On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
would allowing it harm anything at this point?
>>
>>> Adding it for the sake of upgrad
I've committed a bunch of changes both in the Postgres code and the
buildfarm code to enable running the isolation checks under MSVC.
There's one hurdle that I haven't overcome: the code tries to call
"./isolationtester" and Windows barfs on it. I think we need to remove
that way of doing thi
Cédric Villemain wrote:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/c2main/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/analyze_cache
This rebases easily to make Cedric's changes move to the end; I just
pushed a version with that change to
https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/tree/analyze_cach
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
>>> created casts...
>>> at least, we should docu
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
>> created casts...
>> at least, we should document that casts on domains are ignored and
>> that we should use th
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Okay, how we add a "revision" key to the control file and extrevision to
>>> the pg_extension catalog. Its type can be "TEXT" and is optional for use
>>> by extensions.
>>
>> How would pg_extension.extrevision be k
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
> created casts...
> at least, we should document that casts on domains are ignored and
> that we should use the base types instead, maybe even a warning or a
> notice wh
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> So let's think about some harder scenarios.
>
> Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
> and a cast from a value of type D1 to type D2, then:
>
ok. a few fair questions, thanks
> (1) If there is an implicit ca
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
>>> would allowing it harm anything at this point?
>
>> Adding it for the sake of upgrades seems very far fetched.
>
>> Adding it for the sake of givin
Hello
cache estimation and cache access cost are currently not accounted
explicitly: they have a cost associated with but no constants (other
than effective_cache_size but it has a very limited usage).
Every IO cost is build with a derivation of the seq_page_cost,
random_page_cost and the number
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Gelman wrote:
> I need to be Unsubscribed! ign...@verizon.net
There's a link for that here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mai
I need to be Unsubscribed! ign...@verizon.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
2011/5/15 Robert Haas :
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> I think that all the complexity with CRCs etc. is unlikely to lead anywhere
>> too, and those two issues are not completely unrelated. The simplest,
>> safest thing here is the right way to approach this, not the most
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Obviously it should run the cast from timestamp to int, why it will
> run a cast from a domain?
So let's think about some harder scenarios.
Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
and a cast from a value of ty
On 5/12/11 7:19 PM, Lou Picciano wrote:
> Josh My Man! How are you?!!
>
>
> Is this the one?: http://planetdrizzle.org/
Since that's their blog feed, here's some durable links:
Testing tool:
http://docs.drizzle.org/testing/dbqp.html
Random query generator:
https://launchpad.net/randgen
Howe
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> I think that all the complexity with CRCs etc. is unlikely to lead anywhere
> too, and those two issues are not completely unrelated. The simplest,
> safest thing here is the right way to approach this, not the most
> complicated one, and a simp
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Would that risk be substantially worse than it currently is? If a
> backend goes into the tank while holding access shared locks, it will
> still block access exclusive locks until it recovers. And those
> queued access exclusive locks will bl
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> ('1800-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp)::int
>
> Now, since all values of a DOMAIN are also values of the base type the
> DOMAIN is defined as being a subset of, then the sub-expression within the
> parenthesis denotes a value that is both a ti
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
First of all, what if "cast(timestamp as int)" was already defined? Which
cast then would you expect to be invoked here?
'1800-01-01 00:00:00'::int
i will expect an error in that case... what you're doing there is
19 matches
Mail list logo
