Re: [HACKERS] Database Internals Presentation

2001-02-28 Thread Denis Perchine
On Wednesday 28 February 2001 04:04, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have completed a database internals presentation. The PDF is at: http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/internals.pdf I am interested in any comments. I need to add text to it. FYI, you will find a system catalog chart in

Re: [HACKERS] ExecOpenScanR: failed to open relation

2001-02-28 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: Pam Withnall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in my java code I am creating 3 temporary tables, then calling a stored procedure which calls another stored procedure. then I drop the temporary tables. the first time around , eveything is OK , then when repeating the action I

[HACKERS] Re: mmap for zeroing WAL log

2001-02-28 Thread Matthew Kirkwood
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote: Matthew Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had assumed that the overhead would come from synchronous metadata incurring writes of at least the inode, block bitmap and probably an indirect block for each syscall. No Unix that I've ever heard of

Re: [HACKERS] stuck spinlock

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Schindler
Tom Lane wrote: Judging from the line number, this is in CreateCheckPoint. I'm betting that your platform (Solaris 2.7, you said?) has the same odd behavior that I discovered a couple days ago on HPUX: a select with a delay of tv_sec = 0, tv_usec = 100 doesn't delay 1 second like a

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for reducing planning time

2001-02-28 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom, do you have a plan to make a back patch for 7.0.3? No, I don't. No time for it now. I got a bug report from a user with a script to reproduce the problem. Seems the backend consumes infinite memory. Not infinite, surely ;-) ... but

Re: [HACKERS] stuck spinlock

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
Interesting numbers --- thanks for sending them along. Looks like I was mistaken to think that most platforms would allow tv_usec = 1 sec. Ah well, another day, another bug... regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] regression.out and regression.diff

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: I have no idea why Peter thinks 'make installcheck' should be less reliable than 'make check'. If installcheck fails for you, let's see that too. In the test run that Vince had posted to his web tool, the server process apparently didn't have write permission to the source

[HACKERS] Re: int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Olivier PRENANT
Sorry to follow-up on my own post; int8 test passes if open-ssl is not used. weird!! Regards, On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Olivier PRENANT wrote: Hi, Testing beta5 on unixware7 gives an error on int8 test while beta4 (I've just retested it) works ok regressions.diff follows: Also, compiling

Re: [HACKERS] Re: int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
Olivier PRENANT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry to follow-up on my own post; int8 test passes if open-ssl is not used. That's difficult to believe, because int8.c doesn't include anything that even knows SSL exists. Larry, can you confirm this behavior? regards, tom

RE: [HACKERS] Re: int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Larry Rosenman
Working on it. Give me a couple of hours. LER -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Larry Rosenman Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: int8 beta5 broken? Olivier PRENANT [EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] Re: int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Larry Rosenman
* Larry Rosenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010228 11:13]: Working on it. Give me a couple of hours. Olivier, How did you build OpenSSL? I get the following (I only have a static lib): cc -O -K inline -K PIC -I. -I../../../src/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/ssl/include

[HACKERS] Doesn't WAL fail at BLCKSZ = 32k?

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
I've been looking at the WAL code and trying to figure out what the "backup block" mechanism is for. It appears that that can attach up to two disk pages of info to a WAL log record. If there are any cases where more than one page is really attached to a record, then WAL will crash and burn

[HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Lockhart writes: The "official" version of the story is that it takes ~10-20 hours for me to work through the docs to format them for hardcopy with ApplixWare, Okay, I just kept hearing the "give Thomas 2 weeks for the docs" theme... primarily because something in the jade RTF

Re: [HACKERS] strange error

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ERROR: newses_seq.nextval: bad magic () Hmm, something bad has happened to your sequence object. It would be interesting to try to figure out what caused that, but if you're in a hurry, try dropping and recreating that sequence.

[GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] BLCKSZ 0?

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
"Dominic J. Eidson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DEBUG: Data Base System is starting up at Tue Feb 27 22:31:51 2001 FATAL 2: database was initialized with BLCKSZ 0, but the backend was compiled with BLCKSZ 8192. looks like you need to initdb. So I tried to start up the DB using the

Re: [HACKERS] BLCKSZ 0?

2001-02-28 Thread Dominic J. Eidson
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote: "Dominic J. Eidson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: root@blue:/usr/local/pgsql# su postgres -c "bin/postmaster -D /usr/local/pgsql/data " DEBUG: Data Base System is starting up at Tue Feb 27 22:31:51 2001 FATAL 2: database was initialized with BLCKSZ

[HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the odd-numbered bytes and one on just the even-numbered bytes of the datastream. That's hardly any stronger than a single 32-bit CRC; it's certainly not what

Re: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Nathan Myers
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the odd-numbered bytes and one on just the even-numbered bytes of the datastream. That's hardly

[HACKERS] Re: Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-28 Thread Thomas Lockhart
primarily because something in the jade RTF tickles a bug in the page formatting with Applix. (This round, I'll resort even to M$Word to avoid that time sink, since I just don't have the time.) Is that the same MS Word that generates Postscript files as a big bitmap? I suppose by the time

Re: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
I will just add a TODO item and we can hit it for 7.2. On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the odd-numbered bytes and one on

Re: [ODBC] Re: [HACKERS] Release in 2 weeks ...

2001-02-28 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Patrick Welche wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:53:31AM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: ... I think I've fixed this bug at least for MS-Access. You could get the latest win32 driver from ftp://ftp.greatbridge.org/pub/pgadmin/stable/psqlodbc.zip . Please try it. How can I just install

Re: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Correct CRC WAL code to be normal CRC32 algorithm On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the

[HACKERS] int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Olivier PRENANT
Hi, Testing beta5 on unixware7 gives an error on int8 test while beta4 (I've just retested it) works ok regressions.diff follows: Also, compiling with openssl give a compile error on src/backend/libpq/crypt.c; this error CAN be avoided by commenting out the definition of des_encrypt in

Re: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Nathan Myers
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:17:19PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the odd-numbered bytes

Re: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Correct CRC WAL code to be normal CRC32 algorithm Um, how about * Correct CRC WAL code to be a real CRC64 algorithm instead? Done. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610)

Re: [HACKERS] SunOS4

2001-02-28 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have committed massive changes for SunOS4 port. Tested on: SunOS 4.1.4 Vine Linux 2.1 (variant of RedHat Linux 6.2J) FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE Please let me know if I have broken something. Everything still builds and passes regression on HPUX, but

Re: [HACKERS] int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Olivier PRENANT writes: Testing beta5 on unixware7 gives an error on int8 test while beta4 (I've just retested it) works ok regressions.diff follows: This doesn't happen to be caused by the compiler bug described in doc/FAQ_SCO? Anyway, even after that, there are linking errors on

[BUGS] Re: [HACKERS] int8 beta5 broken?

2001-02-28 Thread Tom Lane
Olivier PRENANT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Testing beta5 on unixware7 gives an error on int8 test while beta4 (I've just retested it) works ok. That's odd. int8.c hasn't changed since beta3 (except in the float-to-int8 routine, which isn't involved here). Is there any difference in the

AW: [HACKERS] Uh, this is *not* a 64-bit CRC ...

2001-02-28 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
I just took a close look at the COMP_CRC64 macro in xlog.c. This isn't a 64-bit CRC. It's two independent 32-bit CRCs, one done on just the odd-numbered bytes and one on just the even-numbered bytes of the datastream. That's hardly any stronger than a single 32-bit CRC; it's certainly

[ADMIN] Still some problems importing with COPY

2001-02-28 Thread Jaume Teixi
Hi, I want to import from a .txt file, I usually use: COPY noticies FROM '/home/teixi/_6tm_/_elbulli/premsai.txt' USING DELIMITERS '|' \g a) If table 'noticies' has a date row and is null on data file it claims: Unable to import date filed '' so how to admit date fields null? b) When