[HACKERS] Re: patch-3 (3-allow-wal-record-header-to-be-split.patch)WAL Format Changes

2012-06-30 Thread Amit kapila
From: Heikki Linnakangas [heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 1:54 AM On 30.06.2012 10:11, Amit kapila wrote: >> 3. General observation, not related to your changes >> XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info, XLogRecData *rdata) >>. >>. >> if (freespace == 0) >>

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: relation metapages

2012-06-30 Thread Albert Vernon
Hello, I tried to perform a submission review of your relation metapages patch, but it does not apply cleanly to the current master (fa188b5). I've attached the rejects file for your review. Regards, Albert gist.c.rej Description: application/reject -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing lis

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: relation metapages

2012-06-30 Thread Albert Vernon
Hello, I tried to perform a submission review of your relation metapages patch, but it does not apply cleanly to the current master (fa188b5). I've attached the rejects file for your review. Regards, Albert gist.c.rej Description: application/reject -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing li

Re: [HACKERS] Support for array_remove and array_replace functions

2012-06-30 Thread Marco Nenciarini
On 30/06/2012 04:16, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > > Hi, I've been reviewing this patch. > > Good documentation, and regression tests. The code looked fine but I > didn't care for the code duplication between array_replace and > array_remove so I merged those into a helper function, > array_replace_int

Re: [HACKERS] Pruning the TODO list

2012-06-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On lör, 2012-06-30 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It'd be better to put a disclaimer at the front pointing out that some > of these items are unfinished because of lack of consensus, not just > lack of code. There is a fairly extensive disclaimer at the top of the wiki page. Maybe it was added

[HACKERS] Re: patch-3 (3-allow-wal-record-header-to-be-split.patch)WAL Format Changes

2012-06-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 30.06.2012 10:11, Amit kapila wrote: ReadRecord(XLogRecPtr *RecPtr, int emode, bool fetching_ckpt) + /* + * If we got the whole header already, validate it immediately. Otherwise + * we validate it after reading the rest of the header from the next page. + */ + if (targetRecOff<= XLOG_BLCKS

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting existing table tuples on alter type

2012-06-30 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Rikard Pavelic wrote: > How hard would it be to rewrite table content on composite attribute type > change? I wouldn't anticipate especially-thorny challenges. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Pruning the TODO list

2012-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Markus Wanner writes: > To me, it looks like TODO is just a misnomer. The file should be named > TODISCUSS, IDEAS, or something. But the current file name implies consensus. > Wouldn't renaming solve that kind of misunderstanding? I think there are enough references to "the TODO list" in our arc

Re: [HACKERS] elog/ereport noreturn decoration

2012-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > But my point was, there aren't any unused code warnings. None of the > commonly used compilers issue any. I'd be interested to know if there > is any recent C compiler supported by PostgreSQL that issues some kind > of unused code warning under any circumstances, and s

Re: [HACKERS] Can someone help me to get ODBC fdw running on windows?

2012-06-30 Thread Edson Richter
Em 29/06/2012 20:36, Edson Richter escreveu: I've tried to compile ODBC fdw on Win64 with all sort of compilers without success (MingGW, gcc-win32, MS C++2005 32 and 64). I think I'm getting too old for this so many switches, too many dependencies. Could a gently soul help me get back on track,

[HACKERS] Rewriting existing table tuples on alter type

2012-06-30 Thread Rikard Pavelic
How hard would it be to rewrite table content on composite attribute type change? For simple use cases: create type complex as (i int, j int); create table numbers (c complex); insert into numbers values(row(1,2)); I can work around alter complex from int to bigint "fairly" easy with alter type

Re: [HACKERS] Pruning the TODO list

2012-06-30 Thread Cédric Villemain
Le samedi 30 juin 2012 11:39:09, Markus Wanner a écrit : > Hi, > > On 06/22/2012 05:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I think the real problem with the TODO list is that some people see it > > as some sort of official roadmap, and it really isn't. Neither is there > > anything else that is. > > To

Re: [HACKERS] elog/ereport noreturn decoration

2012-06-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-06-29 at 17:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Yes. The problem with trying to change that is that it's damned if > you do and damned if you don't: compilers that are aware that abort() > doesn't return will complain about unreachable code if we keep those > extra variable initializations, w

Re: [HACKERS] Covering Indexes

2012-06-30 Thread Thomas Munro
On 28 June 2012 14:02, Rob Wultsch wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, David E. Wheeler > wrote: >> I'm particularly intrigued by "covering indexes". For example: >> >>    CREATE INDEX cover1 ON table1(a,b) COVERING(c,d); > > IRC MS SQL also allow unindexed columns in the index. For what

[HACKERS] XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash

2012-06-30 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, Currently its possible to cause transactions to fail with ALTER ENUM ADD AFTER/BEFORE: psql 1: CREATE TYPE enumcrash AS ENUM('a', 'b'); CREATE FUNCTION randenum() RETURNS enumcrash LANGUAGE sql AS $$SELECT * FROM unnest(enum_range('a'::enumcrash)) ORDER BY random() LIMIT 1$$; CREATE TABLE

Re: [HACKERS] Pruning the TODO list

2012-06-30 Thread Markus Wanner
Hi, On 06/22/2012 05:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I think the real problem with the TODO list is that some people see it > as some sort of official roadmap, and it really isn't. Neither is there > anything else that is. To me, it looks like TODO is just a misnomer. The file should be named TODI

[HACKERS] patch-3 (3-allow-wal-record-header-to-be-split.patch)WAL Format Changes

2012-06-30 Thread Amit kapila
While reading patch-3 (3-allow-wal-record-header-to-be-split.patch) of WAL Format Changes(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4fda5136.6080...@enterprisedb.com), I had few observations which are summarized below: 1. ReadRecord(XLogRecPtr *RecPtr, int emode, bool fetching_ckpt) + /* + * If