On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 19:02 -0700, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2022, at 18:41, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> > Should I simply understand that when I have such a dynamic dependency
> > chain of "immutable" functions, and should I drop and re-create the
> > function at the start of the chain,
Pavel Stehule writes:
> st 29. 6. 2022 v 7:46 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
>> ... that result has discouraged most people from spending much
>> time on mechanically checking such things. If you declare a function
>> immutable, Postgres will believe you; the consequences if you lied
>> are on your
st 29. 6. 2022 v 7:46 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > st 29. 6. 2022 v 6:28 odesílatel Bryn Llewellyn
> napsal:
> >> Moreover, this "hermetic" property of a to-be-immutable function can be
> >> established only by human analysis of the function's source code.
>
> > Our i
Pavel Stehule writes:
> st 29. 6. 2022 v 6:28 odesílatel Bryn Llewellyn napsal:
>> Moreover, this "hermetic" property of a to-be-immutable function can be
>> established only by human analysis of the function's source code.
> Our immutable functions are more tolerant than they should be - for re
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>
> DISCARD PLANS is unsafe in a multi-user concurrent scenario. The doc says
> explicitly that its scope is just the single session. And it's easy to show
> the danger by using my testcase manually, step by appropriate step, with
> two concurrent
st 29. 6. 2022 v 6:28 odesílatel Bryn Llewellyn napsal:
> *david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:*
>
>
> *x...@thebuild.com wrote:*
>
> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>
> Should I simply understand that when I have such a dynamic dependency
> chain of "immutable" functions, and should I drop and re-create
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> x...@thebuild.com wrote:
>>
>>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Should I simply understand that when I have such a dynamic dependency chain
>>> of "immutable" functions, and should I drop and re-create the function at
>>> the start of the chain, then a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:03 PM Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2022, at 18:41, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> > Should I simply understand that when I have such a dynamic dependency
> chain of "immutable" functions, and should I drop and re-create the
> function at the start of the chain,
> On Jun 28, 2022, at 18:41, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> Should I simply understand that when I have such a dynamic dependency chain
> of "immutable" functions, and should I drop and re-create the function at the
> start of the chain, then all bets are off until I drop and re-create every
> func
I’ve copied my self-contained testcase at the end.
I create three functions, marking each of them "immutable". "f1()" simply
returns the manifest constant 'dog'. So it seems perfectly honest to mark it as
I did. "f2()" simply returns "f1()"—so, here too, it seems that I'm being
honest. But I do
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 00:45, Bos, Fred wrote:
> Finally, is there a way to force postgres to do the partial hash aggregate,
> either by changing a setting or by influencing the expected amount of output
> groups for each query?
You could do something like:
ALTER TABLE bhload_nohyp_noin ALTER CO
On 6/27/2022 23:22, Tom Lane wrote:
Karl Denninger writes:
But -- I still have a /lot /of memory out on the heap according to
jemalloc stats that is not being deallocated, and what's worse is that
if I rig the code to call PQfinish and then PQconnect once again I get
/even more /imbalanced allo
Hi,
dbfiddle:
https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_14&fiddle=060af497bbb75ecddad9fd2744f8022b
---
create table test101 ( doc_id bigserial, document jsonb);
insert into test101(document) values ('{"user_removed" :false}') returning
*;
insert into test101(document) select '{"user_removed" :false}
At Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:28:31 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:28:18 +0200, Laurenz Albe
> wrote in
> > You forgot to tell us how exactly you are performing that backup.
>
> Yeah, but Google told me that Veritas may complain with that
> message. Anywhat the too
At Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:28:18 +0200, Laurenz Albe
wrote in
> You forgot to tell us how exactly you are performing that backup.
Yeah, but Google told me that Veritas may complain with that
message. Anywhat the tools is, it seems like that the tool could not
continue after it found that a file had
15 matches
Mail list logo
