Re: [HACKERS] Upper limit on number of buffers?

2000-12-24 Thread Oleg Bartunov
/proc/sys/kernel/shmmax Oleg On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, mlw wrote: > Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:52:43 -0500 > From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Hackers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [HACKERS] Upper limit on number of buffers? > > This line works: > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32

Re: [HACKERS] Upper limit on number of buffers?

2000-12-24 Thread Joe Conway
> * mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001224 18:06] wrote: > > This line works: > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 928 -i -S > > -D/home/postgres/pgdev -o "-F -fs -S 4096" > > > > Where as this line: > > > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 1024 -i -S > > -D/home/postgres/pgdev -

Re: [HACKERS] Upper limit on number of buffers?

2000-12-24 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001224 18:06] wrote: > This line works: > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 928 -i -S > -D/home/postgres/pgdev -o "-F -fs -S 4096" > > Where as this line: > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 1024 -i -S > -D/home/postgres/pgdev -o "-F -fs -S 4096" > > d

Re: [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 on DEC/Alpha

2000-12-24 Thread Brent Verner
On 24 Dec 2000 at 00:47 (-0500), Tom Lane wrote: | | > I'll send the patch that allows me to | > cleanly build with gcc. right now, s_lock.h does the wrong thing | > when compiling on Alpha/OSF with gcc. | | Roger, we want to build with either. The attached patch _seems_ to do the right thing.

[HACKERS] Upper limit on number of buffers?

2000-12-24 Thread mlw
This line works: /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 928 -i -S -D/home/postgres/pgdev -o "-F -fs -S 4096" Where as this line: /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -N 32 -B 1024 -i -S -D/home/postgres/pgdev -o "-F -fs -S 4096" does not. Any ideas? I have 256M of memory, RedHat Linux 7.0, CVS v

[HACKERS] Thoughts regarding pg_dump

2000-12-24 Thread Rod Taylor
pg_class doesn't seem to have any pointers regarding if the name for an item was automatically generated or was given by the user.  If it did store that as a bool, it could be determined whether to use:   CONSTRAINT "table_pkey" PRIMARY KEY ("table")   or   PRIMARY KEY ("table")   in a dump.

Re: [HACKERS] RI problem with inherited table (fwd)

2000-12-24 Thread Oliver Elphick
I had meant to send this to the list as well. --- Forwarded Message Date:Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:13:56 + From:"Oliver Elphick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RI problem with inherited table Tom Lane wrote: >Hm. The short-term ans