* Update reltuples from COPY command

* fix array handling for ECPG

* add pg_dump option to dump type names as standard ANSI types

* make pg_dump dump in oid order, so dependencies are resolved

* allow psql \d to show primary and foreign keys

* allow psql \d to show temporary table schema

From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Dec 18 17:22:09 1999

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])

by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA10300

for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:21:57 -0500 (EST)

Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA74681;

Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:17:56 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)

Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:17:33 -0500

Received: (from majordom@localhost)

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA74549

for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:16:38 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)

Received: from biology.nmsu.edu (biology.NMSU.Edu [128.123.5.72])

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA74401

for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:15:20 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from brook@biology.nmsu.edu)

Received: (from brook@localhost)

by biology.nmsu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03433;

Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:14:50 -0700 (MST)

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:14:50 -0700 (MST)

Message-Id: <199912182314.QAA03433@biology.nmsu.edu>

X-Authentication-Warning: biology.nmsu.edu: brook set sender to brook@biology.nmsu.edu using -f

From: Brook Milligan <brook@biology.nmsu.edu>

To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us

CC: peter_e@gmx.net, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org

In-reply-to: <199912182026.PAA05926@candle.pha.pa.us> (message from Bruce

Momjian on Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:26:15 -0500 (EST))

Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Lock

References: <199912182026.PAA05926@candle.pha.pa.us>

Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org

Status: OR

> > * Allow LOCK TABLE tab1, tab2, tab3 so all tables locked in unison

Let me add to this. One problem is that my description would sometimes

lock the tables in different orders, and that is a recipe for deadlock.

If you have to release earlier locks to wait on a later lock, once you

get the later lock, you must release it and then start from the

beginning, locking them in order again. If you don't, the system could

report a deadlock at random times, which would be very bad.

I'll add something, too. :) I think this derived from a suggestion I

made long ago. My idea was that when multiple tables need locking, a

deadlock can occur in the process of doing them one at a time. My

suggested solution was based on an analogy with the way ethernet

packets work.

- go through the list locking tables along the way.

- if a lock cannot be obtained within some time, release some (all?) locks,

and try again after some random time.

- keep trying (and releasing as needed) until some other timeout

passes, and then punt.

My thought was that if colliding locks are occuring, some sequence of

relinquishing locks (not necessarily all of them with each trial),

waiting, and reasserting them should work around the collisions.

Introducing random components to this might reduce the overall waiting

time, but I suppose a careful analysis of this needs to be done.

Perhaps just releasing all of the locks, waiting a random time, and

trying again is enough.

Somehow there has to be a mechanism for atomically asserting locks on

more than one table.

Cheers,

Brook

************

From owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org Sat Dec 18 22:51:06 1999

Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])

by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA18409

for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:51:05 -0500 (EST)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.1 $) with ESMTP id XAA27570 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:49:19 -0500 (EST)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA52323;

Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:45:32 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org)

Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:44:37 +0000 (EST)

Received: (from majordom@localhost)

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA52107

for pgsql-patches-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:43:37 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org)

Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (bright@ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA52012

for <patches@postgreSQL.org>; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:42:44 -0500 (EST)

(envelope-from bright@wintelcom.net)

Received: from localhost (bright@localhost)

by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19594;

Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:12:09 -0800 (PST)

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:12:09 -0800 (PST)

From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>

To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, patches@postgreSQL.org

Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Lock

In-Reply-To: <199912181828.NAA01486@candle.pha.pa.us>

Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912182107170.12109-100000@fw.wintelcom.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Sender: owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org

Precedence: bulk

Status: OR

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]

> > I was looking at this

> >

> > * Allow LOCK TABLE tab1, tab2, tab3 so all tables locked in unison

> >

> > but I'm not sure if my solution is really what was wanted, because it

> > doesn't actually guarantee an all-or-nothing lock, it just locks each

> > table in order. Thus it's more like a syntax simplification and reduces

> > overhead.

> >

>

> It took a few minutes, but I remember the use for this. If you are

> going to hang waiting to lock tab3, you don't want to lock tab1 and tab2

> while you are waiting for tab3 lock. The user wanted all tables to lock

> in one operation without holding locks while waiting to complete all

> locking.

>

> Can you do the locks, and if one fails, not hang, but unlock the

> previous tables, go lock/hang on the failure, and go back and lock the

> others? Seems it would have to be some kind of lock/fail/unlock/wait

> loop.

>

> Does this make sense? It did to me.

Guys, have a look at:

http://www.freebsd.org/~terry/iml.txt

http://jazz.external.hp.com/training/sqltables/c5s17.html

It's a way to do locking with deadlock detection, and without loosing

your place in line for locks, very nifty imo.

-Alfred

************

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for PostgreSQL

Last updated:Tue Mar 21 16:09:11 EST 2000

Last updated:Thu Jun 1 13:57:15 EDT 2000

Current maintainer:Bruce Momjian (<A

HREF="mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us">pgman@candle.pha.pa.us</A>)<BR><P>