Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
David Fetter skrev: As far as big missing features go, here's a short list: * Windowing functions If we are to wish for things the window functions and a proper collation/locale support is what I miss the most. /Dennis ---(end of broadcast)

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Josh Berkus
All, Aren't I, the marketing geek, supposed to be the one whining about this? Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this release

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Luke Lonergan
David, On 8/3/06 11:02 PM, "David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Splitting queries among CPUs--possibly even among machines--for OLAP > loads > > * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade) > > * Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project > will eventually endorse and sh

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 00:46, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, > > > partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is > > > there in

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:37:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase > > commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and > > 8.1. What is there in 8.2 like that? > > [ shrug... ] Fi

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Luke Lonergan
+1 UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too, then we'd be able to claim "complete" support for partitioning, but this is a big deal improvement. - Luke On 8/3/06 9:30 PM, "Gavin Sherry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lot of the things on Tom's list are new bits o

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you couldn't do (at all easily) before. To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is there in 8.2 like that? Well to be honest, the

Re: [HACKERS] VALUES clause memory optimization

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about for the specific case of an InsertStmt? It seems that we > could at least get away with freeing the raw-expression list in that case. Not sure ... what about rules, BETWEEN, yadda yadda? > In terms of freeing an entire arbitrary node, could we

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Gavin Sherry wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >>> My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do > >>> before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. > >> It seems as though the majority

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, > > partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is > > there in 8.2 like that? > > [ shrug... ] Five out of your six items have no basis in

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Gavin Sherry wrote: On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you couldn

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To me new things are like PITR, Win32, savepoints, two-phase commit, > partitioned tables, tablespaces. These are from 8.0 and 8.1. What is > there in 8.2 like that? [ shrug... ] Five out of your six items have no basis in the SQL spec. So it's not cl

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Gavin Sherry wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Gavin Sherry wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do > > > > before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. >

Re: [HACKERS] Let psql process files with > 4,294,967,295 lines

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
[ Tom's include adjustment added.] Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it.

Re: [HACKERS] request: support of array in plperl OUT arguments

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Seems Pavel has submitted the patch now, and I place it in the patch queue. --- David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:42:49AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I miss better support OUT arguments in

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Gavin Sherry wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do > > > before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. > > > > It seems as though the majorit

Re: [HACKERS] VALUES clause memory optimization

2006-08-03 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: The reason we could safely list_free inside transformInsertRow is that we know all its callers have just built the passed-in list and so there are no other pointers to it. That doesn't apply in the general case of grammar output. What about for the specific case of an InsertStm

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Gavin Sherry wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do > > before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. > > It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you > couldn't

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do > before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. It seems as though the majority of things on Tom's list are new things you couldn't do (at all easily) before. Gavin -

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
My outlook is that it isn't a lot of _new_ things that you couldn't do before, but rather improvements of existing functionality. --- Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will

[HACKERS] 8.2 features status

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
I'm not clear on why there's all this doom and gloom about how 8.2 will be "merely" a performance-oriented release, with few new features, eg http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-07/msg00111.php Certainly there's been a ton of effort spent on high-end performance issues. But a quick

[HACKERS] New ecpg warnings

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am seeing two new warnings from ecpg: dyntest.pgc:66: WARNING: nullable is always 1 dyntest2.pgc:72: WARNING: nullable is always 1 Are they to be expected? I looked at where they are being generated but didn't understand it. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] [DOCS] Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re:

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Michael Glaesemann wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2006, at 23:58 , Tom Lane wrote: >>> Should we give VALUES its own reference page? That doesn't quite >>> seem helpful either. >> >> I think we should go for a separate reference page, as VALUES

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] LWLock statistics collector

2006-08-03 Thread Kevin Brown
Tom Lane wrote: > If I thought that average users would have a need for LWLock statistics, > I'd be more sympathetic to expending effort on a nice frontend for > viewing the statistics, but this is and always will be just a concern > for hardcore hackers ... That may be true of the output, but tha

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread elein
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:04:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:18:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think we could legislate that the stored typmod is the same as what > >> the user sees (and can't be negative). The fact that it's differ

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: Also, if we do this we probably ought to remove the special-purpose hack for preload_libraries to specify an init function --- it should just happen by default. Any objections to simplifying that? The original idea of us

Re: GENERATED ... AS IDENTITY, Was: Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze

2006-08-03 Thread Zoltan Boszormenyi
Hi, next version follows. Changes: - Supports OVERRIDING { USER | SYSTEM } VALUE syntax not yet documented, I have doubts about USER variant - UPDATES is forbidden entirely on GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY columns, UPDATE tab SET col = DEFAULT is allowed on GENERATED ALWAYS AS ( expr ) columns

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, if we do this we probably ought to remove the special-purpose >> hack for preload_libraries to specify an init function --- it should >> just happen by default. Any objections to simplifying that? > The original idea of using the i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Thanks. Good plan. --- Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some > >> people once in a while SIGTERM a backen

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some >> people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence >> in it. > OK, here is an opportunity for someone to run tests to get this into > 8.2.

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Also, if we do this we probably ought to remove the special-purpose hack for preload_libraries to specify an init function --- it should just happen by default. Any objections to simplifying that? The original idea of using the init function with preload_libraries was to eli

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector (was: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2)

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Katsuhiko Okano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> (A) The algorithm which replaces a buffer is bad. >> A time stamp does not become new until swapout completes >> the swapout page. >> If access is during swap at other pages, the swapout page will be >> in the state where it is not used most, >> It i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want > >> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it > >> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specifi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Patch included to implement xlog switching, using an xlog record > "processing instruction" and forcibly moving xlog pointers. Just to be clear --- does this fully supersede your draft patch of 27-July, or is that still on the table too?

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The spelling we've used for many years is > diff -w -C3 > Is there a reason to change from that? This was my fault. When I changed the options I mixed upper and lowercase and used lowercase 'c' instead of uppercase 'C'. That should

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Rocco Altier
Here is my updated regression.diff. Like Tom, I was running with my server configured to run on 5678, instead of 5432, so it seems like the test is using a wrong port number somewhere. I changed my local pg_regress.sh to use -C3 on the diffs, until we figure out what the final form of that will b

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hence I propose the patch below (applies to PostgreSQL 8.1.4) which mimics the dlopen(3) and dlclose(3) behaviour of some Unix platforms and resolves and calls _PG_init and _PG_fini functions of an extension module right aft

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:30:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> One question I have is whether it really works as expected in all >> cases. In particular what if the library is "preloaded" into the >> postmaster? > I'm not sure quite what you mean here, but

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:30:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hence I propose the patch below (applies to PostgreSQL 8.1.4) > > which mimics the dlopen(3) and dlclose(3) behaviour of some Unix > > platforms and resolves and calls _PG_init and _PG_

Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME

2006-08-03 Thread Ron Mayer
Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem >>> mount options? > >> Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations >> you might have some files that want access time, and others t

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hence I propose the patch below (applies to PostgreSQL 8.1.4) which > mimics the dlopen(3) and dlclose(3) behaviour of some Unix platforms > and resolves and calls _PG_init and _PG_fini functions of an extension > module right after/before the pg_

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple settings in AFTER triggers

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks. Alvaro made the following suggestion but didn't copy the > list -- shall I do what he suggested and submit the changes as > another patch? > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I'd add an Assert() on the second hunk to make sure newtuple is only set >> in U

Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem >> mount options? > Yes to both. I could imagine that for small systems/workstations > you might have some files that want access time, and others that > wanted NOATIME -- i

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:18:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we could legislate that the stored typmod is the same as what >> the user sees (and can't be negative). The fact that it's different >> for some of the built-in types is a historical artifact tha

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple settings in AFTER triggers

2006-08-03 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:05:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Set tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple in AFTER triggers according to whether > > old and new tuples were supplied rather than blindly setting them > > according to the event type. Per discussion in pgsq

Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME

2006-08-03 Thread Ron Mayer
Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Would people be interested in a trivial patch that adds O_NOATIME >> to open() for platforms that support it? (apparently Linux 2.6.8 >> and better). > > Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem > mount options? Y

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:18:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Also, there's the issue of converting > > the arguments to a typmod, in the long term it'd have to be > > user-defined per type. > > I think we could legislate that the stored typmod is the same as what > the user sees (and can't be neg

Re: [HACKERS] O_NOATIME

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would people be interested in a trivial patch that adds O_NOATIME > to open() for platforms that support it? (apparently Linux 2.6.8 > and better). Isn't that usually, and more portably, handled in the filesystem mount options? rega

[HACKERS] O_NOATIME

2006-08-03 Thread Ron Mayer
Would people be interested in a trivial patch that adds O_NOATIME to open() for platforms that support it? (apparently Linux 2.6.8 and better). It seems to work here, feels harmless to me (an easy ifdef to check if it's there), and seems it would theoretically help, though I don't notice a consis

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > I'm surprised you got the patch so small. Mind you, you didn't do any > folding in the productions for NUMERIC and CHAR which in the long term > would probably need to be done. Yeah, the patch ought to be making the grammar smaller not bigger. > Also, there's the

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
I'm surprised you got the patch so small. Mind you, you didn't do any folding in the productions for NUMERIC and CHAR which in the long term would probably need to be done. Also, there's the issue of converting the arguments to a typmod, in the long term it'd have to be user-defined per type. Stil

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with initDB under windows 2003

2006-08-03 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 06:49:31PM +, dror wrote: > Hi James, > > I just wanted to inform you all that I solve the issue, it was indeed the nul > device as James and Martijn mention. > I have change the source to redirect the output to a log file, to which I > gave permission to the "postgr

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with initDB under windows 2003

2006-08-03 Thread dror
Hi James,   I just wanted to inform you all that I solve the issue, it was indeed the nul device as James and Martijn mention. I have change the source to redirect the output to a log file, to which I gave permission to the "postgres" user. The file (currently) is created at the temp folder. This

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Rocco Altier
> From: Joachim Wieland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:23 AM > To: Tom Lane; Michael Meskes; Rocco Altier; PostgreSQL Hacker > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:54:35PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > > diff: `-3' option is o

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-08-03 Thread Teodor Sigaev
or so timeframe ... but feel free to improve it if you can. I'm not very familiar with yacc/bison, so pls, review attached patch. I may miss something... It's based on ideas in previous discussions: http://www.pgsql.ru/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1995063 http://www.pgsql.ru/db/mw/msg.html?mid=2091842

Re: [HACKERS] Replication Documentation

2006-08-03 Thread Andrew Hammond
> > "There are a number of different approaches to solving the problem of > > replication, each with strengths and weaknesses. As a result, there > > are a number of different replication solutions available for > > PostgreSQL. To find out more, please refer to the website." > > Well, that's what I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WIP archive_timeout patch

2006-08-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > WIP archive_timeout. > > All we need to do is add LWLock support to archiver. > > Thoughts/ideas/hints welcome. > > Hint: this isn't the archiver's problem, and so you don't need to get > the archiver

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] WIP archive_timeout patch

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > WIP archive_timeout. > All we need to do is add LWLock support to archiver. > Thoughts/ideas/hints welcome. Hint: this isn't the archiver's problem, and so you don't need to get the archiver involved in the solution. I'd suggest bgwriter as a reasonably a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] LWLock statistics collector

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is a patch to collect statistics of LWLocks. This seems fairly invasive, as well as confused about whether it's an #ifdef'able thing or not. You can't have system views and pg_proc entries conditional on a compile-time #ifdef, so in a default bu

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas? I do that by deleting all of my code (usually by accident :-) No code, no bugs!     -- Korry

Re: [HACKERS] Replication Documentation

2006-08-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Andrew Hammond wrote: > How about "what works with a given release at the time of the > release"? We just threw that idea out in the context of the procedural language discussion because we do not have the resources to check what works. > Arguably, neither are most of the procedural languages in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Csaba Nagy wrote: >> "man kill" says the default is SIGTERM. >> > > OK, so that means I do use it... is it known to be dangerous ? I thought > till now that it is safe to use. Apparently you never suffered any problems from that; neither did I. > What about "select pg_cancel_backend()" >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Csaba Nagy
> "man kill" says the default is SIGTERM. OK, so that means I do use it... is it known to be dangerous ? I thought till now that it is safe to use. What about "select pg_cancel_backend()" ? Thanks, Csaba. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In version

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas? > Would be worth at least the Nobel prize :-) Regards, Andreas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http:/

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:10, Csaba Nagy wrote: >> You didn't answer the original question: is killing SIGTERM a backend > ^^^ > Nevermind, I don't do that. I do 'kill backend_pid' without specifying >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Csaba Nagy wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:10, Csaba Nagy wrote: > >> You didn't answer the original question: is killing SIGTERM a backend >> > ^^^ > Nevermind, I don't do that. I do 'kill backend_pid' without specifying > the sig

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: > Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want >>> it to show that it's now safe. >>> > > >> If the backend's stuck, I'll have to SIGTERM it, whether there's >> pg_termi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do know a case where a plain kill will seem to be stucked: on vacuum > of a big table. I guess when it starts an index's cleanup scan it will > insist to finish it before stopping. We've fixed a few cases of missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS lately, and will f

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The spelling we've used for many years is >> diff -w -C3 > I found only -w, but will append -C3 as well. Careful, there are two different usages: we use -C3 to generate the "pretty" report t

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> At least from my perspective, it would be good if there were a way to >> run the regression tests without any use of TCP ports. > Do you see a possibility to select what test should be run? M

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Csaba Nagy
> "Stuck?" You have not shown us a case where SIGTERM rather than SIGINT > is necessary or appropriate. It seems to me the above is assuming the > existence of unknown backend bugs, exactly the same thing you think > I shouldn't be assuming ... I do know a case where a plain kill will seem to be

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The spelling we've used for many years is > diff -w -C3 I found only -w, but will append -C3 as well. > Is there a reason to change from that? No. > At least from my perspective, it would be good if there were a way to > run the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Csaba Nagy
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:10, Csaba Nagy wrote: > You didn't answer the original question: is killing SIGTERM a backend ^^^ Nevermind, I don't do that. I do 'kill backend_pid' without specifying the signal, and I'm sufficiently unfamiliar wit

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread tomas
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:04:11PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > PostgreSQL provides a way to load C extension modules with its internal > FMGR. Unfortunately there is no portable way for an extension module to > initialize (directly after the pg_dlopen() of the DSO) and to finish > (directly

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want >> it to show that it's now safe. > If the backend's stuck, I'll have to SIGTERM it, whether there's > pg_terminate_backend or not. "Stuck?" You have not shown us

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Csaba Nagy
You didn't answer the original question: is killing SIGTERM a backend known/suspected to be dangerous ? And if yes, what's the risk (pointers to discussions would be nice too). > statement_timeout is your friend. I know, but unfortunately I can't use it. I did try to use statement_timeout and it

[HACKERS] unsubscribe

2006-08-03 Thread Wade Klaver
unsubscribe -- Wade Klaver Wavefire Technologies Corporation GPG Public Key at http://archeron.wavefire.com /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign . \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . X - NO Word docs in e-mail . / \ - -

Re: [HACKERS] Replication Documentation

2006-08-03 Thread Andrew Hammond
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Andrew Hammond wrote: > > I can see value in documenting what replication systems are known to > > work (for some definition of work) with a given release in the > > documentation for that release. Five years down the road when I'm > > trying to implement repl

Re: GENERATED ... AS IDENTITY, Was: Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze

2006-08-03 Thread Zoltan Boszormenyi
Rod Taylor írta: For db restoration (pg_dump), how do you restore to the same values as previously if it is always regenerated? By making ALWAYS a suggestion for some users instead of always enforced and providing an override mechanism for it. I assume it only works for relation owners but I've n

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple settings in AFTER triggers

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Set tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple in AFTER triggers according to whether > old and new tuples were supplied rather than blindly setting them > according to the event type. Per discussion in pgsql-hackers. Looks good, applied. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 feature set

2006-08-03 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well if an initdb was not required, I think that would be a huge feature >> ;) (I know it may not work release over release) > > If someone had started working on pg_upgrade six months ago, we might > have that

Re: [HACKERS] Hash indexes (was: On-disk bitmap index patch)

2006-08-03 Thread Kenneth Marshall
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:26:18PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Kenneth Marshall wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:46:01PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Jim Nasby wrote: > > > > > On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Tom La

[HACKERS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish

2006-08-03 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
PostgreSQL provides a way to load C extension modules with its internal FMGR. Unfortunately there is no portable way for an extension module to initialize (directly after the pg_dlopen() of the DSO) and to finish (directly before the pg_dlclose() of the DSO). This way it is mostly impossible to wri

Re: [HACKERS] Standby Mode

2006-08-03 Thread stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The archiver is deliberately designed not to be connected to shared >>> memory. If you want to change that you'll have to make a very strong >>> case why we sho

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now wait a minute, is there some risk of lockup if I kill a backend ? > Cause I do that relatively often (say 20 times a day, when some web > users time out but their query keeps running). Should I rather not do it > ? statement_timeout is your friend.

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> diff: `-3' option is obsolete; omit it >>> diff: Try `diff --help' for more information. > This got introduced by Rocco's Makefile patch, it worked for me, so I > thought it's fine. Rocco, your AIX box will work with only diff -c as well, > won't it?

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] GIN vs. statistics collector

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Seltenreich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think there's a call to pgstat_count_index_scan missing in GIN. > Currently, the idx_scan column of pg_stat_*_indexes is stuck at zero > for GIN indexes. > Patch attached. Looks correct to me --- applied. regards, tom lan

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:54:35PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > diff: `-3' option is obsolete; omit it > > diff: Try `diff --help' for more information. > Strange, works well on my Linux system. However, I tried correcting the > option but I'm unsure if it works for you now since both versions

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Csaba Nagy
> What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some > people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence > in it. Now wait a minute, is there some risk of lockup if I kill a backend ? Cause I do that relatively often (say 20 times a day, when some web user

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want >> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it >> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that >> did exist, w

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > While init.pgc no longer fails outright, it still generates a pile of > unsightly compiler warnings, eg on Fedora 5 (gcc 4.1.1) > ... > I find this really unacceptable. There is no other part of the Postgres > tree besides ecpg that gener

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > utils/adt/misc.c says: > > //* Disabled in 8.0 due to reliability concerns; FIXME someday *// > > Datum > > *pg_terminate_backend*(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > > Well, AFAIR there were no more issues raised about code paths that don't > > c

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: > Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> utils/adt/misc.c says: >> //* Disabled in 8.0 due to reliability concerns; FIXME someday *// >> Datum >> *pg_terminate_backend*(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) >> > > >> Well, AFAIR there were no more issues raised about code paths that

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just committed some changes by Joachim that should reduce the problems > and the differences by a large margin. Could you please rerun the test > and send us the regression.diff? Thanks a lot in advance. While init.pgc no longer fails outright, it sti

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Andreas Pflug
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Andreas Pflug wrote: > >> Since I have a stuck backend without client again, I'll have to kill >> -SIGTERM a backend. Fortunately, I do have console access to that >> machine and it's not win32 but a decent OS. >> >> > > You do know that on Windows you can use pg_ctl t

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg test suite

2006-08-03 Thread Michael Meskes
Hi, I just committed some changes by Joachim that should reduce the problems and the differences by a large margin. Could you please rerun the test and send us the regression.diff? Thanks a lot in advance. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|C

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 feature set

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well if an initdb was not required, I think that would be a huge feature > ;) (I know it may not work release over release) If someone had started working on pg_upgrade six months ago, we might have that for 8.2 ... regards,

Re: [HACKERS] Rebuilding DB from broken hardrive.

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Yoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be nice to know how each directories are related to each other > or at least a pointer to where I should look. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage.html regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > utils/adt/misc.c says: > //* Disabled in 8.0 due to reliability concerns; FIXME someday *// > Datum > *pg_terminate_backend*(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > Well, AFAIR there were no more issues raised about code paths that don't > clean up correctly, so can we ple

Re: [HACKERS] VALUES clause memory optimization (was: Values list-of-targetlists patch...)

2006-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In transformExpr the comment implies that it should be safe to reapply > to an already transformed expression. What if we free the raw_parser > expression list/cells/nodes and replace it with the as-transformed one? How are you going to do the "replace" bit

  1   2   >