Re: [HACKERS] RFC: array_agg() per SQL:200n

2008-02-02 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:06 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The ORDER BY clause would also used in XMLAGG, so we should try to parse this > in a generalized way. Yeah, that should be doable. We could go further and expose ORDER BY to CREATE AGGREGATE, so that users could write aggregates that ar

Re: [HACKERS] Wrong query examples in docs

2008-02-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
Sorry for the noise I am using SCREEN sessoins, and confused the session I was in. Sorry again... On Feb 2, 2008 9:05 PM, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html > > The examples given at the end of this page do not work

Re: [HACKERS] Wrong query examples in docs

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
"Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html > The examples given at the end of this page do not work in 8.2.4. They work fine for me ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--

[HACKERS] Wrong query examples in docs

2008-02-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html The examples given at the end of this page do not work in 8.2.4. I referred the 8.3 docs, and the examples there work fine for 8.2.4 db. Best regards, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo

Re: [HACKERS] and waiting

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gurjeet Singh escribió: >> I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make in >> the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using >> RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting' reset in that callback if >> t

Re: [HACKERS] and waiting

2008-02-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Feb 2, 2008 3:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gurjeet Singh escribió: > > > I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make > in > > the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using > > RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting'

Re: [HACKERS] and waiting

2008-02-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Gurjeet Singh escribió: > I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make in > the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using > RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting' reset in that callback if > the Xact event is XACT_EVENT_ABORT. PG_TRY is no

Re: [HACKERS] and waiting

2008-02-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Feb 2, 2008 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote: > > "Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I saw a strange behaviour on one of the production boxes. The > >> pg_stat_activity shows a process as and yet 'waiting' !!! On top > of > >> it (understandably, since its I

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:23:39PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: >> I think it would be nice to be able to have more "trigger hooks" >> relating to DDL changes, but I also think that will represent some >> fundamentally more difficult problems being rai

Re: [HACKERS] and waiting

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > "Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I saw a strange behaviour on one of the production boxes. The >> pg_stat_activity shows a process as and yet 'waiting' !!! On top of >> it (understandably, since its IDLE), there are no entries for this pid in >> pg_locks! > Hmm, I can rep

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:23:39PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 2:43 PM, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It still involves DDL-like operations in the sense of changing > > (for the duration of the query) trigger behavior. > > But that "change of trigger behavior" i

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread Christopher Browne
On Feb 2, 2008 2:43 PM, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It still involves DDL-like operations in the sense of changing (for > the duration of the query) trigger behavior. But that "change of trigger behavior" is still more in the "DML" sense than "DDL sense." The point of TRUNCATE is th

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with site doc search

2008-02-02 Thread Oleg Bartunov
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Gurjeet Singh wrote: Hi All, I just noticed a minor bug in our search results. Searching for is_insteadbool in 8.3 docs returns the following page: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/catalog-pg-rewrite.html is_instead is a column, and bool is the datatype, bot

Re: [HACKERS] clone varlena function

2008-02-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
On 02/02/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code > > with core. Is in core similar macro or function? > > datumCopy? > yes, it is it. thank you Pavel Stehule >

Re: [HACKERS] clone varlena function

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code > with core. Is in core similar macro or function? datumCopy? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6:

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, Le Saturday 02 February 2008 20:39:15 Florian Weimer, vous avez écrit : > Oops, I hadn't actually read it (I can't reach the Web from this > terminal). I had a friend in the same situation as you seem to be in and implemented a mail bot for him to somewhat access documents on the www: http

[HACKERS] clone varlena function

2008-02-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello, I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code with core. Is in core similar macro or function? text* ora_clone_text(text *t) { text *result; result = palloc(VARSIZE(t)); SET_VARSIZE(result, VARSIZE(t)); memcpy(VARDATA(result), VARDATA(t

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Another thought is to tell people to run the postmaster under a per-process memory ulimit that is conservative enough so that the system can't get into the regime where the OOM killer activates. ulimit actually behaves the way we want, ie, it's polite about telling you you can'

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Florian G. Pflug wrote: >> Maybe we should just react equally brute-force, and just disable the >> OOM-Killer for the postmaster if we're running on linux. It seems that >> something like "echo -17 > /proc//oom_adj" should do the trick. > That will pr

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Florian G. Pflug wrote: Maybe we should just react equally brute-force, and just disable the OOM-Killer for the postmaster if we're running on linux. It seems that something like "echo -17 > /proc//oom_adj" should do the trick. That will protect the postmaster but none of the children. An

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote: > >> There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX, > >> ATLER TABLE ALTER COLUMN TYPE). The defining characteri

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tom Lane: >> IIRC, the idea is to get the machine out of OOM land with one killed >> process, even if it causes dependent processes to fail. > > You're just parroting the reasoning given on the cited webpage, which > is loony because it takes no account whatsoever of actual practice. Oops, I ha

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Florian G. Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: * Alvaro Herrera: I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster, How much does that help? Postmaster &c still need to be shut down when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL. The $64 problem is that if the

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote: >> There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX, >> ATLER TABLE ALTER COLUMN TYPE). The defining characteristic of DDL >> is not that it doesn't modify the data but that it

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Tom Lane: >> The $64 problem is that if the parent postmaster process is victimized >> by the OOM killer, you won't get an automatic restart. > The classic answer to that is to put it into inittab. 8-/ Except that no standard services are actually ru

Re: [HACKERS] Truncate Triggers

2008-02-02 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah, > > etc. > > Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change > that's visible in the table definition

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tom Lane: >> How much does that help? Postmaster &c still need to be shut down >> when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL. > > The $64 problem is that if the parent postmaster process is victimized > by the OOM killer, you won't get an automatic restart. The classic answer to that is to put

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Alvaro Herrera: >> I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster, > How much does that help? Postmaster &c still need to be shut down > when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL. The $64 problem is that if the parent postma

[HACKERS] Run positions on Tape

2008-02-02 Thread mac_man2005
Hi gurus. I'm working on runs formation [ tuplesort.c & tuplestore.c ] Is there a way to know and store the address of the first and the last position of a run on a tape? I would store the location of the first tuple while arranging the current run on the current destination tape. On the othe

Re: [HACKERS] configurability of OOM killer

2008-02-02 Thread Florian Weimer
* Alvaro Herrera: > I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster, > bgwriter etc, and feels more preference towards normal backends (but > then, we would try to give them less points than other regular > processes). That could make the system more robust overall, even if

Re: [HACKERS] Strange behavior on plpgsql trigger function in if comparison

2008-02-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Omar Bettin wrote: Hi, I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4 plpgsql trigger function: IF OLD.Value <> NEW.Value THEN ... but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF does not work and I have to use this method: IF (OLD.Value <> NE

[HACKERS] Problem with site doc search

2008-02-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
Hi All, I just noticed a minor bug in our search results. Searching for is_insteadbool in 8.3 docs returns the following page: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/catalog-pg-rewrite.html is_instead is a column, and bool is the datatype, both mentioned in different columns. I know i

Re: [HACKERS] BK-Tree Implementation on top of GiST

2008-02-02 Thread Volkan Yazıcı
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/1593.html suggests that this uninteresting > (too much of the database is examined) once you go past an edit distance > of 1. I don't know if this is a problem in your case (it is in mine). Did you see the test results in bk

Re: [HACKERS] Strange behavior on plpgsql trigger function in if comparison

2008-02-02 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Omar Bettin wrote: Hi, I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4 plpgsql trigger function: IF OLD.Value <> NEW.Value THEN ... but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF does not work and I have to use this method: IF (OLD.Value <> NEW.

[HACKERS] Strange behavior on plpgsql trigger function in if comparison

2008-02-02 Thread Omar Bettin
Hi, I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4 plpgsql trigger function: IF OLD.Value <> NEW.Value THEN ... but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF does not work and I have to use this method: IF (OLD.Value <> NEW.Value) OR (OLD.Value IS NU