Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Marko Kreen
On 5/4/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > Currently, configure ignores unknown --enable/disable/with/without > options. The autoconf people consider that a feature, not a bug. I'm disinclined to second-guess the designers of the tool, especially with a pat

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:22:25PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > AFAIK that 'feature' is there to support configuring a 'tree' > of projects (like gcc), where subprojects have their own configure > scripts with different options. That way you can give all options > to top-level configure script whic

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Done, for Solaris and x86. --- Robert Lor wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > The new SPARC assembly file src/backend/port/tas/solaris_sparc.s uses / > instead of ! for comments, and as a result the compile fails with Sun > Studio

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marko Kreen > Sent: 05 May 2006 12:22 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about > unknown options > >

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am thinking we would need an option at the start like --strict that would throw an error for any later invalid options. --- Dave Page wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[E

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:34:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am thinking we would need an option at the start like --strict that > would throw an error for any later invalid options. Well, --strict would be tricky, if it's possible. My reading of the autoconf code doesn't indicate a means

Re: [PATCHES] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:34:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I am thinking we would need an option at the start like --strict that > > would throw an error for any later invalid options. > > Well, --strict would be tricky, if it's possible. My reading of

Re: [PATCHES] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:13:54AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Well, --strict would be tricky, if it's possible. My reading of the > > autoconf code doesn't indicate a means of doing adding abitrary > > options. But something like --enable-strict-options would be fairly > > straight forward. P

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

2006-05-05 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-05-04 kell 18:21, kirjutas Sven Suursoho: > Hi, > > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:14:28 +0300, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > "Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Unfortunately, there is still one problem when using unpatched python, > >> caused by too aggress

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64

2006-05-05 Thread Robert Lor
Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86 file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they are different. Apologies if the message was not clear the first time! Thanks, Robert Bruce Momjian wrote: Done, for Solaris and x86. -

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

2006-05-05 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I think that a less confusing way of saying it would be : "Generators crash if python version used is 2.4.x and it is compiled with asserts. Currently only known linux distributions to distibute such python.so files are Fedora and possibly other RedHat distributions, while Gentoo, Ubun

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Lor wrote: > Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86 > file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they > are different. OK, fixed, thanks. > Apologies if the message was not clear the first time! Yes, you were clear, but it was so illo

Re: [PATCHES] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am worried if we change the default behavior that build systems will fail, but fail after our release when they go to package, and we will not get feedback until to late. --- Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP s

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
I've just realized that the locking considerations in this patch are considerably more complicated than we thought. The discussion so far considered only half of what the deletion interlock needs to accomplish. We have to ensure that indexscans don't lose their place, which is solved in the patch

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64

2006-05-05 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Robert Lor wrote: Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86 file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they are different. OK, fixed, thanks. Apologies if the message was not clear the first time! Yes, you were clear,

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

2006-05-05 Thread Sven Suursoho
Fri, 05 May 2006 19:20:55 +0300, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I think that a less confusing way of saying it would be : "Generators crash if python version used is 2.4.x and it is compiled with asserts. Currently only known linux distributions to distibute such python.so files

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > BTW, I just realized another bug in the patch: btbulkdelete fails to > guarantee that it visits every page in the index. It was OK for > btvacuumcleanup to ignore pages added to the index after it starts, > but btbulkdelete has to deal with such pages. Actually, as written this patch d

Re: [PATCHES] Have configure complain about unknown options

2006-05-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:28:48PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am worried if we change the default behavior that build systems will > fail, but fail after our release when they go to package, and we will > not get feedback until to late. I guess there are a number of ways to deal with this:

Re: [PATCHES] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't try to compile SSL CRL support if local

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 4 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Don't try to compile SSL CRL support if local SSL installation hasn't > >> got it. Per buildfarm failure on 'canary'. > > > It seems a little bit dangerous to just not check the CRL without so mu

Re: [PATCHES] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't try to compile SSL CRL support if local

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > The attached patch checks for the file, and either user it or generates > a log message that it was skipped. I still can't get excited about this. Who will it help? The DBA who is silly enough to think his ancient SSL library supports CRL is probably also silly enough no

Re: [PATCHES] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't try to compile SSL CRL support

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > The attached patch checks for the file, and either user it or generates > > a log message that it was skipped. > > I still can't get excited about this. Who will it help? The DBA who is > silly enough to think his ancient SSL library supports CRL is p

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: BTW, I just realized another bug in the patch: btbulkdelete fails to guarantee that it visits every page in the index. It was OK for btvacuumcleanup to ignore pages added to the index after it starts, but btbulkdelete has to deal with such pages.

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

2006-05-05 Thread Joshua D. Drake
As an example of absurdity of this problem: let's assume there is known distribution with buggy gethostbyname(). Fact, that we know about this, shouldn't stop us developing TCP/IP applications. Especially, if there is also patch for this bug :) It would be real shame to prevent using gener

Re: [PATCHES] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't try to compile SSL CRL support

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
pgman wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > The attached patch checks for the file, and either user it or generates > > > a log message that it was skipped. > > > > I still can't get excited about this. Who will it help? The DBA who is > > silly enough to think his ancient SS

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The first solution that occurs to me is to force page splits to choose the > target page so that it's blkno > the original page's blkno during vacuum. I thought about that too, but don't like it for three reasons: * it encourages index bloat, the

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 5 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: >>> BTW, I just realized another bug in the patch: btbulkdelete fails to >>> guarantee that it visits every page in the index. > The first solution that occurs to me is to force page splits to choose the > target

Re: [PATCHES] be-secure.c patch

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am now wondering if fe-secure.c, the front-end code, should also check > for "root.crl". The attached patch implents it. Updated patch attached and applied. It adds CRL checking to libpq. It returns an error if the CRL file exists, but the library can't process it, j

Re: [PATCHES] cast bytea to/from bit strings

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am not sure this is of general enough usefulness to be in the backend. Can you add it as a pgfoundry project? --- Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear PostgreSQL developers, > > Please find attached a small patch to convert byt

Re: current version: [PATCHES] Patch - Have psql show current values

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
As Tom asked, why not use seqname.last_value? Looking at your output: + if (showSeq && !showTables) + appendPQExpBuffer(&buf, + ",\n curval(c.oid) as \"%s\"" + ",\n CASE curvalcheck(c.oid) WHEN '1' THEN '%s' WHEN '0

Re: current version: [PATCHES] Patch - Have psql show current values

2006-05-05 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Bruce Momjian wrote: What fields do we want to show? Maybe the TODO item is not needed. Is this all we want to show? IRC what we want is something like this. regression=# \d abc Sequence "public.abc" Column| Type --+- sequence_name | abc last_value| 1 incr

Re: current version: [PATCHES] Patch - Have psql show current values

2006-05-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am thinking we just add another column to the \d display for sequences showing the current value. --- Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > What fields do we want to show? Maybe the TODO item is n

Re: [PATCHES] fori stmt with by keyword was:(Re: [HACKERS] for statement, adding a STEP clause?)

2006-05-05 Thread Jaime Casanova
On 4/30/06, Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/29/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>there is a chance to add a STEP clause to the FOR statement in plpgsql? > >> > >> > > > >This is not free: it

Re: [PATCHES] cast bytea to/from bit strings

2006-05-05 Thread Fabien COELHO
Dear Bruce, I am not sure this is of general enough usefulness to be in the backend. Hmm... I think that the inability to convert nearly binary compatible standard types one to the other is a postgresql issue. Even if it is not often useful, the point is completeness and soundness of the t