On 16 March 2013 09:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes:
This surprised me:
david=# select array_length('{}'::text[], 1);
array_length
--
[null]
I had expecte dit to retur 0. I might expect NULL for a
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
ignore the invalid index?
This problem exists even without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch. So
2013-03-15 18:53 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Boszormenyi Zoltanz...@cybertec.at writes:
[ 2-lock_timeout-v33.patch ]
I looked at this patch a bit. I don't understand why you've chosen to
alter the API of the enable_timeout variants to have a bool result that
says I didn't bother to process
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
2013-03-15 18:53 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Also, I'm not really enamored of the choice to use List* infrastructure
for enable_timeouts().
Changed. However, the first member of the structure is
TimeoutId id and a sensible end-of-array value can be
2013-03-16 17:42 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
2013-03-15 18:53 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Also, I'm not really enamored of the choice to use List* infrastructure
for enable_timeouts().
Changed. However, the first member of the structure is
TimeoutId
* Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote:
Stephen Frost was against the array pointer/count variant,
it was done that way earlier. Let me redo it again. :-)
I still don't particularly like the array approach, and see the
array+count approach as worse (seems like a higher chance that the
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote:
Stephen Frost was against the array pointer/count variant,
it was done that way earlier. Let me redo it again. :-)
I still don't particularly like the array approach, and see the
array+count approach as
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 16 March 2013 09:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The thing is that that syntax creates an array of zero dimensions,
not one that has 1 dimension and zero elements.
I'm going to ask the question that immediately comes to mind: Is there
anything
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Perhaps not. I think for most uses, a 1-D zero-length array would be
just as good. I guess what I'd want to know is whether we also need
to support higher-dimensional zero-size arrays, and if so, what does
the I/O syntax for
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
On the whole though, I don't see anything wrong with pointer-and-count.
I don't really believe that there's ever going to be a need to enable
more than a couple of timeouts simultaneously, so I don't want an overly
complicated data structure for it.
On 2013/03/17, at 0:35, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
ignore the invalid
2013/3/16 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 16 March 2013 09:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The thing is that that syntax creates an array of zero dimensions,
not one that has 1 dimension and zero elements.
I'm going to ask the question that
On 17 March 2013 05:19, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 16 March 2013 09:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The thing is that that syntax creates an array of zero dimensions,
not one that has 1 dimension and zero elements.
I'm going to ask the
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 17 March 2013 05:19, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Perhaps not. I think for most uses, a 1-D zero-length array would be
just as good. I guess what I'd want to know is whether we also need
to support higher-dimensional zero-size arrays, and if
On 15 March 2013 13:08, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-03-15 14:32:57 +0200, Ants Aasma wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Fletcher's checksum is good in general, I was mainly worried about
truncating the Fletcher-64
Tom Lane wrote:
Another way that we perhaps should consider is to follow the example of
XLogInsert and use internally-threaded lists that are typically stored
in local arrays in the callers. I've never thought that way was
especially beautiful, but it does have the advantage of being an
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 15 March 2013 13:08, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I commented on this before, I personally think this property makes fletcher a
not so good fit for this. Its not uncommon for parts of a block being
all-zero
and many disk corruptions
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
[ 2-lock_timeout-v37.patch ]
Applied after a fair amount of additional hacking.
I was disappointed to find that the patch introduced a new race
condition into timeout.c, or at least broke a safety factor that had
been there. The argument why
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Another way that we perhaps should consider is to follow the example of
XLogInsert and use internally-threaded lists that are typically stored
in local arrays in the callers. I've never thought that way was
especially beautiful,
On 17 March 2013 06:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What I'm concerned about here is whether these expressions shouldn't
be yielding different data values:
Right now, if we did make them produce what they appear to mean, the
array I/O functions would have a problem with representing
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
I noticed that there are a whole bunch of errmsgs in ArrayCount and
ReadArrayStr that just say malformed array literal with no detail
message at all. Not very helpful. I'm tempted to improve that on my
way past.
+1, regardless of whether we end up
21 matches
Mail list logo
