Re: [HACKERS] What has happened to pgxs?

Thomas Hallgren wrote: I'm using a pre-compiled installation of PostgreSQL. All I want to do is use pgxs to be able to compile PL/Java. There is other stuff that seems strange to me. Why do you append 'postgresql' to the include directories further down in the file? I had to remove that in or

Re: [HACKERS] What has happened to pgxs?

Michael Paesold wrote: Thomas Hallgren wrote: I'm using a pre-compiled installation of PostgreSQL. All I want to do is use pgxs to be able to compile PL/Java. There is other stuff that seems strange to me. Why do you append 'postgresql' to the include directories further down in the file? I

[HACKERS] pg_autovacuum startup from /etc/rc fails after system crash

Hi, I'm not a member of this list, so please CC me on responses and discussion. After a system crash PostgreSQL startup is slow as the database recovers.  So the db_connect() call from pg_autovacuum terminates as soon as it tries to connect to "template1". Looking at the README file, I find t

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql clustering

Jonah, I stumbled on this discussion in one of my recurring searches for an open-source database app capable of true clustering (failover, load balancing, etc) that I can pair with my PHP application. A search that, sadly, most often ends in disappointment -- there's tons and tons of database mar

Re: [HACKERS] Gerbil build farm failure

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:03:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Now that we have backtrace, does anyone have a clue about the cause/fix? > > The backtrace suggests a garbage snapshot value, but doesn't provide > nearly enough info to guess where it's coming from. I'm waitin

Re: [HACKERS] Gerbil build farm failure

"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fire lit under IT dept. Their initial plan was everything outbound but > SSH would be cut-off, which I nixed, but would that suffice in the short > term if it means getting the box on the net faster? AFAICS, an ssh connection to an unprivileged account

Re: [HACKERS] Gerbil build farm failure

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:56:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Fire lit under IT dept. Their initial plan was everything outbound but > > SSH would be cut-off, which I nixed, but would that suffice in the short > > term if it means getting the box on the

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/XML public functions documentation for PostgreSQL

Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello, > > I did patch > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-09/msg00050.php SQL/XML > public functions. Can somebody help me with documentation? Or can somebody > write doc.. That is probably something we will address when we start development of 8.2, if

[HACKERS] SQL/XML public functions documentation for PostgreSQL 8.2

Hello, I did patch http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-09/msg00050.php SQL/XML public functions. Can somebody help me with documentation? Or can somebody write doc.. Regards Pavel Stehule _ Najdete si svou lasku

Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] How to determine date / time of last postmaster

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:38:44AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:22:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > PG 8.1 will have a function to return postmaster start time, but not > > > database reset time. I wonder if this is misdefined --- if you are >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_config/share_dir

Added to TODO: * Add options to pg_config to show the share_dir, sysconfdir, pkgincludedir, and localedir --- Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #1883: Renaming a schema leaves inconsistent sequence

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > This item has been added to the 8.1 bugs list: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgbugs > > This isn't going to be fixed for 8.1. I think it's really a variant of > the TODO item > o %Have ALTER TABLE RENAME rename SERIAL sequence nam

Re: [HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Tom, > I dug through the CVS logs since 5-July (when full_page_writes was > added, so I suppose that's before your unspecified "July" test). > AFAICS the only changes that might possibly affect xlog/checkpoint > performance were these: > > Use O_DIRECT if available when using O_SYNC for wal_

Re: [HACKERS] Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

Is there a TODO here? --- Tom Lane wrote: > The test case I just posted shows that our spinlock code, which we had > thought largely done, is once again becoming a performance bottleneck. > It's time to resurrect some of the

Re: [HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Josh Berkus writes: > ... The good news is that it appears that stuff which has been > done since July has lessened the penalty for checkpoints somewhat; while > the maximum response time is still better on the full_page_writes=off > systems, the average throughput is no longer substantially di

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to clean up signed-ness warnings

> > For me, your patche seems to be a retrogression. In my understanding, > > the reason why PostgreSQL uses "char *" in many places is just it was > > designed in the old days when ASCII was the only charset in the world. > > Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?

Re: [HACKERS] Gerbil build farm failure

Bruce Momjian writes: > Now that we have backtrace, does anyone have a clue about the cause/fix? The backtrace suggests a garbage snapshot value, but doesn't provide nearly enough info to guess where it's coming from. I'm waiting for the promised ssh access... regards, t

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Bruce Momjian writes: > Yea, we could do that, but does it make sense to downgrade the > connection message, especially since the "connection authorized" message > doesn't contain the hostname. We would have to add the host name to the > "connection authorized" message and at that point there is

Re: [HACKERS] Gerbil build farm failure

Now that we have backtrace, does anyone have a clue about the cause/fix? --- Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 01:17:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I worked with Jim Nasby and we found this is the line that

Re: [HACKERS] passing parameters to CREATE INDEX

Added to TODO: * Allow CREATE INDEX to take an additional parameter for use with special index types --- Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:47:04AM

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > > > not quite well enough to make a

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to clean up signed-ness warnings

Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1. Can anyone think of a cleaner way to do this? > For me, your patche seems to be a retrogression. In my understanding, > the reason why PostgreSQL uses "char *" in many places is just it was > designed in the old days when ASCII was the only charset in

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

On Thursday 2005-09-22 13:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >While I'm all for COPY from views, I think I'd rather have the syntactic > >warts than code warts. ISTM that > > > >CREATE TEMP VIEW some_name AS SELECT * FROM table WHERE ...; > >COPY some_name TO stdout; > > > >is much u

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

Word "basic" added. --- Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > On reflection, the only changes I suggest are: > > > > 1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the > > word "basic" inserted within it to bec

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Tom Lane said: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > >> I turned on passwords and did see duplicate connections: > > > >>LOG: connection received: host=[local] > >>LOG: connection received: host=[local] > >>LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres database=test > >>

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > I turned on passwords and did see duplicate connections: > > > LOG: connection received: host=[local] > > LOG: connection received: host=[local] > > LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres database=test > > LOG: disconnection: sess

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to clean up signed-ness warnings

> With gcc 4 spreading, it seems like it's past time to do something about > all those signed-vs-unsigned-char warnings that it emits. (Translation: > now that I have to use gcc 4 regularly, I got annoyed enough to fix it > ;-)) > > I looked into it a little and determined that nearly all the war

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Tom Lane said: > Bruce Momjian writes: >> I turned on passwords and did see duplicate connections: > >> LOG: connection received: host=[local] >> LOG: connection received: host=[local] >> LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres database=test >> LOG: disconnection: session

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Bruce Momjian writes: > I turned on passwords and did see duplicate connections: > LOG: connection received: host=[local] > LOG: connection received: host=[local] > LOG: connection authorized: user=postgres database=test > LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.61 u

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >This seems reasonable behavior when prompting for a password from the > >user, since that's going to take a lot of time anyway. I'm not sure > >whether libpq should try to excavate a password from ~/.pgpass in > >advance of being told by the server that one is needed. > >

Re: [HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Josh, Sorry, duh.  I'll check it out.  It has been a long day and I totally missed the URL :(On 9/22/05, Josh Berkus < josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:Jonah,> Seems like this was to be somewhat expected. Was there any > stats/diagnostics included in the patch to show the effectiveness of> PCTFREE?Lots, l

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > Anthony, > > I'm reviewing your book :). One of the reasons that I want to add this > support is because, in your recipies, it's obvious that PostgreSQL is > lacking in this area... likewise, we've had several EDB requests for > hi

[HACKERS] pgxs and pginstaller

Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Thomas Hallgren wrote: > > > > > >>Hi, > >>I tried to compile PL/Java against PostgreSQL 8.1beta2. I use pgxs and > >>until now that has been just fine. Now pgxs suggests that the include > >>files reside under /usr/local/pgsql. They don't of

Re: [HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Jonah, > Seems like this was to be somewhat expected. Was there any > stats/diagnostics included in the patch to show the effectiveness of > PCTFREE? Lots, look up the tests on OSDL, per link. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broa

Re: [HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Seems like this was to be somewhat expected.  Was there any stats/diagnostics included in the patch to show the effectiveness of PCTFREE? On 9/22/05, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks,Well, it took a while but I finally have the results of Satoshi's PCTFreepatch back from the STP.  Bad

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

AgentM wrote: > > > > While I'm all for COPY from views, I think I'd rather have the > > syntactic > > warts than code warts. ISTM that > > > > CREATE TEMP VIEW some_name AS SELECT * FROM table WHERE ...; > > COPY some_name TO stdout; > > > > is much uglier than > > > > COPY SELECT * FROM table W

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Anthony, I'm reviewing your book :).  One of the reasons that I want to add this support is because, in your recipies, it's obvious that PostgreSQL is lacking in this area... likewise, we've had several EDB requests for hierarchical queries (ala Oracle-style)...  For the PostgreSQL community, I'll

[HACKERS] PCTFree Results

Folks, Well, it took a while but I finally have the results of Satoshi's PCTFree patch back from the STP. Bad news about the STP, see below ... Anyway, a series of DBT2 runs doesn't seem to show any advantage to PCTFree over a 3-hour run with no vacuums: test# pctfree full_page_writes

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So why not do what everyone is agreed on now? I wasn't agreed on it ;-) The primary objection I've got is that I think this will be a very considerable increment of work for exactly zero increment in functionality, compared

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Also, as nifty as this might be, we should also be prepared > for people > to complain that it runs a lot slower than vanilla COPY, because it > surely will. At which point we point out to them that it's also much faster than any of the other

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So why not do what everyone is agreed on now? I wasn't agreed on it ;-) The primary objection I've got is that I think this will be a very considerable increment of work for exactly zero increment in functionality, compared to being able to copy from a

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Jim C. Nasby wrote: While I'm all for COPY from views, I think I'd rather have the syntactic warts than code warts. ISTM that CREATE TEMP VIEW some_name AS SELECT * FROM table WHERE ...; COPY some_name TO stdout; is much uglier than COPY SELECT * FROM table WHERE ... TO stdout; They are

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

On N, 2005-09-22 at 21:34 +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: > absolutely - the main advantage of the syntax tweak is that you can > add parameters more easily. Perhaps "COPY from SQL FUNCTIONS" is what wou need ? Or should we piggypack on (future) work needed for hierarchical queries and hav

Re: [HACKERS] 2 forks for md5?

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Confusion fixed (thanks, Tom). psql (via libpq) tries twice, if not given a password to begin with (via .pgpass or psql's -W). Ugly but at least not incomprehensible. This seems reasonable behavior when prompting for a pass

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

On reflection, the only changes I suggest are: 1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the word "basic" inserted within it to become: "This allows for a basic type of table partitioning" How about just: Initial support for table partitioning. Yes it is non-committal

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

While I'm all for COPY from views, I think I'd rather have the syntactic warts than code warts. ISTM that CREATE TEMP VIEW some_name AS SELECT * FROM table WHERE ...; COPY some_name TO stdout; is much uglier than COPY SELECT * FROM table WHERE ... TO stdout; Or, you could just allow subqu

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

absolutely - the main advantage of the syntax tweak is that you can add parameters more easily. best regards, hans On 22 Sep 2005, at 21:25, Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:31:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:31:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Paolo Magnoli wrote: > >> Can't you just use a view? > > > no because a new is not a heap ... > > I think Paolo's idea is much better than munging the syntax of COP

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Josh, Great, thanks for the update. > It's a major feature implementation if > we want them to be at all worthwhile agreed. SS 2005 added partial support for window functions (can't create moving windows of aggregation, ie, the portion of the syntax the standard calls the "framing clause") a

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Anthony, > also, while I got your ear. I bugged Simon about this > earlier this year and was wondering if you guys are still > planning on added the window functions added to the '03 standard? > > I have a ton of recipes that use them and if you guys are still > planning on implementing them, I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Josh, Thanks man, good to know. Sorry if the question was a bit out of place on this list but I wanted to make sure I reached the right people. I love what you guys are doing and made sure postgresql was included in my book. also, while I got your ear. I bugged Simon about this earlier this year

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Anthony, > So is postgresql going into the direction of WITH or CONNECT BY (or > both)? PostgreSQL would do ONLY "with". We're not interested in Oracle-proprietary syntax. That being said, there is a CONNECT_BY() function in /contrib/tablefunc. But this would never be part of the core synta

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

So is postgresql going into the direction of WITH or CONNECT BY (or both)? I am authoring O'Reilly's "SQL Cookbook" and I'd like to mention it in the Hierarchical chapter to give the pg readers a heads up. Thanks and regards, Anthony Molinaro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Jonah, > Tom, Bruce, Simon, Alvaro, Josh, et al., have you guys used the patch? > If so, what comments do you have as to what you'd like to see. Unfortunately, yes I have. I had to help several users who got burned by it: the patch was buggy as all-get out. For example, it wouldn't access TOAS

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Evgen Potemkin has granted me a BSD license on the patch for hierarchical > queries (WITH and CONNECT BY) and I'd like to get it on track for PostgreSQ= > L > 8.2. Tom, Bruce, Simon, Alvaro, Josh, et al., have you guys used the patch? If this is the

Re: [HACKERS] Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?

Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Looking again, PageRepairFragmentation is called on a copy of the page, > not on the page itself, so this is not a problem. The page is only > modified to exchange old Xids for FrozenTransactionId, or to set some > hint bits, so this really shouldn't be

Re: [HACKERS] What has happened to pgxs?

Bruce Momjian wrote: Thomas Hallgren wrote: Hi, I tried to compile PL/Java against PostgreSQL 8.1beta2. I use pgxs and until now that has been just fine. Now pgxs suggests that the include files reside under /usr/local/pgsql. They don't of course. Not on my windows box anyway :-) I thin

Re: [HACKERS] What has happened to pgxs?

Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Hi, > I tried to compile PL/Java against PostgreSQL 8.1beta2. I use pgxs and > until now that has been just fine. Now pgxs suggests that the include > files reside under /usr/local/pgsql. They don't of course. Not on my > windows box anyway :-) > > I think it stems from

Re: [HACKERS] Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?

On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 10:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Seems like a bug to me. Well done. This wins the award for best bug found during beta; shame it wasn't 8.0 beta! Just as well we recommend only doing VACUUM FULL when the system is quiet Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Added to TODO: o Allow COPY to output from views --- Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Rod Taylor wrote: > > >On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:25 -0700, Trent Shipley wrote: > > > > > >> > >>Wouldn't you also need a CREATE T

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Alvaro, I agree, there are some things that need to be done before calling it a done-deal including some planning, commenting, optimizer stuff, etc.  Also, for PostgreSQL reasons, I agree that supporting ANSI/ISO WITH is the best option; I'm willing to take on implementation for both if you guys w

Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:19:13AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: Hi, > Evgen Potemkin has granted me a BSD license on the patch for hierarchical > queries (WITH and CONNECT BY) and I'd like to get it on track for PostgreSQL > 8.2. Tom, Bruce, Simon, Alvaro, Josh, et al., have you guys used the pa

Re: [HACKERS] logging blemishes

> > >Are you saying "connection received" should honor %q? It seems it is a > > >session line, rather than a server line, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, the line just struck me as rather ugly. Never mind. > > Now that you mention it, the log line for connections does look wrong. > "[loc

Re: [HACKERS] Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?

Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh, certainly! In this case, may I point out that scan_heap() does not > bother locking pages, mentioning that "we assume that holding exclusive > lock on the relation will keep other backends from looking at the page". > In particular, it calls PageRep

Re: [HACKERS] Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:36:41AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:50:21PM -0700, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera wrote > > > The only caller of both is > > > repair_frag, whose only caller in turn is full_vacuum_rel. > > > > ...bgwriter still needs to access bloc

[HACKERS] Hierarchical Queries--Stalled No Longer...

Hey everyone, Evgen Potemkin has granted me a BSD license on the patch for hierarchical queries (WITH and CONNECT BY) and I'd like to get it on track for PostgreSQL 8.2.  Tom, Bruce, Simon, Alvaro, Josh, et al., have you guys used the patch?  If so, what comments do you have as to what you'd like

Re: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So we could refute this argument by just not making the permission check for >> CREATE TEMP VIEW. > This is the first time I've ever heard of CREATE TEMP VIEW. What's the point > of it since you can always directly do

Re: [HACKERS] Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:50:21PM -0700, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote > > The only caller of both is > > repair_frag, whose only caller in turn is full_vacuum_rel. > > ...bgwriter still needs to access blocks. The WAL system relies on the > locking behaviour for recoverability, see

Re: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So we could refute this argument by just not making the permission check for > CREATE TEMP VIEW. This is the first time I've ever heard of CREATE TEMP VIEW. What's the point of it since you can always directly do: SELECT * FROM (...) ? -- greg -

Re: [HACKERS] Parser bug results in ambiguous errors/behaviour

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > template1=# update foo set i=2,b='t' and t='bar' where i=1; > > UPDATE 1 > > This is perfectly legal SQL. If it doesn't do what you intended, > well, too bad. We're not going to "fix" it. Hmmm. Okay. It wasn't t

Re: [HACKERS] Parser bug results in ambiguous errors/behaviour

Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > template1=# update foo set i=2,b='t' and t='bar' where i=1; > UPDATE 1 This is perfectly legal SQL. If it doesn't do what you intended, well, too bad. We're not going to "fix" it. regards, tom lane ---(e

Re: R: [HACKERS] feature proposal ...

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Paolo Magnoli wrote: > >> Can't you just use a view? > > > no because a new is not a heap ... > > I think Paolo's idea is much better than munging the syntax of COPY, > th

Re: [HACKERS] Parser bug results in ambiguous errors/behaviour

Gavin Sherry wrote: A bug/short coming in the parser leads to some pretty ambiguous errors and/or foot shooting. Consider the following: template1=# create table foo(i int, b bool, t text); CREATE TABLE template1=# insert into foo values(1, 'f', 'foo'); INSERT 0 1 template1=# update foo set i=2

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet? >

Re: [HACKERS] Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs

On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:55 PM, David Fetter wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 03:52:21PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote: Well, I was just poking around the executor and noticed this in ExecDelete(): /* * Note: Normally one would think that we have to dele

[HACKERS] Parser bug results in ambiguous errors/behaviour

Hi, A bug/short coming in the parser leads to some pretty ambiguous errors and/or foot shooting. Consider the following: template1=# create table foo(i int, b bool, t text); CREATE TABLE template1=# insert into foo values(1, 'f', 'foo'); INSERT 0 1 template1=# update foo set i=2,b='t' and t='bar'