Awhile back, Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there is one more problem: it caused approximatly one time per 2-4
> million
> statements, I got traps:
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((*curpage)->offsets_used == num_tuples)", File:
> "vacuum.c", Line: 2766)
> LOG: server process (PID 158
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The "drop" way probably allows slightly more concurrency, but given that
>> people should seldom be taking exclusionary locks on system catalogs,
>> I'm not sure this is really an issue.
> Hmm. The problem at hand (REASSIGN OWNED BY) may involve chang
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 05:47:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The code's a bit inconsistent about whether it releases non-exclusive
> >> locks on system catalogs or leaves them till transacti
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:19:24PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > To accomplish this I need to add following function into
> > > > storage/ipc/procarray.c. This is similar to BackendPidGetProc() except
> > > > that it accepts xid as an argument.
I know we were planning for beta today or Monday, but few new items have
crept up and it will take a few more days to enter beta, so look for
beta sometime next week.
FYI, I will be off-line for the next 24 hours.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candl
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The code's a bit inconsistent about whether it releases non-exclusive
>> locks on system catalogs or leaves them till transaction end. I suppose
>> sometime we should try to make it consistent
Is enable_constraint_exclusion the proper name for this feature? I know
we have enable* in the optimizer settings, but that naming seems
unfortunate in that we should have just called it hash_join and it could
be enabled/disabled.
I am thinking we should just call it constraint_exclusion.
--
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
O.k. I know I can do:
CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text AS ' ' language SQL;
Does anyone else think it would be nice to be able to do:
CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text,int4,float,timestamp AS ' '
language SQL;
?
We could even extend it far
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just noticed that AlterSchemaOwner (and others like AlterFunctionOwner
> > -- I haven't checked anything else yet) does not release the lock on
> > pg_namespace (resp. AlterFunctionOwner) af
Josh Berkus wrote:
Josh,
CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text,int4,float,timestamp AS ' '
language SQL;
You can effectively do this with the new INOUT syntax. Check it out in the
8.1devel docs.
Cool thanks... (takes note to document in the book)
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions c
You mean like this?
create type bar (firstname text, id int);
create function foo() returns setof bar as ' ' language sql;
No. I am aware I can do that ;) I don't want to have to create
the type ahead of time :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
cheers
andrew
--
Your PostgreSQL solution
The advantage of doing the check at run-time is that you can build
PostgreSQL on one machine (which has IPv6), and have it run on some
other windows box (which might not have IPv6). So you'd only need one
set of binaries.
Routines like "getopt" are not __stdcall, so their names don't get
mangled
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just noticed that AlterSchemaOwner (and others like AlterFunctionOwner
> -- I haven't checked anything else yet) does not release the lock on
> pg_namespace (resp. AlterFunctionOwner) after it's done changing it. Is
> there a reason for this?
The cod
Josh,
> CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text,int4,float,timestamp AS ' '
> language SQL;
You can effectively do this with the new INOUT syntax. Check it out in the
8.1devel docs.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)-
Hello,
O.k. I know I can do:
CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text AS ' ' language SQL;
Does anyone else think it would be nice to be able to do:
CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SET OF text,int4,float,timestamp AS ' '
language SQL;
?
We could even extend it farther:
CREATE FUNCTION foo(
I just noticed that AlterSchemaOwner (and others like AlterFunctionOwner
-- I haven't checked anything else yet) does not release the lock on
pg_namespace (resp. AlterFunctionOwner) after it's done changing it. Is
there a reason for this?
I notice ATExecChangeOwner uses a different mechanism, but
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is the correct answer to continue marking and running the triggers until
> > there are no immediate triggers left to run for this case?
>
> Hmm ... my recollection is that we put in the concept of marking because
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:19:24PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > To accomplish this I need to add following function into
> > > storage/ipc/procarray.c. This is similar to BackendPidGetProc() except
> > > that it accepts xid as an argument. Any object
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the correct answer to continue marking and running the triggers until
> there are no immediate triggers left to run for this case?
Hmm ... my recollection is that we put in the concept of marking because
we needed it for correct behavior in some cases
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chuck McDevitt wrote:
I think it's because it's __stdcall, and the name gets mangled to
include the number of parameters.
Aha! now it makes sense. How do we get around that in the configure tests?
I thoug
Hi,
I don't have win32-headers here, but as far as I remember the headers
(re-)#define many calls. getaddrinfo might be getaddrinfoA or something. When
you don't use the headers and try to link with the name getaddrinfo, it is
not found.
The options are either look, what name is actually used
21 matches
Mail list logo
