Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Dave Cramer
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:

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Hannu Krosing
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Rod Taylor
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Dave Cramer
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Rod Taylor
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Hannu Krosing
Peter Eisentraut kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 18:51: 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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Eisentraut kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 18:51: I don't recall that, but if so, I would like to revisit that consensus. [ Hannu disagrees ] Please take this thread to pgsql-hackers; if the issue is going to be contentious then we should try to get a

[PATCHES] update for brazilian portuguese translation

2003-11-14 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
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, --

Re: [PATCHES] New List

2003-11-14 Thread Neil Conway
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

Re: [PATCHES] update for brazilian portuguese translation

2003-11-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
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

Re: [PATCHES] ALTER TABLE modifications

2003-11-14 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
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

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb

2003-11-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new initdb

2003-11-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
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]

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of new

2003-11-14 Thread 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. Tom applied it before I could. -- Bruce Momjian

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] heads up -- subtle change of behavior of

2003-11-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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