Re: [PATCHES] Micro doc patch (plpgsql)

2006-12-26 Thread Joachim Wieland
On December 26, 5:19 am David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It doesn't need the semicolon. PL/PgSQL's BEGIN is different from > SQL's. :) Exactly. Note that my patch _removes_ the semicolon. If you put it in a plpgsql function definition as in the example from the docs you get a syntax erro

Re: [PATCHES] Micro doc patch (plpgsql)

2006-12-26 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 01:10:03PM +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote: > On December 26, 5:19 am David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't need the semicolon. PL/PgSQL's BEGIN is different from > > SQL's. :) > > Exactly. Note that my patch _removes_ the semicolon. If you put it in a > plpg

Re: [PATCHES] Micro doc patch (plpgsql)

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Joachim Wieland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > attached is a micro doc patch. BEGIN in plpgsql is without semicolon. Applied, thanks. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL pro

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Glen Parker
I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. Should I resubmit with new names? -Glen Bruce Momjian wrote: Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would be clearer terms. --- Glen Par

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 13:59 -0800, Glen Parker wrote: > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. Probably not. We typically do not introduce new features into back releases. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Should I resubmit with new names? > > -Glen > > Bruce Momjian wrote:

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 13:59 -0800, Glen Parker wrote: >> I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > Probably not. We typically do not introduce new features into back > releases. And since this one would require an initdb, there is

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Glen Parker wrote: [slightly reformatted for sanity] > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would > >be clearer terms. > > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > > Should I resubmit with new names? I'm not really convinced

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Glen Parker
Alvaro Herrera wrote: As for backpatching, you already knew the answer :-) Nope, I had no idea this would require initdb... -Glen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

[PATCHES] xlog directory at initdb time

2006-12-26 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Hi, This simple patch lets someone specifies the xlog directory at initdb time. It uses symlinks to do it, and create and/or set permissions at the directory as appropriate. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/ *** ./doc/src/sgml/ref/initdb.sgml.orig 2006-12-23 22:08:13.00

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Glen Parker wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> As for backpatching, you already knew the answer :-) > > Nope, I had no idea this would require initdb... > > Regardless of this, our rule against backpatching new features is well founded. The stable branches are called stable for a good reason. chee

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Glen Parker wrote: > > [slightly reformatted for sanity] > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would > > >be clearer terms. > > > > I'd love to see this back patched into 8.2.1 if possible. > > > > Should I resubm

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to >> me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means > visible to no one. Um ... surely, v

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better to > >> me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > > > In my mind, visible really means "visible to anyone", and expired means > > visibl

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Robert Treat
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 23:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >> I'm not really convinced that Bruce's proposed names seem any better > > >> to me. What's wrong with "dead" and "live"? > > > > > > In my mind,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

2006-12-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> The current terminology of live and dead is already used in many places in > the > documentation and in userspace; mostly around the need for maintainance of > dead tuples within tables, reindex cleaning up dead pages, and even in the > vacuum commands output (n dead tuples cannot be removed