On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm. I wonder why we are bothering with FOR SHARE locks on the
> >> referencing table, when we don't have any intention to change
> >> those rows. Is there some race con
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. I wonder why we are bothering with FOR SHARE locks on the
>> referencing table, when we don't have any intention to change
>> those rows. Is there some race condition that's needed to prevent?
> I think it m
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > apparently revoking update rights on referencing table blocks deletes on
> > master table:
>
> >> revoke update on b from test;
> > REVOKE
>
> >> delete from a where id = 1;
> > ERROR: permission den
hubert depesz lubaczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apparently revoking update rights on referencing table blocks deletes on
> master table:
>> revoke update on b from test;
> REVOKE
>> delete from a where id = 1;
> ERROR: permission denied for relation b
> CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT 1
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "ykhuang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> there are many cross type arithmetic operators, like int2 + int4, int8 +
>> int4, I think these can be deleted. Here are the reasons, after deleted,
>> int2 + int4 will choose the operator int4 + int4, int8 + int4
Michael Akinde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does it make a difference to lo_open what the size of the blob is?
> Other than simply opening the blob to get the file descriptor, after
> all, we don't touch the blob itself.
I believe lo_open() fetches the first chunk of the blob's data,
essent
Marti wrote:
> Gentoo defaults to launching PostgreSQL 8.2 with "-N 40 -B 80" which
> is how I hit this problem; this was set in a distro-specific
> configuration file which I previously hadn't even looked at. Does this
> mean that these defaults are insane and I should complain loudly?
Why waste
On 1/20/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>>> However, as of PostgreSQL 8.3, postmaster requires that the number of
>>> buffers is at least (max_connections*2 + 6)
> It's sort of irrelevant IMHO, as any useful setting is orders of
> magnitude larger than that anyway.
Thanks for the reply, Tomasz.
We have now done some more performance tests working with pure C/C++
code, and the results we are finding seem to indicate that the disk
thrashing has to do with the OS disk cache, and not as a result of the
lo_open call. Notably, we have been unable to recreate t
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Michael Akinde wrote:
>> What I *do* see is that the process size as reported by "top"
>> quickly jumps to 900MB plus and then sits there. This is not a
>> memory leak though, it is just a side effect of the way "top"
>> reports usage of shared memory.
>
> Also, since the blo
Sorry, I forgot to mention:
When we were building the test case, we ran a lot of experiments with 1
GB of shared buffers, and were taking a clear performance hit anytime
the shared buffers seemed to hit the 1GB barrier. Increasing the shared
buffer size to 2GB, improved performance significant
"ykhuang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there are many cross type arithmetic operators, like int2 + int4, int8 +
> int4, I think these can be deleted. Here are the reasons, after deleted,
> int2 + int4 will choose the operator int4 + int4, int8 + int4 choose int8 +
> int8, Is that ok? Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to look into the problem. It is much appreciated.
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Akinde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I use the following script to create a test table. For
/tmp/oidfile.temp, I use "FAQ_farsi" from the PostgreSQL installation
(about 140kb).
Okay, I r
apparently revoking update rights on referencing table blocks deletes on master
table:
(user test, database test, user test is not superuser)
> create table a (id serial primary key, x text);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "a_id_seq" for serial
column "a.id"
NOTICE: CREATE
there are many cross type arithmetic operators, like int2 + int4, int8 +
int4, I think these can be deleted. Here are the reasons, after deleted,
int2 + int4 will choose the operator int4 + int4, int8 + int4 choose int8 +
int8, Is that ok? Thanks.
---(end of broadcast)
for example,
postgres=# select int2'1' + int8'1';
ERROR: operator is not unique: smallint + bigint
LINE 1: select int2'1' + int8'1';
^
HINT: Could not choose a best candidate operator. You may need to add
explicit
type casts.
there are int4 + int8 and int8 + int8, but no
16 matches
Mail list logo
