Rod,
I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
undesirable side affect.
Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
this would not be desirable, I would imagine it would break lots of
code.
Dave
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 11:35, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:59:05AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
undesirable side affect.
Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
this would not be desirable, I would imagine it would break lots of
Alvaro Herrera kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:17:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:59:05AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
I tried the current patch on a RC2 release, and I noticed one
undesirable side affect.
Modifying a column moves it to the end. In high availability situations
this would
Rod Taylor writes:
The method is rename old column, add new column, move data across, move
or reform dependencies, drop old column.
I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
needs to preserve the table schema. Else, this feature would be mostly
useless and a
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 09:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Rod Taylor writes:
The method is rename old column, add new column, move data across, move
or reform dependencies, drop old column.
I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
needs to preserve the table
OK,
Here is another approach, that would retain column order. It will
require that the table be locked while this proceeds, but I think this
is a good idea anyway.
lock table
create newtable as select c1, c2, c3::newtype
modify pg_class to point to the new filename
modify existing pg_attribute
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 09:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I can do this by hand. If we have an explicit command to do it, then it
needs to preserve the table schema. Else, this feature would be mostly
useless and a certain source of complaints.
The method
lock table
create newtable as select c1, c2, c3::newtype
modify pg_class to point to the new filename
modify existing pg_attribute for the column in question
recreate indexes that exist on the column
unlock table
I actually tried this to start with an ran into several dead-ends in
trying to
Tom Lane writes:
I believe the consensus was that automating what you could do by hand
is still a step forward.
I don't recall that, but if so, I would like to revisit that consensus.
AFAICT, this patch does not buy us anything at all. It's just a different
spelling of existing
Hi,
I have updated the translations of psql and pg_dump. postgres and jdbc are new one. I
made 2 files: one for CVS HEAD and other one for REL7_4_STABLE.
http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-cvs.tgz
http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-rel7_4_stable.tgz
Please apply.
Regards,
--
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
10E6 INSERT = real 0m5.161s
user 0m4.010s
sys0m1.150s
What operation is this benchmarking? Only linked-list appends, or
something else?
-Neil
---(end of
Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
I have updated the translations of psql and pg_dump. postgres and jdbc are new one.
I made 2 files: one for CVS HEAD and other one for REL7_4_STABLE.
http://www.ufgnet.ufg.br/euler/patch_pt_BR-cvs.tgz
This is expected. Doing otherwise would incur into a much bigger
performance hit.
Anyway, IMHO no code should use SELECT * in any case, which is the only
scenario where one would expect physical column order to matter, isn't
it?
Well, we can always bring back the old idea of a attlognum which is
I guess the real question here is whether we would want to revert this
capability if a patch to adjust logical column orderings doesn't appear
before 7.5. My vote would be no, but apparently Peter's is yes.
Any other opinions?
The fact that it deals with the nightmare of dropping and recreating
darnit!
patch attached.
(Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)
andrew
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just noticed tonight that the new initdb introduced a subtle change of
behavior. I use a shell script to automate the process
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
darnit!
patch attached.
(Thinks - do we need to worry about suid sgid and sticky bits on data dir?)
andrew
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
darnit!
patch attached.
Applied with correction (you got the return-value check backwards)
and further work to deal reasonably with error conditions occurring
in check_data_dir.
Tom applied it before I could.
--
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
darnit!
patch attached.
Applied with correction (you got the return-value check backwards)
and further work to deal reasonably with error conditions occurring
in check_data_dir.
darnit again.
I'm taking a break - my head is
18 matches
Mail list logo