On 1/27/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of extensions /
>> contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions schema with all
>> extensions into template1?
>
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:49:25PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of
> >> extensions / contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions
> >> schema with all extensions i
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of extensions /
>> contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions schema with all
>> extensions into template1?
>
> No, I don't think so. If you do that it's effectively
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of extensions /
> contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions schema with all
> extensions into template1?
No, I don't think so. If you do that it's effectively moving all that
stuff int
> PostgreSQL can be extended by the user in many ways ...
> PostgreSQL also accepts escape string constants, which are an extension
> to the SQL standard
> To use the infrastructure for your extension ...
> Here is an example that builds an extension module ...
> They test standard SQL operations
On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:25 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
Not so great. SQL:2003 has a special meaning for the word "module."
Yeah I saw mention of that in another thread, but I really didn't like
the word plugins. Do you have another thought? Extensions?
"Extensions" would t
David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:59:47AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> With all the recent discussion on contrib modules etc.. I would like to
>> offer the following suggestion. I am willing to do a good portion of the
>> work myself and I can get it done before feat
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:59:47AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With all the recent discussion on contrib modules etc.. I would like to
> offer the following suggestion. I am willing to do a good portion of the
> work myself and I can get it done before feature freeze. I will need
>
I wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've found a situation that causes DROP FUNCTION to fail (tested
>> in 8.1.6, 8.2.1, and 8.3devel):
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00937.php
> Ugh ... I haven't traced this through in detail, but I'm pretty sure
> t
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm. There seems to be something wrong in the free space calculation in
>> the algorithm for choosing the right split location. I'll dig deeper,
>> unless someone beats me to it..
> I think I found it. The page splitting code didn't take into acc
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:27:59AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> We seem to have 2 ECPG regression failures on Windows - see below, taken
> from buildfarm log. Can we either fix ecpg or fix the expected results?
Should be fixed now. You're right I simply forgot to update the expected
result file
Tom Dong wrote:
> Sorry for the spam. I am not sure if the email I sent earlier went
> though as it was before I signed up for this email list.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am looking for a way via configuration to make Postgres
> not to use the openssl lib libeay32.dll as I nee
Sorry for the spam. I am not sure if the email I sent earlier went
though as it was before I signed up for this email list.
Hi,
I am looking for a way via configuration to make Postgres
not to use the openssl lib libeay32.dll as I need to delete that
library. I basically need
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> With all the recent discussion on contrib modules etc.. I would like to
>> offer the following suggestion.
>
> AFAICT you're proposing an entirely cosmetic reclassification of /contrib.
For the most part yes. Perception is reality
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With all the recent discussion on contrib modules etc.. I would like to
> offer the following suggestion.
AFAICT you're proposing an entirely cosmetic reclassification of /contrib.
Aside from the difficulty of getting agreement on which ones should b
Hello,
With all the recent discussion on contrib modules etc.. I would like to
offer the following suggestion. I am willing to do a good portion of the
work myself and I can get it done before feature freeze. I will need
help with the global make file stuff however so that is one dependency.
Add
We seem to have 2 ECPG regression failures on Windows - see below, taken
from buildfarm log. Can we either fix ecpg or fix the expected results?
cheers
andrew
*** expected/compat_informix-dec_test-MinGW32.stdoutSat Jan 27 02:34:46 2007
--- results/compat_informix-dec_test.stdout Sat
On 1/27/2007 7:26 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think the system I described is a slightly modified Lamport generator. The
maximum timestamp of any row updated in this transaction, you can consider that
the "counters received from other nodes". Then I make sur
Hi,
Jim Nasby wrote:
Note that those terms only make sense if you limit yourself to thinking
the master is pushing data out to the slave...
I don't really get the "limitation" here. It's all about distinguishing
between master/slave, origin/replica, local/remote - however you want to
call it
Hi,
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I haven't done that yet, since the current incarnation does not need it.
But I have considered using some signal like SIGUSR1 to mean "something
changed in your processes, look into your shared memory". The
autovacuum shared memory area would contain PIDs (or maybe PGP
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the system I described is a slightly modified Lamport generator. The
> maximum timestamp of any row updated in this transaction, you can consider
> that
> the "counters received from other nodes". Then I make sure that the next
> counter (timestamp
Sent directly. Anyone else who's interested can have a copy. Just
email me.
I *think* it's structurally sound. Please tell me if you find a
problem. It lacks a lot: proper specification of required security
properties, a way to specify different mechanism lists for local,
vice TCP, v
22 matches
Mail list logo
