Thread
-
Upcoming Attractions, web site
Hal Snyder <hal@enteract.com> — 1999-01-07T09:34:02Z
Bruce, Marc, et al- Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think it might be nice to get this out on the web page in a prominent > place until we release 6.5. Seems like we should be talking up these > features so people can get excited. >> In February, we start beta on 6.5... I have been working on some revisions for the main home page. A preliminary version, including the 6.5 blurb, can be found at: http://www.postgresql.org/mainx.html What do you think? Notes: - I deleted references to Vadim and Jan to make the item seem less less like a private communication intended for insiders. No slight is intended here. - The navigation bar is no longer a frame. I think Marc and I agree the old navigation-bar frame scheme should be revised. I'd like it to have explanatory onMouseOvers, but this isn't there yet - I'm still trying out several things. Changing how the navigation bars work will affect most pages on the site, giving it a different feel. Hal
-
Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-01-07T16:16:51Z
Looks nice. Might rephrase: Those of you who did not like our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. to be something like Those of you wanting alternatives to our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. The new CASE statement might be of interest, and I'm looking forward to getting far enough along on outer joins to get a mention of that too :) - Tom -
Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-01-07T17:31:06Z
> Bruce, Marc, et al- > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think it might be nice to get this out on the web page in a prominent > > place until we release 6.5. Seems like we should be talking up these > > features so people can get excited. > > >> In February, we start beta on 6.5... > > > > I have been working on some revisions for the main home page. > A preliminary version, including the 6.5 blurb, can be found at: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mainx.html > > What do you think? Looks great. > > Notes: > > - I deleted references to Vadim and Jan to make the item seem less > less like a private communication intended for insiders. No slight > is intended here. OK. > - The navigation bar is no longer a frame. I think Marc and I agree > the old navigation-bar frame scheme should be revised. I'd like it > to have explanatory onMouseOvers, but this isn't there yet - I'm > still trying out several things. Changing how the navigation bars > work will affect most pages on the site, giving it a different feel. I like that too. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
-
Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-01-07T17:47:34Z
> Looks nice. Might rephrase: > > Those of you who did not like > our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. > > to be something like > > Those of you wanting alternatives to > our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. > > The new CASE statement might be of interest, and I'm looking forward to > getting far enough along on outer joins to get a mention of that too :) Yes, CASE would be good to add. You can say: An SQL-standard CASE statement is planned too. Thomas, do you need help on outer joins? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
-
Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-01-07T17:54:11Z
> Looks nice. Might rephrase: > > Those of you who did not like > our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. > > to be something like > > Those of you wanting alternatives to > our table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. I don't like the new wording. It sounds like we are adding an optional functionality, while we are replacing table-level locking because MVCC is much better. We can say: Those of you need better locking than our current table-level locking will be pleasantly surprised. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 -
Outer Joins (and need CASE help)
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-01-07T18:26:56Z
> Thomas, do you need help on outer joins? Yes. I'm going slowly partly because I get distracted with other Postgres stuff like docs, and partly because I don't understand all of the pieces I'm working with. I've identified the place in the MergeJoin code where the null filling for outer joins needs to happen, and have the "merge walk" code done. But I don't have the supporting code which actually would know how to null-fill a result tuple from the left or right. I thought you might be interested in that? I've done some work in the parser, and can now do things like: postgres=> select * from t1 join t2 using (i); NOTICE: JOIN not yet implemented i|j|i|k -+-+-+- 1|2|1|3 (1 row) But this is just an inner join, and the result isn't quite right since the second "i" column should probably be omitted. At the moment I transform it from the syntax above into existing parse nodes, and everything from there on works. I don't yet pass an explicit join node into the planner/optimizer, and that will be the hardest part I assume. Perhaps we can work on that together. So, what I'll try to do (soon, in the next few days?) is put in #ifdef ENABLE_OUTER_JOINS conditional code into the parser area (already there for the executor) and commit everything to the development tree. Does that sound OK? Oh, and if anyone is looking for something to do, I've got a couple of CASE statements in the case.sql regression test which are commented out because they crash the backend. They involve references to multiple tables within a single result column, and in other contexts that construct works. It would be great if someone had time to track it down... - Tom