I wrote:
> In principle we don't need to sharelock the referencing row in either
> update in this example, since the original row version is still there.
s/referencing/referenced/ ... sorry bout that ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac
> In principle we don't need to sharelock the referencing row in either
> update in this example, since the original row version is still there.
> The problem is to know that, given the limited amount of information
> available when performing the second update.
Ah, ok. I get it now.
Now to fig
Max Bowsher writes:
> On 20/08/10 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm still confused as to why this results in such massive weirdness in
>> the generated git history, though. If it simply caused an extra commit
>> that adds the new file slightly earlier than the commit we think of as
>> adding the file
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:48:12AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> >> No idea what you mean by that, but generally it's a bad idea to
> >> switch from dotted-integer version numbers and numeric version
> >> numbers. See Perl (Quel désastre!).
> >
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> On 20/08/10 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm still confused as to why this results in such massive weirdness in
>>> the generated git history, though. If it simply caused an extra commit
>>> that adds the new file slightly e
* Tom Lane [100820 16:28]:
> Uh, no, the excitement is about this:
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql-migration.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/REL8_3_10
>
> There are a whole lot of commits listed there that have nothing to do
> with anything that ever happened on the 8.3 branch.
Sure
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I for one will fiercely resist adopting any such standard, because
>> it's directly opposite to the way that RPM will sort such version numbers.
> Which is how?
9.0.0 is less than 9.0.0anything. Unless you wire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David Wheeler:
> No idea what you mean by that, but generally it's a bad idea
> to switch from dotted-integer version numbers and numeric
> version numbers. See Perl (Quel dsastre!).
Yeah, I think Perl is a prime example of how NOT to handle
* Tom Lane [100820 17:10]:
> BTW, 9.0.0 is also less than 9.0.0.anything ... so sticking another dot
> in there wouldn't help.
Debian's packaging versions "work around" this with the special ~
character, which they define as sorting *before* nothing, meaning
8.4~beta1 < 8.4 < 8.4.0 < 8.
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 21:17 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> David Fetter:
>
> > "We're using Postgre 8"
> >
> > See also all the flocks of tools that claim to support "Postgres 8"
>
> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
> their inaccuracies.
Depends on the goal.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a whole lot of commits listed there that have nothing to do
>> with anything that ever happened on the 8.3 branch.
> The problem you are looking at here has been fixed. We are looking at
> a different problem no
On Aug 20, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 9.0.0 is less than 9.0.0anything. Unless you wire some specific
> knowledge of semantics of particular letter-strings into the comparison
> algorithm, it's difficult to come to another decision, IMO.
That's what Semantic versions do. From the spec's
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
>> The current system give people the completely false impression that
>> 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
>
> On what planet?
>
Look at other DBMSes:
Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
Informix 9
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:41:20PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, David E. Wheeler
> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> >> The current system give people the completely false impression
> >> that 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
> >
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Look at other DBMSes:
> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> Informix 9, 10, 11
> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>
> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
> minor versions).
>
So your proposal is that we name the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> Look at other DBMSes:
>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>
>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
>> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
>> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
>> 8.0.
>>
>
> Maybe we can g
I wrote:
> If there are a lot of user-hostile behaviors there, it might be
> worth looking at the possibility of bending the SSI techniques to
> that end
In the "for what it's worth" department, I tried out the current
Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI) patch with this test case at
the SERIA
On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> Look at other DBMSes:
>>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>>
>>> note
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 23:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There are a whole lot of commits listed there that have nothing to do
>>> with anything that ever happened on the 8.3 branch.
>
>> The problem you are looking at here has
On 20 August 2010 23:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
>>> wrote:
Look at other DBMSes:
Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
Informix 9, 10, 1
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 18:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
> > is not confused by numbers...
>
> Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95...
> :-)
Not really a comparable argument. I f
On 20/08/10 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
>
>> 1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
>> did *not* exist.
>
>> 2) Later, it was added to trunk.
>
>> 3) Then, someone retroactively a
On 20/08/10 14:36, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I believe Robert had some comments/questions as well :-)
>
> What Magnus means is that I'm a grumpy old developer who complains
> about everything.
>
> Anyway, what I noticed was that we're getting
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Max Bowsher writes:
>>> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
>>
>>> 1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
>>> did *not* exist.
>>
>>> 2) Later,
On 20/08/10 19:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:56, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher wrote:
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher writes:
> The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
> 1)
On 20/08/10 19:54, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
>>> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
>>> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual
On 20/08/10 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> My guess at this point is that there may be a (very old?) version of cvs
>> which, when adding a file to a branch, actually misrecorded the file as
>> having existed on the branch from the moment it was first added to trunk
>> - this woul
> Not really a comparable argument. I find it interesting that people are
> making logical arguments about something that is clearly not in the
> logical realm. This is marketing people.
Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
--
-- Josh Berkus
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I have now pushed a complete copy of the latest migrated repository to
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=git-migration-test.git;a=summary.
> This one has tkey keyword expansion on, which we decided we want. My
> script that compares branch tips and tags to cvs now sho
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 15:41 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Not really a comparable argument. I find it interesting that people are
> > making logical arguments about something that is clearly not in the
> > logical realm. This is marketing people.
>
> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
Go
(2010/08/20 23:34), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/8/19 KaiGai Kohei:
(2010/08/20 11:45), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/8/19 KaiGai Kohei:
I also plan to add a security hook on authorization time.
It shall allow external security providers to set up credential of
the authenticated clients.
Please note tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
Because you will need buy in from the hackers if you
ever want to do something as radical as change to
a two-number, one dot system (or some the slightly
less radical earlier suggestions). For the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
>> their inaccuracies.
> Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the
> masses of users we have, you are correct. If our goal is to simplify the
> ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Look at other DBMSes:
> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> Informix 9, 10, 11
> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
> is not only confusing but make people think we are somehow behind the
> others... someone actually told me that Oracle is in version 1
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:31 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> >> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
> >> their inaccuracies.
>
> > Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the
>
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:36 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> > Look at other DBMSes:
> > Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> > Informix 9, 10, 11
> > MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>
> > is not only confusing but make people think we are so
On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
>
> Because you will need buy in from the hackers if you
> ever want to do something as radical as change to
> a two-number, one dot system (or some the slightly
> less radical earlier suggest
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Would it be possible to *always* use three integers? So the next release
> would be "9.0.0beta5" or "9.0.0rc1"? In addition to being more consistent, it
> also means that PostgreSQL would be adhering to Semantic Versioning
> (http://sem
On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the semantic versioning approach makes sense for libraries,
> but it is not too clear to me that it makes sense for other kinds of
> applications. YMMV, of course.
Yeah, I'm more concerned about determining dependencies in extensions and
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
>> True, we don't always have the best track record for bumping major
>> releases. (ponders) Hmmm...I'm rethinking my immediate rejection of the
>> idea now. 7.3 to 7.4 should have been 7.3 to 8.0. Certainly it was more
>> major than 8.0 to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> It's possible that we're arguing for the sake of arguing
No it's not! ;)
> It's nice to be able to keep track of the major version
> number without running out of fingers (at least for a few more years)
> and it's nice to be abl
Max Bowsher wrote:
> On 20/08/10 19:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:56, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher wrote:
> On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1
>> The current system give people the completely false impression that
>> 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
>
> On what planet?
on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
"postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
postgresql mailing lists... :-)
most peop
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
