I had a few thoughts on this issue:
The objective is to smoothly upgrade to the new version with minimal
downtime.
The different proposals as far as I can see are as follows:
Proposal A - the big one time reformatting
1) shutdown the db
2) run a command that upgrades the data directory to th
Robert Treat wrote:
So, the things I hear most non-postgresql people complain about wrt postgresql
are:
no full text indexing built in
no replication built in
no stored procedures (with a mix of wanting in db cron facility)
the planner is not smart enough (with a mix of wanting hints)
vacuum
It's possible that creating a more formal structure would aid these folk
to let the rest of us know what they're doing ... but I think it's at
least as likely that a more formal structure would just drive them away.
Well just some informal from the internal workings of CMD. Some
of this won't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
>> TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
>> anything like "thou shalt report in once a week" will merely drive
>> people away from publicly claiming items, if not d
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 04 August 2006 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 1) updatable views - I won't really use this but it just seems like
>>> one of those features that people use when doing rdbms features
>>> comparison charts.
>>
> I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
> TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
> anything like "thou shalt report in once a week" will merely drive
> people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
> doing a
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case at hand (hierarchical queries), I believe what happened
was ...
Tom is exactly correct, this is what happened.
In the many months I've stated to be working on it, I've only had one
other person (Mark Cave-Ayland) interested in assistin
On Friday 04 August 2006 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So if you define "major features" as class A features. In this case
> > major doesn't mean important or useful or difficult to implement,
> > just that they are the sort of features that one might be told
On Friday 04 August 2006 13:56, mdean wrote:
> Josh, percentages, like almost anything, do work in the right context,
> in this case, that of the testimonial, something postgresql hasn't
> emphasized IMHO. If ten to 20 projects were treated as real and
> realistic case studies, with an in-depth de
I don't object to someone informally polling people who have claimed a
TODO item and not produced any visible progress for awhile. But I think
anything like "thou shalt report in once a week" will merely drive
people away from publicly claiming items, if not drive them away from
doing anything
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I was saying on #postgresql, the current system works well for a
> small group of developers. I don't think there is any arguing that.
> However, there is a larger group out there, that would likely be willing
> to contribute but we are a bit of
I tend to agree --- I don't see much value in trying to institute a
formalized process. We have not had that many cases where lack of
communication was a problem.
How do you know? Seriously... this comes up at least twice a year :).
There is probably a basis for it.
As I was saying on #pos
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In any case, the PG_init proposal neither adds nor takes away ability
>> to do stuff immediately post-fork, so I think that's an orthogonal
>> consideration.
> So is the only question whether there's a need to do stuf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Greg, you are on an utterly wrong track here. Try to look about a bit more
> broadly.
FWIW, I tend to agree with Greg. This project has gotten to where it is
with a very loose structure, and I think that trying to impose more
structure carries a significant risk of bre
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, for example if for someone wanted to
> > have a persistent Oracle connection they could not open it pre-fork at
> > library
> > load time but they might want to open it immediately after the fork rather
> > t
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If people are interested in the status of a patch, I think it's fine for
> them to email the person who's volunteered to work on it. If there
> hasn't been public activity from that person in recent times, it is
> probably a reasonable bet that the work has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
> > development works. When people are contributing their time scratching an
> > itch for their own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a
> > manager to report to.
>
> I am sick of hearing
There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software development
works. When people are contributing their time scratching an itch for their
own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a manager to report to.
I have heard you make this argument before, and it is just is no
Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So if you define "major features" as class A features. In this case
> major doesn't mean important or useful or difficult to implement,
> just that they are the sort of features that one might be told to
> look for when shopping for a database. So i
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 15:44 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> As far as the "problem in need of solving," it's what Andrew Dunstan
> referred to as "splendid isolation," which is another way of saying,
> "letting the thing you've taken on gather dust while people think
> you're working on it."
I'm just
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, for example if for someone wanted to
> have a persistent Oracle connection they could not open it pre-fork at library
> load time but they might want to open it immediately after the fork rather
> than when it's first used.
Uh ... why? Seems like al
> There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
> development
> works. When people are contributing their time scratching an itch for
> their
> own edification the LAST thing they want is to have a manager to report
> to.
>
I am sick of hearing lectures on this. It is simply N
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:44:24PM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > > Perhaps you'd like to explain how big a burden on the developer
> > > it is to send an once a week, that being what I'm proposing
> > > here.
>
> There seems to be a lack of recognition here of how free software
> development wor
Lukas Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> >>> While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
> >>> tracker', I think it would be good
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Those responsibilities include better communication, feature tracking and
milestones...
Wow, if we had all those we could have as efficient a release-engineering
process as Mozilla!
Thanks for the sarcasm. Anything productiv
This has been a very interesting thread, if for no other reason then
to just catalog all of the changes going into 8.2. I am going to be
changing some hardware around so I need to decide if I want to a)
change the hardware now and don't bother with 8.2, b) wait to upgrade
hardware and do t
Folks,
> This is not really a good argument. Might it not be possible that there
> is a sweeter spot somewhere in the middle? I don't think anyone wants
> something very heavy handed.
Well, I think the answer is just to set something up and see if people can
use it. If we keep kibitzing about
>
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Those responsibilities include better communication, feature tracking
>> and
>> milestones...
>
> Wow, if we had all those we could have as efficient a release-engineering
> process as Mozilla!
>
>
This is not really a good argument. Might it
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Those responsibilities include better communication, feature tracking and
> milestones...
Wow, if we had all those we could have as efficient a release-engineering
process as Mozilla!
---(end of broadcast)
In README.pgcrypto, Section 2.3 "Deprecated functions" says that
digest_exists(), hmac_exists(), and cipher_exists() are planned to
be removed in PostgreSQL 8.2. Those functions still exist -- should
they be removed or does that section need updating?
--
Michael Fuhr
---
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items goes.
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, my thought is that you'd rename PL/R's init function to PG_init, and
> then it'd get called automagically without needing to assume that the DBA
> remembers to specify it in preload_libraries. If there's a reason *not*
> to do that then it'd be a strike
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
> > tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
> > as far as claiming items goes.
>
> > Wha
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I modified the code to store the user statement name in the portal for
> protocol execute, so I can print the user name at that time.
Please forget that and print the portal name. I'm getting tired of
repeating it, but: there are two different names her
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct
>> the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we
>> ought not expend the cycles. I have a preliminary p
What say?
It's a shame to have a person burn cycles on this, but anything would be
an improvement over what we've got now.
Really?
I lot of this could be automated with a web app. The web app takes the
todo, a hacker signs up. Hacker takes todo. Web app reminds hack
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
> I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
> claiming items goes.
> What say?
I think this is a good plan for adding additional process overhea
Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import=
> a
> dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint=
> .
> This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work=
>
>
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
> > I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
> > claiming items goes.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I'm picturing something
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:40:01PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug tracker',
> I think it would be good to have a little more formality as far as
> claiming items goes.
Agreed.
> I'm picturing something like this:
>
> 1. Each person taki
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Does anyone have examples of real user-defined types that would need two
> fields? If not it may not be worth spending time on.
>
What about if someone wanted to implement a relation as a type? I could
see perhaps something like:
CREATE TABLE
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:41:42PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>issue DDL
> >>You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
> >
> >Something like this:
> >
> >SELECT a, b, c
> >FROM (
> >EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
> >LANGUAGE plperl
> >$$...$$
> >) AS (a int, b point, c text)
> >JOIN .
issue DDL
You mean something like: EXEC plperl(print $foo)?
Something like this:
SELECT a, b, c
FROM (
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE
LANGUAGE plperl
$$...$$
) AS (a int, b point, c text)
JOIN ...
Anyhow, the idea is to be able to call PL functionality in-line
without having to create a functi
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 07:45:56AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
> > will eventually endorse and ship
>
> This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
> documentation and will power we put into it.
It wil
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
> >
> > Couldn't this be done by converting a table/partial-table at a time?
> > It
I'm picturing something like this:
1. Each person taking an item agrees to write at least one email each
week to -hackers detailing progress or lack of same on the item.
2. Should someone wish to relinquish a claim on a feature, there needs
to be some standard way to do a hand-off of whatever
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
> > shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
> > the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
> > o
Jonah,
> If I would've known a good number of people were asking for WITH
> RECURSIVE (as Josh mentioned), I would've had more incentive to work
> on it.
You didn't ask. If you had asked, you would have got a response.
People knew you were working on it, and assumed that it would be done,
sin
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented
> > >release ... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd
> > >better get ready to be disappointed by every f
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:40:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> which it seems we ought to be bright enough to notice. In particular
> I would argue that turning on constraint_exclusion ought to instruct
> the planner to catch this sort of thing, whereas when it's off we
> ought not expend the cycles.
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:18:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
> > no?
>
> There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
> so it's premature to say "it's in".
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
> > >
> > > BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you
> >
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:27:49AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
> >
> >Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
>
> I think what Luk
On 8/4/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people it is important. The fact it is on
the TODO list indicates it is significant, unless you are told
otherwise.
True, but stating that you
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, while I'm thinking about it, I believe INSERT ... RETURNING is in,
> no?
There's a recently-submitted patch, but it's not been reviewed yet,
so it's premature to say "it's in". See upthread comments about
promising things in advance of them hittin
Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
ROW for 8.2?
o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating multiple
columns
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-08-04 kell 14:40, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php
> about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions
> it generates for a simple partitioning
The community cannot ask anyone to work harder. What we do ask is that
if you start working on an item, let us know, and if you stop working on
it, let us know soon so others can work on it.
Also, if something is on the TODO list, the community doesn't need to
shoot signal rockets to tell people
On 8/4/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not to be unkind, but AFAIR all the unmet expectations in this release
cycle came from commercially-sponsored developers who said
they'd do X and then didn't finish it.
FYI, I am not commercially sponsered. I am a full-time employee
devoted to wor
I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php
about how the planner is not real bright about the filter conditions
it generates for a simple partitioning layout. In particular it's
generating scans involving self-contradicto
* Jim C. Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
> >
> > BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted.
>
> How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
Couldn't
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be
unmeasurable hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:03:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
> > >... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
> > >ready to be disappointed
Guys,
> I still don't like it. Usability is an opinion based thing. Personally I
> find MySQL confusing and illogical. However I know many people love it
> for that very same reason.
As the person who's leading the draft of the press release, let me say that
any "theme" discussions which happen
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
I am interrested in finding out what you folks mean by usability and
refinement. How do you measure it? These seem to me to be unmeasurable
hackneyed terms with little intrinsic meaning!
Yep you are absolutely right. That is what press releases are all about.
So could you say
something l
Our database has about 700 objects (tables,views, stored functions,
types etc), we want to make a change on a view or tables, it said that there
were a lot of depended obejcts. I know that depended object must be dropped
and then created to solve this. But, It has too many dependecies t
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:20:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > * In-place upgrades (pg_upgrade)
>
> BTW, I may get Sun to contribute an engineer for this; will get you posted.
How would such a thing handle changes to page formats?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECT
A fresh cvs update of -HEAD produces the following when I attempt to import a
dump that has a domain using a SQL function as part of the check constraint.
This error only shows while using COPY for more than 1 row. Inserts work
fine. Find attached a simple self contained test case.
gdb ../bi
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >My ordering of this list in terms of priority is:
> >
> >1) Windowing functions
> >2) MERGE
> >3) Index only access (new)
> >4) In-place upgrades
>
> And what about compression
Tom Lane wrote:
"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
I think what Luke means, is that an INSERT into the base table of the
inheritance hierarchy
Cool! Then let's make a stronger claim about the feature: 'data management
using partioning now with transparent insert/update/delete support in addition
to the already proven performance acceleration in previous releases.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the
PR and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a
slightly more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lo
Luke,
> Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number of good ideas on how to
> do it, we are in a position to bang it out now IMO.
Actually, a group of us discussed this at the Code Sprint in Toronto, and came
up with a plan which will also reduce row overhead on large tables. I can't
BTW, I tried building with HP's cc instead of gcc, and got
slightly different regression failures (same HPUX/HPPA machine):
*** expected/complex-test4.stdout Wed Aug 2 10:14:02 2006
--- results//complex-test4.stdout Fri Aug 4 12:56:13 2006
***
*** 1,4
! Found f=14,07
Folks,
This just came out of the GORDA project. I'd love to see the comments of our
replication/clustering geeks here on the list.
--Josh
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [Hackers] Standard interfaces for replication providers
Date: Friday 04 August 2006 02:09
From: Jose O
Tom Lane wrote:
I think the actual wave of the future for analyzing behavior at the
LWLock level is going to be DTrace. It seems way more flexible than
an aggregate-statistics view can be.
CVS head now has the following LWLock probes, and more can easily be
added. These probes can be enable
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what about compression of on-disk sorting?
That's purely a performance issue, which some people seem to want
to define as "not a new feature" ... which is not *my* view of
what's important ...
regards, tom lane
--
"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> UPDATE/DELETE for CE are a big deal - I really wish we had INSERT too,
Huh? We had INSERT working before, that's why it's not mentioned.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
On Friday 04 August 2006 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> We haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication
> without the barrier of a "standard" database-agnostic API, so I kinda
> doubt that it will work all that much better with one. See Slony-II.
I would argue that people haven'
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
>> business-like, "what are we going to have in the next release"
>> perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just see what p
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usa
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/3/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> Certa
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >> I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
> >> and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
> >> more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
> >
> > Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking
I think we should drop the term usability as a selling part of the PR
and push it into further description.. Instead we should use a slightly
more expensive word (think 50 cents, not 5). :)
Fine, I am all ears. Also, a lot of people are thinking usability
improvements aren't a big item, but
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>> "Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
> >>> MySQL had for a long time" a MySql guy would say.
> >> I have the same feeling about the term "usability". It could
> >> be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
> >
> >
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Not that there's anything wrong with a performance-oriented release
> >... but if you think that 8.2 is short on features, you'd better get
> >ready to be disappointed by every future release.
> >
>
> It's a pity that some expectations have bee
"Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time" a MySql guy would say.
I have the same feeling about the term "usability". It could
be interpreted like : PostgreSQL was not usable until now.
_improved_ usability
I still don't like it. Usab
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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 build
>>
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary
>> functionality with minimal intrusion.
> I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have
> a
Adrian Maier wrote:
> On 04/08/06, Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, hence "usability", not "new enterprise features".
> > >
> > I'm not too happy about the label "usability".
> >
> > "Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features t
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:37, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
> > we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT & recursive queries
>
> Honestly, I've only had four people say it
Josh,
On 8/4/06 7:47 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) Index only access (new)
>
> Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
> the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 8/4/06, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a pity that some expectations have been raised about features that
we haven't seen patches for, MERGE/UPSERT & recursive queries
Honestly, I've only had four people say it would be nice to have
hierarchical querie
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:37:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I agree. The real problem is that we don't look at things in a
> business-like, "what are we going to have in the next release"
> perspective. Being as it's an OSS community, we just see what patches
> come in and we apply what we
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Right, hence "usability", not "new enterprise features".
I'm not too happy about the label "usability".
"Ok, maybe postgres gets usable finally by supporting features that
MySQL had for a long time" a MySql guy would say.
Good point...
What a
3) Index only access (new)
Does this mean, I have hit the index and have the actual tuple data in
the index row? So I don't have to go back to the relation to get the info?
Joshua D. Drake
We already have splitting queries among CPUs and machines.
Yes, YOU do. We don't.
Joshua D. Drake
* Several varieties of replication, which I believe we as a project
will eventually endorse and ship
This one will cause confusion regardless of how much advocacy,
documentation and will power we put into it.
* On-the-fly in-line calls out to PL/your_choice without needing to
issue DD
Luke Lonergan wrote:
+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.
I haven't be following this but.. does the above mean that if CE is
turned on and they are partiti
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
