Re: [PATCHES] WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1

2006-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Cave-Ayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My main issue at the moment is that the code in transformFromClauseItem > seems a terrible hack, mainly because the grammar returns each string > within the FROM clause as a RangeVar, and transformFromClauseItem > assumes that each RangeVar represents

Re: [PATCHES] docs for advisory locks

2006-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ok, here is the promised docs for the advisory locks. Applied with light editorialization. > some quick notes here: this is my first non trivial patch (albeit only > documentation) and i am a complete docbook novice. Not bad for a first try --- I fi

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:50:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier > > hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle > > through them periodically bringing the backups

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier > hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle > through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date. How you figure that? The cycling approach will requ

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one > > server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going > > through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc)

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one > server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going > through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially > providing N+1 capability. Why wouldn't y

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > But why in the world would you want to stop the slave to do it? ISTM > > we would want to arrange things so that you can copy the slave's files > > while it continues replicating, just as with a standard base backup. > > You can do

Re: [PATCHES] Dynamic linking on AIX

2006-09-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Chris Browne wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Great, I have added this to the bottom of the AIX FAQ. Thanks. > > It seems to me that this also warrants an entry in the release notes. > > I'd think that an entry in the Source Code Changes section, > immediately after the "Re

[PATCHES] WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1

2006-09-20 Thread Mark Cave-Ayland
Hi everyone, After spending several days reading PostgreSQL source code (and another couple of days coding), I've managed to come up with some alpha code that attempts to implement non-recursive WITH common table expressions. Having got this far, I feel that I need to ask for advice from some more

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] setseed() doc

2006-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times >> MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't >> change the function to return VOID > I agree. Given how soon we want to g

Re: [PATCHES] setseed() doc

2006-09-20 Thread Neil Conway
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times > MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't > change the function to return VOID I agree. Given how soon we want to get an 8.2 beta out the door, perhaps this chang

Re: [PATCHES] Dynamic linking on AIX

2006-09-20 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > Great, I have added this to the bottom of the AIX FAQ. Thanks. It seems to me that this also warrants an entry in the release notes. I'd think that an entry in the Source Code Changes section, immediately after the "Reduce libraries linked into the bac

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

2006-09-20 Thread Simon Riggs
> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 12:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, I'm not sold that the concept is even useful. Apparently the idea > is to offload the expense of taking periodic base backups from a master > server, by instead backing up a PITR slave's fileset --- which is fine. Good. That's the key

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch for UUID datatype (beta)

2006-09-20 Thread Harald Armin Massa
Mark,A model that intended to try and guarantee uniqueness would provide aUUID generation service for the entire host, that was not specific to any application, or database, possibly accessible via the loopbackaddress. It would ensure that at any given time, either the time isnew, or the sequence i