Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Warning for missing createlang

2003-09-06 Thread Hannu Krosing
Andrew Dunstan kirjutas L, 06.09.2003 kell 16:14: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >Tom Lane writes: > > > > > > > >>There are good security arguments not to have it in the default install, > >>no? > >> > >> > > > >I think last time the only reason we saw was that dump restoring would be > >dif

Re: [HACKERS] sequences and pg_type

2003-09-06 Thread pw
I think I found a solution. Hopefully the system tables don't change too much in the future.I just used pg_attrdef to tell me which columns *not* to use. I hope that's right. It seems to work. Peter On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 18:19, Tom Lane wrote: > pw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have a t

Re: [HACKERS] sequences and pg_type

2003-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
pw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a table with a serial type in it as a record id. > The type of this object comes back as int4 when I query via > pg_type. > How can I distinguish this counter type from just a plain int4? Well, you can't, because serial isn't actually a type in Postgres. As

[HACKERS] sequences and pg_type

2003-09-06 Thread pw
Hello, I have a table with a serial type in it as a record id. The type of this object comes back as int4 when I query via pg_type. How can I distinguish this counter type from just a plain int4? Peter ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you se

Re: [HACKERS] plpython

2003-09-06 Thread elein
The key value of having both SD vs. GB is scope. We *do* want to be able to have dictionaries with scope that is function specific, statement specific and global (available to all functions). I do use plpython primarily for running aggregates. Having the different scopes (if they all worked corr

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoints too frequent

2003-09-06 Thread Vivek Khera
> "BM" == Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: BM> Vivek, you reported recently that increasing sort_mem and BM> checkpoint_segments increased performance. Can you run a test to see BM> how much of that improvement was just because of increasing BM> checkpoint_segments? i was thinking j

Re: [HACKERS] Planning to force reindex of hash indexes

2003-09-06 Thread jearl
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mendola Gaetano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I've found a number of infelicities in the hash index code that >>> can't be fixed without an on-disk format change. > >> How can we avoid this kind of mess for the fut

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Needed function IF(expr, expr, expr)

2003-09-06 Thread elein
If the function is defined with ANY* and you defer typing the arguments until the first reference then I think you will get what you want with the CASE statement. If the function is called if( x>y, x+1, y), the first reference is in the argument list and so should be typed there. But if you pas

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Warning for missing createlang

2003-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did see a reference in the archives to a problem with heavy recursion > as a possible security hole. I guess my answer to that would be that if > you are worried about it you should drop the language, but I don't see > this alone as a reason not to

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Needed function IF(expr, expr, expr)

2003-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marek Lewczuk writes: >> Currently I have big problem with function IF(), below the description >> of this function from MySQL manual. > You cannot implement this kind of function, unless you want to create one > version for each data type combination

Re: [HACKERS] Notices for redundant operations

2003-09-06 Thread Robert Treat
On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > If people doesn't receive any message regarding the command they > > executed, they will execute it again, and again, and they will > > eventually wonder what's wrong and start investigating why "nothing is >

Re: [HACKERS] Notices for redundant operations

2003-09-06 Thread Mendola Gaetano
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you > > are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state you > > want it. I think these are useless, and there is also

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Warning for missing createlang

2003-09-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane writes: There are good security arguments not to have it in the default install, no? I think last time the only reason we saw was that dump restoring would be difficult. I don't see any security reasons. That could be overcome by doing a 'drop language'

Re: [HACKERS] Notices for redundant operations

2003-09-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Alvaro Herrera writes: > If people doesn't receive any message regarding the command they > executed, they will execute it again, and again, and they will > eventually wonder what's wrong and start investigating why "nothing is > happening". That is not the case here. The commands still generate