Atsushi Ogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When _bt_check_unique finds a dead item that has same data as new
> item, LP_DEAD is set to the item. Can we reuse this dead item instead
> of inserting new item?
This strikes me as a pretty bad idea for the same reason pointed out
recently in other thre
When _bt_check_unique finds a dead item that has same data as new
item, LP_DEAD is set to the item. Can we reuse this dead item instead
of inserting new item? If it is possible, the growth of btree index
can be reduced.
I think it is effective in the table like branches table of pgbench to
which t
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> (b) pg_cancel_backend() was already in 8.0, and so changing it now
> represents an API break, for which being "a little cleaner" is not
> sufficient justification.
> 2. Revert the result type of pg_cancel_backend() to int, but leave the
>
On Sat, 2005-08-10 at 00:42 +0530, sandeep satpal wrote:
> ... please guide me
Two suggestions:
(1) Don't start new threads by replying to an existing thread of no
relevance to the new subject
(2) Spend some time phrasing your question in a coherent manner --
you're more likely to get a useful r
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway. This makes it impossible for a 8.1 client to connect to a 8.0
> server, or a 8.0 client to a 8.1 server, in any case where the service
> name has changed - such as a win32 active directory deployment, but I'm
> sure many others as well.
How i
Hi!
First of all, Kerberos v5 is quite broken in 8.1 beta2. The patch to
allow virtual hosts to be specifed quite efficiently broke everything
case that wasn't using it. I'm working on a patch for this, should be
ready by tomorrow.
(sorry didn't notice earlier, haven't started looking at putting m
Snicker :-)
- Luke
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Marc Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for this. I am very happy that this patch will be going in.
> Thanks also for pointing out the correct header to use.
Patch applied for 8.1.
> As Tom points out, this will do nothing for users of 7.4 and 8.0. For
> these versions I propose to cont
I know it's off-topic, but I just love it.
Excerpt, "InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for
renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of
that relationship".
Good for Heikki.
--
Respectfully,
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Co
Hello all,
In _bt_compare function , instead of calling FunctionCall2 , I want to
call FunctionCall3 with three parameter and in
btcompare.c "btname_pattern_cmp" function will take three parameter and
i want to change this function according to third parameter.
But the biggest issue is i
You're absolutely right of course...
/D
-Original Message-
From: "Andreas Pflug"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 07/10/05 18:49:49
To: "Dave Page"
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> Oh no, what have I star
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I could vote for:
>>
>> bool pg_query_cancel(int)
>>
>> backend_cancel or cancel_backend sounds like it should
>> terminate the entire backend like kill -TERM would do.
> IIRC, the original discussion had a possible pg_query_cancel(int)
> functoi
[ finally got back to considering this issue ]
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> This is looking a bit messy. Maybe for GRANT/REVOKE, we have to insist
>> that privileges do not inherit, you have to actually be SET ROLE'd to
>> whatever role has th
> > > No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I
> > > suppose they could write it to take an int8 pid or
> something, but that's a hack.
> >
> > Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion
> of having
> > both
> >
> > int pg_cancel_backend(int)
> > b
> > Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion
> of having
> > both
> >
> > int pg_cancel_backend(int)
> > bool pg_backend_cancel(int)
> >
> > with the former deprecated but still there for backward
> compatibility?
>
> Oh no, what have I started!! :-)
>
> Let's just
In response to both Bruce and Tom,
Thanks for this. I am very happy that this patch will be going in.
Thanks also for pointing out the correct header to use.
As Tom points out, this will do nothing for users of 7.4 and 8.0. For
these versions I propose to continue to use MMCacheLock. As far as
Dave Page wrote:
Oh no, what have I started!! :-)
In order to keep traffic on this list low, both of us should be
excluded...;-)
Regards,
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.
See the bottom of the email that has links to how to unsubscribe from the
list .. *all* lists have this appended to the bottom of the emails ...
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unsubscribe me. Or Can anyone forward me the emailId of the concerned
person..??
Regards,
Anjali Sinh
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 12:08 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Dave Page" writes:
Also they
don't need to modify
scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
return int
based on the boolean version?
No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
they coul
Yeah this is a good point, if you say okay folks we will keep this for you
till version 8.2 or whatever and then you are on your own, with major
notices wherever reasonable, manuals et al. then I would throw my vote for
this, given I am entitled to a vote.
ASD.
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Jonah H.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 October 2005 16:57
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Robert Treat; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> "Dave Page" writes:
> >> Also they
> >> don't need to
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 11:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" writes:
> >> Also they
> >> don't need to modify
> >> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
> >> return int
> >> based on the boolean version?
>
> > No, because you can't overload based purely on return t
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 12:08 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
> > > they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack.
> >
> > Well, how many
IMHO, it leads to more maintenance work to support backward
compatibility. Can we give it a desupport version such as saying,
"it's currently deprecated and will be completely removed in 8.2, 8.3,
...?" That way, supporting the both for the short-term wouldn't be
too wasteful.
( sorry Tom, GMAIL
Unsubscribe me. Or Can anyone forward me the emailId of the concerned
person..??
Regards,
Anjali Sinha
ASCG, Reliance Infocomm
J Block, SB-11, 2nd Floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
Thane Belapur Road, New Mumbai India, 400 709
DID: 91 22 30387862
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
> > they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack.
>
> Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion of having
> both
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" writes:
> >> Also they
> >> don't need to modify
> >> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
> >> return int
> >> based on the boolean version?
>
> > No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
> > they could write
"Dave Page" writes:
>> Also they
>> don't need to modify
>> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
>> return int
>> based on the boolean version?
> No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
> they could write it to take an int8 pid or somethi
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 October 2005 16:36
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Cc: Dave Page; Tom Lane
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> On Friday 07 October 2005 03:50, Dave Page wrote:
> > >
On Friday 07 October 2005 03:50, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > Sent: 07 October 2005 02:28
> > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > Subject: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
> >
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:36:27AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:46:12PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > If you have huge plain text dumps, and just want to restore one table
> > it's usually painful. Attached is a small shell script that can take a
> Emil Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was testing the spinlock patches that Tom Lane posted last month
> > on a quad opteron system running Suse 9.2 for x86_64.
>
> Exactly which patch is this, and against what base version of Postgres?
> Also, what's the hardware (no, "x86_64" isn't spec
OK, TODO updated:
* Consider compressing indexes by storing key values duplicated in
several rows as a single index entry
This is difficult because it requires datatype-specific knowledge.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On
Not that I want this to become a flame war - but because two separate
people challenged my opinion, and I only wish to clarify what it is... :-)
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:32:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 200
Emil Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was testing the spinlock patches that Tom Lane posted last month
> on a quad opteron system running Suse 9.2 for x86_64.
Exactly which patch is this, and against what base version of Postgres?
Also, what's the hardware (no, "x86_64" isn't specific enough
I was testing the spinlock patches that Tom Lane posted last month
on a quad opteron system running Suse 9.2 for x86_64. The test sql and
database was from a real application of ours and I was interested in seeing
what effect the patches might have. The database is entirely RAM resident and
noth
Tom Lane wrote:
As against that, changing them back now might just confuse matters even
more. And I tend to agree with Neil's judgment that the new definitions
are cleaner in themselves.
When talking about cleanliness of the definition, a name like
"pg_stat_file" seems quite unfortunate sinc
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:46:12PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> If you have huge plain text dumps, and just want to restore one table
> it's usually painful. Attached is a small shell script that can take a
> plain text dump and extract a single table's COPY data commands from it.
>
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 22:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> > > We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly.
> >
> > So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of
If you have huge plain text dumps, and just want to restore one table
it's usually painful. Attached is a small shell script that can take a
plain text dump and extract a single table's COPY data commands from it.
If people think it's interesting and should be developed, I can pop it
on pgfou
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 07 October 2005 02:28
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> 2. Revert the result type of pg_cancel_backend() to int,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Alvaro Herrera
> Sent: 07 October 2005 03:32
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or no
43 matches
Mail list logo
