Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2007-01-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. --- Glen Parker wrote: > This patch consists of two c functions to expose n_live_tuples and > n_dead_tuples, SQL functions to expose them to SQL land, and > corresponding fields added to pg_stat_all_

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. --- Gle

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > The current terminology of live and dead is already used in many places in > > the > > documentation and in userspace; mostly around the need for maintainance of > > dead tuples within tables, reindex cleaning up dead pages, and even in the > > vacuum commands outp

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> The current terminology of live and dead is already used in many places in > the > documentation and in userspace; mostly around the need for maintainance of > dead tuples within tables, reindex cleaning up dead pages, and even in the > vacuum commands output (n dead tuples cannot be removed

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Robert Treat
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 23:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better > > >> to me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > > > > > > In my mind,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to > >> me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > > > In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means > > visibl

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to >> me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means > visible to no one. Um ... surely, v

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Glen Parker wrote: > > [slightly reformatted for sanity] > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would > > >be clearer terms. > > > > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > > > > Should I resubm

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Glen Parker wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> As for backpatching, you already knew the answer :-) > > Nope, I had no idea this would require initdb... > > Regardless of this, our rule against backpatching new features is well founded. The stable branches are called stable for a good reason. chee

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Glen Parker
Alvaro Herrera wrote: As for backpatching, you already knew the answer :-) Nope, I had no idea this would require initdb... -Glen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Glen Parker wrote: [slightly reformatted for sanity] > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would > >be clearer terms. > > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > > Should I resubmit with new names? I'm not really convinced

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 13:59 -0800, Glen Parker wrote: >> I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > Probably not. We typically do not introduce new features into back > releases. And since this one would require an initdb, there is

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 13:59 -0800, Glen Parker wrote: > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. Probably not. We typically do not introduce new features into back releases. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Should I resubmit with new names? > > -Glen > > Bruce Momjian wrote:

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Glen Parker
I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. Should I resubmit with new names? -Glen Bruce Momjian wrote: Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would be clearer terms. --- Glen Par

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would be clearer terms. --- Glen Parker wrote: > This patch consists of two c functions to expose n_live_tuples and > n_dead_tuples, SQL functions to expose th

[PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and n_dead_tuples to SQL land

2006-12-20 Thread Glen Parker
This patch consists of two c functions to expose n_live_tuples and n_dead_tuples, SQL functions to expose them to SQL land, and corresponding fields added to pg_stat_all_tables. This has been discussed in general. The purpose is to allow autovacuum-esq conditional vacuuming and clustering usi