Hi Tom + *,
as I learned from severall posts this TODO splits into two distinct
TODO's
TODO1: Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema
objects with one command.
TODO2: Assign Permissions to schemas wich get automatically inherited
by objects created in the schema.
my question
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, what I've been visualizing is a list of "tentative duplicates" ---
> that is, you do the immediate unique check same as now, and if it passes
> (which hopefully is most of the time) then you're in the clear.
I don't see how you're in the clear. If sess
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:31:29PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> You could perhaps relax the uniqueness of the index during the
> transaction itself, and keep around some backend-local indication of
> which index entries it have been inserted. Then at transaction-commit
> you'd need to re-check the
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could perhaps relax the uniqueness of the index during the
> transaction itself, and keep around some backend-local indication of
> which index entries it have been inserted. Then at transaction-commit
> you'd need to re-check the inserted index entries
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 15:48 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Well presumably you would need a non-unique index created for query execution
> purposes. The unique index would be purely for enforcing the constraint.
Yuck.
You could perhaps relax the uniqueness of the index during the
transaction itself,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
...
What I would like to do is to pledge that we will put out an 8.0.X to
address any patent conflict experienced by our users. This would
include ARC or anything else. This way we don't focus just on ARC but
have a plan for any patent issues that appear, and we
Not really last minute, since wrap is tomorrow evening :)
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Neil Conway wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Current thought is to wrap these on Thursday for release Friday.
If you have any last-minute fixes for the back branches, now's the
time to get them i
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Current thought is to wrap these on Thursday for release Friday.
> If you have any last-minute fixes for the back branches, now's the
> time to get them in.
Sorry for the last minute commit, but I realized that I forgot to
backpatch the cursor b
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 12:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > and some regression tests for this behavior, but I'm happy to add that
> > myself if no one beats me to it.
>
> Please do.
Attached is a patch adding regression tests for this change -- I've
already applied it to HEAD.
-Neil
Index: sr
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:58:08AM -0800, noman naeem wrote:
Hi,
> Can some one explain me the under mentioned Data
> statement format including the insert
> parameterswhich is excessively used in
> pg_attribute.h ,pg_class.h,pg_proc.h and at many more
> places.
>
> DATA(insert ( 1255 p
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 12:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm ... not sure how hard that is.
> Would it work to record the sub XID of the deleting subtxn on CLOSE, and
> then consider whether to "really" do the deletion when the subtxn
> commits/aborts?
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 12:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state
> > modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it
> > wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE)
> > transactional as well
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:10:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think we have a lot of choices: we have to destroy (or at least
>> mark FAILED) all such cursors for the time being.
> I don't see a lot of difference between marking the portal FAILED
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:10:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think we have a lot of choices: we have to destroy (or at least
> mark FAILED) all such cursors for the time being.
I don't see a lot of difference between marking the portal FAILED and
destroying it (maybe I'm looking at the wro
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our conclusion at the time was that cursors created inside failed
> subtransactions should remain open. See the proposal and followup
> discussion starting here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-07/msg00700.php
> If we want to keep
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Off the top of my head it seems the way to go about doing this would be to
> > simply not insert the records in the index until commit time. This doesn't
> > actually sound so hard, is there any problem with this ap
Hello all,
As I got the next digest of pg hackers, I see that Jean-Gerard Pailloncy
has already advocated this idea. In no means I meant to copy :) as I am
on the digest mode. However, I think it's a good path to go anyway as two
people at least came up with it. Please do not disregard this idea.
seems to have fixed my arm problem that you (Tom) looking into the other day.
Jim
-- Original Message ---
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:50:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Off the top of my head it seems the way to go about doing this would be to
> simply not insert the records in the index until commit time. This doesn't
> actually sound so hard, is there any problem with this approach?
Yeah:
begin;
insert in
Hello all,
With this "paten issue" on hand, can't we come up with a "pluggable" API
and pluggable cache-replacement modules so that folks who care not for US
patents can simply download and load in the "PgARC" module, and those who
can't, just load the "NeilLRU", or a "BetterThanARCCacheReplacemen
George Essig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed that implementing deferrable unique constraints is on the
> TODO list. I don't think its been said yet, but currently you can
> implement a deferrable unique constraint by using a deferrable
> constraint trigger together with a procedural lang
Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It looks like teodor's latest commits to tseach2 has broken building on SPARC
> solaris 8.
HPUX, too. Patch committed.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if po
Speaking of bitmapped indexes for PostgreSQL ...
Someone is working on adding bitmapped indexes into PostgreSQL:
http://new.foo-baz.com/en/index.php/archives/2004/12/06/id/25/
This also is interesting:
http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~rvijay/dbms/proj/
-Original Message-
From: TJ O'Donnell [mai
Hello,
It looks like teodor's latest commits to tseach2 has broken building on SPARC
solaris 8. See
http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=potorooo&dt=2005-01-26%2008:30:02
for more details.
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://ww
I noticed that implementing deferrable unique constraints is on the
TODO list. I don't think its been said yet, but currently you can
implement a deferrable unique constraint by using a deferrable
constraint trigger together with a procedural language like plpgsql.
If you need an index on a column
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval (teisipäev, 25. jaanuar 2005, 21:10-0400), kirjutas
Marc G. Fournier:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
that we don't need to address it until we actually fin
Hello Every one,
Can some one explain me the under mentioned Data
statement format including the insert
parameterswhich is excessively used in
pg_attribute.h ,pg_class.h,pg_proc.h and at many more
places.
DATA(insert ( 1255 prosrc 26 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 f x
i f f f t 0));
Thanks,
Nauman
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:06:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hackers,
> At this point, gdb says that the portal is in PORTAL_READY state. The
> code says to keep it open and reassign it to the parent subxact. I
> don't remember what the rationale for this was ... I'll review the
> discussion
Tom Lane escreveu:
Luiz Gonzaga da Mata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Although to have changed they sort_mem/work_mem it for 1 MB, it did not
use this area in available memory for the connection to make the
creation of the temporary table.
Why would you expect it to, and why would you think
I think it would be great to backport 8.0's pg_dump utilities with all
their fixes and corrections back to 7.4. I don't think it would take
much to alter the output to be 7.4 compatible...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, you've suggested that I should try and reduce the API churn caused
> by the patch. As I said on -patches, I don't really see this as an issue
> if we just apply the patch to REL8_0_STABLE.
If we do that then the patch will go out with essentially n
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:33:07PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >The routine's comments need a bit of work too. Otherwise it seems OK.
> >Neil or anyone else --- see an issue here?
>
> The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state
> modifications (FETC
> > ... a prepared version that is local to the backend that invokes the
> > function, yes (i.e. it will be planned once per backend). So ISTM
this
> > is equivalent functionality to what you can get using PREPARE or the
> > extended query protocol.
>
> Are you sure it's only per-backend? I thoug
Hello Tom,
Now I have been able to generate valid bki file and
have been able to avoid all the errors thanks to
you,but still have not been able to add that
column.Now at initdb the database fails to initialize
itself.And the error it gives is.
duplicate key violates unique constraint
"pg_attrib
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What does XLOG_EXTRA_BUFFERS accomplish?
It is because the buffer passed to direct-io must be aligned to
the same size of filesystem page, typically 4KB. Buffers allocated
with ShmemInitStruct are not necessarily aligned, so we need to allocate
extra buffer
Hi,
I just read about this IBM-patent-issue at www.heise.de. IBM grants this
patens to all projects, which follow one of the licenses, which are approved
by the open-source-initiative. And the BSD-license is as far as I see
approved (I found "New BSD license").
When releasing commercial closed
It looks it couldn't happen this a way.
Did somebody find out an alternative.
Is reasonable some idea based on a connection pool ?
-Bozhidar
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Ühel kenal päeval (teisipäev, 25. jaanuar 2005, 21:10-0400), kirjutas
Marc G. Fournier:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
> > that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
> > is being en
I live in Europe, and right now, the patent, if granted, would not
have any effect on me. Even if Europe will have patents on software, I
doubt that this ARC algorithm will be patentable in Europe.
Is it possible to have an abstraction api where we can plug different
algorithms.
With two plugins
This is a very important thread. Many thanks to Jean-Gerard for
bringing
the community's attention to this.
Thanks Simon.
I was working during my PhD on some parallel algorithm. The computer
was a 32-grid processor in 1995. In this architecture we need to do the
lock on the data, with minimum co
Ühel kenal päeval (kolmapäev, 26. jaanuar 2005, 15:38+1100), kirjutas
Neil Conway:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
> > that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
> > is being enforced against someone, and
Neil Conway wrote:
IMHO, the patent issue is *not* a "potential problem" for a lot of people,
it *is* a problem -- it makes people uncomfortable to be deploying
software that they know might cause them legal headaches down the line. It
also makes life difficult for people distributing commercial
42 matches
Mail list logo
