[HACKERS] Re: Datetime regression tests are all failing

2001-01-17 Thread Thomas Lockhart
Fixes committed. - Thomas Fix up "Postgres-style" time interval representation when fields have mixed-signs. Previous effort left way too many minus signs, and was at least as broken as the one before that :( Clean up "ISO-style" time interval representation to omit zero f

[HACKERS] GET DIAGNOSTICS SELECT PROCESSED INTO

2001-01-17 Thread Dan Langille
Does anyone know if this feature exists? If so, what version or where can a patch be obtained? Thanks --- Forwarded message follows --- Date sent: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:44:46 +0100 From: "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMA

[HACKERS] Re: Datetime regression tests are all failing

2001-01-17 Thread Thomas Lockhart
Tom Lane wrote: > > Your last commit seems to have broken timestamp, interval, reltime, > and horology regress tests on HPUX. Minus signs are showing up in > a lot of unexpected-looking places... > Is this now the intended behavior? Uh, no. Believe it or not, I had just noticed this myself, and

[HACKERS] Datetime regression tests are all failing

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
Your last commit seems to have broken timestamp, interval, reltime, and horology regress tests on HPUX. Minus signs are showing up in a lot of unexpected-looking places, eg *** ./expected/timestamp.outSat Nov 25 11:05:59 2000 --- ./results/timestamp.out Thu Jan 18 01:28:28 2001 *

Re: [HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread Alex Pilosov
To answer your question, wouldn't numeric(30,0) be the correct? -alex On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > hrrmm ... ignore this ... I'm suspecting that what I did was copied in > sum() data from an old table that had bytes declared as int4, without > casting it to int8 before stor

Re: [HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > if anyone is interested, here is one days worth of http traffic for the > > main PostgreSQL.Org server ... this doesn't include the traffic that the > > mirror sites absorb: > > > 1160643846 / ( 1024 * 1024 * 1024 ) > > 1.08gig

Re: [HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread Lamar Owen
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > if anyone is interested, here is one days worth of http traffic for the > main PostgreSQL.Org server ... this doesn't include the traffic that the > mirror sites absorb: > 1160643846 / ( 1024 * 1024 * 1024 ) > 1.08gig Not a bad day. I've seen 100MB per day out of my

Re: [HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm logging traffic to a database, so that I can do analysis on usage and > whatnot, and I need something bigger then int8 :( Those "maxbytes" values shure look like they're only int4. How are you calculating 'em, exactly?

Re: [HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread The Hermit Hacker
hrrmm ... ignore this ... I'm suspecting that what I did was copied in sum() data from an old table that had bytes declared as int4, without casting it to int8 before storing it to the new table ... if anyone is interested, here is one days worth of http traffic for the main PostgreSQL.Org serve

[HACKERS] Nothing larger then int8?

2001-01-17 Thread The Hermit Hacker
I'm logging traffic to a database, so that I can do analysis on usage and whatnot, and I need something bigger then int8 :( /tmp/psql.edit.70.79087: 6 lines, 222 characters. ip | maxbytes | port |runtime ---+-+--+ 216.12

Re: [HACKERS] $PGDATA/base/???

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I object. The code displays oids and tablenames or relnames. Oid is just > the initial, default filename for tables, and may change to something other > than the oid. Currently, the reindex code is the only place that could change > the relfilenode

Re: [HACKERS] copy from stdin; bug?

2001-01-17 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
FYI, if you would like to build 7.1 with the UTF-8 <--> other encodings capability, you need to configure --enable-multibyte AND --enable-unicode-conversion, and that would add a 1MB conversion table linked to the backend. -- Tatsuo Ishii > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:40:58AM +0100, Rehak Tamas wr

[HACKERS] Getting configure to notice link-time vs run-time failures

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > configure:4207: checking for inflate in -lz > configure:4226: gcc -o conftest conftest.c -lz -lgen -lnsl -lsocket -ldl -lm >-lreadline -ltermcap -lcurses 1>&5 > configure:4660: checking for crypt.h > This doesn't tell me much. But I modified configure to exit r

Re: [HACKERS] $PGDATA/base/???

2001-01-17 Thread bpalmer
> I object. The code displays oids and tablenames or relnames. Oid is just > the initial, default filename for tables, and may change to something other > than the oid. Currently, the reindex code is the only place that could change > the relfilenode without changing the oid, but I think there may

[HACKERS] Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

2001-01-17 Thread Thomas Swan
>I'll take care of fixing what I broke, but does anyone have suggestions >for good names for the two concepts? The best I could come up with >offhand is BEGIN/END_CRIT_SECTION and BEGIN/END_SUPER_CRIT_SECTION, >but I'm not pleased with that... Ideas? Let CRITICAL be critical. If the other sect

Re: [HACKERS] $PGDATA/base/???

2001-01-17 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 05:49:36PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, this looks great, and it worked the first time too. I will commit > if no one makes objects. > I object. The code displays oids and tablenames or relnames. Oid is just the initial, default filename for tables, and may change

Re: [HACKERS] $PGDATA/base/???

2001-01-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Wow, this looks great, and it worked the first time too. I will commit if no one makes objects. > > > > Is there a way to relate this to the names of the databases? Why the > > > > change? Or am I missing something key here.. > > > > > > See the thread on the renaming in the archives. In sho

[HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot and PostgreSQL

2001-01-17 Thread Robert B. Easter
On Wednesday 17 January 2001 02:53, Alessio Bragadini wrote: > Hunter Hillegas wrote: > > I don't think they're moving the actual Slashdot site to PostgreSQL... > > So do I. > > > I think other sites based on Slashcode wanted to be able to use > > PostgreSQL though... > > That's what I will do as

[HACKERS] Cursors in PL/pgSQL

2001-01-17 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Cursors are not supported in PL/pgSQL. I don't see a TODO item to fix this. Fixing the syntax to support cursors is easy. The problem then is that PL/pgSQL uses SPI, and SPI does not support cursors. In spi.c there is a bit of code for cursor support, with the comment /* Don't work cur

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs

2001-01-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > > what are the cost estimates when you run explain with seqscan disabled ? > > do => SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN TO OFF; > > see: > > >(http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/admin/runtime-config.htm#RUNTIME-CONFIG-OPTIMIZER) > > Here's the result from EXPLAIN:

Re: [HACKERS] copy from stdin; bug?

2001-01-17 Thread Nathan Myers
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:40:58AM +0100, Rehak Tamas wrote: > > > 3) upgrade to 7.1 that has the capability to do an automatic > >conversion between UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1. > > i like to use deb packages and to use 7.1 i would have to upgrade > to woody (or even sid)... Not true. There are D

Re: [HACKERS] Mysterious 7.0.3 error

2001-01-17 Thread Camm Maguire
Greetings, and thanks for your reply! Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Greetings! We have a script updating our database with thousands of > > entries on a daily basis. To speed up processing, we drop a > > consistency check trigger before the

[HACKERS] Storing a binary file with Visual Basic and ADO

2001-01-17 Thread Haritz Elosegi
I am trying to store a binary file with Visual Basic 6.0 and ADO and I use the oid data type. The same code with Oracle and the clob type works but with PostgreSQL I receive an error saying "Multiple Step Operation generated errors. Check each status value.". I am using the ODBC drivers and I a

RE: [HACKERS] DeadLockCheck is buggy

2001-01-17 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> > I have been studying DeadLockCheck for most of a day now, > > and I doubt that this is the only bug lurking in it. > > I think that we really ought to throw it away and start > > over, because it doesn't look to me at all like a standard > > deadlock-detection algorithm. The standard way of

Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Because I think turning an elog(ERROR) into a system-wide crash is >> not a good idea ;-). If you are correct that this behavior >> is necessary for WAL-related critical sections, then indeed we need >> two kinds of critical sections, one that just

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs

2001-01-17 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
Dear Hannu, > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > Dear Hannu, > > > > > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > > > > > explain select count(*) from comparisons_4 where code = 80003; > > > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > > > > > > > Aggregate (cost=15659.29..15659.29 rows=1 width=0) > > > > ->

RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

2001-01-17 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> Because I think turning an elog(ERROR) into a system-wide crash is > not a good idea ;-). If you are correct that this behavior > is necessary for WAL-related critical sections, then indeed we need > two kinds of critical sections, one that just holds off cancel/die > response and one that tur

Re: [HACKERS] copy from stdin; bug?

2001-01-17 Thread Rehak Tamas
Re On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > The encoding of your databases are all UNICODE. So you need to input > data as UTF-8 in this case. I guess you are trying to input ISO-8859-1 > encoded data that is the source of the problem. Here are possible > solutions: > 1) input data as UTF-8 :)

Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's very easy to don't notice ERROR - it's just transaction > abort and transaction abort is normal thing, - but errors inside > critical sections are *unexpected* things which mean that something > totally wrong in code. Okay. That means we do nee

RE: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

2001-01-17 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 16 January 2001 16:50 > To: Dave Page > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch > > > As I remember, the problem is that this makes us match the > ODBC v2 spec, > but then we

Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems onAI X

2001-01-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Zeugswetter Andreas SB writes: > > I do not have the original thread where Andreas describes the behavior > > of mktime() on his machine. Andreas, can you suggest a simple configure > > test to be used? > > #include > int main() > { > struct tm tt, *tm=&tt; > int i = -5000; > tm

Re: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > > The correct thing to do instead of the #if defined (_AIX) would be to use > > > something like #ifdef NO_NEGATIVE_MKTIME and set that with a configure. > > ...Andreas, can you suggest a simple configure > > test to be used? > #include > int main() > { > struct tm tt, *tm=&tt; > int

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs

2001-01-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > Dear Hannu, > > > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > > > explain select count(*) from comparisons_4 where code = 80003; > > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > > > > > Aggregate (cost=15659.29..15659.29 rows=1 width=0) > > > -> Seq Scan on comparisons_4 (cost=0.

AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > The correct thing to do instead of the #if defined (_AIX) would be to use > > something like #ifdef NO_NEGATIVE_MKTIME and set that with a configure. > > Thomas, are you volunteering ? > > Actually, I can volunteer to be supportive of your efforts ;) I'm > traveling at the moment, and don't

Re: [HACKERS] Mysterious 7.0.3 error

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Greetings! We have a script updating our database with thousands of > entries on a daily basis. To speed up processing, we drop a > consistency check trigger before the update and recreate it > afterwards. Occasionally, we get the following, even thoug

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs

2001-01-17 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
Dear Hannu, > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > > > explain select count(*) from comparisons_4 where code = 80003; > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > > > Aggregate (cost=15659.29..15659.29 rows=1 width=0) > > -> Seq Scan on comparisons_4 (cost=0.00..15640.81 rows=7391 width=0) > > > > EXPLAIN

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs 6.5.3

2001-01-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote: > > explain select count(*) from comparisons_4 where code = 80003; > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > Aggregate (cost=15659.29..15659.29 rows=1 width=0) > -> Seq Scan on comparisons_4 (cost=0.00..15640.81 rows=7391 width=0) > > EXPLAIN What is the type of field "code

Re: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> The correct thing to do instead of the #if defined (_AIX) would be to use > something like #ifdef NO_NEGATIVE_MKTIME and set that with a configure. > Thomas, are you volunteering ? Actually, I can volunteer to be supportive of your efforts ;) I'm traveling at the moment, and don't have the orig

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs 6.5.3

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Lane
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > More importantly, PostgreSQL 6.5.3 works very, very well without > VACUUM'ing. >> >> 6.5 effectively assumes that "foo = constant" will select exactly one >> row, if it has no statistics to prove otherwise. > I thought we had agreed upon a de

[HACKERS] Mysterious 7.0.3 error

2001-01-17 Thread Camm Maguire
Greetings! We have a script updating our database with thousands of entries on a daily basis. To speed up processing, we drop a consistency check trigger before the update and recreate it afterwards. Occasionally, we get the following, even though the database has no other live connections, an

Re: [HACKERS] renaming indices?

2001-01-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
Alex Pilosov wrote: > > 3) index namespace should be constricted to the table on which it is > indexed, since no commands to my knowledge manipulate the index without > also specifying the table. How about DROP INDEX ... ? I'm not sure if this is standard SQL, maybe we should have ALTER TABLE

[HACKERS] SIGNATURE for int sets (need advise)

2001-01-17 Thread Oleg Bartunov
Hi, after getting GiST works we're trying to use RD-Tree in our fulltext search application. We have universe of lexems (words in dictionaries) which is rather large, so we need some compression to effectively use RD-Tree. When we did index support for int arrays we compressed set by range sets b

AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > > > > Yes, the annoyance is, that localtime works for dates before 1970 > > > > > but mktime doesn't. Best would probably be to assume no DST before > > > > > 1970 on AIX and IRIX. > > > > > > > > That seems like a reasonable answer to me, especially since we have > > > > other platforms tha

AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > > > Yes, the annoyance is, that localtime works for dates before 1970 > > > > but mktime doesn't. Best would probably be to assume no DST before > > > > 1970 on AIX and IRIX. > > > > > > That seems like a reasonable answer to me, especially since we have > > > other platforms that behave tha

AW: [HACKERS] Re: Performance degradation in PostgreSQL 7.1beta3 vs 6.5.3

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > More importantly, PostgreSQL 6.5.3 works very, very well without > > VACUUM'ing. > > 6.5 effectively assumes that "foo = constant" will select exactly one > row, if it has no statistics to prove otherwise. I thought we had agreed upon a default that would still use the index in the above ca

AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > > Yes, the annoyance is, that localtime works for dates before 1970 > > > but mktime doesn't. Best would probably be to assume no DST before > > > 1970 on AIX and IRIX. > > > > That seems like a reasonable answer to me, especially since we have > > other platforms that behave that way. How