David Fetter writes in PostgreSQL Weekly News - November 13 2005:
Teodor Sigaev has been making lots of improvements to tsearch2, a
full-text search engine.
I can't find them. Am I blind? Can someone help?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In vers
On Nov 15, 2005, at 12:20 , Tom Lane wrote:
In particular,
we presently have no idea whether wallaroo would expose any other
contrib problems if it were able to get past building dblink;
and the fact that it's red and always has been red discourages
people from noticing if the failure changes t
Hey Simon,
I'm doing some research into recursive query planning in terms of theory as-well-as actual implementation in other RDBMS. Let me get back to you when I have some more definitive info.
On 11/14/05, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:27 -0500, Jonah H. H
I agree.
(sorry again Tom... dang GMAIL should default reply to all g!)
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's something in what you say. We'd have to rename pg_clog as well,>>
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 17:10:58 -0700,
Aly Dharshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would the PG Dev group be working on update-able views for 8.2 ? I know
> that there is a work-around using rules, the SAMS book does claim that 8.0
> has readonly views. I don't think that this has changed in 8.1
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's something in what you say. We'd have to rename pg_clog as well,
>> since that's even more critical than pg_xlog ...
> Rename them to pg_donttouchthis and pg_youneedthis.
:-)
On a more serious
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We've seen reports of people firing this particular foot-gun before,
> > haven't we? Would it make sense to rename pg_xlog to something that
> > doesn't sound like it's "just" full of log files? Eg pg_w
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be wise or insane for us to to mention in the startup error a
> HINT that if you've removed such files, only hope is full restore from
> backup or pg_resetxlog with data loss?
Not sure that we should have a HINT recommending a worst-
We've seen reports of people firing this particular foot-gun before,
haven't we? Would it make sense to rename pg_xlog to something that
doesn't sound like it's "just" full of log files? Eg pg_wal - something
where the half-educated will have no idea what it is, and therefore not
think they kno
Tim Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've seen reports of people firing this particular foot-gun before,
> haven't we? Would it make sense to rename pg_xlog to something that
> doesn't sound like it's "just" full of log files? Eg pg_wal - something
> where the half-educated will have no idea
ITS ONT Alcazar, Jose Aguedo C wrote:
Anyone!
Before anything else, I have no background in PostgreSQL. But I have a
little knowledge in Linux. We used postgreSQL to run one of our website. It
runs in Redhat Linux 7.3. Our System Administrator, who used to maintain
this server, had resigned and
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:02:32PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > Isn't this the sort of case that Tom just explained as not functioning
> > in 8.1, as the STABLE functions, and all functions called by the
> > STABLE functions will use the snapshot that is used at the time it
> > was called? As in,
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the explanation. Is making this change to the build farm
> machine's config worth doing? Is it more useful on the build farm to
> see what works, or to see what fails? I'm thinking the latter. It'd
> be nice to see green, but green f
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paesold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Would you mind reporting this to RedHat Bugzilla? I believe a bug report
> > from you would have more weight then mine, because you actually
> > understand what's going on here. :-)
>
> Actually, given the thought that this may be
On Monday 14 November 2005 20:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:31:50PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > The basic scenario is one of a function that, given input, looks up
> > corresponding information in a cache table. If it can't find the
> > information, it goes through a
On Nov 15, 2005, at 11:34 , Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The 7.4 tree has never built cleanly on Wallaroo, a Mac OS X 10.3.8
member of the build farm. Currently it's failing in the make contrib
stage.
I believe you could get 7.4 contrib to build if you ta
Aly Dharshi wrote:
> Would the PG Dev group be working on update-able views for 8.2 ? I know that
> there is a work-around using rules, the SAMS book does claim that 8.0 has
> readonly views. I don't think that this has changed in 8.1 no ?
>
We don't know what will be in 8.2 until a volunteer d
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 7.4 tree has never built cleanly on Wallaroo, a Mac OS X 10.3.8
> member of the build farm. Currently it's failing in the make contrib
> stage.
I'm afraid 7.4 will probably never build completely cleanly on OS X.
The failure you're showing i
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:31:50PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> The basic scenario is one of a function that, given input, looks up
> corresponding information in a cache table. If it can't find the
> information, it goes through a more complicated (and slower) search
> to obtain the information,
On Monday 14 November 2005 18:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The previous discussion/complaints really revolved around how volatility
> > effected the planner. There are some scenarios (most revolving around a
> > surrogate key lookup type scenario) where 99% of
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct the
> > reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches either come from
> > CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
>
> Can you post a diff showing what would change exactly?
>
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I think we should rerun pgindent on 8.1.X and HEAD to correct the
> reported problems. I am betting 90% of our patches either come from
> CVS head or 8.1.X branches greater than 8.1.0.
Can you post a diff showing what would change exactly?
I'd like to hold off for at lea
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > My guess is that there is a one-off bug in there.
>
> At least a two-off ... but I think it's more likely some sort of
> wrong-state error, given the narrow places where it happens. I have not
> observed any non-comment code being mis-justified, for in
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we really need to prevent inserts from happening under a SELECT FOR
> UPDATE? ISTM that's trying to apply serializable concurrency to SELECT
> FOR UPDATE even if it's running in a read committed transaction. In the
> single table case we don't prevent
The 7.4 tree has never built cleanly on Wallaroo, a Mac OS X 10.3.8
member of the build farm. Currently it's failing in the make contrib
stage. I'd like to get it to build properly, but I don't know enough
to be able to make sense of the log output. I'd be grateful if
someone could spare a
Hi all,
karen hill wrote:
> What do you see for 8.2 and beyond? What type of
> features are you devs planning for 9.0? It would be
> good if you could put up a place on your site so we
> mortals can drool over up-coming postgresql features.
I'm wishing
- more audit facilities
- pluggable/load
Would the PG Dev group be working on update-able views for 8.2 ? I know that
there is a work-around using rules, the SAMS book does claim that 8.0 has
readonly views. I don't think that this has changed in 8.1 no ?
Cheers,
Aly.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gavin Sherry:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry:
> > Grouping sets
> > Recursive queries
>
> The recursive queries is a long-awaited feature. Does the fact that the
> feature is listed for Gavin Sherry mean that Gavin is actually working
> with the feature at the moment? Does anybody kno
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:22:15AM +1100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> > is that you have exclusive hold on the selected rows and they won't
> > change underneath you before the end of your transaction. In the case
> > of an outer join where the left-side row joined
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The previous discussion/complaints really revolved around how volatility
> effected the planner. There are some scenarios (most revolving around a
> surrogate key lookup type scenario) where 99% of function calls do not
> generate DML changes and becaus
Why do you need to run PostgreSQL as admin? There shouldn't be any need
for this.
Someone has done a PostgreSQL demo CD, I believe based on Knoppix.
The list archives will probably have more info.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:29:10AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> My questions
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >Log Message:
> >---
> >Translation typo fix
>
> Shouldn't they go to the translation project @ pgfoundry ?
Good question. Peter, is pgtranslation supposed to be the primary
source of translations? Or is it an optio
The previous discussion/complaints really revolved around how volatility
effected the planner. There are some scenarios (most revolving around a
surrogate key lookup type scenario) where 99% of function calls do not
generate DML changes and because of that we need the planner to treat these
fun
Am Montag, den 14.11.2005, 15:06 -0500 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now this is really a bug:
>
> That's in the eye of the beholder (and one who wasn't paying attention
> to previous discussion of this point, evidently).
Yes I was, but only to the fact it is
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The pairing seems very odd though: judging from the proximity of xmin
> and lastmod, the first and third rows were inserted at almost the same
> time, and they do *not* have equal keys; the rows they should have
> conflicted with were inserted some
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 23:56 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:32:47PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > I am really not db expert and I don't have copy of sql standard but you
> > don't need to use 2 tables I think - USING part can also be subquery
> > (some SELECT) a
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:42:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that it has always been implicitly assumed around here
> > that the MERGE command would be a substitute for a MySQL-like REPLACE
> > functionality. After rereading the spec
See 'merge_db' in http://lnk.nu/postgresql.org/5sl.html
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 06:00:32PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > So? That is what save points are for. You can eve
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any chance it is related to the 8.0 problem I reported on
> Wednesday?
Too soon to tell ... though one would like to think we don't have more
than one bug in that area ;-).
If either of you can come up with even a low-probability test case,
it'd b
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 14:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > esp=# select prl_combined_key, prl_seq_no, xmin, xmax, lastmod from
> > parts_order_line_file where prl_combined_key = ' 00136860' and
> > prl_seq_no in (20, 23);
> > prl_combined_key | prl_seq_no |
ISTM that instead of comming up with clever ways to fool the parser it
would be better to allow users to force a function to be marked as
STABLE, etc., even though it's contents indicate that it shouldn't be.
Since the standard IMMUTABLE | STABLE | VOLATILE is obviously a bad
choice, I suggest addi
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:27 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I am working on the standard WITH syntax for recursive query support
> and hope to get it into 8.2.
Sounds interesting.
What approach are you taking to the plan shape? The current approach
would be to have additional plan nodes for each
Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now this is really a bug:
That's in the eye of the beholder (and one who wasn't paying attention
to previous discussion of this point, evidently).
The reason why the no-data-change rule is now enforced, not only
recommended, is that a stable/immutable
Am Montag, den 14.11.2005, 14:45 -0500 schrieb Jaime Casanova:
> On 11/14/05, Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 14.11.2005, 13:29 -0500 schrieb Robert Treat:
> > > On Monday 14 November 2005 10:02, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > > > New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABL
On 11/14/05, Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 14.11.2005, 13:29 -0500 schrieb Robert Treat:
> > On Monday 14 November 2005 10:02, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > > New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABLE are
> > > not allowed to have any INSERT statement in them.
> > >
> >
Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> esp=# select prl_combined_key, prl_seq_no, xmin, xmax, lastmod from
> parts_order_line_file where prl_combined_key = ' 00136860' and
> prl_seq_no in (20, 23);
> prl_combined_key | prl_seq_no | xmin| xmax | lastmod
> --+
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you need to try this with enable_indexscan = 0; it should be
> showing us 4 rows according to your prior result, and it's only showing
one thing I forgot to mentionthere is a sequence on the table.
Sequence is global for all tables h
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > esp=# select xmin, xmax, lastmod from parts_order_line_file where
> > prl_combined_key =
> > esp-# ' 00136860' and prl_seq_no in (20, 23);
> >xmin| xmax | lastmod
> > ---+--
It would be better to ask this on -general, but
SELECT count(*) FROM pg_stat_activity;
is what you want.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:35:28PM -0500, Brusser, Michael wrote:
> Is there a way to find a number of current connections on Postgres 7.3.x
> ?
>
> I looked at some system tables and views,
Am Montag, den 14.11.2005, 13:29 -0500 schrieb Robert Treat:
> On Monday 14 November 2005 10:02, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABLE are
> > not allowed to have any INSERT statement in them.
> >
>
> Try hiding your inserts in seperate volitle sql function that yo
Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do the "duplicate" rows appear to be independent insertions, or
>> successive states of the same logical row?
> esp=# select xmin, xmax, lastmod from parts_order_line_file where
> prl_combined_key =
>
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just confirmed that there are duplicate p-keys in the source table :(.
>
> Well, that's not very good either, but at least it narrows down the
> problem.
>
> Do the "duplicate" rows appear to be inde
On Monday 14 November 2005 10:02, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABLE are
> not allowed to have any INSERT statement in them.
>
Try hiding your inserts in seperate volitle sql function that you can select
inside your stable function. I think the planner won't be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gavin Sherry) writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > Gavin Sherry:
>> > Grouping sets
>> > Recursive queries
>>
>> The recursive queries is a long-awaited feature. Does the fact that
>> the feature is listed for Gavin Sherry mean th
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The point of the comment really is that this is a predicate locking
>> problem.
> I thought you might say that. I'm yet to do much reading on predicate
> locking -- do you think it is an area we will even pursue?
D
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:14:53AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The minimum-change way to fix the bug would be to revert the logic
> change in nodeUnique.c and go back to maintaining a separate tuple copy.
> But I'm thinking that this sort of thing could happen again. ISTM
> it's not intuitive to allo
> That's pretty bizarre. What's the datatype of the key column(s)?
>
> Can you reduce it to a smaller test case, or perhaps send me the full
> dump off-list? (270m is a bit much for email, but web or ftp would
> work ... also, presumably only the pkey column is needed to generate
> the error ...
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry:
> > Grouping sets
> > Recursive queries
>
> The recursive queries is a long-awaited feature. Does the fact that the
> feature is listed for Gavin Sherry mean that Gavin is actually working
> with the feature at the
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think we could, in fact, lock rows on the nullable side of the join if
> > we say that locking the NULL rows is not necessary. The rows do not
> > physical exist and I could see an argument which says that those
I looked into Frank van Vugt's recent report of bizarre behavior in 8.1:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-11/msg00121.php
The problem occurs because execMain.c's ExecInsert() replaces the
contents of the TupleTableSlot passed to it with whatever the trigger
hands back. This slot is
On 11/14/05, Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABLE are
> not allowed to have any INSERT statement in them.
>
this is not new, always was said that SATBLE and IMMUTABLE functions
must not modify the database. But beginning with 8.0.0 these kind of
New in 8.1 it seems functions marked STABLE are
not allowed to have any INSERT statement in them.
However in this particular case, the insert does not
violate the rule:
"STABLE indicates that within a single table scan the function will
consistently return the same result for the same argument
> Gavin Sherry:
> Grouping sets
> Recursive queries
The recursive queries is a long-awaited feature. Does the fact that the
feature is listed for Gavin Sherry mean that Gavin is actually working
with the feature at the moment? Does anybody know the current state of
this feature or
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we could, in fact, lock rows on the nullable side of the join if
> we say that locking the NULL rows is not necessary. The rows do not
> physical exist and I could see an argument which says that those rows do
> not match any other rows which a con
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The MySQL syntax is actually "drop table if exists foo ...".
Implementing this unfortunately generates a shift/reduce conflict,
What did you try exactly? I don't see any fundamental reason for
a conflict here. You may jus
Hi all,
A colleague pointed out to me today that the following is actually
possible on Oracle, MySQL, et al:
template1=# create table a (i int);
CREATE TABLE
template1=# create table b (i int);
CREATE TABLE
template1=# insert into a values(1);
INSERT 0 1
template1=# select * from a left outer joi
On trying to recompile things, I find that contrib/intarray is broken
by this change, because it's using the flags field for its own purposes:
/*
* flags for gist__int_ops, use ArrayType->flags
* which is unused (see array.h)
*/
#define LEAFKEY (1<<31)
#define ISLEAFKEY(x)( ((Array
I think you translated it correctly, MySQL has another way of specifying this
which is "INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ..."
(http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert.html)
Regards
Paolo
Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto
> On 11/13/05, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > I am real
On 11/13/05, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
> I am really not db expert and I don't have copy of sql standard but you
> don't need to use 2 tables I think - USING part can also be subquery
> (some SELECT) and if I am right then you could simulate what REPLACE
> does because in PostgreSQL you are not forced
Hi everybody,
My questions may seem kind of odd.
I would like to run PostGreSQL on a DVD (database on the DVD and if
possible executable on DVD too) on windows.
I want no installation at all, so I took the no install package.
The problem is the need of creating a non-admin user to run PostGr
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 20:22, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 18:48:33 +0100,
> Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, I'm relatively new on this list, and I might have missed a few
> > discussions on this topic.
> > I wonder if doing it this way would not be better than us
71 matches
Mail list logo
