Tom Lane írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about the callback solution for the SELECT case
that was copied from the original? Should I consider
open-coding in copy.c what ExecutorRun() does
to avoid the callback?
Adding a DestReceiver type is a good solution ...
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
The option parsing and error checking is now common.
I also changed it to use transformStmt() in analyze.c.
However, both the UNION and sunselect cases give me
something like this:
ERROR: could not open relation 1663/16384/16723: No such file or
directory
What else
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
The option parsing and error checking is now common.
I also changed it to use transformStmt() in analyze.c.
However, both the UNION and sunselect cases give me
something like this:
ERROR: could not open relation 1663/16384/16723: No such file
Hi,
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
forthcoming.
Well, unless someone is going to commit to doing it
--On Dienstag, August 22, 2006 23:12:21 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:11:22PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
There's nothing hidden (unless it's also hidden from me ;-) )
I take it that when you talk about we did this you are referring to
the patch from Karel Zak.
Hans has been original author of COPY VIEW idea and I've wrote it for
Hi all,
seriously... I don't have time to work on PostgreSQL. It's time to
say that I'm leaving this project. So, if you found some my broken
code or whatever in PostgreSQL you should go and fix it. It's
community-driven project. It's about collaboration -- don't ask why
should I help --
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I should be spending my time on in the
Bernd Helmle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
i see the INSERT...RETURNING stuff as the only big hurd
--On Mittwoch, August 23, 2006 08:24:55 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What are these open issues for the updatable views patch you are seeing
exactly?
Didn't Alvaro list a bunch of issues when he put the patch back up for
comment? I have not looked at it myself yet.
Indeed he
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what I should be spending my time on
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
others. But is that what
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of
those
others. But is that what I
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
It seems I was able to get it working for both the VIEW and SELECT
cases. I still have one issue, the reference to the select is left open
and it complains on closing the transaction. But basically works.
Cool, thanks. Send the patch and we can look it over to see
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
So when will you send in a revised patch?
Soon. :-)
No, don't send it soon. We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
So when will you send in a revised patch?
Soon. :-)
No, don't send it soon. We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
I have to test it some more but I will send it.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
So when will you send in a revised patch?
Soon. :-)
No, don't send it soon. We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
I have to test it some more but I will send it.
I think
Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
So when will you send in a revised patch?
Soon. :-)
No, don't send it soon. We're in feature freeze already (and have
been for three weeks). You need to send it now.
I have to test it some more but I will send it.
I think
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said now, but I don't think we need it immediately,
especially if he is still working on it. We are at least 1-2 weeks away
from
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said now, but I don't think we need it immediately,
especially if he is still working on it. We are at least
[ cc list trimmed to something reasonable ]
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the expected output.
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
The exact same code was there,
e.g. parse and rewrite SELECT * FROM view
just not in analyze.c. I will try without it, though.
And it was wrong as well. (The code was there on the COPY-view patch,
not on the official code).
--
Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote:
frankly I see no reason for this patch to be messing with the
relation case at all.
Quite apart from anything else, if it's done that way nothing that
currently works gets broken.
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Tom Lane írta:
[ cc list trimmed to something reasonable ]
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
1. to minimize the already huge code impact on the relation case.
2. the checks done for the SELECT case is not exactly the
same as for the realation case.
So put them in CopyToRelation. But the ones that apply to both, leave
in CopyTo.
3. the relation case is
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which is why you should leave the relation case alone and only add the
different case. The relation case is already known to be good.
Well, a certain amount of refactoring of the code is inevitable unless
we want a lot of code duplication. But I don't
Zoltan Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about the callback solution for the SELECT case
that was copied from the original? Should I consider
open-coding in copy.c what ExecutorRun() does
to avoid the callback?
Adding a DestReceiver type is a good solution ... although that static
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said now, but I don't think we need it immediately,
especially if he is still
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said now, but I don't
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Hi,
Bruce Momjian írta:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Alvaro is saying we need it in a few days, not longer.
I thought he was saying today ;-)
He actually said
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not sure I agree with the approach
Alvaro Herrera írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
OK, here's my current version. The reference leak is fixed.
But as my testcase shows, it only works for single selects
currently. The parser accepts it but COPY doesn't produce
the expected output. Please, suggest a solution.
I'm not
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature. If
we
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature. If
we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
think we can decide now that it must wait.
well I thought the agreed approach to
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a close call. On balance I'd be inclined to accept the patch if it
reviews OK, even though we will throw the code away soon (we hope).
Well, the patch seems pretty ugly code-wise as well. I'd be willing to
clean it up if I thought it wouldn't
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired
feature. If
we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
think we can decide now that it
Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature. If
we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
think we can decide now that it must wait.
well I
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
It has been made as COPY FROM / TO view because people wanted it to be
done that way.
My original proposal was in favour of arbitrary SELECTs (just like
proposed by the TODO list) but this was rejected. So, we did it that way
(had to explain to customer why
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
months. I agree with that.
This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of
languishing on the
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
months. I agree with that.
This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
months. I agree with that.
This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
forthcoming.
Well, unless someone is going to commit to doing it the
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
forthcoming.
Well, unless someone is going to
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
47 matches
Mail list logo
