Re: [HACKERS] Disaster!

2004-01-29 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20040125 03:52], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Hm, okay, I'm pretty sure that that combination wouldn't report ENOSPC >at close(). >From Tru64's write(2): [ENOSPC] [XSH4.2] No free space is left on the file system containing the file. [Tru64 UNIX] An attempt was ma

Re: [HACKERS] _GNU_SOURCE

2003-09-28 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030928 17:52], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Hm. So is crypt_r() a GNU extension? I would've thought it was >specified by some standard or other. Perhaps the real issue here >is that /usr/include/crypt.h is using the wrong control symbol. >At least in RHL 8.0, it definitely uses __

Re: [HACKERS] constraint modification on todo list

2003-09-11 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030911 15:43], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >We can't ALTER a table that's already in use when the first ALTER >starts, either --- its attempt to exclusive-lock the table will fail. >But once you get the exclusive lock, you can (in Postgres) perform >a series of operations without fea

Re: [HACKERS] constraint modification on todo list

2003-09-10 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030909 00:42], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >IIRC, Oracle does not have rollback-able DDL. That might imply that the >reason they have MODIFY CONSTRAINT is that in Oracle you can't use the >above way to eliminate the window. Can you put ALTERs inside >transactions at all in Oracle?

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum table size

2003-09-09 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030909 23:02], Andrew Dunstan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >They must be very big images or there must be an awful lot of them :-) *grin* I was more thinking of organizations such as NASA and commercial entities storing satellite images in databases. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asm

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum table size

2003-09-09 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030909 20:32], Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >I know Tom is concerned because we haven't tested it, but I don't think >anyone has tested 16TB either, nor our 1600-column limit. If I had the space free on my SAN right now I'd try it. The 1600 column limit should be easy to test o

Re: [HACKERS] FreeBSD/i386 thread test

2003-09-08 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030908 23:52], Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Why would FreeBSD have a "library of thread-safe libc functions" (libc_r) >if the functions weren't thread-safe? I think the test is faulty. Having libc_r is not a guarantee that all functions of libc are represented in that libra

Re: [HACKERS] constraint modification on todo list

2003-09-08 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030908 22:42], Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >I assume MODIFY would allow you to alter the constraint without >re-checking all the rows, as would be required by DROP/ADD. However, if >you are modifying the constraint, wouldn't we have to recheck all the >rows anyway. Of course,

Re: [HACKERS] constraint modification on todo list

2003-09-08 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030908 20:52], Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >This could be rather time consuming to actually write but having the >ability to change foreign key on update / on delete modes without >rechecking all of the data would be very useful. I was more interested in this feature for CHECK con

[HACKERS] constraint modification on todo list

2003-09-08 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
Hi people, can someone add: Add an ALTER TABLE MODIFY CONSTRAINT item to the todo list? I am even willing to pick this one up in a while, after I finish some other outstanding tasks. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7 9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625

Re: [HACKERS] FreeBSD/i386 thread test

2003-09-08 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030908 18:52], Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >So you don't have all the *_r functions, and your non-*_r functions >aren't thread-safe. Should we disable theading on FreeBSD? Seems so. Exactly. Most other threading works though. :) -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai

Re: [HACKERS] FreeBSD/i386 thread test

2003-09-07 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030908 06:32], Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Your gethostbyname() is _not_ thread-safe >> Your getpwuid() is _not_ thread-safe >> Your functions are _not_ all thread-safe > >Interesting. Do you have all the *_r files listed in thread.c? I sure >hope so. I assume you used the

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 19:12], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >It should not; there is something wrong here, not merely a documentation >problem. I am wondering whether your 7.4 build fails to select a TAS() >implementation --- if so, it would fall back to implementing spinlocks >as semaphores, which

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 20:52], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Alternatively, find out what symbols your compiler predeclares. >If my theory is right then your pg_config_os.h file is failing to >define HAS_TEST_AND_SET; why? Indeed, pg_config_os.h does not set anything for __ia64__. When I added defi

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 18:32], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >If it dies even at max_connections 10, that is a *lower* setting than we >ever supported before (the pre-7.4 default was 32, and you need 20 or >more to run the parallel regression test). I suspect that you actually >don't have SysV semaph

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 17:52], Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Actually the bug is in beta2, not beta1. I'd suggest grabbing the >current nightly snapshot (see /dev on the ftp servers) in preference >to beta2, if you are on a machine with small SysV IPC limits. Using a snapshot of September the 4th:

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 17:42], Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Is this beta 1 or beta 2? Beta 1 has a bug which may require more >shared resources than what is available. Sorry, beta 2. Should've made that clear. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9D

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 17:22], Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Well, on Itanium2 on FreeBSD 5.1 it compiles. I just need to get the >semaphores to a higher value in order to actually do an initdb. Though, did 7.4 raise the bar on SysV IPC? On my other two boxes I haven't t

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit pgsql

2003-09-05 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
-On [20030905 16:42], Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Download 7.4 beta 2 and run regression tests on those platforms. Report >back any issues or successes. 7.4 Release candidates will come with a >call for reports on platforms that pass the regression tests which are >used to make up the su

[HACKERS] Potential bug in ALTER TABLE?

2003-09-04 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
Hi, just want to verify first with you guys before dumping it on the bugs list. Most likely I am just being silly here or something. Take this: create table blah (name TEXT CHECK (name IN ('blah', 'bleh'))); test=# \d blah Table "public.blah" Column | Type | Modifiers +--+

[HACKERS] Weird constraint output

2003-08-28 Thread Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai
[Please hold me on the to:/cc: list since I am not subscribed] After talking this over with some of the great guys on IRC it was suggested I ask here. I am currently working on a document about how to convert from MySQL to PostgreSQL (Sybase, Oracle, DB2, MS SQL Server are also going to be done).