Bruce Momjian said:
Folks, my mailbox is filling with unresolved Win32 bug reports,
specifically:
integer division
shared memory
statistics collector
rename
fsync
I have put the emails at the bottom of the patches_hold queue:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think Martin Oosterhout's nearby email on coverity bug reports might
make a good SoC project, but should it also be added to the TODO list?
I may as well put up phpPgAdmin for it. We have plenty of projects
available in phpPgAdmin...
Same with pgAdmin3.
Apparently it won't work at all if TMP isn't set?
I'm not *too* concerned about that, since TMP is normally set by the
OS
itself. There's one set in the system environment (to
c:\windows\temp
or whatrever) and then it's overridden by one set by the OS when it
loads a user profile.
Hi,
As advised, I spend a moment reading the code regarding the GRANT and REVOKE
In order to add a new privilege to the ACL, I have created a mini patch.
Could this be checked to see if I am on the right track?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gevik/patch/alpha.patch
Thank you.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the
rest, as long as
Gevik Babakhani wrote:
As advised, I spend a moment reading the code regarding the GRANT and REVOKE
In order to add a new privilege to the ACL, I have created a mini patch.
Could this be checked to see if I am on the right track?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gevik/patch/alpha.patch
You are
Thank you :)
You are missing an ACL_*_CHR symbol and updating the ACL_ALL_RIGHTS_STR
symbol.
That is why I could not see the new permission in pg_database.
I was actually looking for that for sometime :)
I have added the ACL_*_CHR 'D' Is this okay?
Also, you should know that changing this
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
issues it complains
Gevik Babakhani wrote:
Thank you :)
You are missing an ACL_*_CHR symbol and updating the ACL_ALL_RIGHTS_STR
symbol.
That is why I could not see the new permission in pg_database.
I was actually looking for that for sometime :)
I have added the ACL_*_CHR 'D' Is this okay?
Hum, you
I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance
with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box. strace'ing backends shows a lot
of semop() calls, indicating blocking at the LWLock or lmgr-lock levels,
but not a lot of select() delays, suggesting we don't have too much of a
problem
Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have added the ACL_*_CHR 'D' Is this okay?
That seems an excessively random choice of character for CONNECT
privilege. I see that 'C' is already taken, but we could use 'c'.
Also, you should know that changing this requires a change in
On 4/21/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance
with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box.
We have recently encountered some odd performance with 8.2dev on a
16-way Opteron. In the next few days we'll look into it and see if it
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:27:48AM +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think Martin Oosterhout's nearby email on coverity bug reports might
make a good SoC project, but should it also be added to the TODO list?
I may as well put up phpPgAdmin for it. We have
Robert and I are working on updating it ASAP.
On 4/21/06, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:27:48AM +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think Martin Oosterhout's nearby email on coverity bug reports might
make a good SoC project, but
Added to TODO:
o %Allow per-database permissions to be set via GRANT
Allow database connection checks based on GRANT rules in
addition to the existing access checks in pg_hba.conf.
and remove:
o %Allow pg_hba.conf settings to be controlled via SQL
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance
with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box.
Ah good.
Instrumenting LWLockAcquire (with a patch I had developed last fall,
but just now got around to cleaning up and
I posted this in other lists with no
response... Can anyone help?
I'm having trouble getting plperl to
work on AIX 5.3.2.
Postgresql Version: 8.1.1
Perl Version: 5.8.7
I've rebuilt perl as a shared library version and built that into postgre
using --with-perl. The postgre build/install works
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been looking into Gavin Hamill's recent report of poor performance
with PG 8.1 on an 8-way IBM PPC64 box.
BufMappingLock contention can be made worse by a poorly tuned bgwriter
or if the cache hit
On Friday 21 April 2006 14:11, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:27:48AM +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think Martin Oosterhout's nearby email on coverity bug reports might
make a good SoC project, but should it also be added to the TODO list?
John F Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm having trouble getting plperl to work on AIX 5.3.2.
You need to gather more info. What shows up in the postmaster log
when the backend crashes? Also, get a debugger stack trace from
the core file the backend leaves behind. (If it doesn't leave a
On Apr 21, 2006, at 13:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
Cool, thanks Bruce.
Best,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 05:48:33PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Friday 21 April 2006 14:11, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:27:48AM +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I think Martin Oosterhout's nearby email on coverity bug reports might
make a
Another thing I noticed while looking at Gavin Hamill's test case is
that according to gprof, it's spending a remarkably large fraction of
its time in lookupParam():
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds
Tom Lane wrote:
Another thing I noticed while looking at Gavin Hamill's test case is
that according to gprof, it's spending a remarkably large fraction of
its time in lookupParam():
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Same with pgAdmin3.
Is there a list of specific projects? I'm pretty sure we can't just say
work on (pgp)PgAdmin...
Our TODO list has some.
Regards,
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading
Hi,
I have created a new patch. Please check to see if I am on the right
track.
1) The GRANT and REVOKE statements look like:
GRANT CONNECTION ON DATABASE db1 TO user1 (,user2,user3)
REVOKE CONNECTION ON DATABASE db1 TO user1 (,user2,user3)
2) The file parsenodes.h is updated to support
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The earlier lmgr lock partitioning had a hard-coded number of
partitions, which was sensible because of the reduced likelihood of
effectiveness beyond a certain number of partitions. That doesn't
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
doesn't report anything by way of --sysconfdir, which in turn means
that people have to do some fragile hackery in order even to see a
pg_service.conf file. Can we put such a configuration directive
into the binary builds? Is this known to
Pavel Stehule wrote:
There are some problems about replacing string values in the SQL string.
Doesn't the Oracle implementation already imply a solution to that?
I don't know. I didn't find any detail documentation about it. I don't know
what Oracle exactly do.
I think we'd be best
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
lmgr partitioning uses either 4 or 16, restricted by the hash function,
for various reasons. I see no similar restriction on using a hash
function here - we could equally well use range partitioning.
I don't really see any difference at all between the two
Where are we on this patch?
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm fairly unconvinced about Simon's underlying premise --- that we
can't make good use of work_mem in sorting
32 matches
Mail list logo
