Re: [HACKERS] who gets paid for this

2007-03-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:10:22 -0800, Christian Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm a grad student at UC Davis studying the postgres community and I > wanted to know if some on this list could help me out. I'm studying > the factors that affect people "graduating" from being mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] UPSERT

2007-03-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 14:55:47 +0200, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > UPDATE > IF NOT FOUND THEN > INSERT > IF DUPLICATE KEY THEN > UPDATE > END IF > END IF I believe it is possible for the above to fail. For example another transaction could create a matching record b

Re: [HACKERS] Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ?

2007-03-02 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 11:26:23 +0100, "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But just postponing nextval() until after the uniqueness checks > only decreases the *probability* of non-monotonic values, and > *does not* preven them. Consindert two transactions > > A: begin ; > B: Beg

Re: [HACKERS] Expanding DELETE/UPDATE returning

2007-03-02 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 15:07:06 +0100, "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > select * from t1, (delete from t2 returning t2.t1_id) where t1.id = > t2.t1_id limit 1 ; > > I for my part couldn't even say what I'd expect that query to do. I would expect it to delete all rows from t2

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] urgent: upgraded to 8.2, getting kernel panics

2007-02-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 15:57:02 +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Upgrading OS will probably solve your problem; since there is no way to > upgrade FC4 kernel unless you want to compile kernel source on your > system. And good luck with that. Fedora still back patches stuff f

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] urgent: upgraded to 8.2, getting kernel panics

2007-02-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 18:14:25 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On friday we upgraded a critical backend server to postgresql 8.2 > > running on fedora core 4. > > Umm ... why that particular choice of OS? Red Hat dropped update > s

Re: [HACKERS] Chatter on DROP SOMETHING IF EXISTS

2007-02-07 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:53:34 -0800, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > What is the practical purpose of the notices emitted by DROP > > SOMETHING IF EXISTS when the object in fact does not exist? > > DROP ... IF EXI

Re: [HACKERS] Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto

2007-02-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 13:27:47 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have applied a patch that resolves the problem AFAICT, but this time > around it would be nice to get some more eyeballs and testing on it. > Please try CVS HEAD or branch tips this afternoon, if you can. Core > i

Re: [HACKERS] Release 8.2.0 done, 8.3 development starts

2006-12-20 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 17:49:15 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure, but as far as I remember, it will be a short release cycle for > 8.3 in order to finish some big items that couldn't be ready in time for 8.2. I believe the point of the short release cycle was m

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Bug in WAL backup documentation

2006-11-07 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:49:36 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As already discussed upthread, anyone who wants the path can get it from > `pwd` or local equivalent --- and that mechanism is robust (as long as > the directory move doesn't happen while any particular instance of t

Re: [HACKERS] Asynchronous I/O Support

2006-10-19 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 14:26:12 -0400, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At least according to [1], kernel AIO on Linux still doesn't work for > buffered (i.e. non-O_DIRECT) files. There have been patches available > for quite some time that implement this, but I'm not sure when they a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types

2006-10-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:54:51 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with regex is that to be upward-compatible with the old > exact-match switch definitions, a switch value that doesn't contain > any regex special characters is treated as an equality condition not > a pat

Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2003 Statistical functions - What are they?

2006-10-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:46:14 -0400, "Obe, Regina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure this is the right group to ask this. I see that the 8.2 > notes say all SQL:2003 statistical functions are implemented in 8.2, but > I couldn't find a listing for those anywhere I looked. > > For tho

Re: [HACKERS] Is there any utility to update the table whenever text file gets changed?

2006-09-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:41:06 -0700, Dhanaraj M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any utility in postgresql which can do the following? > > The utility must update the table whenever there is any change in the > text file. > COPY command helps to do that, though this is not straight forw

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 22:22:12 -0700, Tom Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's a worthwhile point. How many patches come from the general > community vs out of the blue? Patches from regulars could probably get a > free pass, which might cut down the review burden substantially. An

Re: [HACKERS] Fixed length data types issue

2006-09-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 19:05:12 -0400, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure how gmp and the others represent their data but my first guess is > that there's no particular reason the base of the mantissa and exponent have > to be the same as the base the exponent is interpre

Re: [HACKERS] Fixed length data types issue

2006-09-18 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 15:08:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From time to time the idea of a logical vs physical mapping for columns > has been mentioned. Among other benefits, that might allow us to do some > rearrangement of physical ordering to reduce space wasted o

Re: [HACKERS] Planner estimates and cast operations ,...

2006-09-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 19:09:16 +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > setting work_mem to 2gb does not help here ;) > set it to the max value on 8.0. > this was my first try too. > the problem is - there is no magic switch to mislead the planner a > little without hackin

Re: [HACKERS] Planner estimates and cast operations ,...

2006-09-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 17:19:37 +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i thought about creating an index on the expression but the problem > is that this is hardly feasable. > in 8.0 (what i have here) this would block the table and i would run That may be hard to deal

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Backend SSL configuration enhancement

2006-09-01 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:11:46 +0400, "Victor B. Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It contains !MD5 element, because MD5 digest algorithm was broken about > year ago, and PostgreSQL expected to work with versions of OpenSSL which > still consider it strong. MD5 wasn't completely broken a

Re: [HACKERS] Status on Fedora Core Extras packaging

2006-08-30 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:12:30 +0300, Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > More will be in FC Extras. Please let me know that if you want to see > any PostgreSQL related software in the repository. I do have time to > package all related stuff. Do you think you could have a way to sto

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with mailing list?

2006-08-23 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:47:03 +0200, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is everything ok with postgres mail server? I have problem to send mail > to hackers list and pgadmin-hacker as well. If somebody is on cc, he > receives mail correctly, but it does not appear in the list. Any su

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)

2006-08-23 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 15:03:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > I do, but it is a lot of email and if I miss a few days it takes a while to > > catch up again. At some point I will probably do some smarter filteri

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql-patches reply-to (was Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors)

2006-08-23 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 23:15:59 -0400, Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I'm curious, do you combine any other lists like that? I've played around > with that idea (for example, I used to combine webmaster emails, pgsql-www

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction and table partitioning

2006-07-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 14:59:49 +0200, Dragan Zubac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it possible to use transactions with 'per sub table' locks? What I > mean,if I partition a table and use transaction on that table with > constraint,will the database lock the master table (and all subtables),

Re: [HACKERS] Ranges for well-ordered types

2006-06-16 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 15:47:16 +0900, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 13:25 , Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >Date ranges are really closed open as well (as finite sets of > >isolated points > >are both open and closed).

Re: [HACKERS] Ranges for well-ordered types

2006-06-12 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 15:13:39 +0900, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's different from being able to show equivalence between two > ranges in different representations, e.g., r1 = r2 iff a1 = a2 and b1 > = next(b2). As Bruno pointed out earlier, in some cases, a clos

Re: [HACKERS] Ranges for well-ordered types

2006-06-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:11 +0900, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Time (and timestamp) is a bit of a issue conceptually. The "default" > successor function would depend on the precision of the timestamp. And in the ideal case it doesn't exist. That is why I think a c

Re: [HACKERS] Ranges for well-ordered types

2006-06-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 23:51:58 +0900, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Each row of this table represents the time range (from from_date to > to_date) during which a teacher was assigned to a particular school. > (Teachers can be assigned to more than one school at a time.) Th

Re: [HACKERS] Looking for Postgres Developers to fix problem

2006-05-30 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 16:52:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One of the first things an IT Executive Recruiter needs to learn is > where to post job info - in this case it would be the pgsql-jobs list ;-) But his timing is pretty good, there will shortly be a bunch

Re: [HACKERS] max(*)

2006-05-26 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 14:06:29 -0500, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But if aggregate(*) just gets turned into aggregate(1) by the backend, > why not just tell people to use aggregate(1) for their custom > aggregates? Or am I misunderstanding how aggregate(*) is actually > handl

Re: [HACKERS] group by points

2006-05-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 18:38:35 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:23:28 +0200, > > Albe Laurenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In order to (efficiently) proces

Re: [HACKERS] group by points

2006-05-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:23:28 +0200, Albe Laurenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In order to (efficiently) process a GROUP BY clause, you need a > total ordering on the data type that you group by, i.e. an ordering > such that for any two data x and y you have either x < y or x > x > or x = y

Re: [HACKERS] Warts with SELECT DISTINCT

2006-05-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:39:33 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... it would be OK to rewrite > > SELECT DISTINCT x ORDER BY foo(x) > > as > > SELECT DISTINCT ON (foo(x), x) x ORDER BY foo(x) >

Re: [HACKERS] Warts with SELECT DISTINCT

2006-05-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:13:20 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's a fair point that we could allow "SELECT DISTINCT x ORDER BY > foo(x)" if foo() is stable, but that does not imply that sorting by x is > interchangeable with sorting by foo(x). foo = abs is a trivial >

Re: [HACKERS] Warts with SELECT DISTINCT

2006-05-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:32:45 -0400, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 00:05:16 -0400, > > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] Warts with SELECT DISTINCT

2006-05-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 00:05:16 -0400, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Whereas it shouldn't be hard to prove that this is equivalent: > > > > > > stark=> explain select col1 from

Re: [HACKERS] Warts with SELECT DISTINCT

2006-05-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 17:58:07 -0400, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Though it's optimized poorly and does a superfluous sort step: > > stark=> explain select col1 from test group by col1 order by upper(col1); > QUERY PLAN

Re: [HACKERS] Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?

2006-05-01 Thread Bruno Wolff III
I went back to see if I could find the discussion about this in the past. It was less than I thought. Most it was me posting with some feedback from Rod Taylor. The thread started with the subject "What user to defaults execute as?" on general, but I mutated the subject to "setuid for defaults, con

Re: [HACKERS] Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?

2006-04-30 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:28:50 +0200, > > Since a real stumbling block with the macro approach seems to be the > granting of permissions maybe we should work on that problem. For > example, making SERIAL be a macro that expands to: > > id integer default nextval(sequence) SECURITY DEFINER, > >

Re: [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

2006-04-23 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 14:20:32 -0700, daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:49:25PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:14:42PM -0700, David Gould wrote: > > > > > To avoid running out of swap and triggering the oom killer we have > > > had to redu

Re: [HACKERS] First Aggregate Funtion?

2006-04-05 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 15:02:47 -0600, Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has there ever been any talk of adding a first aggregate function? > It would make porting from Oracle and Access much easier. Note, that without special support those functions aren't going to run very fast. So you

Re: [HACKERS] Some employment changes ...

2006-03-25 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:01:20 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > As of Monday I'm at Sun Microsystems. Since I'll be officially the > "PostgreSQL Community Guy" there I expect to have a lot more time to devote > to community stuff. Not that GreenPlum hasn't been generous with supporting > me

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] LDAP auth

2006-03-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 15:00:07 -0500, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I find it hard to imagine LDAP being sensibly use for any other postgres > purpose than authentication, despite recent flights of fancy on the list > about storing large slabs of config data there. It can al

Re: [HACKERS] constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

2006-02-25 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 19:40:33 -0500, "Clark C. Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While the textual description of this view "Identify domain constraints > in this catalog accessable to a given user." has not changed between > SQL-1992 and SQL-2003, the actual critera specified is quite di

Re: [HACKERS] Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

2006-01-24 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:53:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes. Representation of the DNA is probably best. But - that's a lot of > data to use as a key in multiple tables. :-) On a simple level, this would be a problem for twins. There are other complications as well. People are goin

Re: [HACKERS] Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

2006-01-24 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 00:06:41 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with SSN is that somebody other than you controls it. > If you are the college registrar, then you control the student's > registration number, and you don't have to change it. In fact, guess > what: you

Re: [HACKERS] Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?

2006-01-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:08:46 -0600, Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The issue is folks that DON'T set reverse DNS, I.E. have generic rDNS > set on their IP's. > > I've seen (in my ISP days, and on my mailserver) LOTS of folks that > can't/won't update > Their rDNS, even though it

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing row comparison semantics

2005-12-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 15:12:48 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/26/05, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (1,1) <* (1,2) = true > > (1,2) <* (2,1) is NULL > > (2,3) <* (1,2) = false > > > > it's usefull for multicriterial optimalisation > > This is indeed a s

Re: [HACKERS] space for optimalization: DISTINCT without index

2005-12-12 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 18:35:07 +0100, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > I did some test and I can see so DISTINCT works well on indexed columns, > but is slow on derived tables without indexes. If I use without distinct > group by I get much better times. > > SELECT DISTI

Re: [HACKERS] Something I don't understand with the use of schemas

2005-12-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 14:25:46 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > >However there is an effort to get rid of root in some Unix lands, > > >separating its responsabilities with more granularity. Maybe there > > >could be an effort, not to hand-hold

Re: [HACKERS] TODO item "%Allow pg_hba.conf be controlled via SQL"

2005-11-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:57:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just out of curiosity. Is there someone involved with ToDo item “%Allow > pg_hba.conf settings to be controlled via SQL”? I don't remember any discussions about this recently, so I doubt it is being actively worked on right now.

Re: [HACKERS] forcing returned values to be binary

2005-11-16 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 13:01:20 -0500, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've talked to Ken Geis via email. He suggests that there is > considerable overhead to be saved if we go to binary; especially in > date, and timestamp fields > > One thing though if the date is 64 bit instead

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL roadmap for 8.2 and beyond.

2005-11-14 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 17:10:58 -0700, Aly Dharshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would the PG Dev group be working on update-able views for 8.2 ? I know > that there is a work-around using rules, the SAMS book does claim that 8.0 > has readonly views. I don't think that this has changed in 8.1

Re: [HACKERS] How to find a number of connections

2005-11-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 15:09:41 -0500, "Brusser, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a way to find a number of current connections on Postgres 7.3.x > ? This might help you: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/monitoring.html ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] someone working to add merge?

2005-11-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 18:48:33 +0100, Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I'm relatively new on this list, and I might have missed a few > discussions on this topic. > I wonder if doing it this way would not be better than using a table > lock: > > - set a save point; > - insert the

Re: [HACKERS] Comments from a Firebird user via Borland

2005-11-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:00:12 -0600, Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > As the referenced documentation states, the PostgreSQL SERIALIZABLE > transaction isolation level complies with the ANSI/ISO requirements, but > not with a mathematically pure interpretation of the t

Re: [HACKERS] Comments from a Firebird user via Borland Newsgroups.

2005-11-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 19:35:30 -0600, Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > simply better than PostgreSQL: Two-Phase commit (ok, that is gone with > PG 8.1), but the second is a SNAPSHOT / REPEATABLE READ transaction > isolation. I can't live without that when it comes having a stable vie

Re: [HACKERS] [OT] somebody could explain this?

2005-11-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 18:30:56 +0100, Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > Floating points numbers are accurate but not precise. > > OK, now this one beats me... what's the difference between "accurate" > and "exact" ? I thought both mean something like "correct", but precise > r

Re: [HACKERS] PG Killed by OOM Condition

2005-10-24 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 23:55:07 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:20:39PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000, > > John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good people, > > > Just had a

Re: [HACKERS] PG Killed by OOM Condition

2005-10-24 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000, John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good people, > > Just had a thought! > > Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on > Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ? > (Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c) Wouldn't it be

Re: [HACKERS] FAQ/HTML standard?

2005-09-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 00:56:11 +0200, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even > > > uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's &g

Re: [HACKERS] FAQ/HTML standard?

2005-09-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400, > > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Is there an HTM

Re: [HACKERS] FAQ/HTML standard?

2005-09-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as > FAQs? > > If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML > 1.0 as the standard? I ran accross an article a

Re: [HACKERS] count(*) optimization

2005-09-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 15:21:16 -0400, huaxin zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not sure where to put this. > > I run two queries: > > 1. select count(*) from table where indexed_column<10; > 2. select * from table where indexed_column<10; > > the indexed column is not clustered at all. I

Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

2005-08-25 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are > not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea. > It would take some load off of the system and the moderate

Re: [HACKERS] TODO questions

2005-08-25 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:09:21 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This has probably been mentioned already, but it makes it much harder to > see which values have been altered from their default values. At the very > least, the default values should be in the comments t

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1 release notes

2005-08-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 23:16:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have compiled the 8.1 release notes and converted them to SGML at: > > http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/release.html#RELEASE-8-1 > > I still need to add markup and cleanup, but it is good enough for > review and

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE USER and pg_user

2005-08-12 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 18:11:54 +0800, William ZHANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "create user foo with createdb" will create a user with createdb privilege. > "create user bar with createuser" will create s superuser who can createdb, > createuser, and update system catalog. > > Why not change

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting COPY edge case...

2005-07-27 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 17:56:42 -0400, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is evidently Something Strange about the state of stdout when it > is referenced inside a stored procedure. I suspect this is related to trusted PLs not being able to write files. It does seem like a probl

Re: [HACKERS] Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH

2005-07-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:27:50 -0700, Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently, the Gregorian calendar has been fixed. From this: > http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/phys2081/time/calendar.htm > > We have this: > "The Gregorian calendar has been modified since (before anythi

Re: [HACKERS] Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH

2005-07-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:47:29 -0700, Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In round figures: > > Since there are 365.2422 days per tropical year, there are 31556926 > seconds per year (give or take leap seconds). > > Ref: > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinki

Re: [HACKERS] Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH

2005-07-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:39:38 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have added this comment above the DAYS_PER_MONTH macro: > > + /* > + *DAYS_PER_MONTH is very imprecise. The more accurate value is > + *365.25/12 = 30.4375, or '30 days 10:30:00'. Right now we only

Re: [HACKERS] New dot releases?

2005-07-12 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 16:30:48 +0300, Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, > > There are many commits to back branches and 8.0 branch since the last dot > releases were announced. > > Any plans for new releases before 8.1beta1

Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 - Nested Tables

2005-07-08 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:03:57 -0400, Darren Alcorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a link that has a description. There is also a lot of > examples (of syntax as well) on Oracle's website. > > http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html#nested So they are permitting

Re: [HACKERS] Hmmm 8.1 pg_dumpall cannot dump older db's?

2005-07-08 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 23:44:44 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The thing that makes this slightly painful is that we can't tell what > version we are dumping *from* until we've connected, and so we cannot > automagically "do the right thing" here. I don't really see any other >

Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

2005-07-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 21:48:44 +0100, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We could implement the torn-pages option, but that seems a lot of work. > Another way of implementing a tell-tale would be to append the LSN again > as a data page trailer as the last 4 bytes of the page. Thus the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles

2005-06-30 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 13:39:09 +0200, Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The standard talks about 2 distinct concepts: USER and ROLE (4.34). I'm > not sure it is a good idea to drop the user concept to replace it by role. > If you do so, you may miss something about what roles are ab

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles

2005-06-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 14:52:07 -0500, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 14:45:06 -0400, > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If you are the owner of the object to be changed (following the normal > > owne

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles

2005-06-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 14:45:06 -0400, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you are the owner of the object to be changed (following the normal > owner checking rules) AND would still be considered the owner of the > object *after* the change, then you can change the ownership. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing r-tree semantics

2005-06-27 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 09:52:03 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now that the module uses GIST instead of r-tree, there's no very strong > reason why it should provide these operators at all. I propose removing > all of << >> &< &> from contrib/cube, leaving only the four > n-dim

Re: [HACKERS] Strange logic for partial index proving

2005-06-23 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 16:13:24 +0800, laser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This thread make me to think about the question: > could this "feature" be used in select count(*) type > query that force it to use index? count(*) can already be helped by indexes, but probably not the way you think.

Re: [HACKERS] query plan ignoring check constraints

2005-06-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 22:11:25 +1000, John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I misunderstood the original post as a request for queries NOT to use > indexes where it doesn't match the table contents. I think that is what they were asking, but I don't think they wanted to see a sequential

Re: [HACKERS] query plan ignoring check constraints

2005-06-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 21:54:34 +1000, John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote > > > I think the real problem is that check constraints on tables > > aren't used by the optimizer. Given that, what you have below &

Re: [HACKERS] query plan ignoring check constraints

2005-06-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:46:50 +1000, John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone Wrote: > > > Should not check constraint act as the first filter? The index should > > ideally be scanned only when the check constraint is passed by the > search > > criteria but surprisingly it did not h

Re: [HACKERS] LGPL

2005-06-18 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:43:01 +0100, Peter Galbavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres > >in a completely non-GPL environment. If that were not so then I think > >we'd have some license issues. But the fac

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal - Continue stmt for PL/pgSQL

2005-06-16 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:40:16 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Pavel, > > >    Statement CONTINUE isn't in PL/SQL too, I know it, but Oracle PL/SQL > > has statement GOTO. I don't need GOTO statement, but 'continue' can be > > very usefull for me. I have to do some ugly trick now. With little cha

Re: [HACKERS] executing OS programs from pg

2005-06-03 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 20:56:44 +0200, Gevik babakhani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear people, > > > > Does anyone know how to execute an OS command from pgsql. I would like to > create a trigger that op on firing would run/execute an external program. > > Does such functionality exist or

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE DATABASE fails when template1 being accessed ...

2005-05-31 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 14:53:41 -0300, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ERROR: source database "template1" is being accessed by other users > > Why is this not allowed? Not that there is generally a reason to be in > template1, but am curious as to why it prevents a new

Re: [HACKERS] Backslash handling in strings

2005-05-31 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:49:20 +0200, Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > > > The case that convinced me we need to keep some sort of backslash > > capability is this: suppose you want to put a string including a tab > > into your database. Try

Re: [HACKERS] Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments

2005-05-13 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 16:59:07 -0700, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A PostgreSQL developer has shown in this very thread that it is > extremely easy to screw up a query against those catalogs. Maybe > you're better than he is, but that's not a reason to keep something > simpler

Re: [HACKERS] Can we get patents?

2005-05-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 16:57:01 -0400, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3) His question was why? With a bsd license you can't stop anyone from > using it and nobody > else can patent it since by placing it in the project you are > establishing prior art. Nope. They can still be iss

Re: [HACKERS] pgFoundry

2005-05-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:09:36 -0700, "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >On Fri, 6 May 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> > >>1. Public presentation of the project development > > > > > >Sounds like what http://www.postgresql.org is either doing, or should

Re: [HACKERS] Views, views, views! (long)

2005-05-05 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 14:26:56 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Josh, > > it's very difficult to read your messages (I'm using Pine), because > of some symbols (~Z on my xterm) which broke formatting. > Is't known problem of pine (4.62) or your mailer ? There were a lot of \240 characters. I us

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1

2005-05-02 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:29:33 -0700, Rob Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One way to handle this is to have an option, set by > > the client, that > > causes the server to send some ignorable message > > after a given period > > of time idle while waiting for the client. If the > > id

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1

2005-05-01 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 19:57:37 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Listen Tom, write a client software that releases the > resources / locks that was hold before client power is down > or client connection was lost. If Postgres can tell the connection has been lost then it should roll back t

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1

2005-04-29 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:43:37 -0300, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > Except for the surprise of peridically having the system go unresponsive > because it hit a large table, and that new user won

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1

2005-04-29 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:09:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In the last exciting episode, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) > > > wrote: > > >> o integrated auto-vacuum (Bruce) > > > > > If this can kick off a vac

Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1

2005-04-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:02:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well the good news is that there have been almost no Win32 problems, but > the other good news is that we are getting a lot of powerful features > for 8.1 already: You forgot to list the indexed aggregate feature for max and min. Wh

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords

2005-04-21 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 22:27:01 -0400, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SHA2 would also be nice. I think the new hash functions are called SHA256 and SHA512. For Postgres' purposes the recent weaknesses found in SHA1 and MD5 aren't a big deal. ---(end of br

  1   2   3   4   >