KaiGai Kohei wrote:
We have an another approach that defines ACL_SELECT_FOR_SHARE as
an alias of ACL_SELECT, and applies it on SELECT FOR SHARE statement.
(Needless to say, the targets are already listed, so it might not necessary
to put a ACL_SELECT_FOR_SHARE bit explicitly.)
That's even
Here the patch to /src/include/pg_config_os.h attached improving
Borland C++ Compiler compatibility.
Issues described here:
http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/building-postgresql-client-library-using-borland-c-compiler-bcc-under-winxp/
This patch defines missing constants needed by
Here the patches to /src/include/libpq/libpq-be.h and
/src/interfaces/libpq/libpq-int.h attached improving
MinGW compatibility.
Issues described here:
http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/building-postgresql-client-library-using-mingw-under-winxp-sp3/
This patch adds missing includes with
Here the patch to /src/interfaces/libpq/bcc32.mak attached improving
Borland C++ Compiler compatibility.
Issues described here:
http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/building-postgresql-client-library-using-borland-c-compiler-bcc-under-winxp/
This patch changes order of include folders placing
++
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:01:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
Speaking of standard_conforming_strings, I know it's late, but if
we make it a requirement now, a lot of problems just go away.
Yes, it's inconvenient, but we're making lots of big
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I've always been scared to ask this question, in case the answer is No,
but: Do we have a set of regression tests for the optimizer anywhere?
Nothing beyond what is in the standard tests. While
Hello
2009/4/11 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/4/11 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I am sending small patch, that allows hooking transformation stage of
parser.
Isn't this the exact same patch we
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
IMHO the only sane change would be to introduce a new
ACL_SELECT_FOR_SHARE permission for SELECT FOR SHARE.
This might be worth doing ...
That way you could
grant SELECT_FOR_SHARE permission on a table to let people insert rows
Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I've always been scared to ask this question, in case the answer is No,
but: Do we have a set of regression tests for the optimizer anywhere?
Nothing beyond what
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/4/11 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
No, I was complaining that a hook right there is useless and expensive.
transformExpr() is executed multiple times per query, potentially a very
large number of times per query; so even testing to see if a
On 4/18/09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Sam Mason s...@samason.me.uk writes:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 07:07:31PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
Btw, is there any good reason why we don't reject \000, \x00
in text
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Can't we make first cut at it by just running with timings on and then
compare ratios of running times - maybe with 2-3X tolerance - to catch
most obvious regressions ?
The current regression tests are a series of yes/no answers
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm inclined to think that some sort of fuzzy examination of EXPLAIN
output (in this example, are there constant-comparison conditions in
the relation scans?) might do the job, but I'm not sure how we'd
go about that.
If we
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
That way you could
grant SELECT_FOR_SHARE permission on a table to let people insert rows
into other tables that have a foreign key reference to it, without
having to grant UPDATE permission.
... but this argument
2009/4/18 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/4/11 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
No, I was complaining that a hook right there is useless and expensive.
transformExpr() is executed multiple times per query, potentially a very
large number of times
Ian Barwick wrote:
Note I'm not sure whether this is a bug, or whether the assumption
made for the original query (that the row order returned by the
subquery would be carried over to the main part of the query) is
incorrect but just happened to work as expected pre-8.4.
The latter. Without an
Ian Barwick wrote:
Workaround / solution to produce consistent results is to move the
ORDER BY 1 to the main SELECT clause:
SELECT 1 AS id , 2 AS tmpl_id
WHERE FALSE
UNION
SELECT * FROM
(SELECT 2 AS id, 96 AS tmpl_id
UNION
SELECT 3 AS id, 101 AS
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Ian Barwick wrote:
Note I'm not sure whether this is a bug, or whether the assumption
made for the original query (that the row order returned by the
subquery would be carried over to the main part of the query) is
incorrect but
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm inclined to think that some sort of fuzzy examination of EXPLAIN
output (in this example, are there constant-comparison conditions in
the relation scans?) might do the job, but I'm
On 18 Apr 2009, at 22:22, Tom Lane wrote:
This is mentioned in the release notes, but I suppose we'd better
promote it to the observe the following incompatibilities list...
This is a really funny one, because people naturally expect UNION
[ALL] to stay in the same order. Unlike the
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
g...@pointblue.com.pl wrote:
This is a really funny one, because people naturally expect UNION [ALL] to
stay in the same order. Unlike the table, order here cannot change by
inserts/updates, etc.
I am sure many, even well experienced will
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
...
I suppose if we had explain-to-a-table then we could run explain and
then run an sql query to verify the specific properties we were
looking for.
A similar thing could be done with xml if we had powerful enough xml
predicates but
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
That way you could
grant SELECT_FOR_SHARE permission on a table to let people insert rows
into other tables that have a foreign key reference to it, without
having to grant UPDATE
2009/4/19 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Ian Barwick wrote:
Note I'm not sure whether this is a bug, or whether the assumption
made for the original query (that the row order returned by the
subquery would be carried over to the
Hi guys,
I noticed the following item under Observe the following
incompatibilities in the 8.4 release notes (E.1.2.4.1.)
* Require to_timestamp() input to match meridian (AM/PM) and era
(BC/AD) format designations with respect to presence of periods
(Brendan Jurd)
For example, input
25 matches
Mail list logo
