On 25-Mar-04, at 12:25 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
It's definitely not a magic tool that makes bad code good and
conflicting patches happy. It solves other problems, though.
I don't think anything mentioned in this thread so far would be an
enormous improvement over what we have now. However, I
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
(6) possible inclusion in postgresql?
- among other contributions? what about contrib/advisor?
- added to template1 on default installation?
maybe not for a first release? or yes? it is easier to communicate
about
I think we're going to want a gborg
Andrew Sullivan a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the
Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead
out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable
background
Dustin Sallings wrote:
On Mar 24, 2004, at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
Not here. You want me to trust some bit of code (with absolutely zero
understanding of the source text it's hacking on) to figure out how to
resolve conflicting patches? That sounds like a recipe for big-time
unhappiness.
The
Neil Conway said:
I don't think anything mentioned in this thread so far would be an
enormous improvement over what we have now. However, I am still open to
trying Arch or SVN: in the long run, I think the productivity gain
from even an incremental improvement in the development toolset is
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:05:05AM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
The difference here is that instead of submitting a patch for review,
which is then frozen, the branch owner can (and that means some will, no
matter what your intentions are) keep modifying the branch during the
review process,
I got several suggestions to include ordering operator for tsvector to aim
grouping, union and except etc.
I wrote silly comparing function (byte to byte with some optimizations), but I
wondered that for using operator in order clause its need to declate B-tree
opclass for type:
regression=#
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 12:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This thread seems to have died without a conclusion. AFAICS, we have 5
options:
. the apache program - see below
pro: robust, portable, extremely well tested, no effort to import
con: possible license
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
On this page:
http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php
Is there any chance we could get our email addresses obfuscated to
prevent spam?
Just an FYI, but just by posting, you do realize that your email address
is propogated to every Usenet
Teodor Sigaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I must declare b-tree opclass for tsvector. Why?
My supposition is to guarantee that operator is really 'less-than'
one. Is it?
Exactly. We used to assume that any operator named '' would be
suitable for sorting, but it's a lot safer to assume that
Fabien, Christopher:
It would be nice for pgAdmin PhpPgAdmin to have GUI interfaces to
pg_advisor, though.
Also, I would argue for this to be a GBorg/pgFoundry project rather than part
of the core. It's the sort of thing that could easily be database-version
agnostic, and that SQL jockeys
Also, if they have a partial index on the FK, it's not good enough! In
CVS, IS NOT NULL partial indexes should be used, but in general all
others still won't...
Whoa, there, partner! Keep in mind that there are *often* reasons for using
a partial index on an FK, or even no index at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
On this page:
http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php
Is there any chance we could get our email addresses obfuscated to
prevent spam?
Ok, done.
Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
Dustin Sallings wrote:
You can use distributed revision control systems as centralized
systems, but not vice-versa.
Not true, the other way around exists, that is what svk does.
As far as understanding the simplicity of arch (if you wanted to
understand the problems it solves and
I haven't seen your patch yet, but the proposal looks good to me.
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Let the currently unused fourth state in pg_clog indicate a
committed subtransaction. In pg_clog there are two bits per
transaction, commit and abort, with the following
On Mar 25, 2004, at 5:05, Jan Wieck wrote:
The difference here is that instead of submitting a patch for review,
which is then frozen, the branch owner can (and that means some will,
no matter what your intentions are) keep modifying the branch during
the review process, other than just
On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:21, Neil Conway wrote:
I think the lack of good Win32 support (unless rectified before the
release of 7.5) is a pretty major problem with Arch -- that alone
might be sufficient to prevent us from adopting it.
I don't do Windows, but my understanding is that tla is as well
On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:22, Magnus Naeslund(t) wrote:
You can use distributed revision control systems as centralized
systems, but not vice-versa.
Not true, the other way around exists, that is what svk does.
From its description, svk sounds like a completely different system:
``svk is a
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 11:31, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Also, if they have a partial index on the FK, it's not good enough! In
CVS, IS NOT NULL partial indexes should be used, but in general all
others still won't...
Whoa, there, partner! Keep in mind that there are *often* reasons for
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 04:48:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
Kind people,
I just tried to compile HEAD on fedora, and it broke as per
http://rafb.net/paste/results/W1942548.html
Any ideas what i buggered up?
Fixed. Not sure why I didn't see the problem
Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 12:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This thread seems to have died without a conclusion. AFAICS, we have 5
options:
. the apache program - see below
pro: robust, portable, extremely well tested, no effort to import
David Fetter wrote:
Kind people,
I just tried to compile HEAD on fedora, and it broke as per
http://rafb.net/paste/results/W1942548.html
Any ideas what i buggered up?
Fixed. Not sure why I didn't see the problem because I do compile with
SSL. Anyway, patch attached and applied.
--
On 25-Mar-04, at 3:03 PM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
I don't do Windows, but my understanding is that tla is as well
supported on Windows as postgres is.
David Wheeler disagrees:
A serious weakness of arch is that it doesn't work well on
Windows-based systems, and it's not clear if that will ever
quote who=Dustin Sallings
On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:21, Neil Conway wrote:
I think the lack of good Win32 support (unless rectified before the
release of 7.5) is a pretty major problem with Arch -- that alone
might be sufficient to prevent us from adopting it.
I don't do Windows, but my
I've had to work through this and have with a series of messy tables
and functions, but this screams a need for a more elegant solution.
I've dug through the archives and didn't come up with a satisfying long
term answer for virtual hosting beyond what I've already implemented.
Per cluster
Is there any chance we could get our email addresses obfuscated to
prevent spam?
Just an FYI, but just by posting, you do realize that your email address
is propogated to every Usenet server in the world, as well as several
search engines like Google and Gname, right?
I'm well aware of that, since
a c
0 0 transaction in progress, the owning backend knows whether
it is a main- or a sub-transaction, other backends don't care
1 0 aborted, nobody cares whether main- or sub-transaction
0 1 committed main-transaction or - with shortcut 2 - a sub-
On 25-Mar-04, at 8:18 PM, Sean Chittenden wrote:
I haven't read much in the last few months, but archives from 2002
suggested there wasn't much on the table in terms of making this
happen beyond adding a function that runs as a DBA to create users
(which I've done).
Well, the db_user_namespace
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Is there any chance we could get our email addresses obfuscated to
prevent spam?
Just an FYI, but just by posting, you do realize that your email address
is propogated to every Usenet server in the world, as well as several
search
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the feasibility of augmenting the system catalogs so that
something similar to the following is possible:
CREATE VIEW pg_catalog.pg_shadow AS
SELECT usename, usesysid, usecreatedb, usesuper,
usecatupd, passwd, valuntil,
What's the feasibility of augmenting the system catalogs so that
something similar to the following is possible:
CREATE VIEW pg_catalog.pg_shadow AS
SELECT usename, usesysid, usecreatedb, usesuper,
usecatupd, passwd, valuntil, useconfig
FROM
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Come to think of it, the same risk of conflict applies for user
*names*, and we can't easily make an end-run around that.
That's why I used UNION ALL in my example. Reserved usernames that are
in the cluster should be just as valid as usernames
Hello,
I was looking at putting the code for this in copy.c
CopyReadLineFunction.
If I do a printf at point A it compiles, installs, runs, doesn't display
any data after running initdb and returns a result when a COPY FROM is
executed in psql.
If I do a printf at point B it compiles, installs,
You can't think that allowing the same name to appear
globally and locally is a good idea.
Actually, I do think it is a good idea.
If I say GRANT TO foo, who am
I granting privileges to?
SET username_precedence TO LOCAL,GLOBAL; -- I like GLOBAL more than
CLUSTER
GRANT TO foo;
SET
I haven't read much in the last few months, but archives from 2002
suggested there wasn't much on the table in terms of making this
happen beyond adding a function that runs as a DBA to create users
(which I've done).
Well, the db_user_namespace GUC var has been implemented, but it is a
hack.
Dear Josh,
That's why advices are graded from info to error in the current
preliminary version.
Advices that may or may not be good depending on undecidable elements
have a lower grade. For instance, most attributes should be NOT NULL
from a statistical point of view, but it is
On Thursday 25 March 2004 21:59, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 11:31, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Are you planning on making some type of differentiation on advise that
is performance based rather than advise that is theory based? I see
both cases being hinted at and it seems like a
On 25 Mar, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could certainly do some testing if you want to see how DBT-2 does.
Just tell me what to do. ;)
Just do some runs that are identical except for the wal_sync_method
setting. Note that this should not have any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've made a test run that compares fsync and fdatasync: The performance
was identical:
- with fdatasync:
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290607/
- with fsync:
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290483/
I don't understand why. Mark - is there a battery backed write
Bruce,
We don't actually extend the WAL file during writes (preallocated), and
the access/modification timestamp is only in seconds, so I wonder of the
OS only updates the inode once a second. What else would change in the
inode more frequently than once a second?
What about really big
On 22 Mar, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could certainly do some testing if you want to see how DBT-2 does.
Just tell me what to do. ;)
Just do some runs that are identical except for the wal_sync_method
setting. Note that this should not have any impact on SELECT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compare file sync methods with one 8k write:
(o_dsync unavailable)
open o_sync, write 6.270724
write, fdatasync13.275225
write, fsync, 13.359847
Odd. Which filesystem, which kernel? It seems fdatasync is broken and
42 matches
Mail list logo