"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
> not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
> It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.
That won't do, as some other folks note
I've forwarded this onto the Mj2 Developers ... it might even be doable
now, they've built a, at times, painfully configurable system ...
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
Congrats Dave!
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Project members:
On behalf of the PostgreSQL Core Team, I welcome Dave Page. Dave has
been the head of the pgODBC project for a couple of years, started the
pgAdmin project in 1998, has been our lead webmaster for three
years, a
Nicholas,
You are a novice user, aren't you? ;-)
> I am just a novice end user, but I would like to see:
> SavePoints be able to use within functions. ( I think this involves
> making procedures that execute outside of a transaction)
Nope, supported in 8.0 for PL/pgSQL. Not sure about oth
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Rod Taylor wrote:
* Multi-CPU sorts. Take a large single sort like an index creation
and split the work among multiple CPUs.
This really implies threading, doesn't it? And presumably it would have
many po
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 19:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce, on May 17, 2004, you 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 tha
We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My
question for everyone on this list is: What are the "few remaining big
features" that you see missing for PostgreSQL?
Or, slightly different, what are people's most wanted features?
* Recursive unions (ie. WITH recursive)
* C
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > * Multi-CPU sorts. Take a large single sort like an index creation
> >and split the work among multiple CPUs.
> This really implies threading, doesn't it? And presumably it would have
> many possib
We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My
question for everyone on this list is: What are the "few remaining big
features" that you see missing for PostgreSQL?
Or, slightly different, what are people's most wanted features?
Oh, and MERGE :D
Chris
-
Rod Taylor wrote:
* Multi-CPU sorts. Take a large single sort like an index creation
and split the work among multiple CPUs.
This really implies threading, doesn't it? And presumably it would have
many possible uses besides this one for doing parallel work, e.g. maybe
the p
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 19:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce, on May 17, 2004, you 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 clo
Alvaro,
> -- on-disk bitmaps and composite indexes (due out for Bizgres in about a
> month)
> -- More table partitioning stuff
> -- materialized view support
> -- streams (per TelegraphCQ)
> -- database ASSERTIONS
> -- clustering (SlonyII)
> -- multi-threaded/process query execution (i.e. one quer
Gavin Sherry wrote:
Or, slightly different, what are people's most wanted features?
SQL:
Grouping sets
Recursive queries
Window functions
Updatable views
Updatable cursors
Materialised views
Debug-able PL/PgSQL -- EXPLAIN [ANALYZE] functionality, step through?
Cost estimation for func
Alvaro,
> We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My
> question for everyone on this list is: What are the "few remaining big
> features" that you see missing for PostgreSQL?
-- on-disk bitmaps and composite indexes (due out for Bizgres in about a
month)
-- More table
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
> >just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
>
> Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
> sure most others do as w
On 8/25/05 4:13 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My
> question for everyone on this list is: What are the "few remaining big
> features" that you see missing for PostgreSQL?
>
> Or, slightly different, what are peo
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce, on May 17, 2004, you 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 t
We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My
question for everyone on this list is: What are the "few remaining big
features" that you see missing for PostgreSQL?
Table partitioning is pretty big but I believe we have that already for
8.2 per Greenplum.
Better aggre
Bruce, on May 17, 2004, you 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 because they a
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:01:23PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Yup, did a bunch of work on it last night ... identified some 'out of
> whack' processes that were hogging a bit more CPU then they should, and
> moved them ... its part of some ongoing work I've been doing to clean
> things up
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some l
"Dave Page" writes:
>> So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
> Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
> spam (iirc).
Yesterday's problem seemed to be av.hub.org; svr1 was pretty nearly idle
as far as I could tell. I don't have a login o
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
> not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
> It would take some load off of the system and the moderate
On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Matt Miller wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:50 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
* %Remove CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER
Do we really want to remove it,
Also, I believe CONSTRAINT TRIGGERS are the only way to provide
transaction level (rather than statement
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks
and just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well.
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regarding the removal of ALTER INDEX OWNER commands from pg_dump,
> indexes are now restored with the wrong ownership if the user doing
> the restore is different than the user who owned the original index
pg_dump is not the source of the problem. We sho
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am sure
most others do as well. :)
Remembering back to t
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the mailing
lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that aren't list
subscribers, but are legit emails ...
Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the
mailing lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that
aren't list subscribers, but are legit emails ...
Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed? Would it help things if all
non-subscriber ema
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Marc G. Fournier Hub
Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.pl
> http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.sh
BTW, these scripts seem to indicate that there's a GIST or
contrib/intarray problem in the 8.0 branch. I was trying to use 'em
to test REL8_0_STABLE branch tip to verify my t_ctid
Regarding the removal of ALTER INDEX OWNER commands from pg_dump,
indexes are now restored with the wrong ownership if the user doing
the restore is different than the user who owned the original index
(if this sounds familiar, I reported the same problem for 8.0.0rc4
in January). ALTER INDEX OWNE
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).
Does it scan every single incomming email?
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 August 2005 21:46
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The long and short is I have never understood why it takes so long for
posts to show up.
I'm looking into that one right now ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yaho
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:07:32PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: "Magnus Hagander"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pgsql-hackers@pos
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
>
> Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
> spam (iirc).
Does it scan every single incomming email? It might make more sense to
have the
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 August 2005 21:24
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
> So I take it the bottleneck is the box running
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:07:32PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Magnus Hagander"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
> To: "Jim C. Nasby"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
> Subject: Re: [HA
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 August 2005 16:35
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 Thread safetyness
>
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yuck. This sucks :-(
Eh. That would be me looking at the mail that didn't pass the listserver
:-)
Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument holds while the example was broken.
Well one thing I can tell you is that it definately appears as if the
ma
-Original Message-
From: "Magnus Hagander"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
> Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
> t
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 09:58:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * %Allow RULE recompilation
>
> Eh? Perhaps you meant "automatically regenerate cached plans when
> needed", in which case it's redundant with the Dependency Checking
> entries. Whatever it means, this doesn't seem a particularly simp
Tom Lane wrote:
Or perhaps use a different separator:
junk=# select * from xyz;
id |name| address | del_addr
++---+--
1 | Joe Bloggs | 1 Hindhead Villas,
> > > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect
> we could
> > > easily get donations to improve things.
> >
> > IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> > donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just
> move freebsd
> > VMs across, whi
> > > > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect
> > we could
> > > > easily get donations to improve things.
> > >
> > > IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth
> on the box
> > > donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just
> > move freebsd
> > >
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:31 PM
> To: Jim Nasby
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
>
> > > > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> > could easily get donations to improve things.
>
> IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> > could easily get donations to improve things.
>
> IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so
Oliver Elphick writes:
> It would be better to show the columns aligned (perhaps without showing
> separators for other columns so as not to give the impression that the
> other columns contain null or empty strings):
> junk=# select * from xyz;
> id |name| address
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:09:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:03:28PM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
> >> The most unambiguous behavior would be to not have
> >> commented out values in the config file at all.
>
> > That only makes s
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:53 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Tom Lane asked:
>
> >> o Improve psql's handling of multi-line queries
>
> > Uh, what's wrong with it? This item seems far too vague.
If you enter a multi-line query one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane asked:
>> o Improve psql's handling of multi-line queries
> Uh, what's wrong with it? This item seems far too vague.
I think perhaps this means adding multi-line support to
the tab-completion? Only thing I can think of, cause other
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sivakumar K wrote:
>> Do we have an API like mysql_ping to check whether the server is up and
>> running after the connection has been established?
> At the protocol level, you could send Sync and wait for ReadyForQuery.
At the client level, the easiest
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yuck. This sucks :-( I was very much hoping we could avoid an other
> build *and* runtime dependency. Which will be a cascading runtime
> dependency to each and every program that uses libpq. double-:-(
That seems like a clear nonstarter :-(
Can we
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:53:32PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Tom Lane asked:
>
> >> o Improve psql's handling of multi-line queries
>
> > Uh, what's wrong with it? This item seems far too vague.
>
> I think perhaps this means adding multi-line support to
> the tab-completion? O
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:50 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> >> * %Remove CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER
> >>
> > Do we really want to remove it,
>
> Also, I believe CONSTRAINT TRIGGERS are the only way to provide
> transaction level (rather than statement level) referential
> integrity.
Don't d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Not in any conf I have ever seen. If I comment out a parameter
> I expect that the parameter will either be disabled or set to the
> default depending on the parameter.
Or throw an error. I'm not sure what the big deal is with defaults -
everyone
* Andrew Dunstan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >But the contrary position is that a comment is a comment, not something
> >that should act to change the state of the postmaster.
>
> I think that's a mis-statement of the issue, as I understand it, which
> seems to me to be this: S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> PQstatus perhaps?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/libpq-status.html
> This only returns the last status, not the current.
> pgAdmin uses SELECT 1 for this.
Better still: PQtransactionStatus, followed by a quick
PQexec of "SE
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:09:21 +0300,
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This has probably been mentioned already, but it makes it much harder to
> see which values have been altered from their default values. At the very
> least, the default values should be in the comments t
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> > o Add pg_dumpall custom format dumps.
> >
> > This is probably best done by combining pg_dump and pg_dumpall
> > into a single binary.
>
> This is probably obsoleted by events, too. Now that we can dump blobs
> in text mode, I see
Tom Lane wrote:
> So, the low-tech solution to these gripes seems to be:
> * uncomment all the entries in postgresql.conf
> * add comments to flag the values that can't be changed by SIGHUP
>
> Can we agree on taking these measures?
Doesn't this still mean that a SIGHUP may give you
Sivakumar K wrote:
> Do we have an API like mysql_ping to check whether the server is up and
> running after the connection has been established?
At the protocol level, you could send Sync and wait for ReadyForQuery.
-O
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
PQstatus perhaps?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/libpq-status.html
This only returns the last status, not the current.
pgAdmin uses SELECT 1 for this.
Regards,
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
PQstatus perhaps?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/libpq-status.html
Chris
Sivakumar K wrote:
Do we have an API like mysql_ping to check whether the server is up and
running after the connection has been established?
I checked the PostgreSQL docs but of no use.
Is there
Do we have an API like mysql_ping to check whether the
server is up and running after the connection has been established?
I checked the PostgreSQL docs but of no use.
Is there any work around for this?
Regards,
Siva Kumar.K
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-08/msg00304.php
Could you perhaps test this patch as well, while you already have a
setup for testing parallel vacuums under big loads ?
Ok, I'll do it.
Or perhaps you can share the setup/scripts/data so that I could run your
test myself as w
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The most unambiguous behavior would be to not have
commented out values in the config file at all.
Yeah, Robert Treat suggested that upthread, and I think it's been pushed
by others too.
The only argument I can see ag
It, or some related patch appears to have broken the build on buildfarm member
snake.
I haven't had time to investigate.
/D
-Original Message-
From: "Bruce Momjian"
Sent: 25/08/05 01:14:54
To: "Tom Lane"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chuck McDevitt"<[EMA
> Unfortunately I just found that we still cannot build in
> thread safety mode on Windows, due to an error on my part -
> specifically, I concentrated on libpq, not realising that
> ecpglib is also thread aware.
>
> It seems that ecpglib uses far more of pthreads than libpq
> does, so our min
> Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> could easily get donations to improve things.
IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just move freebsd
VMs across, which is why it's only used as a we
On K, 2005-08-24 at 21:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * %Allow TRUNCATE ... CASCADE/RESTRICT
>
> Huh? What would that do?
Maybe this was meant truncating of tables with dependent foreign keys ?
AFAIR this was solved by allowing truncating several tables in one
command even if they have FK relati
On Aug 25, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
* %Remove CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER
This was used in older releases to dump referential integrity
constraints.
Do we really want to remove it, and thereby guarantee we can't load
dumps from those old releases?
Also, I believe CONSTRAINT TR
74 matches
Mail list logo
