Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-30 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 06:58:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We don't have the ability to have to functions that take the same > parameters and return different results because there is no facility to > decide which function to call based on what return value is expected, > because a simple que

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > > > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction tha

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-30 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2005-30-09 at 17:47 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > What's wrong with adding pg_cancel_backend(...) RETURNS int as an alias > for the one that returns boolean, and document that it's deprecated and > will be removed in the future. You can't overload functions based on their return type alone.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-30 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction that > > discussion on these c

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > It was done quickly to complete it for beta2. Neil talked to Tom and me > about it before he made the change. Obviously we all guessed wrong on > this one. Personally I had forgotten that pg_cancel_backend was in the previous release and so there was a backwards-compatibi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian writes: > >>> fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature > >> > >> I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb > >> (to add new sequence

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-28 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > The problem isn't whether or not they should be changed, the problem is > that they were changed *during* beta AND *against* the direction that > discussion on these changes went I'm not sure what you mean: what is "the direction that

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-28 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fi

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-28 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc > G. Fournier > Sent: 28 September 2005 00:50 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development; Neil Conway > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature > > I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb > (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also > fix the 32/64bit risk mentioned here

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fix the 32/64bit risk me

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > fix ALTER SCHEMA RENAME for sequence dependency, or remove feature I've posted a proposed patch to fix this. The patch requires an initdb (to add new sequence functions), so if we do that we may as well also fix the 32/64bit risk mentioned here: http://archives.postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > bump major library version number? > > Were there any incompatible interface changes? No, I don't _think_ so, but we have been bitten by this before, not because of API change but because of use of libpgport functions called by libpq in one rele

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: > bump major library version number? Were there any incompatible interface changes? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
The open items list has been reduced nicely: PostgreSQL 8.1 Open Items = Current version at http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgopenitems or from http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta. Changes --- fix pg_d

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Changes > > > > --- > > > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > > > > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please > > remove it from > > > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. > > > > OK, what should the TODO item

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Magnus Hagander
> > > Changes > > > --- > > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please > remove it from > > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. > > OK, what should the TODO item be? A link to the mail should be there,

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Changes > > --- > > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) > > Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please remove it from > the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. OK, what should the TODO item be? -- Bruce Momjian

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively maintained we don't want them either. pgFoundry is not a dumping ground for modules that are dying. I didn't say they were dying --- the ones we thought were dead, we already dropped. I was responding t

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
> Changes > --- > Win32 signal handling patch (Magnus) Unless someone else steps up to doing this one, please remove it from the list. I will not have time to dig into this patch before 8.1. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The modules proposed to be moved out aren't actively maintained now; >> if they were we'd probably be keeping them in core. > Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively > maintained we don't want them either.

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: /contrib move to pgfoundry Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to its new servers. The modules proposed to be moved out a

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> /contrib move to pgfoundry > Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is > that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to > its new servers. The modules proposed to be moved out aren't actively maintained now; if t

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>>/contrib move to pgfoundry > >> > >>Is this actually happening? > > > > > > Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. > > Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is > that actively maintai

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: /contrib move to pgfoundry Is this actually happening? Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to its new serve

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > /contrib move to pgfoundry > > Is this actually happening? Josh has talked about it, but not sure where he is. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard

Re: [HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
/contrib move to pgfoundry Is this actually happening? -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.comman

[HACKERS] Open items list for 8.1

2005-09-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Here are the open items for 8.1: PostgreSQL 8.1 Open Items = Current version at http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgopenitems or from http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta. Changes --- Win32 signal handli