Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Michael Paesold
Please, let's revisit this, and not postpone it without further discussion. I never knew about the correctness issues in div_var(), but since I know about it, I feel I am just waiting until that problem will hit me or anyone else. So can you, Tom, please describe in what situations the old code

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please, let's revisit this, and not postpone it without further discussion. I never knew about the correctness issues in div_var(), but since I know about it, I feel I am just waiting until that problem will hit me or anyone else. Yeah. I was

Re: [PATCHES] Deferred RI trigger for non-key UPDATEs and subxacts

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote: I don't think this is right. If the original tuple was inserted by a subtransaction of our transaction, it will have been checked at subtransaction subcommit, no? I don't think the subtransaction subcommit will do

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please, let's revisit this, and not postpone it without further discussion. I never knew about the correctness issues in div_var(), but since I know about it, I feel I am just waiting until that problem will hit

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah. I was basically waiting to see if anyone could come up with a faster solution. Since no one seems to have an idea how to do it better, I'm inclined to apply the patch for 8.3. My only reservation is that I

Re: [PATCHES] Deferred RI trigger for non-key UPDATEs and subxacts

2007-07-17 Thread Affan Salman
OK, that's what I get for opining before checking the code ;-). Your *cerebral call graph visits* have a knack of being spot on, way more than often. :-) Will apply. Thanks, Tom. We're also back-patching this, right? -- Affan Salman EnterpriseDB Corporation

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah. I was basically waiting to see if anyone could come up with a faster solution. Since no one seems to have an idea how to do it better, I'm inclined to apply the patch for

Re: [PATCHES] Deferred RI trigger for non-key UPDATEs and subxacts

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Tom. We're also back-patching this, right? Yeah, working on that now. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] msvc, build and install with cygwin in the PATH

2007-07-17 Thread Magnus Hagander
I used to have a different patch from Andrew that did part of this, and more, and conflicted rather badly with it. However, I never got around to applying that one, and I can't seem to find it anymore. Andrew -do you recall if you had all this in yours, and is it still something you want in, or

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, this doesn't take a lot of numerical methods background: the fundamental problem is that the existing code generates an *approximate* answer, whereas people who are doing div and mod on large integers tend to

Re: [PATCHES] Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

2007-07-17 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it.

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: rewrite numeric division

2007-07-17 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, my proposed patch doesn't change that. It might be that we should provide an integer division operator for NUMERIC, so that you can get at the exact result of trunc(x/y). I was also thinking that if the denominator had only factors of 2 and 5 we could

Re: [PATCHES] Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. ---

Re: [PATCHES] bitmapscan changes patch review

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. ---

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] msvc, build and install with cygwin in the PATH

2007-07-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I am fighting some fires in my day job. My pesonal TODO list for pg up to beta is: . fix chunking muddle (see recent emails) . complete CSV logs patch . harden MSVC builds I'll get to this when I can. I can dig up the patch I did if you want it again. cheers andrew Magnus Hagander

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3431: age() gets the days wrong

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have applied the attached patch that documents the age() behavior, plus fixes the mismatch sign for seconds by using part of Tom's earlier patch. I agree we want to keep the symmetry we have. We can call this item closed.

Re: [PATCHES] execl() sentinel

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner just let me know via Jabber that there's a warning in pg_regress.c: pg_regress.c: In function `spawn_process': pg_regress.c:914: warning: missing sentinel in function call This small patch would seem to fix it, according to

Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump --no-tablespaces patch

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Gavin M. Roy wrote: This is the patch I proposed on hackers to make pg_dump optionally ignore tablespaces. The

Re: [PATCHES] docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

2007-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. Your documentation changes can be viewed in five minutes using links on the developer's page, http://www.postgresql.org/developer/testing. --- ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: I reported an incorrect

Re: [PATCHES] execl() sentinel

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: pg_regress.c: In function `spawn_process': pg_regress.c:914: warning: missing sentinel in function call You can apply this, but it sure seems like a compiler/include file bug to me, even with the 64-bit explaination. There are

Re: [PATCHES] docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted +is compared to the total number of tuples inserted or updated As best I can tell, this description is even further away from the actual CVS HEAD behavior than the previous

Re: [PATCHES] docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

2007-07-17 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patch applied. Thanks. Your documentation changes can be viewed in five minutes using links on the developer's page, http://www.postgresql.org/developer/testing. Thanks. Don't we need to backport it to 8.1 and 8.2? It was changed at the integration of

Re: [PATCHES] docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

2007-07-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted +is compared to the total number of tuples inserted or updated As best I can tell, this description is even further away from the actual CVS HEAD

Re: [PATCHES] docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

2007-07-17 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -is compared to the total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted +is compared to the total number of tuples inserted or updated As best I can tell, this description is even further away from the