Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Al Sutton wrote:
> Heres a patch which wi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am going to work on nested transactions for 7.4.
> > [some details]
>
> This is, of course, barely scratching the surface of what will need to
> be done.
>
> I assume you've abandoned the notion of a fast release cycle for 7.4?
> '
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am going to work on nested transactions for 7.4.
> [some details]
This is, of course, barely scratching the surface of what will need to
be done.
I assume you've abandoned the notion of a fast release cycle for 7.4?
'Cause if you start on this, we ain
Does anyone want userid to be an OID? Peter? Anyone?
If not, I will add it to the TODO list or work on the patch myself.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd recomme
I am going to work on nested transactions for 7.4.
My goal is to first implement nested transactions:
BEGIN;
SELECT ...
BEGIN;
UPDATE;
COMMIT;
DELETE;
COMMIT;
and later savepoints (Oracle):
BEGIN;
SELECT ...
SAVEPO
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do this:
> create database "adsf asdf";
> Then to a pg_dumpall and you get this:
> \connect "adsf asdf"
> pg_dump: too many command line options (first is 'asdf')
Good catch --- fixed.
regards, tom lane
---
Daniele Orlandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is the opposite... so, effectively, seems that the optimizer
> considers "monitored" and "monitored=true" as two different expressions...
Check.
> The viceversa is analog and we also can see that the syntax "monitored
> is true" is consi
Do this:
create database "adsf asdf";
Then to a pg_dumpall and you get this:
\connect "adsf asdf"
pg_dump: too many command line options (first is 'asdf')
Try 'pg_dump --help' for more information.
pg_dumpall: pg_dump failed on adsf asdf, exiting
LOG: pq_recvbuf: unexpected EOF on client connec
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
select * from users where monitored;
select * from users where monitored=true;
If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
That depends on the definition of equiva
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > > "col" isn't of the general form "indexkey op constant" or "constant op
> > > > indexkey" which I presume it's looking for given the comments in
> > > > indxpath.c. I'm not sure what the best way to make it work would be
> given
> > > >
> > > "col" isn't of the general form "indexkey op constant" or "constant op
> > > indexkey" which I presume it's looking for given the comments in
> > > indxpath.c. I'm not sure what the best way to make it work would be
given
> > > that presumably we'd want to make col IS TRUE/FALSE use an index
> > Not that I see the point of indexing booleans, but hey :)
>
> If one of the values is much more infrequent than the other, you can
> probably get a substantial win using a partial index, can't you?
Yes, I thought of the partial index after I wrote that email :)
Chris
-
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > I think his point is that they _should_ be equivalent. Surely there's
> > > something in the optimiser that discards '=true' stuff, like 'a=a'
> should be
> > > discarded?
> >
> > I figure that's what he meant, but it isn't what was said.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > I think his point is that they _should_ be equivalent. Surely there's
> > > something in the optimiser that discards '=true' stuff, like 'a=a'
> should be
> > > discarded?
> >
> > I figure that's what he meant, but it isn't what was said.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:45:34PM -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > I think his point is that they _should_ be equivalent. Surely there's
> > > something in the optimiser that discards '=true' stuff, like 'a=a'
> should be
> > > discarded?
> Not that I see the point of indexing boolean
> > I think his point is that they _should_ be equivalent. Surely there's
> > something in the optimiser that discards '=true' stuff, like 'a=a'
should be
> > discarded?
>
> I figure that's what he meant, but it isn't what was said. ;)
>
> "col" isn't of the general form "indexkey op constant" or
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
> > >
> > > select * from users where monitored;
> > > select * from users where monitored=true;
> > >
> > > If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
> >
> > That depends on
> > Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
> >
> > select * from users where monitored;
> > select * from users where monitored=true;
> >
> > If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
>
> That depends on the definition of equivalent. They presumably give the
> same answer
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> > > > concurrency issues. ;-)
> > >
> >
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
> Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
>
> select * from users where monitored;
> select * from users where monitored=true;
>
> If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
That depends on the definition of equivalent. They pres
Using the famous WAG tech, in your first query the optimizer has to
evaluate monitored for each record to determine its value.
Robert Treat
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 13:39, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
>
> Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
>
> select * from users where monitored;
> select * from users w
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> > > concurrency issues. ;-)
> >
> > Or they're the kind that locks the entire table f
On 21 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> > concurrency issues. ;-)
>
> Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
Isn't that what Bruce just said? ;^)
--
"Thomas O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems worth pointing out, too, that some SQL purists propose not
> relying on product-specific methods of auto-incrementing.
> I.e., it is possible to do something like:
> insert into foo( col, ... )
> values( coalesce( ( select max( col ) from f
Hi Neil,
> However, the FreeBSD box I'm playing with isn't mine, so I'm not too
> keen to change sysctls (well, that and I don't have root :-) ). Would
> a kind BSD user confirm that:
>
> (a) the sysctls above *can* be used to change kernel shared
> memory settings, and the def
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
> concurrency issues. ;-)
Or they're the kind that locks the entire table for any given insert.
--
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)-
Tom Lane wrote:
> > I have trouble implementing a way to easily check whether a user is part
> > of a group.
>
> Perhaps you could create a table that has no purpose except to be a
> permissions-check target, and set it up to have permissions granted only
> to the group you care about. Then use h
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I deleted the first table. The sequence was deleted too, leaving the
> default of the second table referring to a non-existent sequence.
>
>
> Could this be a TODO item in 7.4, to add a dependency check when a
> sequence is set as the default without being created at the
Louis-David Mitterrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point David was trying to make is:
> with 7.2:
> template1=# select 1 = '';
>?column?
> --
>f
> (1 row)
> with 7.3rc1:
> template1=# select 1 = '';
> ERROR: pg_atoi: zero-length string
Of course, those would be SQL purists who _don't_ understand
concurrency issues. ;-)
---
Thomas O'Connell wrote:
> It seems worth pointing out, too, that some SQL purists propose not
> relying on product-specific methods o
It seems worth pointing out, too, that some SQL purists propose not
relying on product-specific methods of auto-incrementing.
I.e., it is possible to do something like:
insert into foo( col, ... )
values( coalesce( ( select max( col ) from foo ), 0 ) + 1, ... );
and this is easily placed in a t
Are those two syntaxes eqivalent ?
select * from users where monitored;
select * from users where monitored=true;
If the answer is yes, the optimimer probably doesn't agree with you :)
Tested on RC1:
template1=# create table a (a boolean, b text);
CREATE TABLE
inserted ~18000 rows with
Neil Conway wrote:
> (c) the 'prevent shared memory paging' sysctl vaguely referred
> to in the docs is 'kern.ipc.shm_use_phys', right?
I have added a mention of this to the 7.4 docs:
You might also want to use the sysctl setting to
lock shared memory into RAM
Louis-David Mitterrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with 7.2:
>
> template1=# select 1 = '';
>?column?
> --
>f
> (1 row)
>
>
> with 7.3rc1:
>
> template1=# select 1 = '';
> ERROR: pg_atoi: zero-length string
>
>
> Is this change of beha
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:07:55AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 17:30:10 +0100,
> David Pradier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm new on this list, my name is David Pradier, and i'm french.
> >
> > I'm currently trying the new postgresql 7.3rc1, and i've
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 17:30:10 +0100,
David Pradier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm new on this list, my name is David Pradier, and i'm french.
>
> I'm currently trying the new postgresql 7.3rc1, and i've noticed that if
> i compared an integer to an empty string, i ran in an error.
Hi!
I'm new on this list, my name is David Pradier, and i'm french.
I'm currently trying the new postgresql 7.3rc1, and i've noticed that if
i compared an integer to an empty string, i ran in an error.
Example :
=# select nom_comm from operation where id_operation = '';
ERROR: pg_atoi: zero-len
Reinoud van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any reason why the grolist field in the table pg_group is
> implemented as an array and not as a separate table?
It's easier to cache a single entry per group in the GRONAME and GROSYSID
syscaches than a bunch of them. The design is optim
Hi,
Is there any reason why the grolist field in the table pg_group is
implemented as an array and not as a separate table?
According to the documentation:
Arrays are not sets; using arrays in the manner described in the previous
paragraph is often a sign of database misdesign.
I have trouble
39 matches
Mail list logo
