Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used

On 11 February 2013 14:29, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello > > updated patch > > * merged Dean's doc > * allow NULL as width > Hi, I have not had time to look at this properly, but it doesn't look as though you have fixed the other problem I mentioned up-thread, with %s for NULL values: SELECT form

[HACKERS] 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery

Hello, 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery. This was also corrected at some point on origin/master with another problem fixed by the commit below if my memory is correct. But current HEAD and 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery (not on standby) by the 'marking deleted page visible' problem. h

Re: [HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> +1 for removing that where possible. We generally have avoided such >> names at SQL level. (The C-level function names need such prefixes to >> be unique, but the SQL names don't.) >> >> In the cases where one or more arguments are anyeleme

Re: [HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: >> David, >>> However, I am not so keen on the function names. They all start with >>> json_! This mostly feels redundant to me, since the types of the >>> parameters are part of the function signature. > >> I have no opinion

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:12 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello. Sorry for long absence. > > # I've lost my health and am not fully recovered.. > > The direction of the discussion now taken place is just what I've > wanted. The patch I proposed simply came from my poor > understanding ab

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JPA + enum == Exception

On 02/12/2013 11:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: > >> It's my strong view that we should accept setString(...) for any >> string-like type, like xml, json, domains of text, and so on - or at >> least provide an easy, no-superuser-required way to tell Pg to do so. > > The difficulty

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

Hello. Sorry for long absence. # I've lost my health and am not fully recovered.. The direction of the discussion now taken place is just what I've wanted. The patch I proposed simply came from my poor understanding about exact how to detect identity projection by comparing tlists, and I couldn't

[HACKERS] Cluster Summit Agenda started

Hackers, I've started an agenda for the cluster-hackers meeting here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon2013CanadaClusterSummit I've based it on last year's schedule, but of course we can change things around a bit if people have ideas for a different way to organize it. Certainly the period

Re: [HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

Josh Berkus writes: > David, >> However, I am not so keen on the function names. They all start with >> json_! This mostly feels redundant to me, since the types of the >> parameters are part of the function signature. > I have no opinion about starting the function names with json_ or not. +1 f

Re: [HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

On Feb 12, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Given that row() is already a type-agnostic function, and RECORD is a > stored procedure return meta-type, I think the above names would be a > mistake. I'd suggest instead: > > json_to_record() and json_to_recordset() > or: > > to_record(json)

Re: [HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

David, > However, I am not so keen on the function names. They all start with > json_! This mostly feels redundant to me, since the types of the > parameters are part of the function signature. I have no opinion about starting the function names with json_ or not. If we decide not, I agree that i

[HACKERS] JSON Function Bike Shedding

Hello Hackers, If you dislike bike-shedding (and who does?), delete this email and the ensuing thread right now. You have been warned! I have been playing with Andrew’s JSON enhancements and really enjoying them. I am already using them in code I’m developing for production deployment in a mon

Re: [HACKERS] similarity() result for two trigram-less strings

> Although I can see a case for returning 1, I'm inclined to think that > returning 0 is a better idea. Thoughts? Intuitively, I'd expect 0. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

[HACKERS] similarity() result for two trigram-less strings

Some further thought about bug #7867 suggested that what's probably happening is the submitter's installation doesn't think that any of the Cyrillic letters are letters, so that no trigrams are identified in either string. Whereupon you get a 0/0 result from cnt_sml: regression=# select similarit

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-02-12 19:58 keltezéssel, Andrew Dunstan írta: On 02/12/2013 01:51 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2013-02-12 19:45 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: 2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when yo

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

On 02/12/2013 01:51 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2013-02-12 19:45 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: 2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when you've responded to the review. Maybe it's just me, bu

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: > 2013-02-12 19:45 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: >> Go to the patch page, click "edit patch", adjust the popdown list for >> "patch status" ... > This is what I am saying, I am logged in and there is no popdown list > for the "Patch Status", only text... That sure sounds

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

On 2013-02-12 19:51:45 +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-02-12 19:45 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > >Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: > >>2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > >>>If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when > >>>you've responded to the review. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-02-12 19:45 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: 2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when you've responded to the review. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see any facility (link or button) to do t

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: > 2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: >> If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when >> you've responded to the review. > Maybe it's just me, but I can't see any facility (link or button) to do that. Go to the patch page, click "edit

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-02-12 19:35 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: Why is this patch still in "Waiting on Author" state in the CF app? If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when you've responded to the review. regards, tom lane Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: > Why is this patch still in "Waiting on Author" state in the CF app? If you're the author, you should change it back to "Needs Review" when you've responded to the review. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacke

Re: [HACKERS] Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

2013-01-31 22:12 keltezéssel, Zoltán Böszörményi írta: 2013-01-31 19:38 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Zolt=E1n_B=F6sz=F6rm=E9nyi?= writes: Thanks. A question though: how does "make check" or "make installcheck" chooses between the *.out and its different *_N.out incarnations? I co

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

> To be honest, I don't really think thats fair to the patch. I don't see > much that can be made smaller as long as the "one file for all > persistent settings" dogma is upheld which more people seem to vote for > (exluding me). I'm not a fan of "one file to rule them all" either. Hovever, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:02 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-02-12 20:19:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-02-12 14:57:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:24 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On 2013-02-12 10:45:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2013-02-12 20:19:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: > >>> 1) You need to grab the lock before the value is checked since some > >>> variables are interdependent (e

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JPA + enum == Exception

Craig Ringer writes: > On 02/08/2013 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> AFAIK this is just business as usual with JDBC: setString() implies that >> the parameter is of a string type. > Well, it means that it's a type compatible with a java.lang.String . > JDBC doesn't say much about the database-side t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-02-12 20:19:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: >>> 1) You need to grab the lock before the value is checked since some >>> variables are interdependent (e.g. log_statement_stats, wal_level, >>> archive_mode) an

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On 2013-02-12 20:19:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-02-12 14:57:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:24 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > > > > This mail lists this order for the single file approach:

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Dave Page wrote: >>> The phrasing "as of 8.2" basically means "from 8.2 onwards". Changing the >>> version there would make the text incorrect. > >> In theory we could remove that refe

[HACKERS] [RFC] pgstattuple/pgstatindex enhancement

Hi, I'm thinking of pgstattuple/pgstatindex enhancement. There are a few things I need to change, but I'd like to have some comments and suggestions from hackers before tackling. (1) Fix pgstatindex arguments to work same as pgstattuple. As the document describes, pgstattuple accepts 'schema.ta

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> The phrasing "as of 8.2" basically means "from 8.2 onwards". Changing the >> version there would make the text incorrect. > In theory we could remove that reference completely since any versions > where it does not a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Factor out pg_malloc and friends into port code

Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-01-02 10:12 keltezéssel, Magnus Hagander írta: > >> wrote: > >Actually, the unification of pg_malloc and friends wasn't dictated > >by this little code, it was just that pg_basebackup doesn't provide > >a pg_malloc implementati

Re: [HACKERS] palloc unification

Alvaro Herrera escribió: > Alvaro Herrera escribió: > > > c. I added the MSVC bits. I tested that most of it works, but the > >various regress executables as well as zic failed to build due to > >lack of libpgcommon at link time. I think I fixed it; I'm waiting on > >new tests to run

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-02-12 14:57:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:24 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > > > 2013-02-12 04:54 keltezéssel, Amit Kapila írta: > > > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:54 AM Andres Freund wrote

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-02-12 21:54:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > Changing only toast_save_datum: > > > > > > [... code ...] > > > > > Yes, I have spent a little bit of time looking at the code related to > > retoastindxid and thought about this po

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2013-02-12 21:54:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Changing only toast_save_datum: > > > > [... code ...] > > > Yes, I have spent a little bit of time looking at the code related to > retoastindxid and thought about this possibility. It would make the changes > far easier with the existing pa

Re: [HACKERS] parser_analyze freeing memory which is later referenced

Tom Lane wrote:> Kevin Grittner writes: >> I'm using valgrind to find a problem with materialized views, and >> ran into this, which I have confirmed is present on the master >> branch as of 7803e9327db3788f68d820c19f4081afb79edd12. > >> Memory freed here: >> ... is later referenced at these plac

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-02-07 17:28:53 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Btw, I think that if this optimization for toast relations is done, it > > should be a separate patch. > > What do you mean by

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Hi, On 2013-02-07 16:45:57 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Please find attached a patch fixing 3 of the 4 problems reported before > (the patch does not contain docs). > 1) Removal of the quadratic dependency with list_append_unique_oid Afaics you now simply lock objects multiple times, is that r

Re: [HACKERS] send Describe Portal message in PQsendPrepare

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 11/02/2013 22:39, Tom Lane ha scritto: > Manlio Perillo writes: >> What is the reason why PQsendPrepare function does not send a >> Describe Portal message? > > That would add a round trip, no? > Well, no. An extra round trip is required with c

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2013-02-07 17:28:53 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-02-07 03:01:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund writes: > > > > What about > > > > > > > 3) Use reltoastidxid if != InvalidOid and manually build the list > > (using

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On 2013-02-12 14:57:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:24 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > > 2013-02-12 04:54 keltezéssel, Amit Kapila írta: > > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:54 AM Andres Freund wrote: > > > Zoltan has reviewed this patch very thoroughly Sorry, the

Re: [HACKERS] backup.sgml patch that adds information on custom format backups

Hello everyone! I'd like to thank you for quick replies and for the thoughtful feedback. I'm working on improving the current wording and I'm going to follow up shortly with an updated version. Please, stay tuned. Ivan On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes:

Re: [HACKERS] another idea for changing global configuration settings from SQL

Hello Peter I am looking on your patch. I found only one issue in documentation is role name or keyword ALL marked as optional, but it is mandatory +ALTER ROLE [ name | ALL ] [ IN DATABASE database_name ] SET configuration_parameter FROM CURRENT +ALTER ROLE [ name | ALL ] [ IN DATABASE database

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Dave Page wrote: > > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: >> >> While reading some documentation, I noticed that we have references to >> past releases. For example, >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/xfunc-c.html mentions "A

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

Pavan Deolasee wrote: > While reading some documentation, I noticed that we have references to > past releases. For example, > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/xfunc-c.html mentions "A > magic block is required as of PostgreSQL 8.2". Sure, this is true even > as of 9.2 or even 9.3. There a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:24 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-02-12 04:54 keltezéssel, Amit Kapila írta: > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:54 AM Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2013-02-11 11:17:16 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> On 02/11/2013 06:33 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 201

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Dave Page wrote: > > > The phrasing "as of 8.2" basically means "from 8.2 onwards". Changing the > version there would make the text incorrect. > Ah Ok. Thanks for clarifying. My bad English. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeola

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables vs. GIST

Hi Heikki, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 11.02.2013 08:44, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Any review comments on this ? >> > > Sorry for the delay. > > I did some minor cleanup on this. I added code to pg_resetxlog and > pg_controldata to reset / display t

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

Hi On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > While reading some documentation, I noticed that we have references to > past releases. For example, > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/xfunc-c.html mentions "A > magic block is required as of PostgreSQL 8.2". Sure, this is true

[HACKERS] Documentation: references to old versions

While reading some documentation, I noticed that we have references to past releases. For example, http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/xfunc-c.html mentions "A magic block is required as of PostgreSQL 8.2". Sure, this is true even as of 9.2 or even 9.3. There are a few more such references th

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

On Saturday, February 09, 2013 9:03 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Amit kapila writes: > >> if (!is_projection_capable_plan(result_plan) && > compare_tlist_exprs(sub_tlist, result_plan->targetlist) ) > > > Sorry, the check I suggested in last mail should be as below: > > > if (!is_projection_capable_plan(