Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Implement (and document, and test) has_sequence_privilege()

2009-08-01 Thread Joe Conway
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 In response to: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1238394513-21474-1-git-send-email-...@oryx.com Review complete. Somewhat modified patch attached. I wasn't happy with creation of verify_sequence_oid() when it more-or-less duplicates the fun

Re: [HACKERS] 8.4 win32 shared memory patch

2009-08-01 Thread Kevin Field
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 19:29, Kevin Field > wrote: > >>     > %t LOG:  received fast shutdown request > >>     > %t LOG:  aborting any active transactions > >>     > %t LOG:  autovacuum launcher shutting down > >>     > %t LOG:  shutting down > >>     > %t LOG:  database system is shut down > >>

Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts on sorting

2009-08-01 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 09:37:11AM +0200, PFC wrote: >>       Actually, I think (see the bottom of my last email) that this would be >> a >> good argument for the per-column COLLATE patch... > > Standard SQL COLLATE support is per col

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.4.1 ?

2009-08-01 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > This is primairly a question for core, I imagine. Just curious if > there are any plans for 8.4.1? It's on the radar screen, but we're a bit busy with commitfest, and some of the relevant people are/have been on summer vacation ... so no date set yet.

Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate key value error

2009-08-01 Thread Tom Lane
Itagaki Takahiro writes: > Thank you for reviewing. An updated patch is attached. I applied this with some revisions. I didn't like the fact that error reports for functional indexes came out with "pg_expression_n" instead of something useful. I tweaked things to use the pg_get_indexdef code to

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL 8.4.1 ?

2009-08-01 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, This is primairly a question for core, I imagine. Just curious if there are any plans for 8.4.1? I'm primairly thinking of the memory issue with array_agg(), but I also worry about the JOIN fixes. Not sure if they'd affect me or not, but we're just looking at doing a migrat

Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts on sorting

2009-08-01 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 09:37:11AM +0200, PFC wrote: >> PFC writes: >>> - for short strings (average 12 bytes), sort is CPU-bound in strcoll() >>> - for longer strings (average 120 bytes), sort is even more CPU-bound in >>> strcoll() >> >> No news there. If you are limited by the speed of text co

Re: [HACKERS] SE-PostgreSQL Specifications

2009-08-01 Thread Stephen Frost
KaiGai, * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote: > Please note that all we need to focus on is not pg_xxx_aclcheck() routines > in other words. I agree, there may be other things which need to move to aclchk.c, and that routine is a good example of something which would be appropriate to move,

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT

2009-08-01 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, Le 1 août 09 à 06:08, Robert Haas a écrit : I'm lost. I think you're getting the new column attdistinct mixed up with the existing column stadistinct. attdistinct is always going to have whatever value you assign it. stadistinct will get attdistinct != 0 ? attdistinct : . haha! Sorry ab

Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts on sorting

2009-08-01 Thread PFC
PFC writes: - for short strings (average 12 bytes), sort is CPU-bound in strcoll() - for longer strings (average 120 bytes), sort is even more CPU-bound in strcoll() No news there. If you are limited by the speed of text comparisons, consider using C locale. regards,