Re: [PATCHES] Changes for AIX buildfarm

2005-07-21 Thread Rocco Altier
Attached is a patch for HEAD to implement Peter's suggestion to set the SHLIB_LINK in the contrib modules that need it. Also, this changes Makefile.aix to use SHLIB_LINK instead of LIBS so that the changes to the contrib Makefiles are picked up correctly. Further this makes it match more closely

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a much better version of the SET ROLE work. I'm reasonably happy with it. The only parts I don't like are that I had to do some ugly things in gram.y to avoid making NONE reserved, and I can't seem to see how to avoid having ROLE be reserved (I

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: After rereading SQL99 4.31, I don't think there is any need to distinguish CURRENT_USER from CURRENT_ROLE, mainly because our implementation does not distinguish users from roles at all. CURRENT_USER and

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Tom Lane
BTW, I realized we do not support granting roles to PUBLIC: regression=# create role r; CREATE ROLE regression=# grant r to public; ERROR: role public does not exist but as far as I can tell SQL99 expects this to work. regards, tom lane ---(end

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: BTW, I realized we do not support granting roles to PUBLIC: regression=# create role r; CREATE ROLE regression=# grant r to public; ERROR: role public does not exist but as far as I can tell SQL99 expects this to work. Indeed, I believe you're

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: BTW, I realized we do not support granting roles to PUBLIC: regression=# create role r; CREATE ROLE regression=# grant r to public; ERROR: role public does not exist but as far as I can tell SQL99 expects

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Tom Lane
Another issue: I like the has_role() function and in fact think it needs to come in multiple variants just like has_table_privilege and friends: has_role(name, name) has_role(name, oid) has_role(oid, name) has_role(oid, oid) has_role(name) --

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Another issue: I like the has_role() function and in fact think it needs to come in multiple variants just like has_table_privilege and friends: has_role(name, name) has_role(name, oid) has_role(oid, name) has_role(oid, oid)

Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated

2005-07-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: However I'm a bit dubious about whether has_role isn't an invasion of application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the (mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling it has_role_privilege? Do we need to follow a bad

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Mark Wong
I just ran through a few tests with the v14 patch against 100GB of data from dbt3 and found a 30% improvement; 3.6 hours vs 5.3 hours. Just to give a few details, I only loaded data and started a COPY in parallel for each the data files:

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Luke Lonergan
Cool! At what rate does your disk setup write sequential data, e.g.: time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=50 (sized for 2x RAM on a system with 2GB) BTW - the Compaq smartarray controllers are pretty broken on Linux from a performance standpoint in our experience. We've had

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Luke Lonergan wrote: Cool! At what rate does your disk setup write sequential data, e.g.: time dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=8k count=50 (sized for 2x RAM on a system with 2GB) BTW - the Compaq smartarray controllers are pretty broken on Linux from a performance standpoint in our

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Luke Lonergan
Joshua, On 7/21/05 5:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O.k. this strikes me as interesting, now we know that Compaq and Dell are borked for Linux. Is there a name brand server (read Enterprise) that actually does provide reasonable performance? I think late model Dell (post the

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I think late model Dell (post the bad chipset problem, circa 2001-2?) and IBM and Sun servers are fine because they all use simple SCSI adapters from LSI or Adaptec. Well I know that isn't true at least not with ANY of the Dells my customers have purchased in the last 18 months. They are

Re: [PATCHES] COPY FROM performance improvements

2005-07-21 Thread Luke Lonergan
Joshua, On 7/21/05 7:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I know that isn't true at least not with ANY of the Dells my customers have purchased in the last 18 months. They are still really, really slow. That's too bad, can you cite some model numbers? SCSI? I have great