Hi all,
This patch was discussed a few months ago.
I could not complete this patch at that time.
I hope that the current version of my patch is acceptable.
Patch details:
**
1. Assign a new field called 'Seq Value' for \ds command
2. All the sequence values are '1' initially
3. After
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Would it be worthwhile to add a switch so that the foreign key test is
only used "if" they use the switch in conjunction with a -i?
I wouldn't object to providing that as a (non default) option.
O.k. I will take a look at what tha
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be worthwhile to add a switch so that the foreign key test is
> only used "if" they use the switch in conjunction with a -i?
I wouldn't object to providing that as a (non default) option.
The int8 change should be unnecessary in view of Ta
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
John Gray wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > FYI, I have not seen a patch for this yet.
> >
> Thanks for prodding me to submit it. Attached is the
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can make markpos fast, if we make the copy lazily in _bt_steppage,
Nice hack. Getting rid of the buffer refcount manipulations is probably
even more useful than avoiding the memcpy.
> I did some micro-benchmarking of merge join performance, se
Alvaro Herrera írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not sure
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
> But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
> currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
> the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not sure I agree with the approac
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said "now", but I don't thi
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 14:44 schrieb Zdenek Kotala:
> > What is the status of this patch now? I read that two bugs has been
> > fixed in this patch and now it is waiting for new review. Is there
> > something what I can/must do?
>
> As I said previously, if you are
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 14:44 schrieb Zdenek Kotala:
> What is the status of this patch now? I read that two bugs has been
> fixed in this patch and now it is waiting for new review. Is there
> something what I can/must do?
As I said previously, if you are "refactoring" code to make it longer
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> > >
> > > I thought he was saying today ;-)
> >
> > He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
> > espe
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> >
> > I thought he was saying today ;-)
>
> He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
> especially if he is still working on it. We
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
because you wouldn't be running in production without them and t
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
>> significantly.
> That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
> because you wouldn't be running in production without them and thus you
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* The schema now uses foreign keys to more accurately reflect a finacial DDL
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
be
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
> >
> >
>
> I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said "now", but I don't think we need it immediately,
especially if he is still working on it. We are at least 1-2 weeks aw
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>> > B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
>> >
>> >> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>> >>
>> >> Soon. :-)
>> >
>> > No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
>> > been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
>>
>> I have to test it some m
B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> > B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> >
> >> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
> >>
> >> Soon. :-)
> >
> > No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
> > been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
>
> I have to test it some more but I w
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>
>> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>>
>> Soon. :-)
>
> No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
> been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
I have to test it some more but I will send it.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
> > So when will you send in a revised patch?
>
> Soon. :-)
No, don't send it "soon". We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL
> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of
those
>
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I
Hi,
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
>> pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
>> awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
>> others. But is that what I should be spending m
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Peter,
>
> What is the status of this patch now? I read that two bugs has been
> fixed in this patch and now it is waiting for new review. Is there
> something what I can/must do?
The patch was applied, fixed, and fixed again, then reverted. It will
sit until just before
--On Mittwoch, August 23, 2006 08:24:55 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
Indeed h
Peter,
What is the status of this patch now? I read that two bugs has been
fixed in this patch and now it is waiting for new review. Is there
something what I can/must do?
Zdenek
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
OK. I split patch to two parts. Part one i
Hello,
this patch allow any expression in return statement and it does simply
casting from non type record into typed records. Allows same casting as
assign statement.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
> exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
> i see the INSERT...RETURNING stuff as the only "big
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I should be spending my time on in the
Patch isn't full, simple test (values are took from regression.diffs):
and try dump table and restore:
ERROR: syntax error
CONTEXT: COPY tt, line 5, column tq: "'1 ''2'"
Attached cumulative patch fixes problem, but I have some doubts, is it really
needed?
--
Teodor Sigaev
It seems that the page-at-a-time-index-scan patch applied in the spring
caused a slight performance regression to merge joins. The btree
mark/restore became much more expensive, as btmarkpos now has to copy
the array of item pointers retrieved from the current index page. That
adds up, because
Hi all,
seriously... I don't have time to work on PostgreSQL. It's time to
say that I'm leaving this project. So, if you found some my broken
code or whatever in PostgreSQL you should go and fix it. It's
community-driven project. It's about collaboration -- don't ask "why
should I help" --
On 8/22/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am still waiting for some documentation on what XML support we have,
and what we need. We can't decide on this patch until we have that.
Here is my thoughts:
http://nikolay.samokhvalov.com/2006/08/23/xml-and-relational/
(maybe too much w
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:11:22PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There's nothing hidden (unless it's also hidden from me ;-) )
>
> I take it that when you talk about "we did this" you are referring to
> the patch from Karel Zak.
Hans has been original author of COPY VIEW idea and I've wrote it
--On Dienstag, August 22, 2006 23:12:21 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of tho
37 matches
Mail list logo
