Thread: 1.10 beta 1
I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? Ashesh; Any progress on the treeview crash issue you were looking at? Mickael; You mentioned some additional changes a few days back. Are they still in the pipeline? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
2009/3/10 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>: > I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get > any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) > > Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? > > Ashesh; Any progress on the treeview crash issue you were looking at? > > Mickael; You mentioned some additional changes a few days back. Are > they still in the pipeline? > I'll send them tomorrow in the afternoon (European time). Regards, Mickael
Dave Page a écrit : > I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get > any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) > > Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? > Unfortunately, no. I see how I can get the information with queries (with psql for example). But I didn't find a way to change the query to get the informations. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
Hi Dave,
Dave Page wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Just sent the patch.I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? Ashesh; Any progress on the treeview crash issue you were looking at?
--
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Mickael Deloison <mdeloison@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/10 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>: >> I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get >> any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) >> >> Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? >> >> Ashesh; Any progress on the treeview crash issue you were looking at? >> >> Mickael; You mentioned some additional changes a few days back. Are >> they still in the pipeline? >> > > I'll send them tomorrow in the afternoon (European time). Thanks. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Dave Page a écrit : >> I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get >> any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) >> >> Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? >> > > Unfortunately, no. I see how I can get the information with queries > (with psql for example). But I didn't find a way to change the query to > get the informations. OK - Ashesh, can you look at this please? There are a couple of messages about the problem at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgadmin-hackers/2009-03/msg00026.php Thanks. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote:
sureOn Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:Dave Page a écrit :I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue?Unfortunately, no. I see how I can get the information with queries (with psql for example). But I didn't find a way to change the query to get the informations.OK - Ashesh, can you look at this please? There are a couple of messages about the problem at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgadmin-hackers/2009-03/msg00026.php Thanks.
--
Ashesh Vashi a écrit : > > > Dave Page wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Guillaume Lelarge >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >>> Dave Page a écrit : >>>> I intend to build pgAdmin 1.10 beta 1 on Thursday morning. Please get >>>> any outstanding changes committed or mailed in ASAP :-) >>>> >>>> Guillaume; Any progress on that dependencies issue? >>>> >>> Unfortunately, no. I see how I can get the information with queries >>> (with psql for example). But I didn't find a way to change the query to >>> get the informations. >> >> OK - Ashesh, can you look at this please? There are a couple of >> messages about the problem at >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgadmin-hackers/2009-03/msg00026.php >> >> Thanks. > sure Thanks Ashesh, that's really nice. I'm sorry I can't work on it right now. But I you need more informations, you can ask me. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
Hi Dave,
Please find the patch for the Dependency bug.
Please find the patch for the Dependency bug.
--
Ashesh Vashi a écrit : > Hi Dave, > > Please find the patch for the Dependency bug. > I just checked this patch. I find disturbing that it finds a dependency to a nextval function instead of a dependency to the sequence. Moreover, the first table has two dependencies : on the sequence and on the nextval function of this sequence. This patch is a first step, but I think we need to go further. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
Hi Guillaume,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
But, I could not find the direct dependency of the sequence on the table.
I need some guidance for it.
Could you please help on this?
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
I think - you're right.Ashesh Vashi a écrit :Hi Dave, Please find the patch for the Dependency bugI just checked this patch. I find disturbing that it finds a dependency to a nextval function instead of a dependency to the sequence. Moreover, the first table has two dependencies : on the sequence and on the nextval function of this sequence.
But, I could not find the direct dependency of the sequence on the table.
Definitely, even I felt the same.This patch is a first step, but I think we need to go further.
I need some guidance for it.
Could you please help on this?
--
Ashesh Vashi a écrit : > Hi Guillaume, > > Thanks for reviewing the patch. > > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: >> Ashesh Vashi a écrit : >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> Please find the patch for the Dependency bug >> I just checked this patch. I find disturbing that it finds a dependency >> to a nextval function instead of a dependency to the sequence. Moreover, >> the first table has two dependencies : on the sequence and on the >> nextval function of this sequence. > I think - you're right. > But, I could not find the direct dependency of the sequence on the table. >> This patch is a first step, but I think we need to go further. > Definitely, even I felt the same. > I need some guidance for it. > > Could you please help on this? > Here are the definition of the two tables: CREATE TABLE t1 (id serial NOT NULL); CREATE TABLE t2 (LIKE t INCLUDING DEFAULTS); Quite simple. t1_id_seq must be a dependency of t2 (ie you can't drop t1_id_seq, or t1, without dropping t2 or at least change its sequence). With this next query, we get every pg_attrdef dependencies: ioguix=# select * from pg_depend where classid = 2604; classid | objid | objsubid | refclassid | refobjid | refobjsubid | deptype ---------+--------+----------+------------+----------+-------------+--------- 2604 | 122030 | 0 | 1259 | 122027 | 1 | a 2604 | 122030 | 0 | 1259 | 122025 | 0 | n 2604 | 122034 | 0 | 1259 | 122031 | 1 | a 2604 | 122034 | 0 | 1259 | 122025 | 0 | n (4 lignes) This one gives us the target column (122030 and 122034 are results of the previous query, column objid) : ioguix=# select relname||'.'||attname from pg_class cl, pg_attribute att, pg_attrdef atd where atd.oid in (122030, 122034) and atd.adrelid=att.attrelid and atd.adnum=att.attnum and cl.oid=att.attrelid; ?column? ---------- t1.id t2.id (2 lignes) This one gives us the referenced object (122027, 122025, 122031 are results of the attrdef query, column refobjid) : ioguix=# select oid, relname from pg_class where oid in (122027, 122025, 122031); oid | relname --------+----------- 122025 | t1_id_seq 122027 | t1 122031 | t2 (3 lignes) In the first query (the attrdef one), you'll notice t1_id_seq appears two times, one for t1.id and one for t2.id. I don't quite know how to build a query that will give us t1_id_seq as a dependency to t2. I don't actually have the time to work on this right now. But it must be something with these queries. Hope it helps. Ping me if you need more details. -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com
wow - Thanks.
I think - this gives me enough idea to work on.
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
I think - this gives me enough idea to work on.
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
Ashesh Vashi a écrit :Hi Guillaume, Thanks for reviewing the patch. Guillaume Lelarge wrote:Ashesh Vashi a écrit :Hi Dave, Please find the patch for the Dependency bugI just checked this patch. I find disturbing that it finds a dependency to a nextval function instead of a dependency to the sequence. Moreover, the first table has two dependencies : on the sequence and on the nextval function of this sequence.I think - you're right. But, I could not find the direct dependency of the sequence on the table.This patch is a first step, but I think we need to go further.Definitely, even I felt the same. I need some guidance for it. Could you please help on this?Here are the definition of the two tables: CREATE TABLE t1 (id serial NOT NULL); CREATE TABLE t2 (LIKE t INCLUDING DEFAULTS); Quite simple. t1_id_seq must be a dependency of t2 (ie you can't drop t1_id_seq, or t1, without dropping t2 or at least change its sequence). With this next query, we get every pg_attrdef dependencies: ioguix=# select * from pg_depend where classid = 2604;classid | objid | objsubid | refclassid | refobjid | refobjsubid | deptype ---------+--------+----------+------------+----------+-------------+--------- 2604 | 122030 | 0 | 1259 | 122027 | 1 | a 2604 | 122030 | 0 | 1259 | 122025 | 0 | n 2604 | 122034 | 0 | 1259 | 122031 | 1 | a 2604 | 122034 | 0 | 1259 | 122025 | 0 | n (4 lignes) This one gives us the target column (122030 and 122034 are results of the previous query, column objid) : ioguix=# select relname||'.'||attname from pg_class cl, pg_attribute att, pg_attrdef atd where atd.oid in (122030, 122034) and atd.adrelid=att.attrelid and atd.adnum=att.attnum and cl.oid=att.attrelid;?column? ----------t1.idt2.id (2 lignes) This one gives us the referenced object (122027, 122025, 122031 are results of the attrdef query, column refobjid) : ioguix=# select oid, relname from pg_class where oid in (122027, 122025, 122031); oid | relname --------+-----------122025 | t1_id_seq122027 | t1122031 | t2 (3 lignes) In the first query (the attrdef one), you'll notice t1_id_seq appears two times, one for t1.id and one for t2.id. I don't quite know how to build a query that will give us t1_id_seq as a dependency to t2. I don't actually have the time to work on this right now. But it must be something with these queries. Hope it helps. Ping me if you need more details.
--
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh.vashi@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > wow - Thanks. > I think - this gives me enough idea to work on. Good to see you two figuring this out - I love it when a plan comes together :-p I'm going to go on and prepare the beta. This bug has been around for years and never got noticed before. Another few days or so won't kill us. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com