Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-07-31 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:38:30PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 20:20 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =

Re: [PATCHES] Allow commenting of variables in postgresql.conf to -

2006-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Zdenek Kotala wrote: I performed some cleanup in my code as well. I reduced some conditions, which cannot occur and fixed context validation in the set_config_options function. I hope that It is final version of our patch. The way I see it, combining a feature change with a code refactoring

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: As far as avoiding overhead goes, here's what I'm thinking: * The Values RTE node should contain a list of lists of bare expressions, without TargetEntry decoration (you probably do not need ResTarget in the raw parse tree for VALUES, either). * The ValuesScan plan node will

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The good news is that from a memory and perfomance standpoint, my simple test now shows us outperforming mysql: Sweet ;-) I'm up to my *ss in fixing relation locking, but will get back to your thing as soon as that's done. I think you're close enough to

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The good news is that from a memory and perfomance standpoint, my simple test now shows us outperforming mysql: Sweet ;-) I love this team. Kudos! -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The good news is that from a memory and perfomance standpoint, my simple test now shows us outperforming mysql: Sweet ;-) I love this team. Kudos! So now it's

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Michael Fuhr wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The good news is that from a memory and perfomance standpoint, my simple test now shows us outperforming mysql: Sweet ;-) I love this team. Kudos! So

[PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-07-31 Thread Simon Riggs
Patch included to implement xlog switching, using an xlog record processing instruction and forcibly moving xlog pointers. 1. Happens automatically on pg_stop_backup() 2. Can happen manually via pg_switch_xlog() 3. Implement range of utility functions: pg_current_wal_offset()

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Restartable Recovery

2006-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Nice. I was going to ask if this could make it into 8.2. --- Simon Riggs wrote: On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 20:56 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 15:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCHES] [DOCS] Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

2006-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. --- Robert Treat wrote: On Friday 14 July 2006 15:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please let me know if there is anything else you would

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wanted to post an updated patch even though there are still things not working again after conversion to bare expressions. I've been through the planner part of this and it looks OK (one or two small errors). I'm currently messing with a revised version

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] 8.2 features?

2006-07-31 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wanted to post an updated patch even though there are still things not working again after conversion to bare expressions. I've been through the planner part of this and it looks OK (one or two small errors). I'm currently messing with

[PATCHES] Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING

2006-07-31 Thread Jonah H. Harris
Here's the updated patch with DELETE RETURNING removed. This isn't really an issue because no one wanted DELETE RETURNING to begin with. It is important to note that this patch is not yet ready to be committed. I still need to go through and run some more tests on it but wanted to put it in