> Can you please elaborate, why would it be a disaster?
>
> Consider that we've done
>
> create table t1 (id int primary key, ... other stuff ...);
> create view v1 as select * from t1;
> create view v2 as select * from v1 group by id;
>
> Currently, v2 would be rejected but you would like to make
> It's probably pretty easy to add this, but I think the question is
> what would make it better than storing the same representation in a
> text field.
I completely agree. The main point in making a new datatype would be
to add support for operations that are normally done with graphs.
>Obvious
On 29 April 2013 01:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, it's fairly clear *how* to do it: add some more processing that
>>> occurs after we've completed crash replay. We already have some of
>>> that, eg completion of partial
> The fine manual notes that the target role has to already have CREATE
> privileges on the target schema --- maybe that's what's biting you in
> this case?
Nope. That was the first thing I thought of. It really is that the
target role must *own* the schema. So clearly a bug.
--
Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus writes:
> Actually, the problem is worse than I thought. It looks like I can't
> set default privs for any role which is not the owner of the schema:
> analytics2=> ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA web GRANT SELECT ON
> TABLES TO dbreader;
> ERROR: permission denied for schema web
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
> Inspired by the awesome work done by Oleg sir in HStore, I have been thinking
> about making a graph data type as an extension in postgres.
>
> I have been reading about graph databases and how storing data in graphs can
> lead to some really
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it's fairly clear *how* to do it: add some more processing that
>> occurs after we've completed crash replay. We already have some of
>> that, eg completion of partial splits in btrees, so it's not that much
>> of a
> ... in fact, there is no combination of actions which will make "FOR
> ROLE" work. Any invokation of "FOR ROLE" inevitably results in a
> "permission denied" message:
>
> analytics2=> \c - webui
> You are now connected to database "analytics2" as user "webui".
> analytics2=> ALTER DEFAULT PRIV
I wrote:
> The only alternative I can see is to make a back-patch that just teaches
> get_eclass_for_sort_expr() to compute valid nullable_relids for the sort
> expression. That's necessary code in any case, and it would fix the
> immediately complained-of bug. The thing that scares me is that it
Folks,
The "FOR ROLE" syntax is completely broken, as of 9.2.4. Not sure when
exactly this got broken; I remember it working sometime in the past:
[jberkus@pgx-test ~]$ psql -U postgres analytics2
psql (9.2.4)
Type "help" for help.
analytics2=# ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE webui IN SCHEMA
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I cannot say that I find that idea attractive; the biggest problem with
>>> it being that updating such a state flag will be nontransactional,
>>> unless we go to a lot
On 28 April 2013 21:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how
>>> unlogged matviews should be implemented, and there's no longer enough
>>> time for coming to a resolution that wil
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:09:30PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > > attached a
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how
>> unlogged matviews should be implemented, and there's no longer enough
>> time for coming to a resolution that will satisfy everybody. I think
>> that means we
On 28 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On other patches, one committer objecting to something is seen as
>> enough of a blocker to require change. That should work in every
>> direction.
>
> The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how
> unlogged
After a bit of discussion, the core committee has decided that we're not
really ready to wrap a credible beta1 candidate tomorrow. There are
several unresolved issues such as what to do about checksums and
matviews; and there seems no good reason to force resolution of
these important issues on a
Simon Riggs writes:
> On other patches, one committer objecting to something is seen as
> enough of a blocker to require change. That should work in every
> direction.
The bottom line here is that we have substantial disagreement on how
unlogged matviews should be implemented, and there's no long
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I cannot say that I find that idea attractive; the biggest problem with
>> it being that updating such a state flag will be nontransactional,
>> unless we go to a lot of effort to support rollbacks. ISTM that the
>> scanna
On 04/25/2013 10:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> It's an Amazon product based on release 8.0, but with many many
> features removed (e.g. Indexes!)
More specifically, it's a hacked-up column-store-ized Pg for OLAP and
analytics work. As I understand it Amazon didn't develop it themselves;
they bo
gain on future CPUs. Changing this is just
a matter of changing N_SUMS and updating documentation to match.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
<><>
fnv-ants-20130428.patch
Description: Bi
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Um, wait, it's *not* in pg_class now, and what I was about to do was
>>> go put it there. Is there a typo in the above para, or are you saying
>>> you don't like either
On 04/24/2013 09:39 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 08:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Are you referring to the fact that vm.zone_reclaim_mode = 1 is an
>> idiotic default?
> Servers are getting shafted in a lot of cases, and it's actually
> starting to make me angry.
>
A significant part o
On 27 April 2013 19:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:59:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> As far as #1 goes, I think we have little choice at this point but to
>>> remove the unlogged-matviews feature for 9.3.
>
>> This perspective is all wrong. I hate to be b
On 27 April 2013 20:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 2. The checksum algorithm business. Again, we don't get to tinker with
>> that anymore once we're in beta.
>
> I think it's pretty darn clear that we should change the algorithm,
> and I think we'v
24 matches
Mail list logo
