Dmitry Karasik wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this patch going to be applied?
I am waiting for an update from Dmitry.
cheers
andrew
I believe this is some kind of misunderstanding, sorry if from my part,
but I don't think any further updates are necessary.
OK, I'll take
Hi Bruce-san.
Some of these progress of me is glad.:-)
Please apply it.
Thanks.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
pg82devel_win32_patch
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://ar
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I used your suggestion and renamed "online backup" to "incremental
> > backup", and added a mention that many database vendors call it
> > "online backup".
>
> Consistency would then demand that the other two be renamed to "full
> backup". I thi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thinking about this, presumably any write intensive, multi-user
> > benchmark would seem to be suitable, so would something like OSDL's
> > DBT-2 actually be better to try?
>
> I'm certainly not wedded to pgbench, give it a try.
>
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I have remove the LEFT part of the join to pg_roles in
> >> psql/description.c. I assume this is too risky for 8.1.X.
> >
> > Well, 8.1 already has per-role dependencies, so why not do it?
>
> I agree
Done.
--
Bruce Momjian http
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 23:18 +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Some of these progress of me is glad.:-)
> Please apply it.
Can you describe what this patch is intended to do?
Also, patches should be submitted as contextual diffs (diff -c).
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 23:18 +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> > Some of these progress of me is glad.:-)
> > Please apply it.
>
> Can you describe what this patch is intended to do?
>
> Also, patches should be submitted as contextual diffs (diff -c).
>
It is a cleanup for Win32
Great. I have applied the following documentation patch for CVS HEAD
and 8.1.X.
It seems you are saying that shmmax and shmall must be multiples of 4k,
and I added that to the docs. It previously only mentioned shmmax in
that regard.
Where are we on this patch. It was reverted. I someone going to clean
it up so we can apply it?
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> This patch appears seriousl
Needs cleaning up.
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.
Ok. Here's a `gmake check` passing version that actually makes use of the new
AM entries in ExecInsert. Currently, AFAICS, this *only* provides an improvement
for systems that frequently insert duplicate rows. Perhaps not a common case,
but an improvement nonetheless, IMO.
I leaned in this directi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > > About the ReportSyntaxErrorPosition thing, it was considered at the
> > > time (can't find the email right now) that control characters would be
> > > problematic but it wouldn't break anything that wasn't broken alrea
Are we any closer to something to apply for this?
---
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
>
> Attached is a patch to hope
James William Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem with the AM no longer having the ability to make guarantees about
> lock/state duration seems more or less unavoidable with this two-step process.
So in other words, a two-step process is wrong.
> Besides that I think it's ready for revi
Patch for core and PL/pgSQL to support the
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING syntax in 8.2
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE seem to work fine in normal operation but there is
an error with DELETE RETURNING when used through PL/pgSQL.
Here's an example PL/pgSQL test:
CREATE SEQUENCE test_id_seq START 1 INCREMENT
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 17:51 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Patch for core and PL/pgSQL to support the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
> RETURNING syntax in 8.2
I wonder if we should try to consistently treat an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
with a RETURNING clause like a SELECT with an equivalent target list.
For ex
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suspect it'd probably be sufficient to absorb requests every few times
>> through the fsync loop, too, if you want to experiment with that.
> In the above test, smgrsync took 50 sec for syncing 32 files. This m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Are we any closer to something to apply for this?
If by closer you mean closer to the top of my todo queue,
then yes. :) Otherwise, no time for it yet.
Boy, Tom issues an August 1st deadline and people are already
cracking down. Just kidding. *Ho
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder if we should try to consistently treat an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
> with a RETURNING clause like a SELECT with an equivalent target list.
> For example, should it be possible to write:
> FOR x in DELETE FROM t1 WHERE ... RETURNING t1.x LOOP
Seems li
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE seem to work fine in normal operation but there is an
> error with DELETE RETURNING when used through PL/pgSQL.
Probably other places too. I don't see any provision here for ensuring
that the variables used in the RETURNING list
On 3/2/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This might tie into something that was bothering me about Jonah'sfirst-cut patch, which was that he was introducing special cases intoplaces where it didn't seem real appropriate (like printtup.c). Iwonder if we should rejigger the representation of Q
On 3/2/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE seem to work fine in normal operation but there is an> error with DELETE RETURNING when used through PL/pgSQL.
Probably other places too. I don't see any provision here for ensuringth
Added to TODO:
* Allow to_date() and to_timestamp() accept localized month names
Comment added to the C code to show where it has to happen.
---
Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-12-25 at 17:56 -0300, Euler Taveira d
Patch applied. Thanks. Your documentation changes can be viewed in
five minutes using links on the developer's page,
http://www.postgresql.org/developer/testing.
---
Joachim Wieland wrote:
> Appended is a small documenta
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, the attached patch now does it correctly as suggested by Alvaro.
Applied with minor cleanup --- I thought the code for scanning for
dependent relations was unreasonably complicated and created
unpredictable locking order, so I simplified it.
"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Does it make sense to implementation > or < for the tid type?
>
> I can't get too excited about it, but I wouldn't object if someone can
> see a use for it.
>
There might be another usage of tid < or >. Consider a heap with one middle
page is broken, I
26 matches
Mail list logo
