Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> That is the plan ... unless someone knows a reason why they can't be
> built independently of the core?
How about this one: Everything we have moved from the core to gborg so
far has been a miserable failure. The code is no longer maintained, or
maintained by three di
Am Tuesday 18 May 2004 07:40 schrieb Greg Copeland:
> >From the FAQ (http://www.drbd.org/316.html):
>
> Q: Can XFS be used with DRBD?
>
>
> A: XFS uses dynamic block size, thus DRBD 0.7 or later is needed.
>
> Hope we're talking about the same project. ;)
Hmmm, interesting. But I did not find
>From the FAQ (http://www.drbd.org/316.html):
Q: Can XFS be used with DRBD?
A: XFS uses dynamic block size, thus DRBD 0.7 or later is needed.
Hope we're talking about the same project. ;)
Cheers!
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 00:16, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >
> > Well that seems to be part of the p
>
> Well that seems to be part of the problem. ext3 does not scale well at
> all under load. You should probably upgrade to a better FS (like XFS). I
> am not saying that your point isn't valid (it is) but upgrading to a
> better FS will help you.
>
Thanks for the info, but I've already notic
Am Monday 17 May 2004 22:42 schrieb Jan Wieck:
> > I doubt that. Having deployed several 7.4 databases, the first customers ask
> > (of course not in technical speech, but in the meaning) when the problem with
> > checkpoint hogging system down is solved. This is a really serious issue,
> > espe
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > What do people want to do with the current \copy behavior for stdin?
> > Right now if you supply a file name with queries using psql -f, the copy
> > input is read from the terminal, not from the file.
>
> Actually, I was wrong. Right now \cop
Not being the author, I don't know. And in the case of PITR, the pre-7.4
author is different than the post-7.4 author. However, if I was
personally responsible for holding up the release of a project due to a
feature that I had vowed to complete, I would feel morally compelled to
get it done. I
Sorry for not replying to a thread but I have a digest subscription...
Thank you hackers for all your hard work!!! I use PostgreSQL everyday
and love it. My current job would be impossible if I was forced to use
MS Access.
I don't mind using postgres under cygwin but would much rather use a
n
I'll be away from PostgreSQL development from approximately the end of
May until August 20th. I won't be subscribed to any PG-related mailing
lists for that period. However, I'll still be accessible via email to
this address.
Have a great summer, everyone.
-Neil
---(end
Yes, fetching a RID list from an index scan, sorting 'em and then
fetching from the table would be a very appreciable speedup for many
queries. I would imagine that all the commercial engines do this (db2
calls it a sorted RID-list-fetch) .. and this has in fact been
discussed on -hackers before.
Alvaro Herrera Munoz wrote:
> Personally I've been focused on getting subtransactions done and now I think
> I'm very close to an acceptable patch, but what has slowed me down the last
> time has been lack of feedback from core developers. It was feedback I
> needed to figure out the best ways to
Greetings all,
We have noticed a way to make a major improvement in Pg's performance on
our workload, and I would like to get your thoughts before I go off to
work up a patch.
The basic problem is that Pg seeks far too much when performing an index
scan. I have saved an strace of a backend which
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 04:55:50PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > It is too late to think about pushing back another month. We had this
> > discussion already. June 1 is it.
>
> I thought the outcome of that discussion was June 15 ?
I think there was no outcome. There was no of
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >So, yea, I am frustrated. I know these features are hard and complex,
> >but I want them for PostgreSQL, and I want them as soon as possible. I
> >guess what really bugs me is that we are so close to having these few
> >remaining big features, and
Bruno Wolff III said:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:00:48 -0400,
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But what we listen to relates to the destination address of the
>> packets, not the source address ...
>
> There still is some small risk. If you OS doesn't reject packets
> destined
So, yea, I am frustrated. I know these features are hard and complex,
but I want them for PostgreSQL, and I want them as soon as possible. I
guess what really bugs me is that we are so close to having these few
remaining big features, and because they are so complex, they are taking
a lot longer
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:06:18 -0400,
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll mention another perspective as a user. I'm actually happier seeing a
> relatively minor release come out just before the big changes hit. If 7.5 has
> Windows, PITR, nested transactions, etc. especially if I s
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > A quick google of "7.4 Win32 release" will reveal that the above was
> > precisely what was said about 7.4: it would be released to not hold
> > up important features like the IN optimization and a quick 7.5 would
> > have Win32 and PITR. It's almost as if a cron job rep
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:00:48 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But what we listen to relates to the destination address of the packets,
> not the source address ...
There still is some small risk. If you OS doesn't reject packets destined
for 127.*.*.* that don't come fr
Bruce Momjian said:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core
>> > > distribution ...
>> >
>> > Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed
>> > to replace plPerl
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >I assume your ecpg will be a patch to the existing ecpg rather than a
> > >new verion, right?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Yes it is a patch against 7.4.2
>
> Will you have one against -HEAD? I believe there have bee
Why is it our responsibility to ensure that though? Shouldn't the
developer (or group of developers) responsible for the
PL/interface/extension be responsible for that?
Let's use plPHP as an example here ... I'm going to guess that it supports
PHP4, which is the 'standard' right now ... what abou
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> >I assume your ecpg will be a patch to the existing ecpg rather than a
> >new verion, right?
> >
> >
> >
> Yes it is a patch against 7.4.2
Will you have one against -HEAD? I believe there have been changes since
7.5 was branched, no? Or have t
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
A quick google of "7.4 Win32 release" will reveal that the above was
precisely what was said about 7.4: it would be released to not hold
up important features like the IN optimization and a quick 7.5 would
have Win32 and PITR. It's al
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Jan Wieck wrote:
> They are not as independant as one might think. The core support for set
> returning functions is required before a PL can do it. Same was with
> cursors and same will be with subtransactions being the base for
> exception handling. People have been struggli
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Server-side languages are tied into the backend even closer than the
> user data types. They are best in the core distribution. We didn't put
> plR in core because it had a conflicting license.
So, they can live on their own, which is a good thing to
I assume your ecpg will be a patch to the existing ecpg rather than a
new verion, right?
Yes it is a patch against 7.4.2
J
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-45
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core distribution
> > > ...
> >
> > Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed to
> > replace plPerl, I was talking with Bruce and
Alternative database location:
Should this code be removed now?
I think that this:
CREATE DATABASE blah LOCATION 'xyz';
Should now be interpreted to mean:
CREATE TABLESPACE blah_tbsp LOCATION 'xyz';
CREATE DATABSE blah TABLESPACE blah_tbsp;
Or something like that...
Chris
--
He is waiting for nested transactions to be committed so he can merge
his work in.
Somebody has posted sync multimaster replication (PgCluster) - nobody
has commented on that. Maybe I am the only one who has ever tried it ...
I think it should be on gborg.
You mean pgFoundry :)
Chris
--
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Just to throw in my .02, plPerlNG won't be ready for testing until mid,
> later June either. Then there is also plPHP which although we haven't
> had any bug reports still needs some more peer review.
>
> Also we would like to submit our ECPG which includes SET DESCRIPTO
The much I am for pulling stuff that does not belong into core, doing
it just for the fun of cleaning up or trimming doesn't do. One of the
major functions of CVS is that one can tag collections of revisions
that together build a release, a "known to be working snapshot of file
revisions". If
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core distribution
> ...
Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed to
replace plPerl, I was talking with Bruce and he seemed to think that (as
long
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> >> > > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> >> > > connections. But attempting
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Personally, Win32, subtransactions and PITR are what we are after.
Second would be inclusion of plPHP and plPerlNG which are arguably the
most widely used languages to connect to PostgreSQL.
plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoun
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I can't complete by 1 June. Think worse of me if you choose.
> >
> ...
> > So in my perfect world I picture 7.5 freezing June 1 and releasing in July or
> > so, giving a nice reliable s
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I can't complete by 1 June. Think worse of me if you choose.
> >
> ...
> > So in my perfect world I picture 7.5 freezing June 1 and releasing in July or
> > so, giving a nice reliable
Jan Wieck wrote:
> > I think if we go for the plan outlined, we will not need a special
> > configure flag. (People might decide to move the install dir long after
> > they install it.) By default, everything sits under pgsql as pgsql/bin,
> > pgsql/lib, etc. I can't see how making it relative i
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>If you run NTFS, it's still possible to use arbitrary links.
> >In the Windows
> >>world, they are called junctions. Microsoft does not provide
> >a junction tool
> >>for some reason (perhaps because it's limited to NTFS). A
> >good tool, free
> >>and with source, can
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core distribution
> > ...
>
> Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed to
> replace plPerl, I was talking with Bruce and he seemed to think that (as
> long as the
Greg Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I can't complete by 1 June. Think worse of me if you choose.
...
So in my perfect world I picture 7.5 freezing June 1 and releasing in July or
so, giving a nice reliable simple upgrade for people who just want a safe 7.x
series to upgrade t
Doug McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> On 17. touko 2004, at 10:40, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> > Consider a program using JDBC on localhost. It can only reach to
> >> > PostgreSQL via TCP/IP.
> >
Greg Stark wrote:
Ah! Of course. That makes sense, and listening on 127.0.0.1 never
hurt anyone (except, of course, the tinfoil hat crowd nmapping
localhost in a frenzy...)
Actually on many systems it was very possible to send packets to a machine
with a source address of 127.0.0.1 even ove
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Java doesn't support Unix domain sockets. If you want to use JDBC,
>> you have to use TCP sockets.
>
> That doesn't follow. That just means you can't implement a unix domain socket
> driver using only Java. Is
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 17. touko 2004, at 10:40, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > Consider a program using JDBC on localhost. It can only reach to
>> > PostgreSQL via TCP/IP.
>
> Huh? Why on earth would that be true? Is this a limitatio
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't complete by 1 June. Think worse of me if you choose.
I'll mention another perspective as a user. I'm actually happier seeing a
relatively minor release come out just before the big changes hit. If 7.5 has
Windows, PITR, nested transactions, etc.
Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17. touko 2004, at 10:40, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Consider a program using JDBC on localhost. It can only reach to
> > PostgreSQL via TCP/IP.
Huh? Why on earth would that be true? Is this a limitation of our JDBC
drivers?
> Ah! Of course. That mak
Tommi Maekitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorting should then be done by top-level-domain first. Then 2nd, 3rd... and
> last by user.
I thought of that but decided not to suggest it:
a) as far as email goes there's no relationship between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The ".co
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Interesting.
We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have sychronous
replication and PITR?".
Performance is not a problem here. People are more interested in
stability and "enterprise" features such as those I ha
plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core distribution
...
Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed to
replace plPerl, I was talking with Bruce and he seemed to think that (as
long as the code was good enough) that we could incorporate plPHP???
Since
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Interesting.
We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have sychronous
replication and PITR?".
Performance is not a problem here. People are more interested in
stability and "enterprise" features such as those I ha
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Personally, Win32, subtransactions and PITR are what we are after.
> Second would be inclusion of plPHP and plPerlNG which are arguably the
> most widely used languages to connect to PostgreSQL.
plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>I think we should use the relative-path method *unless* the configure
>command called out specific installation directories (that is, not
>just --prefix but --datadir and/or related options). If you use one of
>those then that absolute path should be use
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is too late to think about pushing back another month. We had this
discussion already. June 1 is it.
Just to throw in my .02, plPerlNG won't be ready for testing until mid,
later June either. Then there is also plPHP which
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well I think that accept an email like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Be careful about this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the same as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] .
Not wanting to r
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replicati
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
Somebody has posted sync multimaster replication (PgCluster) - nobody
has commented on that. Maybe I am the only one who has ever tried it ...
I didn't find it on pgFoundry, others place to look at it ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcas
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I think that accept an email like:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Be careful about this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the same as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
---(end of broadcast)-
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:01:36 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also the validator will validate emails in this form, if you are thinking to
> validate emails as:
>
> "Gaetano M. Public"(junior)
That appears to be an rfc 2822 address. RFC 2821 addresses are more limited
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks
>(I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to
>replace it.
However, I think the clarity of removing it is worth it.
>Also, I think
someone had a special way to do symlinks on Win32 and we should
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 15:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is too late to think about pushing back another month. We had this
> discussion already. June 1 is it.
>
I think I have to reiterate: PITR won't make 1 June. (I will be away
travelling soon). This has been said a number of times.
This is
Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I probably said that wrong, but how do backends get their stats data?
They read it out of a flat file that the stats collector rewrites every
so often.
Ok so that would be easy to do (if we decide we want to)
Is that rea
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Interesting. We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have
sychronous replication and PITR?". Performance is not a problem
here. People are more interested in stability and "enterprise"
features such as those I have
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
"Manfred Spraul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
However, I think the clarity
>
> Interesting.
> We have made COMPLETELY different experiences.
>
> There is one question people ask me daily: "When can we have sychronous
> replication and PITR?".
> Performance is not a problem here. People are more interested in
> stability and "enterprise" features such as those I have
"Manfred Spraul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
> >Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
> >However, I think the clarity of removing it is
It's rumoured that Steve Atkins once said:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:01:05PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is syntactically valid. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
>> > syntactically valid, but should be immediately rejected.
>>
>> I disagree - just because the database server cannot veri
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:11:42 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's true, I will order as Tommi Maekitalo suggest.
And how do domain literals fit into this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address for me. (At least as
long as my server is at that IP address.)
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a
> > byproduct of a connection pool i
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Most hopefully this is very discouraging! Connection pools are a nice
> > > thing and I have used pgpool recently with great success, for pooling
> > > connections. But attempting to deliver multimaster replication as a
>
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> I personally don't think Win32 is enough of a new feature either, but
> >> others disagree.
> >
> > Jan, correct me if I'm wrong ... Jan's point is that we have enough
> > already to warrant a beta o
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Agreed, but you are a "me too", not a huge percentage of our userbase.
How do you know? Have you polled our complete userbase?
Basically, after 6-7 months of development, I want m
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
However, I think the clarity of removing it is worth it. Also, I think
someone had a special way to do symlinks on Win32 and we should
Jan Wieck wrote:
> > I am still wondering about two things:
> > Somebody has posted a 2PC patch - I haven't seen too many comments
> > Somebody has posted sync multimaster replication (PgCluster) - nobody
> > has commented on that. Maybe I am the only one who has ever tried it ...
>
> Do you real
On Monday 17 May 2004 8:45 am, Steve Atkins wrote:
> Also, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a syntactically valid email address, in the
> .13 TLD. It does not deliver to 10.11.12.13, or anywhere else, as
> of today, unless the MTA or local recursive resolver is broken (a
> common case). [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a
> I would tend to put everything in "include/postgresql/config":
On second thought, I would hesitate with "lib/...", as config file are
plateform specific so they cannot be shared with other plateforms,
although it could be the case for include files that they could be shared.
--
Fabien Coelho
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:21:54AM -0700, Steve Crawford wrote:
> Along those lines [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are valid but they
> don't necessarily refer to the same mailbox (depends on the mx for
> foo.bar.com).
I don't believe the latter is actually valid, as it has to be an
ad
> -Original Message-
> From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 May 2004 17:02
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Bruno Wolff III; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
>
>
> Well I think that accept an email like:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> is a risky.
>
>
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:01:05PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is syntactically valid. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> > syntactically valid, but should be immediately rejected.
>
> I disagree - just because the database server cannot verify the the
> existence of a domain does not mea
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Atkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 May 2004 16:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is syntactically valid. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> syntactically valid, but should be immediately rejected.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Page wrote:
|>-Original Message-
|>From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Sent: 17 May 2004 16:02
|>To: Bruno Wolff III
|>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
|>
|>About the domain literals, I think to v
> From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I think I have to discard also the addresses with last octet
> equal to 256.
>
> Any comments ?
>
Any octet that contains a number less than 0 or greater than 255 should be
suspect.
Assuming you really meant 255:
It would be perfectly l
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:01:36PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> | On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:36:55 +0200,
> | Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> |>The type is indexable and provide also conversion me
Dear Tom,
> > (2) Although I subscribe your first 3 points, I do not like the 4th point.
>
> I didn't either. After working on it some more, what I want to do now
> is keep the ACL representation the same as it is, but implicitly assume
> that the owner has all grant options whether the ACL says
> -Original Message-
> From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 May 2004 16:02
> To: Bruno Wolff III
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
>
> About the domain literals, I think to validate it in the near
> future, rejecting private subnet
On Monday 17 May 2004 08:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> > I am still wondering about two things:
> > Somebody has posted a 2PC patch - I haven't seen too many comments
>
> He is waiting for nested transactions to be committed so he can merge
> his work in.
>
I was thinking
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 17 May 2004 08:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote:
> > > I am still wondering about two things:
> > > Somebody has posted a 2PC patch - I haven't seen too many comments
> >
> > He is waiting for nested transactions to be committed so he can merge
Greg Stark wrote:
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Comments are welcomed.
Well as long as you're asking...
Email domains are case insensitive, but the left hand side is case sensitive.
That's the only part that's hard to handle using a text data type, it would be
kind of neat if the em
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
| On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:36:55 +0200,
| Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|>The type is indexable and provide also conversion methods:
|>
|>text <--> email
|>and the operator >>, is possible use it in select like:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The straightforward pg_clog lookup is still in transam.c,
> but has been deactivated:
> * Now this func in shmem.c and gives quality answer by scanning
> * PGPROC structures of all running backend. - vadim 11/26/96
> It is too late to think about pushing back another month. We had this
> discussion already. June 1 is it.
I thought the outcome of that discussion was June 15 ?
Can we try to do the 2PC patch now instead of waiting for subtransactions ?
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> >> Jan, correct me if I'm wrong ... Jan's point is that we have enough
> >> already to warrant a beta on June 1st, even without Win32 ... Win32 (or
> >> any of the other stuff, like PITR/tablespaces) would be icing on the cake
> >> ...
> >
> >
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I personally don't think Win32 is enough of a new feature either, but
others disagree.
Jan, correct me if I'm wrong ... Jan's point is that we have enough
already to warrant a beta on June 1st, even without Win32 ... Win32 (or
any of
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Alternative database location:
>
> Should this code be removed now?
Yes, I believe we agreed on this. One of the committers will take care
of that.
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> > All the clients that I deal with on a daily basis generally care about is
> > performance ... that is generally what they upgrade for ... so, my
> > 'educated guess' based on real world users is that Win32, PITR and nested
> > transactions are not important ... tables
Dear hackers,
> Agreed. I would also like to see Makefile.global installed.
> pg_config.h has C-level configs, and Makefile.global has the
> Makefile-level configs.
There is also "config.status" which is definitely of interest as it
allows to recreate the build tree, and which is not installed
Marko Karppinen said:
>> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Is there any security risk if we enable tcpip_socket by default? We
>>> restrict connection from localhost only by default so I think
>>> enabling tcpip_socket adds no security risk. Please correct me if I
>>> am wrong.
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Ri
Hi all,
Attached is a patch against HEAD implementing tablespaces.
I've done some testing on Linux and BSD. I've also compiled without
HAVE_SYMLINK defined -- which determines whether or not tablespaces are
available.
The reason for this is that symlinks are used extensively to simplify
access t
...
>
> Another thing is that it might make more sense to sort email addresses by
> domain first (case insensitively of course), then by left hand side (case
> sensitively). Since the domain is really the "most significant bit". This
> is also convenient for many systems like email since they perfo
Dear Tom,
> > I wish to submit a small patch so that server includes and
> > all necessary configuration files could be installed *by default*.
>
> There is a reason why install-all-headers is not the default.
Sure. I hope so!
I'm questionning the pros and cons. I'm arguing that the cons agains
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
