? I am. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Develop

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> The items I see are: >> >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! >> >> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this >> point. I don't have a strong

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > The items I see are: > > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!! > > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the > GUC, but if we're go

Re: [HACKERS] open items for 9.4

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: >> So, can we get Beta3 out now? > > If nobody else steps up and says they want to do some performance > testing, I'll push the latest lengths+offsets patch tomorrow. > > Are any of the other open items listed at > https://wi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item emails into the patches queue: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches FWIW it seems the only remaining issue is the ltree bug #3720: http://archiv

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

Bruce Momjian wrote: > In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item emails > into the patches queue: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches FWIW it seems the only remaining issue is the ltree bug #3720: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-11/msg0

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

> > How many developers have even jumped through the hoops to get wiki accounts? > > According to > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=pgdev&limit=500 > > there are currently 51 members of the group "pgdev" on the wiki. > Well, a lot of those people aren't a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: > How many developers have even jumped through the hoops to get wiki accounts? According to http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=pgdev&limit=500 there are currently 51 members of the group "pgdev" on the wiki. -- "Spa

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:57:39 + Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> In an attempt to move us t

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item >> emails into the patches queue: >> >> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches >>

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item > > emails into the patches queue: > > > > http://momjian.pos

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item > emails into the patches queue: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches > It woul

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 05:58 schrieb Tom Lane: A couple of recently discussed FE/BE protocol issues are: not storing a plan at all for unnamed-statement cases, and thus allowing bind parameters to be treated as constants; allo

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Had a bitmap-index patch arrived in my inbox this morning, as had been promised to me for three weekends running, I might have been willing to drop all else and review it. But, no patch. This item is dead for 8.2. Do not even think of suggesting otherwise.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 03:07 schrieb Bruce Momjian: > > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > This host seems to be offline. What about using the wiki? The host is fine. postgresql.org DNS is broken.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 05:58 schrieb Tom Lane: >> A couple of recently discussed FE/BE protocol issues are: not storing a >> plan at all for unnamed-statement cases, and thus allowing bind >> parameters to be treated as constants; allowing para

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Magnus Hagander") wrote: >> > Here are the open items for 8.2: >> > >> >http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems >> >> This host seems to be offline. What about using the wiki? > > The problem is with the postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

> > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > This host seems to be offline. What about using the wiki? The problem is with the postgresql.org DNS servers. Something weird is afoot around the hub.org nameservers, from what I can tell. Serv

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Hello, On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 13:04 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > This host seems to be offline. It is suffering from a DNS problem. > What about using the wiki? Wiki has the same problem, too. Regards, -- The PostgreSQL Comp

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 03:07 schrieb Bruce Momjian: > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems This host seems to be offline. What about using the wiki? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 05:58 schrieb Tom Lane: > A couple of recently discussed FE/BE protocol issues are: not storing a > plan at all for unnamed-statement cases, and thus allowing bind > parameters to be treated as constants; allowing parameter types to go > unresolved rather than throwin

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

--On Montag, September 04, 2006 23:58:35 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Updatable views are likewise dead --- we don't have a credible patch or any short-term path to get one. I hope to see both of these items land early in the 8.3 devel cycle, but for 8.2, nyet. Yeah, i don't had

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) would write: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Chris Browne wrote: >>> I've got suggested patches for my item (e.g. - --with-openssl causing >>> contrib stuff to break on AIX); a couple of instances of: >>> >>> SHLI

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Browne wrote: >> I've got suggested patches for my item (e.g. - --with-openssl causing >> contrib stuff to break on AIX); a couple of instances of: >> >> SHLIB_LINK = $(libpq) $(LIBS) >> >> in contrib/dblink/Makefile and contrib/sslinfo seem to do

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Chris Browne wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > > > This list will be continually updated until we release 8.2. > > I've got suggested patches for my item (e.g. - --with-openssl c

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > This list will be continually updated until we release 8.2. I've got suggested patches for my item (e.g. - --with-openssl causing contrib stuff to break on A

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Tom Lane wrote: > We made pretty good progress today on the open-items list: > > ISBN/EAN: I've reviewed this and fixed a couple small issues, it's ready > to commit as soon as the author indicates his assent to license > statement. I'll remove isbn_issn at the same time. > > Altering view owner

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Joachim Wieland wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 11:58:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > timezone changes: appendix B is out of date, and do we need a list at > > all rather than telling people to look at the config file + system view? > > Since I did the initial patch I also volunteer to submit doc

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

We made pretty good progress today on the open-items list: ISBN/EAN: I've reviewed this and fixed a couple small issues, it's ready to commit as soon as the author indicates his assent to license statement. I'll remove isbn_issn at the same time. Altering view ownership doesn't work: fixed Remo

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > > > This list will be continually updated until we release 8.2. > > > > > > Emacs code examplenot submitted Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > Had a bitmap-index patch arrived in my inbox this morning, as had been > promised to me for three weekends running, I might have been willi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 11:58:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > timezone changes: appendix B is out of date, and do we need a list at > all rather than telling people to look at the config file + system view? Since I did the initial patch I also volunteer to submit documentation for it. As far as the

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Bruce Momjian wrote: Here are the open items for 8.2: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems This list will be continually updated until we release 8.2. Emacs code example not submitted Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This one is actu

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A quickie: this item > > Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache > > was already done: > > I think Bruce is referring to the idea that you and I each arrived at > recently, ie removing subcommitted subxact XIDs from the PGPROC

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A quickie: this item > Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache > was already done: I think Bruce is referring to the idea that you and I each arrived at recently, ie removing subcommitted subxact XIDs from the PGPROC cache if they hadn't stored a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here are the open items for 8.2: > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems Had a bitmap-index patch arrived in my inbox this morning, as had been promised to me for three weekends running, I might have been willing to drop all else and re

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.2

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here are the open items for 8.2: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems > > This list will be continually updated until we release 8.2. Thanks for the effort. A quickie: this item Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache was already done: http

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

pgindent run and committed. --- Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Here are the open items. The only big one left is the handling of a > foreign key problem we have had for a while. We also have issues with > MSVC builds crashing a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

On Fri, 2005-14-10 at 13:08 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > Note that when we moderate this we now hide away most of the comments > that may suggest improvements for the docs and only leave the ones that > are actually helpful in their own right visible. > If someone wants access to these to review, ple

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian > Sent: 14 October 2005 12:57 > To: PostgreSQL-development > Subject: [HACKERS] Open items > > > Has the interactive > documentation been > scanned and merged into the SGML? Note

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Oh, let me add that this release has gone very smoothly. We are right on schedule in release timing. I sometimes think the beta period is not as productive as the development period, but going through it, I am always reminded how much more polished our final product is because of the hard work w

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 06:58:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We don't have the ability to have to functions that take the same > parameters and return different results because there is no facility to > decide which function to call based on what return value is expected, > because a simple que

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > > > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction tha

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Fri, 2005-30-09 at 17:47 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > What's wrong with adding pg_cancel_backend(...) RETURNS int as an alias > for the one that returns boolean, and document that it's deprecated and > will be removed in the future. You can't overload functions based on their return type alone.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction that > > discussion on these c

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list

We are basically on hold until we can resolve these items. We need a beta3, but some of these items might require an initdb (ALTER SCHEMA RENAME and ROLES), so until we resolve them, we can't go for beta3 and can't get to an RC candidate. I know Tom is busy right now, but I know we will get ther

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Bruce Momjian writes: > It was done quickly to complete it for beta2. Neil talked to Tom and me > about it before he made the change. Obviously we all guessed wrong on > this one. Personally I had forgotten that pg_cancel_backend was in the previous release and so there was a backwards-compatibi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian writes: > >>> fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature > >> > >> I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb > >> (to add new sequence

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction that > discussion on these changes went I'm not sure what you mean: what is "the direction that

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc > G. Fournier > Sent: 28 September 2005 00:50 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development; Neil Conway > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature > > I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb > (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also > fix the 32/64bit risk mentioned here

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fix the 32/64bit risk me

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Bruce Momjian writes: > fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fix the 32/64bit risk mentioned here: http://archives.postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > bump major library version number? > > Were there any incompatible interface changes? No, I don't _think_ so, but we have been bitten by this before, not because of API change but because of use of libpgport functions called by libpq in one rele

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Bruce Momjian wrote: > bump major library version number? Were there any incompatible interface changes? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

The open items list has been reduced nicely: PostgreSQL 8.1 Open Items = Current version at http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgopenitems or from http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta. Changes --- fix pg_d

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Changes > > > > --- > > > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > > > > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please > > remove it from > > > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. > > > > OK, what should the TODO item

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

> > > Changes > > > --- > > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please > remove it from > > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. > > OK, what should the TODO item be? A link to the mail should be there,

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Changes > > --- > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please remove it from > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. OK, what should the TODO item be? -- Bruce Momjian

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Tom Lane wrote: Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively maintained we don't want them either. pgFoundry is not a dumping ground for modules that are dying. I didn't say they were dying --- the ones we thought were dead, we already dropped. I was responding t

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

> Changes > --- > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please remove it from the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The modules proposed to be moved out aren't actively maintained now; >> if they were we'd probably be keeping them in core. > Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively > maintained we don't want them either.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: /contrib move to pgfoundry Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to its new servers. The modules proposed to be moved out a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> /contrib move to pgfoundry > Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is > that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to > its new servers. The modules proposed to be moved out aren't actively maintained now; if t

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>>/contrib move to pgfoundry > >> > >>Is this actually happening? > > > > > > Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. > > Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is > that actively maintai

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: /contrib move to pgfoundry Is this actually happening? Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to its new serve

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > /contrib move to pgfoundry > > Is this actually happening? Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

/contrib move to pgfoundry Is this actually happening? -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.comman

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:11:56AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 23:02 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > > The TODO item is about counting all temporary files, not sorts in > > > particular. Or at least that's what I thought it meant. > > > > If the DBA have to improve the per

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Hi Tom, > I think that moving rtree_gist, reindexdb, and/or userlock into core > would have to happen before feature freeze, [snip] Are you think in putting reindex at core? I was about to submit a replacement of it but if it goes to bin/scripts (for example) I can rearrange the patch. Could I?

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think that moving rtree_gist, reindexdb, and/or userlock into core >> would have to happen before feature freeze, > [snip] > Are you think in putting reindex at core? I was about to submit a > replacement of it but if it goes to bin/scrip

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 23:02 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > > The TODO item is about counting all temporary files, not sorts in > > > particular. Or at least that's what I thought it meant. > > > > If the DBA have to improve the performance, > > DBA wi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 23:02 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > The TODO item is about counting all temporary files, not sorts in > > particular. Or at least that's what I thought it meant. > > If the DBA have to improve the performance, > DBA will need to know about: > > - Which SQL generate a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

> The TODO item is about counting all temporary files, not sorts in > particular. Or at least that's what I thought it meant. If the DBA have to improve the performance, DBA will need to know about: - Which SQL generate a disk sort? - Size of sorts. - Changing 'work_mem' value can reduce

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, that doesn't seem like quite the right level to be counting at. >> Shouldn't you be hacking fd.c to count operations on FD_XACT_TEMPORARY >> files? > Why do you think so? > I don't see tuplesort.c is good or not. > But all code

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Tom Lane wrote: >>My patch counts inittapes(), tuplesort_begin_heap() and >>tuplesort_begin_index(), and collect them, and sum them through the >>stat collector. > > > Hm, that doesn't seem like quite the right level to be counting at. > Shouldn't you be hacking fd.c to count operations on FD_XAC

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My patch counts inittapes(), tuplesort_begin_heap() and > tuplesort_begin_index(), and collect them, and sum them through the > stat collector. Hm, that doesn't seem like quite the right level to be counting at. Shouldn't you be hacking fd.c to count

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus writes: Satoshi, sort=# select * from pg_stat_sorts ; � datname �| heap_all | index_all | heap_tape | index_tape | max_size Good for me, if you explain the column names? I was wondering about that too ... temporary sort files haven't got indexes ... Sor

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Josh Berkus writes: > Satoshi, >> sort=# select * from pg_stat_sorts ; >>   datname  | heap_all | index_all | heap_tape | index_tape | max_size > Good for me, if you explain the column names? I was wondering about that too ... temporary sort files haven't got indexes ...

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Satoshi, > sort=# select * from pg_stat_sorts ; >   datname  | heap_all | index_all | heap_tape | index_tape | max_size > ---+--+---+---++-- >  sort      |       11 |         0 |         3 |          0 | 11141120 >  template1 |        2 |        

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Bruce, I have another patch for the TODO item. >From TODO item: > Add ability to monitor the use of temporary sort files As I mentioned before, I created a sort statistics patch. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-09/msg00380.php Now my patch can work with 7.4.6 and it creates n

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here's the results of this. I think we're pretty close to having both > > "Basic roles" and "Extended roles" personally. For 'Basic roles' we > > need SET ROLE and some information schema tables. > > The inform

Re: [HACKERS] Open items

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's the results of this. I think we're pretty close to having both > "Basic roles" and "Extended roles" personally. For 'Basic roles' we > need SET ROLE and some information schema tables. The information schema views already exist, although I suspe

  1   2   3   >