Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

2007-04-07 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD. Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two. Sun DBTG Q.A. set up in the Sun labs: Solaris 9 + Sparc + Su

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Optimized pgbench for 8.3

2007-04-07 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Patch committed. Thanks. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > On 4/6/07, Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > BTW, is anybody working on enabling the fill factor to the tables used > > by pgbench? 8.3 will introduce HOT, and I think adding the feature > > will make it easier to tes

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Josh Tolley
On 4/7/07, Josh Berkus wrote: FYI, the MySQL folks want to talk to you about maybe lobbying to change the RFC. They feel that an awful lot of RFC1697 is Oracle-specific, and are wondering if we can do anything about it. Indeed... I've had brief discussions with a Mark Atwood, IIRC, who's work

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Josh Berkus
Josh, > Josh just found his passport, which will make giving that talk a lot > easier ;) As Magnus said, we're aiming at RFC 1697 compliance first. > Since the RFC's MIB is designed to apply to *any* database, it doesn't > cover lots of the specific statistics a pgsql person would likely want > to

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 06:01:10AM -0600, Josh Tolley wrote: >> Josh just found his passport, which will make giving that talk a lot >> easier ;) As Magnus said, we're aiming at RFC 1697 compliance first. >> Since the RFC's MIB is designed to apply to *any* database, it doesn'

Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

2007-04-07 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, > > I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts. > > IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD. Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two. Sun DBTG Q.A. set up in the Sun labs: Solaris 9 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris 8 + Sparc + SunCC Solaris

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Optimized pgbench for 8.3

2007-04-07 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On 4/6/07, Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BTW, is anybody working on enabling the fill factor to the tables used by pgbench? 8.3 will introduce HOT, and I think adding the feature will make it easier to test HOT. Please see if the attached patch looks good. It adds a new -F option w

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating unnecessary left joins

2007-04-07 Thread Ottó Havasvölgyi
Sorry, I have left out the PK requirement. What Nicolas wrote is right, I also use an O/R mapper and inheritance is solved with vertical partitioning. The tables are connected to each other with the PK. And the mapper defines views for each class with left joins. The mapper generates queries based

Re: [HACKERS] Last chance to object to MVCC-safe CLUSTER

2007-04-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Awhile back Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Making cluster MVCC-safe will kill my back-door of clustering a hot > > table while I run a full DB backup. > > Are we agreed that the TRUNCATE-based workaround shown here > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 06:01:10AM -0600, Josh Tolley wrote: > Josh just found his passport, which will make giving that talk a lot > easier ;) As Magnus said, we're aiming at RFC 1697 compliance first. > Since the RFC's MIB is designed to apply to *any* database, it doesn't > cover lots of the spe

[HACKERS] Last chance to object to MVCC-safe CLUSTER

2007-04-07 Thread Tom Lane
Awhile back Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Making cluster MVCC-safe will kill my back-door of clustering a hot > table while I run a full DB backup. Are we agreed that the TRUNCATE-based workaround shown here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00606.php is an adequate

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating unnecessary left joins

2007-04-07 Thread Nicolas Barbier
2007/4/7, Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Tom Lane wrote: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ott=F3_Havasv=F6lgyi?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: When using views built with left joins, and then querying against these views, there are a lot of join in the plan that are not necessary, because I don't select/u

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Josh Tolley
On 4/6/07, Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, it is. There have been a number of commits recently and I believe Josh(?) is giving a talk about it at pgCon. Regards, Dave Josh just found his passport, which will make giving that talk a lot easier ;) As Magnus said, we're aiming at RFC

Re: [HACKERS] Problems with the varlena patch in my module

2007-04-07 Thread Tzahi Fadida
On Saturday 07 April 2007 04:08:34 Tom Lane wrote: > Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is an excerpt from my code: > > newtset->tids = (bytea *) fastgetattr(tupleTSet, LABELS_ALIGNED, > > fctx->tupleSetDesc, &isnull); > > > > It seems that for an empty bytea (only the size of the he

Re: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd

2007-04-07 Thread Dave Page
> --- Original Message --- > From: "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" > Sent: 06/04/07, 20:12:39 > Subject: [HACKERS] Fate of pgsnmpd > > Hi > > Does anyone know if pgsnmpd is still actively developed? > The last version (0.1b1) is about 15 mont

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating unnecessary left joins

2007-04-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 19:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ott=F3_Havasv=F6lgyi?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > When using views built with left joins, and then querying against these > > views, there are a lot of join in the plan that are not necessary, because I > > don't select/use