Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> That's the right area to be looking at, but I don't think you can expect > to do a decent job with localized hacking in LookupTupleHashEntry. That > function's API is predicated on the assumption that you have random > access to any entry in the hash table --- which stops being true as soon > as

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Also ... "Robert Bedell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I think that LookupTupleHashEntry > is the best place to put the code to spill over unto disk, since that is > used only by the Group, Agg, and Subplan executor nodes. That's the right area to be looking at, but I don't think you can expe

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
Thanks for the pointers! > > The documentation points to the > > 'sort_mem' parameter for this, but the code doesn't look to actually > > implement that yet. > > Well, yeah, that's sort of exactly the point ... it's considered during > planning but the executor code has no fallback if the planne

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Robert Bedell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) When does the optimizer set the nodeAgg plan to HASHED? See grouping_planner() in src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c particularly the logic around use_hashed_grouping. > 2) What mechanism would be best to use for storing the data on disk? I know

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OTOH, I'm not sure if hash aggregates can already spill to disk if not > > enough memory is available for keeping them all. > > They do not, which is something it'd be good to fix, since if the > planner drastically underestimates the number of group

Re: [HACKERS] relation_byte_size()

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. Thanks. --- Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote: > > Hackers > > Here is the definition of relation_byte_size() in optimizer/path/costsize.c: > > --

Re: [HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest to >> define, because there's no one-to-one correspondence between backend >> processes and groups. > 'k, I'm a bit confused here ... we alr

Re: [HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster. > > ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12; > > I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest to > define, becau

[HACKERS] Project status pages

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have put up a list of projects being worked on and their TODO lists in hope that people will find it easier to work on them: http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/project -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about roles? Is anybody going to attack the mixed users+groups > implementation in this development cycles? Not me. I think Peter was making some noises about it though. regards, tom lane ---(end

Re: [HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:30:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster. > > ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12; > > I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's ne

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Þórhallur Hálfdánarson said: > > I'd like to mention that administrators likely to use the this feature > would probably like to be able to tune this without having to modify a > file -- updating via SQL (=> storing this in a system table) would be > extremely nice... > We set connection permissi

Re: [HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - -- Group www can only have 12 concurrent connections with the cluster. > ALTER GROUP www SET max_connections = 12; I think group-related restrictions would be an impossible rat's nest to define, because there's no one-to-one correspondence between b

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OTOH, I'm not sure if hash aggregates can already spill to disk if not > enough memory is available for keeping them all. They do not, which is something it'd be good to fix, since if the planner drastically underestimates the number of groups, you could

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane said: >> On an implementation level, where are you thinking of enforcing this? > Without digging deeply at all I thought probably in the postmaster. Nah, that's a nonstarter, because the postmaster has basically no information about its chil

[HACKERS] Limiting per user and per db accesse (was TODO list)

2003-12-17 Thread Jonathan Gardner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 17 December 2003 2:59 pm, David Felstead wrote: > David Felstead wrote: > Bah, what a way to make an entrance - I re-read Andrew's post and > realised he was talking about pg_hba.conf. My apologies. :( > > Regardless, is this something th

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane said: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> case 6 - limit all users' connections regardless of database: >> limit all all n > > That's called max_connections. Don't think we need a redundant > implementation of same ... > no - this was intended to limit *each* user - max-conne

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> > For pure ROLLUP one could shortcut the split-into-groups and > > put-together-again process, as ROLLUP is already doable from single > > sorted scan. > > Actually as long as the grouping sets are all left-continuous of the > longest > grouping set it's doable from a single sorted scan. If do

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> it seems that the longest GROUPING SET and all its left-continuous > subsets could be collected from the sorted scan and the rest from hash > aggregates. > > GROUPING SET () will always need a "hash" ;) > > To optimise any further would require use of statistics data, and is > probably not a go

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
Robert Bedell kirjutas N, 18.12.2003 kell 01:55: > > I guess that by adding hash aggregates Tom solved most problems of > > adding ROLLUP, CUBE and GROUPING SETS. > > > > OTOH, I'm not sure if hash aggregates can already spill to disk if not > > enough memory is available for keeping them all. If

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> I guess that by adding hash aggregates Tom solved most problems of > adding ROLLUP, CUBE and GROUPING SETS. > > OTOH, I'm not sure if hash aggregates can already spill to disk if not > enough memory is available for keeping them all. If not, then adding > this capability would be great push towa

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
Robert Bedell kirjutas N, 18.12.2003 kell 01:02: > > > These are not simple projects, I know. > > > > Might be a tad ambitious for your first venture into backend hacking... > > I agree completely. I'm not purporting to jump in quite that quickly, but > it is something I would like to see added

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Hannu Krosing
Tom Lane kirjutas N, 18.12.2003 kell 00:27: > "Robert Bedell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm curious if anyone has ever looked into adding OLAP functionality (per > > the SQL99 specs) into PostGreSQL. As a first project one could think of implementing NULLS FIRST/LAST (from 4.14.9) for all OR

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread David Felstead
David Felstead wrote: > >Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>Before we even get there we need agreement on exactly what it means :-) >> >>Seems like the best place for the settings might be pg_hba.conf. >> >>Say we have a new keyword "limit" there. Here are the possibilities (I >>think): > Bah, what a way

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Þórhallur Hálfdánarson
-*- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ 2003-12-17 22:46 ]: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > case 6 - limit all users' connections regardless of database: > > limit all all n > > That's called max_connections. Don't think we need a redundant > implementation of same ... > > Another li

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
> > More specifically I would like to add grouping sets, and the CUBE and > ROLLUP > > operators, into postgresql. Since modifying such the GROUP BY operation > > would necessitate changing the query structure, wouldn't that affect the > > query rewrites and genetic optimizer? > > I don't think e

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread David Felstead
Andrew Dunstan wrote: >Before we even get there we need agreement on exactly what it means :-) > >Seems like the best place for the settings might be pg_hba.conf. > >Say we have a new keyword "limit" there. Here are the possibilities (I >think): First post (unlurking) here, so just a minor con

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > case 6 - limit all users' connections regardless of database: > limit all all n That's called max_connections. Don't think we need a redundant implementation of same ... Another little nitpick is that I don't like assuming that "any" and "all" are nev

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Joe Conway
Robert Bedell wrote: I'm curious if anyone has ever looked into adding OLAP functionality (per the SQL99 specs) into PostGreSQL. I don't actually own the proper SQL99 specifications, and since the newer sql2003 ones are coming out I don't know which to purchase. Could someone point me in the righ

Re: [HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Robert Bedell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm curious if anyone has ever looked into adding OLAP functionality (per > the SQL99 specs) into PostGreSQL. There was a fairly crude CUBE implementation submitted (and rejected) a few months ago, but there's not been any work I thought had a chance o

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jonathan Gardner wrote: Marko Zmak wrote: I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql while some thing are still in psql TODO list, I'm interested in following... I'd like to know when are you plann

[HACKERS] OLAP CUBE/ROLLUP Operators and GROUP BY grouping sets

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Bedell
I'm curious if anyone has ever looked into adding OLAP functionality (per the SQL99 specs) into PostGreSQL. I don't actually own the proper SQL99 specifications, and since the newer sql2003 ones are coming out I don't know which to purchase. Could someone point me in the right direction? I've lo

Re: [HACKERS] time interval behaviour seems odd

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tilo Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> tschwarz=> select '-0.1'::interval; >> interval >> - >> 00:00:00.10 <--- >> (1 row) > This is incontestably a bug. Will fix for 7.4.1. I've applied the attached patch to 7.4 and HEAD. It'd probably

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Jonathan Gardner
> Marko Zmak wrote: >> >> I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very >> comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql >> while some thing are still in psql TODO list, I'm interested in >> following... >> >> >> I'd like to know when are you planning

Re: [HACKERS] time interval behaviour seems odd

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Tilo Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > while trying to create a query this afternoon dealing with intervals, I > noticed the following behaviour and I wondered, if it is intended. > tschwarz=> select '-1'::interval; > interval > -- > -01:00<--- > (1 row) This appears to be

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Thursday, December 18, 2003 08:07:03 +1100 Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marko Zmak wrote: > > I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very > comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql >

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marko Zmak wrote: > > > > I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very > > comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql > > while some thing are still in psql TODO list, I'm interested in > > following...

Re: [HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marko Zmak wrote: > > I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very > comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql > while some thing are still in psql TODO list, I'm interested in > following... > > > I'd like to know when are you planning to deal

[HACKERS] TODO list

2003-12-17 Thread Marko Zmak
I've been usin psql for quite a long time and I found it to be very comfortable. Since some web providers in my country refuse to put psql while some thing are still in psql TODO list, I'm interested in following... I'd like to know when are you planning to deal with this TODO item: Allow limit

[HACKERS] time interval behaviour seems odd

2003-12-17 Thread Tilo Schwarz
Hi, while trying to create a query this afternoon dealing with intervals, I noticed the following behaviour and I wondered, if it is intended. (It was non-intuitive to me and if there was a warning in the docs i missed it.) The lines marked <--- make me wonder ... tschwarz=> select version(

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

2003-12-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I see that psql/mainloop.c contains this comment: * FIXME: rewrite this whole thing with flex Is now the time to do that? If you feel like giving it a shot, ain't nobody gonna stand in your way. MainLoop() is well past the level of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see that psql/mainloop.c contains this comment: > * FIXME: rewrite this whole thing with flex > Is now the time to do that? If you feel like giving it a shot, ain't nobody gonna stand in your way. MainLoop() is well past the level of unmaintainabilit

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] pg_service.conf ignores dbname parameter

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > When a client connects to the database server using a service name, > > the dbname parameter in pg_service.conf is ignored. In the absence > > of an explicitly-named database in the connection string, the service > > name is used as th

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] pg_service.conf ignores dbname parameter

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When a client connects to the database server using a service name, > the dbname parameter in pg_service.conf is ignored. In the absence > of an explicitly-named database in the connection string, the service > name is used as the database name regardless

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

2003-12-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Andreas Pflug wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I think the minimum amount of additional work that has to be done before we can apply it is to teach psql's input parser about $QUOTE$ --- without that, the feature is not only useless but counterproductive. IMHO it's not useless. pgAdmin already knows that

Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking

2003-12-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
> Ideally that path isn't taken very often. But I'm currently having a > discussion off-list with a CMU student who seems to be seeing a case > where it happens a lot. (She reports that both WALWriteLock and > WALInsertLock are causes of a lot of process blockages, which seems to > mean that a l

Re: [HACKERS] 7.4 include file conflict

2003-12-17 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:27:19AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Are you suggesting moving the ecpg files into pgsql/include/ecpg? Do we > know that no one using ecpg is going to be including a /usr/include file > that needs /usr/include/xxx.h? No, just the files needed for Informix compatibility

Re: [HACKERS] 7.4 include file conflict

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:25PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Are you saying some programs will look in /usr/include before looking in > > -I specified directories, and that is the whole problem? If so, that is > > 100% wrong and we don't have to fix our files to worka

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

2003-12-17 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: I think the minimum amount of additional work that has to be done before we can apply it is to teach psql's input parser about $QUOTE$ --- without that, the feature is not only useless but counterproductive. IMHO it's not useless. pgAdmin already knows that quoting scheme... not

[HACKERS] Need a good .

2003-12-17 Thread Thomas Hallgren
I'm working on a pljava module. In it, I'd like to cache some allocated structures (allocated using TopMemoryContext) using a string as the key. I need a hash or binary-search table with dynamic size where I can store arbitrary structures and then find them using strings. Typical size is less than

Re: [HACKERS] 7.4 include file conflict

2003-12-17 Thread Michael Meskes
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:25PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Are you saying some programs will look in /usr/include before looking in > -I specified directories, and that is the whole problem? If so, that is > 100% wrong and we don't have to fix our files to workaround this. No I meant to say

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > BTW, what happened to the $QUOTE$ quoting idea? Was it applied, or > even developed? I'd like to see it done for 7.5, but haven't personally had time to go further than the proof-of-concept backend patch I posted awhile ago. I think the minimum amount

Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting pg_upgrade

2003-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you want to prevent "accidential" access, start postmaster on a > non-standard port. ... thus making pg_upgrade subject to all sorts of interesting questions about whether particular ports get filtered by kernel iptables rules? This doesn't seem like a r

Re: [HACKERS] 7.4.1 release notes

2003-12-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
BPeter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I have updated the release notes for 7.4.1 and HISTORY as of Dec > > > > 14. I will make further adjustments before the 7.4.1 release. > > > > > > Would you care to put back the correct up

Re: [HACKERS] 7.4.1 release notes

2003-12-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I have updated the release notes for 7.4.1 and HISTORY as of Dec > > > 14. I will make further adjustments before the 7.4.1 release. > > > > Would you care to put back the correct upgrade instructions that I > > had writt