Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Added to TODO. --- Greg Copeland wrote: > Perhaps compression should be added to the list of protocol changes. > This way, we can allow for per packet evaluation for compression. > > > -- > Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Copeland Computer Consulting > > > On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 21:50, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Sounds good to me. Is it on the todo-list? (Couldn't see it there). > > > > > > Probably not; Bruce for some reason has resisted listing protocol change > > > desires as an identifiable TODO category. There are a couple of threads > > > in the pghackers archives over the last year or so that discuss the > > > different things we want to do, though. (Improving the error-reporting > > > framework and fixing the COPY protocol are a couple of biggies I can > > > recall offhand.) > > > > Listing protocol changes seemed too low-level for the TODO list, but I > > have kept the email messages. Today I updated the TODO list and added a > > section for them. > > > -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Perhaps compression should be added to the list of protocol changes. This way, we can allow for per packet evaluation for compression. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 21:50, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sounds good to me. Is it on the todo-list? (Couldn't see it there). > > > > Probably not; Bruce for some reason has resisted listing protocol change > > desires as an identifiable TODO category. There are a couple of threads > > in the pghackers archives over the last year or so that discuss the > > different things we want to do, though. (Improving the error-reporting > > framework and fixing the COPY protocol are a couple of biggies I can > > recall offhand.) > > Listing protocol changes seemed too low-level for the TODO list, but I > have kept the email messages. Today I updated the TODO list and added a > section for them. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Tom Lane wrote: > Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sounds good to me. Is it on the todo-list? (Couldn't see it there). > > Probably not; Bruce for some reason has resisted listing protocol change > desires as an identifiable TODO category. There are a couple of threads > in the pghackers archives over the last year or so that discuss the > different things we want to do, though. (Improving the error-reporting > framework and fixing the COPY protocol are a couple of biggies I can > recall offhand.) Listing protocol changes seemed too low-level for the TODO list, but I have kept the email messages. Today I updated the TODO list and added a section for them. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
(no followup to [EMAIL PROTECTED], getting a little OT there) (B (BOn Tuesday 10 December 2002 16:54, Lee Kindness wrote: (B> Ian Barwick writes: (B> > Something along the lines of (B> > char *PQversion(const PGconn *conn) ? (B> (B> Probably: (B> (B> int PQversion(const PGconn *conn) (B> (B> would be better, and easier to parse? For example the value returned (B> for 7.3.1 would be 7003001; for 7.4 7004000; for 101.10.2 (B> 101010002. This allows simple numerical tests... (B (BSounds logical - I was evidently thinking in Perl ;-). (B (BFor reference pg_dump currently parses the SELECT version() string (Binto an integer thus: (B (B7.2 70200 (B7.2.1 70201 (B7.3devel70300 (B7.3rc1 70300 (B7.3.1 70301 (B7.3.99 70399 (B7.399.399 110299 (B101.10.2 1011002 (B (B(and just for fun: (B"11i Enterprise Edition with Bells and Whistles " (Breturns -1 ;-) (B (Bwhich works with minor release numbers of 99 (Band below. (B (BIan Barwick ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (B (B (B---(end of broadcast)--- (BTIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Ian Barwick writes: > On Tuesday 10 December 2002 00:47, Tom Lane wrote: > > In the next protocol version update (hopefully 7.4) I would like to see > > the basic version string (eg, "7.3.1" or "7.4devel") delivered to the > > client automatically during connection startup and then available from a > > libpq inquiry function. This would eliminate the need to call version() > > explicitly and to know that you must skip "PostgreSQL " in its output. > Something along the lines of > char *PQversion(const PGconn *conn) ? Probably: int PQversion(const PGconn *conn) would be better, and easier to parse? For example the value returned for 7.3.1 would be 7003001; for 7.4 7004000; for 101.10.2 101010002. This allows simple numerical tests... Lee. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sounds good to me. Is it on the todo-list? (Couldn't see it there). Probably not; Bruce for some reason has resisted listing protocol change desires as an identifiable TODO category. There are a couple of threads in the pghackers archives over the last year or so that discuss the different things we want to do, though. (Improving the error-reporting framework and fixing the COPY protocol are a couple of biggies I can recall offhand.) regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
(B(crossposting to hackers) (B (BOn Tuesday 10 December 2002 00:47, Tom Lane wrote: (B> In the next protocol version update (hopefully 7.4) I would like to see (B> the basic version string (eg, "7.3.1" or "7.4devel") delivered to the (B> client automatically during connection startup and then available from a (B> libpq inquiry function. This would eliminate the need to call version() (B> explicitly and to know that you must skip "PostgreSQL " in its output. (B (BSomething along the lines of (B char *PQversion(const PGconn *conn) ? (B (B> However, it will only help for clients/libraries that are willing to (B> deal exclusively with 7.4-or-newer backends, so it will take a few (B> releases to become really useful. (B (BSounds good to me. Is it on the todo-list? (Couldn't see it there). (B (BIan Barwick ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (B (B (B---(end of broadcast)--- (BTIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? (B (Bhttp://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
