On 17 Sep 2003 at 0:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
> > calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
> > speed, and we see people all the time on General and
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
> calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
> speed, and we see people all the time on General and Performance running
> production servers with it
that works too ... basically, adding 'security' for a "load nly" mode
shouldn't be to difficult
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> > Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
> > calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
> > speed, and we see people all the time on Ge
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 21:55, Christopher Browne wrote:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Johnson) wrote:
> > Pardon if this has already been suggested and shot down as impossible
> > or too difficult, etc.
>
> None of this is forcibly the problem.
>
> The _big_
ROTFLMAO!
That's just the trigger I needed for a belly laugh today. Thanks guys!
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Not so sure on whether the foot gun is a good idea. We already have .22
> calibre foot gun (fsync) that makes for pretty big improvements in load
> speed, and we see people all the time on General and Performance running
> production servers with it t
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Restoring a database involves, for each table:
> > 1. Reading table data from the source file;
> > 2. Writing data to the database file for the table;
> > 3. After that, reading the database file data, and
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Restoring a database involves, for each table:
> 1. Reading table data from the source file;
> 2. Writing data to the database file for the table;
> 3. After that, reading the database file data, and
> 4. Writing the sorted bits to the index file
Hi,
While on the topic of "need for in-place upgrades", I got to think-
ing how the pg_restore could be speeded up.
Am I wrong in saying that in the current pg_restore, all of the
indexes are created in serial?
How about this new, multi-threaded way of doing the pg_restore:
0. On the command lin
10 matches
Mail list logo
