Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it. I believe so.

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2008/6/24 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But if I have >> foo( a text, b int[]) >> it looks odd if both these calls are legal: >> foo('a',1,2,3,) >> foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3]) >> which I understand would be the case with the current patch. > > Maybe I

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2008/6/23 Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > And what about a function that takes 2 arrays as arguments? only last argument is evaluated as variadic so function create or replace function foo(a int[], b int[]) ... variadic is called select foo(array[1,2,3], 1,2,3,4,5,6) > > This propos

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
2008/6/24 Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if >> the syntax were like >> >>create function foo (a text, variadic b int[]) >> >> or maybe even better >> >>create function foo (a text, varia

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Your point about the syntax is good though. It would be better if the syntax were like create function foo (a text, variadic b int[]) or maybe even better create function foo (a text, variadic b int) since (a) this makes it much more obvious to the reader wh

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But if I have > foo( a text, b int[]) > it looks odd if both these calls are legal: > foo('a',1,2,3,) > foo('a',ARRAY[1,2,3]) > which I understand would be the case with the current patch. Maybe I misunderstand what is supposed to happen, but I be

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: What would you consider "proper and full support"? I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it. That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a feature many people have asked

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> What would you consider "proper and full support"? > > I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it. That's a fairly weak argument for rejecting a patch that provides a feature many people have asked for. I thought the patch was pret

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
daveg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Alex Hunsaker wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?: > > > > > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like: > > > > > >

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread daveg
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alex Hunsaker wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?: > > > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like: > > > > > > > > pg_restore -E "SET ST

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alex Hunsaker wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?: > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like: > > > > > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ? > > > > We already have it -

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This proposal strikes me as half-baked. Either we need proper and full support for variadic functions, or we don't, but I don't think we need syntactic sugar like the above (or maybe in this case it's really syntactic saccharine).

Re: [PATCHES] Database owner installable modules patch

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Implement a module capability for loading /contrib-style extensions http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-04/msg00164.php --- Tom Dunstan wrote: > Hi all > > Here is a patch that provides a

Re: [PATCHES] Simplify formatting.c

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Also, it seems a bit inconsistent to be relying on > > oracle_compat.c for upper/lower but not initcap. > > > I saw this inconsistence while I'm doing the patch. What about moving > that upper/lower/initcap and wcs* code to another file. p

Re: [PATCHES] Simplify formatting.c

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am starting to think that the simplest case is to keep the single-copy > > version in there for single-byte encodings and not worry about the > > overhead of the multi-byte case. > > My new idea is if we pass the length to str_initcap, we can eliminate > the string copy

Re: [PATCHES] A GUC variable to replace PGBE_ACTIVITY_SIZE

2008-06-23 Thread Neil Conway
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 03:52 +1000, Thomas Lee wrote: > * Should it be possible to set this new variable via a command-line > option ala shared_buffers? I would say not: most parameters cannot be set by special command-line parameters, and this one is not important enough to warrant special treatm

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This proposal strikes me as half-baked. Either we need proper and full > support for variadic functions, or we don't, but I don't think we need > syntactic sugar like the above (or maybe in this case it's really > syntactic saccharine). What would yo

Re: [PATCHES] variadic function support

2008-06-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Pavel Stehule wrote: Hello this patch enhance current syntax of CREATE FUNCTION statement. It allows creating functions with variable number of arguments. This version is different than last my patches. It doesn't need patching PL. Basic idea is transformation of real arguments (related to dec