Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: > Takahiro Itagaki writes: > > Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items > > Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for 9.0 > would mean changing the behavior of x

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Takahiro Itagaki writes: > Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for 9.0 would mean changing the behavior of xmlconcat in 9.0 and then again

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, > anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items A

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better. As far as the patch itself is concerne

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, > anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better. As far as the patch itself is concerned, the complete lack of e

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: Our version of SQL/XML support references SQL:2003 which references XML 1.0, where omitting the XMLDecl is legal. You can't omit the XMLDecl in XML 1.1, because you need it to communicate the fact that it's version 1.1. Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On ons, 2010-03-24 at 14:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Actually, I have come to the conclusion that the biggest problem in > this > area is that we accept XML documents with a leading DOCTYPE node at > all. > Our docs state: > > The xml type can store well-formed "documents", as defined

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is attempted where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice s

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names > instead of the first names, for clarity. No? OK, I will do this once Josh is done with his modifications. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I > > would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is > attempted > > where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be > low. > > > > Righ

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names > instead of the first names, for clarity.  No? +1 for that approach. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to yo

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce, I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names instead of the first names, for clarity. No? -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html There is an additional incompatibilitiy in pg_largeobject catalog. We need to rewrite queries to test existences of large objests from SELECT DISTINCT(loid) FR

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

> Uh, I did adjust the subcategories based on what we completed for 9.0. > You will find many added/removed ones compared to 8.4 > >> warranted. Also, within each subcategory, items should be arranged in >> descending order according to how much impact we expect them to have on >> users. > > I

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yeah, maybe. According to the only legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType no

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > BTW, I didn't say it before, but thanks for getting this draft out > *now*. It's a lot more time than we've had in the past. Sure. For some reason it was easier/faster this time; possible causes: o I am getting better because I have done it before

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Uh, are you saying you want to remove the exiting release note > > subcategories and put everything into 7-8 long lists? That hardly seems > > like an improvement, or are you talking about make a user-focused list > > that is shorter with 7-8 categories? > > I'm talking

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce, BTW, I didn't say it before, but thanks for getting this draft out *now*. It's a lot more time than we've had in the past. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pge

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

> Uh, are you saying you want to remove the exiting release note > subcategories and put everything into 7-8 long lists? That hardly seems > like an improvement, or are you talking about make a user-focused list > that is shorter with 7-8 categories? I'm talking about adjusting which subcategori

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I can > > identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the release > > notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so manually merging in the > > changes isn't a p

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Joachim Wieland wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4 > > release notes contained 314 items. > > Is the following pg_dump change covered by the release notes? I > couldn't find it. It was the last co

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4 > release notes contained 314 items. Is the following pg_dump change covered by the release notes? I couldn't find it. It was the last committed patch from the 2010-01 comm

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 23:18, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Uh why?  Open the file with a text editor, cut and paste the lines >> elsewhere. > > ... because even one edit by anyone else is a merge conflict.  And CVS > isn't too good with merge conflicts.  Also few of the people whom I'd > want to ask f

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

> Uh why? Open the file with a text editor, cut and paste the lines > elsewhere. ... because even one edit by anyone else is a merge conflict. And CVS isn't too good with merge conflicts. Also few of the people whom I'd want to ask for help are committers -- the release notes are as much about

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:18:04PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I > > can identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the > > release notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so man

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On mån, 2010-03-22 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > So there are 2 large problems I have with the SGML version, let's see if > we can deal with them separately: > > (1) re-arranging and regrouping the items: the stuff in the release > notes should end up in 7-8 clear categories, with items arr

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Yeah, maybe. According to > the only > legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a > DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType node. So we could probabl

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On 3/22/10 7:46 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I do not require them to submit SGML; just some format where I can > identify the lines that changed. I can do the same for the release > notes. I have to check the diffs anyway so manually merging in the > changes isn't a problem. So there are 2 large

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> In hindsight I could have loaded the ASCII release notes into a wiki and > >> people could have modified, them, and later I could have converted them > >> to SGML, > > That was, in fact, *exactly* what you said you'd do 3 months ago when we > discussed this. I now remem

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

>> In hindsight I could have loaded the ASCII release notes into a wiki and >> people could have modified, them, and later I could have converted them >> to SGML, That was, in fact, *exactly* what you said you'd do 3 months ago when we discussed this. > > Yeah, I don't think that would have bee

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > bruce wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >> > On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: >> > > >> > >   http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html >> > > >> > > I kept the 9.0-alph

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

bruce wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > > > > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > > > > > I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want > > > to

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make sure it is well-formed before we return,

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan writes: >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items > I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't > think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make > sure it is well-formed before we return, That might be a reasonab

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2010/3/21 Bruce Momjian : > > Hitoshi Harada wrote: > >> 2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian : > >> > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > >> > > >> > ? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > >> > > >> > >> I wonder if we need note a minor compatibi

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

2010/3/21 Bruce Momjian : > Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> 2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian : >> > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: >> > >> > ? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html >> > >> >> I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window >> function's

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: > > I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in > > flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and > > 10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha. > > Well, the reason they are willing to try a beta is t

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

2010/3/20 Tom Lane : > Josh Berkus writes: >> I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in >> flux.  This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and >> 10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha. > > Well, the reason they are willing to try a beta is

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > > > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > > > I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want > > to compare them with the rele

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Josh Berkus writes: > I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in > flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and > 10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha. Well, the reason they are willing to try a beta is that it's supposed to be more

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Tom, Bruce, I'd favor a beta sooner rather than later even if some stuff is still in flux. This particular release needs as much testing as possible, and 10x as many people will try a beta as an alpha. -- -- Josh Berkus Post

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On 3/19/10 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want > to compare them with the release notes I did, and because th

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce Momjian wrote: Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is nothing that either us see on the 9.0 "Bugs" open items list that would delay a beta: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on th

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce Momjian writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we need you and Tom and other senior community members to >> weigh in a little more overtly on which of the remaining open items >> should get fixed prior to 9.0beta. > Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is nothing >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4 > release notes contained 314 items. Of course we will be adding a few > more 9.0 ite

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Robert Haas wrote: > > Interestingly the 9.0 release notes contain 201 items, while the 8.4 > > release notes contained 314 items. ?Of course we will be adding a few > > more 9.0 items before 9.0 final, but not a lot. ?The only explanation I > > can think of is that we were more focused during this

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian : > > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > > > > ? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > > > I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window > function's frame. > > - Change BETWEEN from

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > >        http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > > I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want > to compare them with the release notes I did,

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

2010/3/20 Bruce Momjian : > I have completed the 9.0 release notes: > >        http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html > I wonder if we need note a minor compatibility from extending window function's frame. - Change BETWEEN from TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD from COL_NAME_KEYWO

[HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done

I have completed the 9.0 release notes: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-9-0.html I kept the 9.0-alpha release notes in the SGML because people might want to compare them with the release notes I did, and because the introductory text will be needed for the next alp