I guess the real question here is whether we would want to revert this
capability if a patch to adjust logical column orderings doesn't appear
before 7.5. My vote would be "no", but apparently Peter's is "yes".
Any other opinions?
The fact that it deals with the nightmare of dropping and recreati
This is expected. Doing otherwise would incur into a much bigger
performance hit.
Anyway, IMHO no code should use SELECT * in any case, which is the only
scenario where one would expect physical column order to matter, isn't
it?
Well, we can always bring back the old idea of a attlognum which is t
Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
> I have updated the translations of psql and pg_dump. postgres and jdbc are new one.
> I made 2 files: one for CVS HEAD and other one for REL7_4_STABLE.
> http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-cvs.tgz
> http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-rel7_4_stab
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 10E6 INSERT => real 0m5.161s
> user 0m4.010s
> sys0m1.150s
What operation is this benchmarking? Only linked-list appends, or
something else?
-Neil
---(end of broad
Hi,
I have updated the translations of psql and pg_dump. postgres and jdbc are new one. I
made 2 files: one for CVS HEAD and other one for REL7_4_STABLE.
http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-cvs.tgz
http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-rel7_4_stable.tgz
Please apply.
Regards,
--
E
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 18:51:
>> I don't recall that, but if so, I would like to revisit that consensus.
> [ Hannu disagrees ]
Please take this thread to pgsql-hackers; if the issue is going to be
contentious then we should try to
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
darnit!
patch attached.
Applied with correction (you got the return-value check backwards)
and further work to deal reasonably with error conditions occurring
in check_data_dir.
darnit again.
I'm taking a break - my head is swimmi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > darnit!
> > patch attached.
>
> Applied with correction (you got the return-value check backwards)
> and further work to deal reasonably with error conditions occurring
> in check_data_dir.
Tom applied it before I could.
--
Bruc
Peter Eisentraut kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 18:51:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I believe the consensus was that automating what you could do by hand
> > is still a step forward.
>
> I don't recall that, but if so, I would like to revisit that consensus.
>
> AFAICT, this patch does not buy us anyth
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> darnit!
>
> patch attached.
>
> (Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)
>
> andrew
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Joe Conway <[EMAIL
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> darnit!
> patch attached.
Applied with correction (you got the return-value check backwards)
and further work to deal reasonably with error conditions occurring
in check_data_dir.
regards, tom lane
---(e
Tom Lane writes:
> I believe the consensus was that automating what you could do by hand
> is still a step forward.
I don't recall that, but if so, I would like to revisit that consensus.
AFAICT, this patch does not buy us anything at all. It's just a different
spelling of existing functionalit
> lock table
> create newtable as select c1, c2, c3::newtype
> modify pg_class to point to the new filename
> modify existing pg_attribute for the column in question
> recreate indexes that exist on the column
> unlock table
I actually tried this to start with an ran into several dead-ends in
tryi
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 09:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
>> needs to preserve the table schema. Else, this feature would be mostly
>> useless and a certain source of complaints.
> The
OK,
Here is another approach, that would retain column order. It will
require that the table be locked while this proceeds, but I think this
is a good idea anyway.
lock table
create newtable as select c1, c2, c3::newtype
modify pg_class to point to the new filename
modify existing pg_attribute fo
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 09:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Rod Taylor writes:
>
> > The method is rename old column, add new column, move data across, move
> > or reform dependencies, drop old column.
>
> I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
> needs to preserve the
Rod Taylor writes:
> The method is rename old column, add new column, move data across, move
> or reform dependencies, drop old column.
I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
needs to preserve the table schema. Else, this feature would be mostly
useless and a ce
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 08:59, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Rod,
>
> I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
> undesirable side affect.
>
> Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
> this would not be desirable, I would imagine it would break lots of
>
Alvaro Herrera kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:17:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:59:05AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
> > undesirable side affect.
> >
> > Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
> > t
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:59:05AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
> undesirable side affect.
>
> Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
> this would not be desirable, I would imagine it would break lots
Rod,
I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
undesirable side affect.
Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
this would not be desirable, I would imagine it would break lots of
code.
Dave
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 11:35, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
darnit!
patch attached.
(Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)
andrew
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just noticed tonight that the new initdb introduced a subtle change of
behavior. I use a shell script to automate the process
22 matches
Mail list logo
