+1
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then
we'd be able to claim complete support for partitioning, but this is a big
deal improvement.
- Luke
On 8/3/06 9:30 PM, Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of the things on Tom's list are new bits of
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase
commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and
8.1. What is there in 8.2 like that?
[ shrug... ] Five out of
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 00:46, kirjutas Bruce Momjian:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like
David,
On 8/3/06 11:02 PM, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Splitting queries among CPUs--possibly even among machines--for OLAP
loads
* In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
*
All,
grin Aren't I, the marketing geek, supposed to be the one whining about
this?
Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in
the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to release
*less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this
David Fetter skrev:
As far as big missing features go, here's a short list:
* Windowing functions
If we are to wish for things the window functions and a proper
collation/locale support is what I miss the most.
/Dennis
---(end of
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:27:02AM +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
If we are to wish for things the window functions and a proper
collation/locale support is what I miss the most.
Agreed. The complaints about collation/locale support have been
continuous over the years, and it really is quite
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
Regards,
Andreas
---(end
On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My ordering of this list in terms of priority is:
1) Windowing functions
2) MERGE
3) Index only access (new)
4) In-place upgrades
And what about compression of on-disk sorting? There has been a long
thread about this idea. Is there any news
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:45:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am seeing two new warnings from ecpg:
dyntest.pgc:66: WARNING: nullable is always 1
dyntest2.pgc:72: WARNING: nullable is always 1
Are they to be expected? I looked at where they are being generated but
didn't
Hi,
We have just released an add-on to PostgreSQL supporting the GORDA
Architecture and Programming Interface (GAPI). This opens up support for
DBMS
independent replication middleware, aimed at eager and multi-master
replication in clusters and WANs.
The implementation of the GAPI is achieved in
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Rocco Altier wrote:
BTW, I do have --enable-integer-datetimes configured for this machine,
which might explain the timestamp differences.
Yes, that might be the reason. What effect does it have if you run the
backend regression suite?
The remaining
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems fairly invasive, as well as confused about whether it's an
#ifdef'able thing or not. You can't have system views and pg_proc
entries conditional on a compile-time #ifdef, so in a default build
we would have a lot of nonfunctional cruft exposed to
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm confused ... is this patch being proposed for inclusion? I
understood your previous message to say that it didn't help much.
This is only the patch for carving where there is any problem.
The patch is buggy as posted, because it will try to do this:
if
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch included to implement xlog switching, using an xlog record
processing instruction and forcibly moving xlog pointers.
Just to be clear --- does this fully supersede your draft patch of
27-July,
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
ready to be disappointed by every future release.
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't
Josh Berkus wrote:
Oh, and if it makes it, Tzadhi's FULL DISJUNCTIONS patch is newsworthy.
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
cheers
andrew
---(end of
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in
the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to
release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this release has
less checklist features
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have we seen a patch for this? I don't recall seeing one. If not it had
better get in damn fast, I guess.
Yes, it was submitted the day before freeze.
Ah. good. Probably was when my mail was down for about 12
But that makes NUMERIC(x,y) impossible to represent.
Well, we have to special-case INTERVAL anyway (because its cramming some
truly bizarre things into typmod), and it wouldn't bother me too much to
special-case NUMERIC as well.
We have a lot of special transformation of type based on typmod
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical queries (one of them wasn't even
On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary
functionality with minimal intrusion.
I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have
anything against it? I personally like the triggers and
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical
On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will
be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php
Certainly there's been a ton of effort spent
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
PostgreSQL provides a way to load C extension modules with its internal
FMGR. Unfortunately there is no portable way for an extension module to
initialize (directly after the
Here's the ecpg regression test diffs as of CVS tip on an HPUX box.
regards, tom lane
*** expected/complex-test4.stdout Wed Aug 2 10:14:02 2006
--- results//complex-test4.stdout Fri Aug 4 10:12:19 2006
***
*** 1,4
! Found f=14,07
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:37:21PM -0700, elein wrote:
I can think of histograms as a data type which may take more than one
argument,
maybe even an array for boundary information. I think the direction *in the
long term* should be to allow multiple arguments (as a ROW type?) and other
base
Luke Lonergan wrote:
+1
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then
we'd be able to claim complete support for partitioning, but this is a big
deal improvement.
I haven't be following this but.. does the above mean that if CE is
turned on and they are
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
documentation and will power we put into it.
* On-the-fly in-line calls out to PL/your_choice without needing to
issue
3) Index only access (new)
Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Joshua D. Drake
We already have splitting queries among CPUs and machines.
Yes, YOU do. We don't.
Joshua D.
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
Good point...
What about
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
business-like, what are we going to have in the next release
perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just see what patches
come in and we apply what we
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical queries
Josh,
On 8/4/06 7:47 AM, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Index only access (new)
Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:37, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence usability, not new enterprise features.
I'm not too happy about the label usability.
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary
functionality with minimal intrusion.
I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have
anything
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems fairly invasive, as well as confused about whether it's an
#ifdef'able thing or not. You can't have system views and pg_proc
entries conditional on a compile-time #ifdef, so in a default build
we would
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could
be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
_improved_ usability
I still don't like it.
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
ready to be disappointed by every future release.
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time a MySql guy would say.
I have the same feeling about the term usability. It could
be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
_improved_ usability
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability
improvements aren't a big item, but
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 8/3/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will
be merely a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php
Certainly there's
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
business-like, what are we going to have in the next release
perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just
On Friday 04 August 2006 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
We haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication
without the barrier of a standard database-agnostic API, so I kinda
doubt that it will work all that much better with one. See Slony-II.
I would argue that people haven't
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what about compression of on-disk sorting?
That's purely a performance issue, which some people seem to want
to define as not a new feature ... which is not *my* view of
what's important ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
I think the actual wave of the future for analyzing behavior at the
LWLock level is going to be DTrace. It seems way more flexible than
an aggregate-statistics view can be.
CVS head now has the following LWLock probes, and more can easily be
added. These probes can be
Folks,
This just came out of the GORDA project. I'd love to see the comments of our
replication/clustering geeks here on the list.
--Josh
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [Hackers] Standard interfaces for replication providers
Date: Friday 04 August 2006 02:09
From: Jose
BTW, I tried building with HP's cc instead of gcc, and got
slightly different regression failures (same HPUX/HPPA machine):
*** expected/complex-test4.stdout Wed Aug 2 10:14:02 2006
--- results//complex-test4.stdout Fri Aug 4 12:56:13 2006
***
*** 1,4
! Found
Luke,
Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number of good ideas on how to
do it, we are in a position to bang it out now IMO.
Actually, a group of us discussed this at the Code Sprint in Toronto, and came
up with a plan which will also reduce row overhead on large tables. I can't
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the
PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a
slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a
Cool! Then let's make a stronger claim about the feature: 'data management
using partioning now with transparent insert/update/delete support in addition
to the already proven performance acceleration in previous releases.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
I think what Luke means, is that an INSERT into the base table of the
inheritance hierarchy
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote:
On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My ordering of this list in terms of priority is:
1) Windowing functions
2) MERGE
3) Index only access (new)
4) In-place upgrades
And what about compression of on-disk
A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import a
dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint.
This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work
fine. Find attached a simple self contained test case.
gdb
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
* In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted.
How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our database has about 700 objects (tables,views, stored functions,
types etc), we want to make a change on a view or tables, it said that there
were a lot of depended obejcts. I know that depended object must be dropped
and then created to solve this. But, It has too many dependecies
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be unmeasurable
hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So could you say
something
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit,
partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is
there in 8.2 like that?
[ shrug... ] Five out of
Guys,
I still don't like it. Usability is an opinion based thing. Personally I
find MySQL confusing and illogical. However I know many people love it
for that very same reason.
As the person who's leading the draft of the press release, let me say that
any theme discussions which happen on
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
ready to be disappointed by every future
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be
unmeasurable hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
* In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted.
How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
Couldn't this be
I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php
about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions
it generates for a simple partitioning layout. In particular it's
generating scans involving
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to be unkind, but AFAIR all the unmet expectations in this release
cycle came from commercially-sponsored developers who said
they'd do X and then didn't finish it.
FYI, I am not commercially sponsered. I am a full-time employee
devoted to
The community cannot ask anyone to work harder. What we do ask is that
if you start working on an item, let us know, and if you stop working on
it, let us know soon so others can work on it.
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 14:40, kirjutas Tom Lane:
I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php
about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions
it generates for a simple partitioning
Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
ROW for 8.2?
o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating multiple
columns
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
no?
There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread comments about
promising things in advance of them hitting CVS
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
otherwise.
True, but stating that you
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:27:49AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
I think what Luke means, is that
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
* In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you
posted.
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:18:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
no?
There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
so it's premature to say it's in. See upthread
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
which it seems we ought to be bright enough to notice. In particular
I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct
the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we
ought not expend the cycles. I
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented
release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd
better get ready to be disappointed by every future
Jonah,
If I would've known a good number of people were asking for WITH
RECURSIVE (as Josh mentioned), I would've had more incentive to work
on it.
You didn't ask. If you had asked, you would have got a response.
People knew you were working on it, and assumed that it would be done,
since
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
otherwise.
I'm picturing something like this:
1. Each person taking an item agrees to write at least one email each
week to -hackers detailing progress or lack of same on the item.
2. Should someone wish to relinquish a claim on a feature, there needs
to be some standard way to do a hand-off of whatever
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
Couldn't this be done by converting a table/partial-table at a time?
It wouldn't be
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 07:45:56AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
documentation and will power we put into it.
It will, but
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WIP archive_timeout.
All we need to do is add LWLock support to archiver.
Thoughts/ideas/hints welcome.
Hint: this isn't the archiver's
issue DDL
You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
Something like this:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM (
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
LANGUAGE plperl
$$...$$
) AS (a int, b point, c text)
JOIN ...
Anyhow, the idea is to be able to call PL functionality in-line
without having to create a
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:41:42PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
issue DDL
You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
Something like this:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM (
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
LANGUAGE plperl
$$...$$
) AS (a int, b point, c text)
JOIN ...
Anyhow, the idea is
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Does anyone have examples of real user-defined types that would need two
fields? If not it may not be worth spending time on.
What about if someone wanted to implement a relation as a type? I could
see perhaps something like:
CREATE TABLE (
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
Agreed.
I'm picturing something like this:
1. Each person taking an
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
Agreed.
I'm picturing something like this:
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import=
a
dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint=
.
This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work=
fine.
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
claiming items goes.
What say?
I think this is a good plan for adding additional process overhead,
What say?
It's a shame to have a person burn cycles on this, but anything would be
an improvement over what we've got now.
Really?
I lot of this could be automated with a web app. The web app takes the
todo, a hacker signs up. Hacker takes todo. Web app reminds
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct
the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we
ought not expend the cycles. I have a preliminary patch
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items goes.
What say?
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I modified the code to store the user statement name in the portal for
protocol execute, so I can print the user name at that time.
Please forget that and print the portal name. I'm getting tired of
repeating it, but: there are two different names here
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, my thought is that you'd rename PL/R's init function to PG_init, and
then it'd get called automagically without needing to assume that the DBA
remembers to specify it in preload_libraries. If there's a reason *not*
to do that then it'd be a strike
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items
In README.pgcrypto, Section 2.3 Deprecated functions says that
digest_exists(), hmac_exists(), and cipher_exists() are planned to
be removed in PostgreSQL 8.2. Those functions still exist -- should
they be removed or does that section need updating?
--
Michael Fuhr
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
