Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Alvaro Herrera wrote: I was checking the DTrace docs for other reasons and I came across this, which maybe can be useful here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-6223/chp-xlate?a=view Yes, I think using the translator is the best approach to expose internal structures in a stable manner

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Alvaro Herrera wrote: Here's what I have. Please confirm that this compiles for you. I made some changes to the sed script so it works with the sed on Solaris & OS X. I tested this patch on both Solaris and OS X with DTrace enabled and disabled and also verified that the sed script works wi

Re: [HACKERS] Copy storage parameters on CREATE TABLE LIKE/INHERITS

Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a couple of other things that need to be thought about: > * LIKE is intended to copy a table as a *portion* of another table; You're absolutely right. I just thought it's a *better default* behavior because LIKE and INHERITS are often used in singl

[HACKERS] Fixing the representation of ORDER BY/GROUP BY/DISTINCT

So while I was fooling with Steve Midgley's problem I got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about the way that the parser emits ORDER BY, GROUP BY, and DISTINCT lists. * Currently, ORDER BY and DISTINCT use lists of SortClause, while GROUP BY is a list of GroupClause --- but these are actually the same

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Here's what I have. Please confirm that this compiles for you. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Index: src/backend/access/transam/clog.c ===

Re: [HACKERS] Should creating a new base type require superuser status?

Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I do agree that creating base types should require a superuser though. >> It too seems dangerous just on principle, even if today there's no >> actual hole (that we already know of). > pl/java already allows non

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Robert Lor wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> * The probes that pass buffer tag elements are already broken by the >> pending "relation forks" patch: there is soon going to be another field >> in buffer tags. Perhaps it'd be feasible to pass the buffer tag as a >> single probe argument to make that a

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Robert Lor wrote: >> That Mac OS X problem merits some extra investigation, I think. >> > I'm investigating this one and will find the root cause, but I don't > think it should hold back this patch. >> Other than this, I think this patch can be committed. >> > I'd appreciate if it can be c

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Alvaro Herrera wrote: But I don't see a reason to define the rest: +typedef unsigned int locktag_field2; +typedef const char * query_string; +typedef int sortType; +typedef int trueFalse; +typedef int nkeys; +typedef int workMem; +typedef int randomAccess; +typedef unsigned long LogicalTap

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing DISTINCT ON for duplicate keys

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It seems to me that DISTINCT ON is just a special case of the more > > general windowing functions > > > > Harada-san has been

Re: [HACKERS] Should creating a new base type require superuser status?

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think being able to return cstring from a user defined function is quite dangerous already. I doubt we would ever give that capability to non-superusers. I do agree that creating base types should require a superuser though. It too seems dangerous

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing DISTINCT ON for duplicate keys

David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems to me that DISTINCT ON is just a special case of the more > general windowing functions > > Harada-san has been working on. Could these use the same machinery? Perhaps at some p

Re: [HACKERS] Plans for 8.4

On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Henry B. Hotz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm making no promises, but what would people think of a hostgss hba option? As described, sounds like a win to me. It'd be very nice to be able to just use GSSAPI encrypti

Re: [HACKERS] Creating Universal OSX binaries

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we know this trick for creating Universal (four-architecture) > binaries for OSX? This seems largely irrelevant to CVS HEAD: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg00884.php The proposed trick doesn't actually work in any case, since

Re: [HACKERS] window function v03 against HEAD

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:13:52AM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2008/8/1 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You will be as soon as I can arrange it. I may move or re-create > > that repository. Please send me a username and an RSA public key > > so I can give you git-shell access. > > Thank

Re: [HACKERS] Review: DTrace probes (merged version) ver_03

Robert Lor wrote: Hi, >> What I suggest might be a reasonable compromise is to copy needed >> typedefs directly into the probes.d file: > Implemented this suggestion. There are some weirdness with the OS X > compiler causing some of the probe declarations not to compile (see > comments in pr

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing DISTINCT ON for duplicate keys

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:38:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I looked into this trouble report: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-07/msg00123.php > > Comments? It seems to me that DISTINCT ON is just a special case of the more general windowing functions

[HACKERS] compilig libpq with borland 5.5

Hi everybody Iam traying to build libpq.lib and libpq.dll library using Borland c++ 5.5 and i got these error: "Error libpq.rc 1 11: Cannot open file: winver.h" I opened the libpq.rc file and i saw the reference to that file "#include " I cheched out the path and the existence of the file and e

Re: [HACKERS] Type Categories for User-Defined Types

On Jul 30, 2008, at 13:10, Tom Lane wrote: Yes, that was essentially my point. "arbitrary string of text" types are probably fairly rare, since one can just use text or citext or varchar. Good point --- so new members of STRING category aren't going to be that common, except for domains whi

[HACKERS] Fixing DISTINCT ON for duplicate keys

I looked into this trouble report: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-07/msg00123.php The problem is that by the time we get to transformDistinctClause(), any duplicate entries in the ORDER BY list have been eliminated (see addTargetToSortList). But transformDistinctClause expects a on

Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress inputdir

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote: > > > Do we also agree that if you set --inputdir to anything other than the > > default, pg_regress will not work (will write a file to one folder, and > > try to read the same file from another)? > > > > And if we agree above - shoul

Re: [HACKERS] window function v03 against HEAD

2008/8/1 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You will be as soon as I can arrange it. I may move or re-create that > repository. Please send me a username and an RSA public key so I can > give you git-shell access. Thank you for your consideration. But right now, I'm going to be off for three da

Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress inputdir

Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway wrote: > Do we also agree that if you set --inputdir to anything other than the > default, pg_regress will not work (will write a file to one folder, and > try to read the same file from another)? > > And if we agree above - should we make setting --inputdir work (r

Re: [HACKERS] window function v03 against HEAD

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00:15PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2008/7/31 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Sorry about that. Apparently, at least the way things are set up, > > there's a *lot* of history you can rewind. Further changes should > > move pretty quickly :) > > Thankfully,

Re: [HACKERS][PATCHES] odd output in restore mode

"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Zaun wrote: >> With these avenues to be explored, can the pg_standby patch on the >> CommitFest wiki be moved to the "Returned with Feedback" section? > Yes, I think we can conclude that we don't want this patch as it is. > Instead, we wan

Re: [HACKERS][PATCHES] odd output in restore mode

Martin Zaun wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Greg Smith wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Kevin Grittner wrote: I've been working on an improved archive_command shell script that I expect to submit for comments and potential inclusion in the documentation as a better base fo

Re: [HACKERS] Dumping datconfig

Magnus Hagander wrote: > It seems the only way to dump stuff in pg_database.datconfig ("ALTER > DATABASE foo SET something=bar") is to do an unqualified pg_dumpall. > > I think this should *at least* be dumped with pg_dump when it's set to > create the database, and I think a case could be made th

Re: [HACKERS] Plans for 8.4

Stephen Frost wrote: > * Henry B. Hotz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> I'm making no promises, but what would people think of a hostgss hba >> option? > > As described, sounds like a win to me. It'd be very nice to be able to > just use GSSAPI encryption on the link. That, combined w/ Magnus' wo

[HACKERS] Dumping datconfig

It seems the only way to dump stuff in pg_database.datconfig ("ALTER DATABASE foo SET something=bar") is to do an unqualified pg_dumpall. I think this should *at least* be dumped with pg_dump when it's set to create the database, and I think a case could be made that it should *always* be dumped w

Re: [HACKERS] window function v03 against HEAD

2008/7/31 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:46:29PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> 2008/7/31 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:12:26PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> >> 2008/7/29 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > On Mon, Jul 28,

Re: [HACKERS] Should creating a new base type require superuser status?

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 06:07:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I do agree that creating base types should require a superuser though. > It too seems dangerous just on principle, even if today there's no > actual hole (that we already know of). I agree. -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1

Re: [HACKERS] Type Categories for User-Defined Types

Hi, Le mercredi 30 juillet 2008, David E. Wheeler a écrit : > On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:34, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> [ move preferred-type info into the system catalogs ] > > UUID and so on aren't considered part of the string category, and > > shouldn't be IMHO ... any type that has semantics significa

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] "\ef " in psql

I have attached two patches: - funcdef.diff implements pg_get_functiondef() - edit.diff implements "\ef function" in psql based on (1). Comments appreciated. -- ams diff --git a/src/include/utils/builtins.h b/src/include/utils/builtins.h index 1ba20b0..ccf0d68 100644 --- a/src/include/utils/buil