> These numbers don't even have any demonstrable connection to Postgres,
> let alone to an xpath-related memory leak. You're going to need to come
> up with a concrete test case if you want anyone to investigate.
>
> regards, tom lane
As I said in the start of this thread, t
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 03:12:26 Sim Zacks wrote:
> There seems to be a disconnect between the mailing list and the
> newsgroup right now. I received a bunch of replies via email that did
> not show up in the newsgroup. (I did not receive any messages that were
> sent to the mailing list and not
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'm load testing a machine, and i'm seeing idle in transaction
>>> processes that are no longer hooked to
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, RASHA OSMAN wrote:
How long it takes the operating system to fulfil a page demand, ie,
reading the page from disk or from the OS cache to the Postgres shared
buffer. Also how long it takes the bgwriter to flush a page from the
shared buffer into the OS cache or disk.
Post
"Matt Magoffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm following up on this thread from a month ago on PG 8.3 memory use. I'm
> afraid even after updating to 8.3.3 + this patch, I still see the same
> overall memory trend. You can see what I'm looking at here with a couple
> of memory graphs.
These num
Hello,
I'm trying to create a messageing service, like in facebook. Basically
a member can write messages to another member. It will have three main
functions. One, basic messaging to another member. Two, notification
from system to a group of members (a list of members), Three, an
update report t
>> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> That's just a special case of what would be expected to happen with
>>> memory
>>> allocation anyways though. Few allocators return memory to the OS
>>> anyways.
>>
>> Well, that does happen on Linux for instance. Since Matt knew in his
>> original
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
>>>
>>> a) If the specifies a
>>> >> column list>, then the set of s contained
>>> in that shall be equal to the
>>> set of s contained in the >> list> of a unique constraint of the referenced table.
>
>> I must admit, t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
>>
>> a) If the specifies a
>> > column list>, then the set of s contained
>> in that shall be equal to the
>> set of s contained in the > list> of a unique constraint of the referenced table.
> I must admit, the standard
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not sure if there's a fundamental reason why there has to be an
>> index that
>> exactly matches the foreign key or not -- offhand I can't think of one.
>
> The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
>
> a) If the specifies a
>
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure if there's a fundamental reason why there has to be an index that
> exactly matches the foreign key or not -- offhand I can't think of one.
The reason why is that the SQL spec says so:
a) If the specifies a , then the set of s
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 07:10:10AM -0700, Richard Broersma wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int references one(id),
> > CREATE TABLE three(one int not null, two int, info text, foreign key (one,
> > two) ref
"Richard Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since table TWO has a unique constraint on column ID, the (ID, OFONE) pair
>> will also be unique, obviously.
>
> This statement is not completely true. The only part of the pair tha
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int references one(id),
> CREATE TABLE three(one int not null, two int, info text, foreign key (one,
> two) references two (one, id));
>
> I get the following error:
> ERROR: there is no
On Sun, August 10, 2008 3:03 pm, Henry wrote:
>
> I scratched around some more, found doc/pgpool-en.html and my ignorance
> has been somewhat lessened.
oi, wrong list /blushes
I really should *not* use multi-users under one login in squirrelmail...
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql
I scratched around some more, found doc/pgpool-en.html and my ignorance
has been somewhat lessened.
My previous config was almost right except for:
pgpool2_hostname = ''
#backend_data_directory0
#backend_data_directory1
and my Linux distro had assigned hostname 'slave1' to localhost, on which
P
Hi All,
on numerous times I had fell onto postgress complaining, that I try to
create foreign key, pointing to a set not embraced within a unique key
constraint.
Here is the case:
CREATE TABLE one (id int not null unique, info text);
CREATE TABLE two (id int not null unique, ofone int references
17 matches
Mail list logo
