2009/12/16 decibel deci...@decibel.org
On Dec 11, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Ashish wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated
and actual row counts
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:10 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Investigating how that could come about, it looks like there is some
fairly strange stuff going on here. StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions()
is never called at all.
I told you so:
That fixes or explains all known issues, from me. Are there any other
things you know about that I haven't responded to? Do you think we have
addressed every issue, except deferred items?
I will be looking to commit to CVS later today; waiting on any
objections.
Is following problem reported
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:08 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
That fixes or explains all known issues, from me. Are there any other
things you know about that I haven't responded to? Do you think we have
addressed every issue, except deferred items?
I will be looking to commit to CVS later
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
foreach p2_member in unnest(p2) loop
p1 := array(select period_except(p1_member, p2_member)
from unnest(p1) p1_member);
end loop;
But maybe it can be done in a single SQL command.
Yeah, as soon as you have LATERAL,
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Just to make those who care aware of it, here is Michael Cahill's
Doctoral Thesis based on implementing Serializable Snapshot
Isolation in InnoDB using a refined version of the techniques
previously used in the Berkley DB (and previously discussed on this
list):
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
The very, very large practical problem with this is that if you decide
to change the behavior at any time, the only way to be sure that the WAL
receiver is using
OK, here's another approach. output_statement()'s interface
is kept as the original, and not this function decides which
I still think this could be solved more easily.
value it uses. I also introduced
static char *ecpg_statement_type_name[]
for the textual names of the ECPGst_* symbols
I'm interested in abstracting out features of replication from libpq too. It
would be nice if we could implement different communication bus modules.
For example if you have dozens of replicas you may want to use something
like spread to distribute the records using multicast.
Sorry for top
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 20:25 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
Hot Standby node can freeze when startup process calls LockBufferForCleanup().
This bug can be reproduced by the following procedure.
Interesting. Looks like this can happen, which is a shame cos I just
removed the wait checking code
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:08 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
That fixes or explains all known issues, from me. Are there any other
things you know about that I haven't responded to? Do you think we have
addressed every issue, except deferred items?
I will be looking to commit to CVS later
2009/12/16 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at:
Quote:
The problem [of phantom reads] was identified in (Eswaran et al., 1976),
but the general purpose predicate locking solution suggested there
has not been widely adopted because of the difficulty in testing mutual
satisfiability
* Albe Laurenz:
That sounds like it should actually work.
If you have got an index, yes. It seems to me that it would make
locking behavior dependent on your query plan, too.
BTW, PostgreSQL could raise a different error when a unique constraint
violation is detected which involves a row
Michael Meskes írta:
OK, here's another approach. output_statement()'s interface
is kept as the original, and not this function decides which
I still think this could be solved more easily.
Thanks very much for committing it.
But I don't understand your change. My code was:
Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
By the way, reading LogStandbySnapshot() and GetRunningTransactionLocks()
raised following questions.
* There is a window beween gathering lock information in
GetRunningTransactionLocks()
and writing WAL in LogAccessExclusiveLocks().
* In current lock redo
Nicolas Barbier wrote:
Quote:
[...]
That sounds like it should actually work.
That boils down to 2PL, using a granularity that is somewhere between
table locks and single-row locks (note that the latter doesn't
correctly enforce serializability, hence something more coarse which
also
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:54:41AM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Your code in ecpg.addons calls output_statement()
unconditionally with ECPGst_prepnormal and
output_statement() decides what to do with the
auto_prepare global variable. Your code doesn't
seem more readable than mine, but
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:35 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
Sorry for annoying you.
Not at all! Good to get fresh eyes on this.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:35 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
* There is a window beween gathering lock information in
GetRunningTransactionLocks()
and writing WAL in LogAccessExclusiveLocks().
* In current lock redo algorithm, locks are released when the transaction
holding the lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 04:16:28PM +0100, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
[...]
whatever
and
same whatever as before + the character with the lowest value in
lexicographical ordering.
I don't think it is possible to get anything in between those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49:19AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:05AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 10:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would it be OK if we handled float timestamp
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 10:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 20:25 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
Hot Standby node can freeze when startup process calls
LockBufferForCleanup().
This bug can be reproduced by the following procedure.
Interesting. Looks like this can happen,
On 12/16/09, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
[Please ignore the previous incomplete version of this reply, which I
sent by mistake. Sorry for the list noise.]
On 12/15/2009 2:09 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
Oh. Ok then. Force-inline seems better fix as we may want to use
it for
On 12/16/09, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
Your worry ii) can be ignored, managing to compile on such
compilers is already overachievement.
I think so too. With your opinion added to mine, do we
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
b) function listagg (it is analogy of group_concat from MySQL) - it
should simplify report generating and some other
This is redundant, as it's equivalent to array_to_string(array_agg()).
when I implement it in
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/16/09, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
For gcc, I think the __attribute__ has to come after the function's
parameter list, rather than before the return type.
No.
[ squint... ] That's nowhere documented that I can find: all the
examples in
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
foreach p2_member in unnest(p2) loop
p1 := array(select period_except(p1_member, p2_member)
from unnest(p1) p1_member);
end loop;
But maybe it can be done in
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/09, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
Your worry ii) can be ignored, managing to compile on such
compilers is already
On tis, 2009-12-15 at 17:19 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
running with log_checkpoints = on
pg_ctl -D foo -m fast stop
log says
LOG: received fast shutdown request
LOG: aborting any active transactions
LOG: shutting down
LOG: restartpoint starting: shutdown immediate
Some of us
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE
would turn static inline into plain static, so hypothetically
they would get some warnings about unused functions.
As this is all hypothetical, I don't see why that should stop us
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/15 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/t-sql-programming/median-workbench/
In this article the are two medians - statistical and financial. I
am for both. But only one can be named median.
Well, since the
On 12/16/09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/16/09, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
For gcc, I think the __attribute__ has to come after the function's
parameter list, rather than before the return type.
No.
[ squint... ]
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Just to make those who care aware of it, here is Michael Cahill's
Doctoral Thesis based on implementing Serializable Snapshot
Isolation in InnoDB using a refined version of the techniques
2009/12/15 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Hello
I am looking on new feature - ORDER clause in aggregate, and I thing,
so we are able to effectively implement some non standard, but well
known aggregates.
a) function median - it is relative frequent request - with usually
slow
Moin,
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol, obtaining an exclusive
lock on the row after the one being inserted or deleted. The result
of this locking protocol is that a range scan prevents concurrent
inserts or
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol, obtaining an exclusive
lock on the row after the one being inserted or deleted. The result
of this locking
On 12/16/09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE
would turn static inline into plain static, so hypothetically
they would get some warnings about unused functions.
As this is
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Although it may have seemed that I was out to shoot the idea down,
I am interested in the topic. I guess my way of understanding
something is trying to find holes in it...
No problem. That's how ideas are explored and improved. The brick
wall
Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure whether the serialization failures that it may cause
are dependent on the plan used.
They are.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
2009/12/16 Thom Brown thombr...@gmail.com:
2009/12/15 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Hello
I am looking on new feature - ORDER clause in aggregate, and I thing,
so we are able to effectively implement some non standard, but well
known aggregates.
a) function median - it is relative
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:04 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2009-12-15 at 17:19 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
running with log_checkpoints = on
pg_ctl -D foo -m fast stop
log says
LOG: received fast shutdown request
LOG: aborting any active transactions
LOG: shutting
On 12/16/2009 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
the project policy is to not require any compiler features not found
in C89.
Is there somewhere a compendium of such policies which
fledgling hackers should consult to avoid embarrassment?
Regards,
... kurt
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Here is a set of patches to address this issue.
The first one is a small refactoring of the signal setting portability
business.
The second one fixes the SIGQUIT handler inadvertently unblocking
SIGQUIT within itself.
The third one installs an alarm so that if the ereport() call in
quickdie()
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to second-class
targets, not worth getting max performance out of them.
Hm? Failing to inline is already a performance hit, which is why
Kurt got interested in this in the first place.
I think you're way
On ons, 2009-12-16 at 07:44 -0800, Kurt Harriman wrote:
On 12/16/2009 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
the project policy is to not require any compiler features not found
in C89.
Is there somewhere a compendium of such policies which
fledgling hackers should consult to avoid embarrassment?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
On 12/16/2009 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
the project policy is to not require any compiler features not found
in C89.
Is there somewhere a compendium of such policies which
fledgling hackers should consult to avoid
Peter Eisentraut escribió:
Here is a set of patches to address this issue.
The first one is a small refactoring of the signal setting portability
business.
This one looks like should be applied immediately to get some buildfarm
coverage (and alpha3)
--
Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
Is there somewhere a compendium of such policies which
fledgling hackers should consult to avoid embarrassment?
I do think your basic point is well-taken, though. There are a lot
Tom Lane escribió:
I think you're way overthinking this. Where we started was just
a proposal to try to expand the set of inline-ing compilers beyond
gcc only. I don't see why we need to do anything but that. The
code is fine as-is except for the control #ifdefs.
IIRC Kurt was also on
Thom Brown wrote:
2009/12/15 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Hello
I am looking on new feature - ORDER clause in aggregate, and I thing,
so we are able to effectively implement some non standard, but well
known aggregates.
a) function
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/15/09, Kurt Harriman harri...@acm.org wrote:
Attached is a revised patch, offered for the 2010-01 commitfest.
It's also available in my git repository in the submitted branch:
On 12/16/09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to second-class
targets, not worth getting max performance out of them.
Hm? Failing to inline is already a performance hit, which is why
Kurt got
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Here is a set of patches to address this issue.
The first one is a small refactoring of the signal setting portability
business.
OK
The second one fixes the SIGQUIT handler inadvertently unblocking
SIGQUIT within itself.
OK
The third one installs
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tom Lane escribió:
I think you're way overthinking this. Where we started was just
a proposal to try to expand the set of inline-ing compilers beyond
gcc only. I don't see why we need to do anything but that. The
code is fine as-is except
Kurt Harriman wrote:
On 12/16/2009 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
the project policy is to not require any compiler features not found
in C89.
Is there somewhere a compendium of such policies which
fledgling hackers should consult to avoid embarrassment?
The list of suggestions at
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 23:49 -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
So basically I have an anyrange pseudo type with the functions prev,
next, last, etc defined. So instead of hard coding range types, we would
allow the user to define their own range types. Basically if we are able
to determine the
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
There's one problem, and that's for timestamptz ranges with intervals
that include days and months. Timezone adjustments are just not
well-defined for that kind of granule (nor would it be particularly
useful even if it
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
[ hacky special-case representation for discrete timestamp ranges ]
I'm still not exactly clear on what the use-case is for discrete
timestamp ranges, and I wonder how many people are going to be happy
with a representation that can't handle a range that's
Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 23:49 -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
So basically I have an anyrange pseudo type with the functions prev,
next, last, etc defined. So instead of hard coding range types, we would
allow the user to define their own range types. Basically if we are able
to
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol, obtaining an exclusive
lock on the row after the one being inserted or deleted. The
Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
[ hacky special-case representation for discrete timestamp ranges ]
I'm still not exactly clear on what the use-case is for discrete
timestamp ranges, and I wonder how many people are going to be happy
with a representation that can't
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42
Robert Haas írta:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
So you'd have to disable HOT updates when true serializability was
active?
I wouldn't think so; but someone familiar with HOT logic could
probably determine whether the unmodified algorithm could be used by
reviewing the simplifying
Ok, silly question here. But how do you determine the length of a
continuous range? By definition length of [a, b) and (a, b] = b-a. But
what about (a,b) and [a,b]? Are we saying that because they are
continuous, the difference between values included in the range and
those excluded are so
Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net writes:
As I pointed out off-list, I think the granularity for timestamp range
should be limited to hours and smaller. Anything larger is asking for
trouble. And quite honestly if they wanted day granularity, they should
use date range.
I'm still not real
2009/12/15 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com
Jaime Casanova wrote:
So in this extreme case avg tps is just 6 transactions better
Great job trying to find the spot where the code worked better. I'm not so
sure I trust pgbench results where the TPS was so low though. Which leads
us right
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 20:07:07 Gurjeet Singh wrote:
2009/12/15 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com
Jaime Casanova wrote:
So in this extreme case avg tps is just 6 transactions better
Great job trying to find the spot where the code worked better. I'm not
so sure I trust pgbench
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
There's one problem, and that's for timestamptz ranges with intervals
that include days and months. Timezone adjustments are just not
well-defined for that kind of
I just realized that this was easy to do, and despite my complete lack of C
skillz was able to throw this together in a couple of hours. It might be handy
to some, though the possible downsides are:
* No json_to_hstore().
* Leads to requests for hstore_to_yaml(), hstore_to_xml(), etc.
* Andrew
Hi,
who is the main editor named Dano of the wiki page about Parallel
Query Execution
(http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution), please speak up.
Is there any code or patch available ATM? What discussion with Tom and
Simon is that page referring to?
Regards
Markus Wanner
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm still not exactly clear on what the use-case is for discrete
timestamp ranges, and I wonder how many people are going to be happy
with a representation that can't handle a range that's open-ended
on the left.
Huh? We're miscommunicating
*** a/doc/src/sgml/hstore.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/hstore.sgml
***
*** 278,284
entryget typehstore/'s keys as a set/entry
entryliteralskeys('a=gt;1,b=gt;2')/literal/entry
entry
! 22programlisting
a
b
/programlisting/entry
--- 278,284
On ons, 2009-12-16 at 10:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
So the plain-C89 compilers would be downgraded to second-class
targets, not worth getting max performance out of them.
Hm? Failing to inline is already a performance hit, which is why
Kurt got
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 20:34, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
*** a/doc/src/sgml/hstore.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/hstore.sgml
Heh, interesting. That clearly shouldn't be there. Applied.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
(and as Andrew Dunstan pointed out off-list: I was wrong with my bold
assertion that one can squeeze infinitely many (arbitrary length)
strings between two given. This is not always the case).
Of course you can do that if you assume lexicographical order, or any
other
Hey All,
I was just getting a new version of pgTAP ready for release, and while testing
it on HEAD, I got this error:
+ psql:pgtap.sql:5789: ERROR: syntax error at end of input
+ LINE 28: IF verbose THEN RETURN NEXT diag(tests[i] ||...
+^
I
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 04:29:26PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 18:06 -0600, decibel wrote:
Now that varlena's don't have an enormous fixed overhead, perhaps it's
worth looking at using them. Obviously some operations would be
slower, but for your stated examples of
David == David E Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
David Hey All,
David I was just getting a new version of pgTAP ready for release, and while
testing it on HEAD, I got this error:
David + psql:pgtap.sql:5789: ERROR: syntax error at end of input
David + LINE 28: IF
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:57:19AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
Ok, silly question here. But how do you determine the length of a
continuous range? By definition length of [a, b) and (a, b] = b-a. But
what about (a,b) and [a,b]? Are we saying that because they are
continuous, the
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote:
Robert Haas írta:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Dec 16,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
In short, I think that while it is possible to define ranges of strings,
it is not as useful as one would like.
Note it is not the *range* that is the problem, it is the assumption
that there's a unique next string. There's no unique next in
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
So you'd have to disable HOT updates when true serializability was
active?
I wouldn't think so; but someone familiar with HOT logic could
probably determine
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
I asked on IRC, and Andrew RhodiumToad Gierth pointed out that
it became a reserved word at some point.
Some point would have been around the time VACUUM VERBOSE got
invented, ie January 1997 according to the CVS logs. We can't unreserve
it until
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The argument for having
granularity wired into the datatype seems to boil down to just space
savings. I don't find that compelling enough to justify code
contortions and user-visible restrictions on functionality.
The argument (at least from
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
In short, I think that while it is possible to define ranges of strings,
it is not as useful as one would like.
Note it is not the *range* that is the problem, it is the assumption
that there's a unique next string.
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
But a period type will take just one or two more bytes if you don't
require alignment. Alignment on a varlena type seems silly anyway,
since you'll be aligning the header byte rather than the content.
You might still end up paying the alignment
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm still not exactly clear on what the use-case is for discrete
timestamp ranges, and I wonder how many people are going to be happy
with a representation that can't handle a range that's open-ended
on
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The argument for having
granularity wired into the datatype seems to boil down to just space
savings. I don't find that compelling enough to justify code
contortions and user-visible restrictions on
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:57:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
I still have not seen an answer to the problem of changing the
representation of a continuous range. If you have the continuous range
[5, 10], you're pretty much stuck with that representation,
Robert, Please forgive a couple editorial inserts to your statement
-- I hope it clarifies. If I've distorted your meaning, feel free
to straighten me out. :-)
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
This thread veered off into a discussion of the traditional
[predicate locking]
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 15:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh? We're miscommunicating somewhere.
Yeah, apparently. By open-ended I meant -infinity left bound, or null
left bound if you prefer. Not sure if there's a better term.
But my proposal allowed both of those things with various flag
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
However, it does seem reasonable to allow people to restrict, either by
typmod or a check constraint the kinds of values that can be stored in
a particular column. Then an application can decide which way they want
their intervals to work and
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 15:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Making it explicit doesn't fix the fact that you can't rely on the
arithmetic to be exact.
Can't rely on what arithmetic to be exact? Int64 timestamps should
clearly work for granules of 1 second.
If the administrator can choose a timestamp
Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
However, it does seem reasonable to allow people to restrict, either by
typmod or a check constraint the kinds of values that can be stored in
a particular column. Then an application can decide which way they want
their intervals
The Cahill thesis mentions an interesting optimization -- they defer
determination of the snapshot until after any locks required for the
first statement have been acquired. Where the first statement was,
for example, an UPDATE, this reduced re-reads or rollbacks in the
face of concurrent
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Can SELECT lo_create(16385); help this situation?
SELECT lo_create(loid) FROM (SELECT DISTINCT loid FROM pg_largeobject) AS t
would work for pg_migrator.
I'm not clear whether we also check pg_largeobejct has chunks
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
For example, if you're trying to do classroom scheduling, it might be
useful to constrain the periods to start and end on hour boundaries
--- but the next thing you'll want is to have it know that the next
slot after 5pm Friday is 8am Monday.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
What's your opinion about:
long desc: When turned on, privilege checks on large objects perform with
backward compatibility as 8.4.x or earlier
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
