2011/6/9 Shigeru Hanada :
> Attached patch includes fixes for FOREIGN TABLE documents:
I committed the changes to ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, but I think the
changes to CREATE FOREIGN TABLE need more thought. The first of the
two hunks you've proposed to add doesn't seem necessary to me, and the
second
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> We currently achieve that wait-free by first marking the page with the next
> available xid and then reusing it when that mark (btpo.xact) predates the
> oldest running xid (RecentXmin). (At the moment, I'm failing to work out why
> this is OK
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> psql's auto-complete support for COMMENT ON was missing support for a
> few object types:
>
> 1.) EXTENSION and PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE are now auto-complete candidates
> for COMMENT ON [TAB]. Lists of extensions and procedural la
Hi Robert,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 08:55:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 01:56:22PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> > On 12.03.2011 12:40, Noah M
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jun8, 2011, at 17:46 , Jeff Davis wrote:
>> It looks like the type input function may be a problem, because it
>> doesn't look like it knows what the collation is yet. In other words,
>> PG_GET_COLLATION() is zero for the type input functio
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
> 2011/6/12 Robert Haas :
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
> affects usabil
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> The first fact is that turning off hot standby will let the cluster
> start up, but only after seeing a spate of messages like these (dozen
> or dozens, not thousands):
>
> 2011-06-09 08:02:32 UTC LOG: restored log file
> "0002002C00
2011/6/12 Robert Haas :
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
>> On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>
There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid
column
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Here is two level lookups.
> The first is from object identifiers to security label; it can be boosted
> using syscache mechanism. The second is from security labels to
> access control decision; it can be boosted using userspace avc.
OK. Let
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
>>> affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid
>>> column, we just fix the problem. If we d
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> In PQputCopyData #2 it is visible that the first SSL_write called from
> pqFlush failed with SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE. The next SSL_write should
> have been a retry with the same parameters, but instead was passed a
> buffer with a different addr
On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
affects usability. +1 on fixing this. IMO, we don't create a new pid
column, we just fix the problem. If we do it for 9.2, we have 18 months
to communicate the change.
Uh, I am t
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> on shdepReassignOwned() we have this message, which is obviously wrong
> we are not dropping objects just reassigning them...
> """
> ereport(ERROR,
>
> (errcode(ERRCODE_DEPENDENT_OBJECTS_STILL_EXIST),
>
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 01:56:22PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> > On 12.03.2011 12:40, Noah Misch wrote:
>> >> The installation that inspired my original report recently upgr
Greg Smith wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 12:19 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > It looks like if you push the remote branch first everything should work
> > nicely:
> > git checkout master
> > git push origin origin:refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE
> > git fetch # fetch the new branch
> > git checkout REL9_1_STABLE
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:48:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> It's actually not
> >> clear to me what the user could usefully do other than trying to
> >> preserve his transaction by setting a high deadlock_timeout - what is
> >> the use cas
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 03:03:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > Good points. I'm thinking, then, add an Expr argument to
> > simplify_function()
> > and have the CoerceViaIO branch of eval_const_expressions_mutator() pass
> > NULL
> > for both its simplify_function() calls.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >> It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of
> >> creating a pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate
> >> procpid and eventually rem
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm not concerned about references covered by
> SerializableXactHashLock. I am more concerned about some of the
> tests for whether the (MySerializableXact == InvalidSerializableXact)
> checks and any other tests not covered by that
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 05/29/2011 03:11 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> If you use "pgbench -S -M prepared" at a scale where all data fits in
>> memory, most of what you are benchmarking is network/IPC chatter, and
>> table locking.
>
> If you profile it, you'll find a
On 2011-06-11 01:57, Tom Lane wrote:
(5) Lobby your libc providers to make strtod accept denormals without
throwing ERANGE. There is no obvious reason why it shouldn't. (On at
least one of my boxes, it does.)
The standard either explicitly allows or requires this behaviour
(depending on whi
Noah Misch writes:
> Good points. I'm thinking, then, add an Expr argument to simplify_function()
> and have the CoerceViaIO branch of eval_const_expressions_mutator() pass NULL
> for both its simplify_function() calls. If simplify_function() gets a NULL
> Expr
> for a function that has a protr
> Dan Ports wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do
>>> you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would
>>> also allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid
>>
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:11:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > We originally discussed having the transform function take and return Expr
> > nodes. It turns out that simplify_function() does not have the Expr,
> > probably
> > because the particular choice of node type among
Noah Misch writes:
> We originally discussed having the transform function take and return Expr
> nodes. It turns out that simplify_function() does not have the Expr, probably
> because the particular choice of node type among the many that can convey a
> function call does not matter to it. The
On 6/11/2011 1:02 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of creating a
pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate
procpid and eventually remove it...
well, if we will start changin
Please remember to double-patch anything that should go into 9.1.
For the record, the correct formula seems to be
$ git pull
Current branch master is up to date.
$ git push origin master:refs/heads/REL9_1_STABLE
Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
To ssh://g...@gitmaster.postgresql.org/postgres
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
For the directory name, I'd prefer either src/extensions (since there is
more than one), or if you want to go for short somehow, src/ext. (Hmm,
I guess the installation subdirectory is also called "extension". But
it felt wrong on first reading anyway.)
I jumped bet
On 11 June 2011 16:40, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the
On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
>>> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>>>
>>> Enable CHECK
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
>> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>>
>> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>>
>> This
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>
> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>
> This means that they can initially be added to a large ex
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of creating a
> pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate
> procpid and eventually remove it...
well, if we will start changing bad picked names we will have a *lot*
33 matches
Mail list logo
