Hi,
I also wrote Bruce about that.
It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
their business model, if and if.
If you
Hi,
While we are at async i/o. I think direct i/o and concurrent i/o also deserve a look at. The archives suggest that Bruce had some misgivings about dio because of no kernel caching, but almost all databases seem to (carefully) use dio (Solaris, Linux, ?) and cio (AIX) extensively nowadays.
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 22:57, kirjutas Bruce Momjian:
I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be mentioning
commercial solutions.
IMNSHO, having commercial solutions based on postgresql which extend
postgres in directions not (yet?) done by core postgres is nothing to
Hi,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change.
I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in
our documentation.
I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers to commercial
extensions in the official
I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be
mentioning commercial solutions.
I think maybe the PostgreSQL documentation should be careful about
trying to list a complete list of commercial *or* free solutions.
Instead linking to something on the main website or on techdocs that can
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include.
Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL?
Here is what I get with loglevel=2
08:47:18.718 (1) PostgreSQL 8.2devel JDBC3 with SSL (build 503)
08:47:18.718 (1) Trying to establish a protocol version 3 connection to
localhost:5432
08:47:18.859 (1) FE= StartupPacket(user=postgres, database=main,
client_encoding=UNICODE, DateStyle=ISO)
Tom Lane ha scritto:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Limit (50)
Sort (key: pse_lastlogin)
Result
Append
Limit (50)
SeqScan tbl_profile_search
Limit (50)
Indexscan tbl_profile_search_interest_1
Limit (50)
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term
'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a
well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to
avoid that term.
snip
I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted
commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that
advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions,
and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense.
If we are to add them, I
A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions
that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just
because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql
and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document.
OK, does that
JEAN-PIERRE PELLETIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
08:47:19.296 (1) FE= Parse(stmt=null,query=select $1 from (select * from
pg_database) t,oids={23})
Actually, now that I look closely, this command is almost certainly
triggering this beta1 bug:
Hi, Cesar,
Cesar Suga wrote:
If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with
PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial
offerings in some way.
I think only the source and its tightly coupled (read: can compile along
with, free as PostgreSQL)
Cesar Suga wrote:
Hi,
I also wrote Bruce about that.
It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
their business
I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others
suggest it.
[ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]
I have added this text:
Commercial Solutions
Because PostgreSQL is open source and easily extended, a number of
companies have taken PostgreSQL and created commercial closed-source
solutions with unique failover, replication,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others
suggest it.
[ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]
I also wrote Bruce about that.
It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions
(rather than they doing so by other vehicles) you will
always happen
to be an 'updater' to the docs if they change their product
lines, if
they change their business model, if and if.
they change their business model, if and if.
That is no different than the open source offerings. We have
had several open source offerings that have died over the
years. Replicator, for example has always been Replicator and
has been around longer than any of the current replication
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:24:16AM +0530, rajesh boppana wrote:
i want to implement materialized views in postgresql . to do as i
want to modify the code in backend but i don't know what r the files i have
to modify. so please help me by mentioning about the backend code.
If you're
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated.
I agree with that. If we have statements about other projects in our
docs, we
Seems that plpgsql in 8.2B1 thinks that selects of the form '
and foo not in (select ... )' should be function calls, not
subselects. These worked fine in 8.1.
Here's a smallish script which reproduces the problem on 8.2RC1 / OSX:
If you comment out the 'and NEW.id not in (select
I've been analyzing Ed L's recent report of index corruption:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-10/msg01183.php
(thanks to Ed for letting me have the actual index to study).
I think I've figured out what happened to it. nbtree/README says
: The notion of a half-dead page means
Yes, the problem is gone in 8.2 beta2.
Thanks all for an outstanding product and support,
Jean-Pierre Pelletier
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JEAN-PIERRE PELLETIER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC]
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated.
I agree with that. If we have statements about other projects
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change.
I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in
our documentation.
I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers to
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term
'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a
well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to
Hi,
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated.
I agree with that. If we have statements about other
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated.
I agree with that. If we have statements
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated.
I agree with
Hi Hannu, everyone,
I apologize for not having read the document in question - will do
shortly. My comments are brought about by the dialogue I read on list this
morning...
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Can we name the chapter Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication
Options? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words.
...
IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Can we name the chapter Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication
Options? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words.
...
IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a
Totally agree. The docs will tend to outlive whatever projects or
websites they mention. Best to not bake that into stone.
-Casey
On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be
mentioning commercial solutions.
I think maybe the
This is a server bug, I will post to hackers for you,
Please provide a complete test case. I tried to reproduce the failure
in libpq, with
tom, i've just noticed this is the exact same error message errorcode as i
get when updating a table that contains a tsearch2 vector column
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
...Read the document, as promissed...
First paragraph, (fail over) is inconsistent with title, failover, as
are other spots throughout the document. The whole
Alexey Klyukin wrote:
Hi,
A typo:
(a write to any server has to be _propogated_)
s/propogated/propagated
Thanks, fixed.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for
Bruce,
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can
get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
Richard Troy wrote:
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
...Read the document, as promissed...
First paragraph, (fail over) is inconsistent with title, failover, as
are other spots
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can
get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial.
It isn't designed for that. It is designed for
James Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems that plpgsql in 8.2B1 thinks that selects of the form '
and foo not in (select ... )' should be function calls, not
subselects. These worked fine in 8.1.
Fixed, thanks. It's not actually plpgsql's fault ...
FYI, I am leaving Friday for a two-week trip for EnterpriseDB. I am
going to Tokyo, Islamabad (Pakistan), and Pune (India). I return on
Friday, November 10. I will have Internet connectivity, but of course I
will not be online as frequently as usual.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/25/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say
Bruce,
It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand
what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think
most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation,
though I have a few as examples.
Do they? I've seen no discussion of the
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand
what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think
most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation,
though I have a few as examples.
Do they? I've
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling
that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about
any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I feel that, when I'm
reading PostgreSQL docs I would like to know how to set
Bruce,
Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it
current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the
list.
So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it
current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the
list.
So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work.
Yes.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:42:17PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling
that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about
any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I feel
I wrote:
I've been analyzing Ed L's recent report of index corruption:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-10/msg01183.php
After some thought, it still seems to me to be impractical to delete the
rightmost child of a btree page while other children remain. Doing this
would
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why
there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something
right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it.
I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Cesar Suga wrote:
Hi,
I also wrote Bruce about that.
It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
Hi All,
I am now trying to implement pg_get_domaindef() function which is in the TODO
list and ran into a minor issue.
When the following command is given
CREATE DOMAIN testdomain AS text CONSTRAINT testconstraint NOT NULL;
I couldn't find the CONSTRAINT name ('testconstraint' in this case)
55 matches
Mail list logo
