Open 7.3 items
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.
Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P O S T G R E S Q L
7 . 3 O P E N I T E M S
Current at ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/open_items.
Source Code Changes
-------------------
Schema handling - ready? interfaces? client apps?
Drop column handling - ready for all clients, apps?
Fix BeOS, QNX4 ports
Fix AIX large file compile failure of 2002-09-11 (Andreas)
Get bison upgrade on postgresql.org for ecpg only (Marc)
Allow ecpg to properly handle PREPARE/EXECUTE (Michael)
Fix vacuum btree bug (Tom)
Fix client apps for autocommit = off
Fix clusterdb to be schema-aware
Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)
Fix return tuple counts/oid/tag for rules
Loading 7.2 pg_dumps
fix up function return types on lang/type/trigger creation or
loosen opaque restrictions
functions no longer public executable
languages no longer public usable
Add schema dump option to pg_dump
Add casts: (Tom)
assignment-level cast specification
inet -> text
macaddr -> text
int4 -> varchar?
int8 -> varchar?
add param for length check for char()/varchar()
Create script to make proper dependencies for SERIAL and foreign keys (Rod)
Fix $libdir in loaded functions?
On Going
--------
Point-in-time recovery
Win32 port
Security audit
Documentation Changes
---------------------
Document need to add permissions to loaded functions and languages
Move documation to gborg for moved projects
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)
I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication
of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering
that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable specific where as
Tom saw no need to back out the generic assignment function I provided,
despite the fact that it behaves `illogically' (client_min_messages =
FATAL?).
Gavin
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2. 'nother few
weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?
For those interested in PostgreSQL + FreeBSD, I have a patch pending
approval that will let developers toggle between a devel port and the
stable release for all ports that depend on PostgreSQL.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden
Bruce Momjian writes:
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.
SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed.
Added to open items:
Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it
I still had your email in my mailbox so I wouldn't have forgotten.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Gavin Sherry wrote:
Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)
I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication
of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering
that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable specific where as
Tom saw no need to back out the generic assignment function I provided,
despite the fact that it behaves `illogically' (client_min_messages =
FATAL?).
Thanks, Gavin. Tom convinced me that it was OK to have illogical
values. Also, I think we need to support PANIC for server_min_messages
anyway to use as a default value for 'off'. Does that make sense?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Sean Chittenden wrote:
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2. 'nother few
weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?For those interested in PostgreSQL + FreeBSD, I have a patch pending
approval that will let developers toggle between a devel port and the
stable release for all ports that depend on PostgreSQL.
I have heard end of this week or next week for beta2. Also, plan was to
split the CVS tree at that time.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Thomas Lockhart wrote:
...
Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it
Sorry, was there a decision here?
No one has described the problem, just declared that there is one and
declared that the feature should be removed.In the old days, one might have expected to approach this differently,
with a contribution to help fix a problem, after describing it. I'm not
quite understanding the current process, if there is one.
I had it in my mailbox as an unresolved issue. Peter wanted it added so
I did it. I don't know the issue either. If you want it removed from
open item, I will do that too.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 3D8900AB.C02BFA42@fourpalms.org | Resolved by subject fallback
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Going
--------
Point-in-time recovery
Win32 port
these have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ...
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Going
--------
Point-in-time recovery
Win32 portthese have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ...
OK, removed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2. 'nother few
weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?
I was actually going to post this tonight anyway ... its been 2 weeks, and
since nobody should be committing anything but fixes (right guys?), I'm
going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes that have been
committed over the past 2 weeks ...
Bruce, can you make sure that any changes needed prior to my packaging are
done before noon ADT on Friday? I have no doubt that we have some
outstanding issues to work through, but this will give a new checkpoint
for those testing ...
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here
is the updated list.Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2. 'nother few
weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?I was actually going to post this tonight anyway ... its been 2 weeks, and
since nobody should be committing anything but fixes (right guys?), I'm
going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes that have been
committed over the past 2 weeks ...Bruce, can you make sure that any changes needed prior to my packaging are
done before noon ADT on Friday? I have no doubt that we have some
outstanding issues to work through, but this will give a new checkpoint
for those testing ...
We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
...
Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it
Sorry, was there a decision here?
No one has described the problem, just declared that there is one and
declared that the feature should be removed.In the old days, one might have expected to approach this differently,
with a contribution to help fix a problem, after describing it. I'm not
quite understanding the current process, if there is one.I had it in my mailbox as an unresolved issue. Peter wanted it added so
I did it. I don't know the issue either. If you want it removed from
open item, I will do that too.
Well, if nobody can identify what exactly the problem is, it should
definitely be removed from the Open Items list ... maybe we need to lay
down some 'rules' for the TODO list? Some sort of criteria other hten
"someone suggested it" to work with? For instance, change the TODO to a
pseudo-FAQ format ... where an item added to it has to have some sort of
'associated' description?
For instance, how is SIMILAR TO *not* Posix compliant? What *is* a Posix
compliant version? Where is such compliance defined? Is there a
reference?
Also, since when has 'lack of compliance' been basis to remove something
... "its not fully compliant, so even partial functionality isn't
allowed"?
Basically, there should be *some* basis for an item to be on the TODO list
... some sort "this is how it should be" ...
How many items on the TODO list are ones that nobody even knows what they
are about anymore? :)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.
We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Well, if nobody can identify what exactly the problem is, it should
definitely be removed from the Open Items list ... maybe we need to lay
down some 'rules' for the TODO list? Some sort of criteria other hten
"someone suggested it" to work with? For instance, change the TODO to a
pseudo-FAQ format ... where an item added to it has to have some sort of
'associated' description?For instance, how is SIMILAR TO *not* Posix compliant? What *is* a Posix
compliant version? Where is such compliance defined? Is there a
reference?Also, since when has 'lack of compliance' been basis to remove something
... "its not fully compliant, so even partial functionality isn't
allowed"?Basically, there should be *some* basis for an item to be on the TODO list
... some sort "this is how it should be" ...How many items on the TODO list are ones that nobody even knows what they
are about anymore? :)
I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO
usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to
decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it
on. I can be taken off just as easily. I put Peter's name on the item,
and a question mark. The open items list is just so we don't forget
things.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)
We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
Right, and? How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the
cycle that forced the initdb? Are you able to guarantee that there
*won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO
usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to
decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it
on. I can be taken off just as easily. I put Peter's name on the item,
and a question mark. The open items list is just so we don't forget
things.
I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem has been defined a
bit more specifically then 'it isn't posix compliant', it shouldn't be
considered an open item ... please remove?
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.Right, and? How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the
cycle that forced the initdb? Are you able to guarantee that there
*won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?
I agree, but if we _know_ we have more initdb issues to resolve (and
pg_dump load issues) doesn't it make sense to at least do all of them
that we have outstanding? If not, we are guaranteeing an initdb. I
would rather _try_ to avoid one for beta3.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO
usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to
decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it
on. I can be taken off just as easily. I put Peter's name on the item,
and a question mark. The open items list is just so we don't forget
things.I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem has been defined a
bit more specifically then 'it isn't posix compliant', it shouldn't be
considered an open item ... please remove?
Removed. See, I can remove them as quickly as I add them. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
