Melvin Davidson schrieb am 23.01.2016 um 16:27:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/interactive/brin-intro.html
>
> 62.1. Introduction
> ...
> "A block range is a group of pages that are physically adjacent in the table;
> for each block range, some summary info is stored by the index."
>
> Fro
On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Charles Clavadetscher
wrote:
> What is the point of having a check constraint that is not checked?
Well, it *is* checked going into the future; it's just not checked at the time
the constraint is added. Ultimately, you do want to fix the data, but this
makes it
Hello
Althought both options are technically correct, I guess that the first one is
the only reasonable one. What is the point of having a
check constraint that is not checked? If all fields in the check constraint
must not be null there must be a reason for it. Possibly
the "wrong" data is usel
I hate to say so folks, but I think Roxanne and Adrian and all those others
that said similar things are right.
We have created a sustained disruption in a mailing list that is supposed to be
about purely technical PostgreSQL topics.
It's bad for a Coc to start off by everyone involved in cont
On Jan 24, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> 2. Use the NOT VALID option on ALTER TABLE ... ADD constraint, which allows
> the addition of a constraint without actually checking its validity.
And note that you might miss some potential planner optimizations this way, as
the planner
On Jan 24, 2016, at 8:12 PM, "drum.lu...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> How can I solve the problem? How can I get the command successfully be done?
Two options:
1. Fix the data.
2. Use the NOT VALID option on ALTER TABLE ... ADD constraint, which allows the
addition of a constraint without actually c
- Original Message -
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
> Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > Motion:
Hi all, need some help to add a constraint to an existing table (with data).
I'm running the command:
*Query:*
ALTER TABLE integrations.accounts DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS
cc_at_least_one_setting_needed,
ADD CONSTRAINT cc_at_least_one_setting_needed CHECK
(("qb_settings" IS NOT NULL) or
("x
Hello:
I have a big table with that is always appended with new data with a unique
sequence id (always incremented, or timestamp as unique index) each row.
I'd like to sample, say 100 rows out of say 1000 rows evently across all
the rows,
so that it would return rows of1, 101, 201, 301you g
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote:
>
>> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> Motion:
>
> The Coc discussion be moved to its
I have a warehousing case where data is bucketed by a key of an hourly
timestamp and 3 other columns. In addition there are 32 numeric columns.
The tables are partitioned on regular date ranges, and aggregated to the
lowest resolution usable.
The principal use case is to select over a range of
On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> so what would be a better way of developing this ?
This needs to come from -core, and then commented on as a complete policy, not
just CoC with maybe enforcement provisions later. Not because we're a
dictatorship, but if they are going to be
On 1/24/2016 5:52 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing. Of all the ways to
develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one
right now.
so what would be a better way of developing this ?
--
john r pierce, recyclin
On 01/24/2016 02:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here:
I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups
that want to push Western values on the rest of the world. I want to
see us come together and build one heck
On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Motion:
The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can
argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to de
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story
> style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves it. This is
> the largest feature the community has tried to design and implement. It is
> goin
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our
> jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business.
Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted as giving
shelter to abus
On 01/24/2016 05:20 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up
with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then
also define how they want implem
On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community
to deal with it.
2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help.
I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not
making it a l
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up
> with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then
> also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just
>
On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote:
I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.
I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge
how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting me
On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a
known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they
have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe
they would e
On 01/24/2016 02:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution
mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 17:27 -0500, Dane Foster wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern ment.com> wrote:
> > Adrian,
> > I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list.
> > The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be.
> > Just sit on the sidelines until the s
On 1/24/2016 2:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this
point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That
is the detail in which the devils will live.
Oh, save us from that.my original
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David E. Wheeler
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers
> wrote:
>
> >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
> >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
> >> support). We expect communica
2016-01-24 22:10 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver :
> Thought long and hard about this and while it is possible, it is not
> something I feel I should have to do. This conversation in its many threads
> has spun out of control and into areas that a) out of the scope of this
> list b) into conduct that woul
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote:
> I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked.
I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge
how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism.
I'd respectfully suggest that we table th
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution
> mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to?
> How does that person or entity resolve things? What confidentiality promises
>
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example:
o_O
> Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community.
>
> How do we deal with that?
>
> 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails
> community to d
On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution
mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to?
How does that person or entity reso
On 01/24/2016 02:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a
speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be
off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization?
If they make hatefu
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern <
bret_st...@machinemanagement.com> wrote:
> Adrian,
> I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list.
> The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be.
> Just sit on the sidelines until the show is
> over.
> Look forward to the ne
On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
>> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this
>> need. The community is neith
Joshua for the record I am not upset about raising this issue.
However I am concerned that it is becoming counter-productive.
It is taking too much time away from the real work and aim of this forum.
Otherwise it is necessary.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:j...@
Geoff and all,
I only seconded Dave's point which has been raised several times.
Here what he had written
Original point
> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.
Dave wrote
>This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just
>expressing an opposing view!”).
Adrian,I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list.The CoC
dictators will flame out, then where will we be.Just sit on the sidelines until
the show isover.Look forward to the next awesome year.My CoC: "keep it
technical"
Fore
Original message
From: Adrian Klaver
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Scott Mead wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 19:54, AI Rumman wrote:
>
> But, will it not create transaction wraparound for those table?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Melvin Davidson
> wrote:
>
>>
>> ALTER TABLE your_schema.your_table SET (auto
On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example
is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian
conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a
lot of this community doesn't care, won't
On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>> wrote: On
> 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>
> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no p
On 01/23/2016 03:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Adrian Klaver wrote:
Motion:
The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can
argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> The tl;dr; here is:
>
> If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k..
> If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k..
/me likes.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
>>
>> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
>> political question aside from its usage in the public sector
Josh,
Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands:
> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
Change the word "must" to "try to".
You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese peopl
Francisco Olarte writes:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 PM, wrote:
>> I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw
>> me a bit.
> Notepad ++ is, AFAIK, an editor, it SHOULD (within reason) let you
> write any text.
> The double quote is needed due to the quoting
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 PM, wrote:
> I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw
> me a bit.
Notepad ++ is, AFAIK, an editor, it SHOULD (within reason) let you
write any text.
The double quote is needed due to the quoting rules of the language.
You want the
Thanks David...so it's looking at each character, storing it in /1, then
comparing the "next" character with what is in /1.
I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw
me a bit.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:32 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 12:44, Go
On 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.
And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
On 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sarcasm is not productive.
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p
The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Cove
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to
> be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread.
And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and
reasoned points were ignored because they simp
On 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when
> -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position
> was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't
> care, won't ca
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Sarcasm is not productive.
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the
first paragraph, but not the second :p
The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant
(other than my personal feeling that Postgr
On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
If I could make one proposal for an additional clause:
* PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any
political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we
support). We expect communication in community fora to res
On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that
you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come
about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to
pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and
On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made
outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe
harbor to abusers.
The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let
whatever sp
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw wrote:
> On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
> >
> >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:
> pgsql-gener
On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add
> these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
>
>> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
>> [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
>>
I don't agree that this should be about anything more than protecting the
commons.
I also do not want to see the PostgreSQL community pushed into taking
stands on political causes because of people arguing about what viewpoints
are more privileged than others.
I think the CoC is good as it stands
On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
wrote:
> I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
>
> Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the
contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do w
I do agree with Dave on the points he has made.
Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC?
Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler
Sent: 24 January 2016 00:0
Dear All,
There has been much development based on many good comments and broader
participation on this thread that I have seen in the past which no doubt is the
envy of many other companies and open source communities.
However we seem to have moved away from the core goal of this thread whi
> On 24 Jan 2016, at 1:48, Regina Obe wrote:
> So the point is stop assuming who has experience and who doesn't simply by
> how people look.
+1
To expand on that: Don't let your prejudices get the better of you. Assuming
that other people are prejudiced about you is just another prejudice.
Th
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-01-23 15:31:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you
> > don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round
> > file.
>
> It'd help if there w
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake
>> wrote:
>>
>> This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful,
>>> productive, and collaborative place for any person w
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Geoff Winkless
wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> > Geoff Winkless wrote:
> >> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
> >> to the same level of protection.
> >
> > The
On 24 January 2016 at 00:06, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that
>> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The
>> individual started the conversation
On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 +
> Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled
>> to the same level of protection.
>
> The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some
> elabora
Sorry for top posting...
I like what you said at the end Shouldn't the simple rule of thumb be that
the discussion on the mailing list should be project related and all personal
references should be avoided instead of finding the balancing equation..
Someone mentioned earlier that signatu
68 matches
Mail list logo
