> On Sun February 5 2006 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT the data structures you are worried about don't have any readily
>> predictable size, which means there is no good way to keep them in
>> shared memory --- we can't dynamically resize shared memory. So I think
>> storing the rules in a tabl
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, James William Pye wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:08:12PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > Have you considered how this might work with spec-compliant constraint
> > timing?
>
> I haven't gone so far as to look into the spec, yet. [Noise of rustling
> papers]
>
> However,
Hi!!
I was just browsing the message and saw yours. I have actually written a
shared memory system for PostgreSQL.
I've done some basic bench testing, and it seems to work, but I haven't
given it the big QA push yet.
My company, Mohawk Software, is going to release a bunch of PostgreSQL
extenss
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 14:03 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 3. Somehow create shared memory using the shmem functions, and set a memory
> context to live *inside* this shared memory, which my trigger functions can
> then switch to. Then use palloc() and pfree() without worrying..
This has been
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:08:12PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Have you considered how this might work with spec-compliant constraint
> timing?
I haven't gone so far as to look into the spec, yet. [Noise of rustling papers]
However, constraints referenced in an UNLESS clause that are deferred,
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, James William Pye wrote:
> Despite the fact that my experimental patch uses error trapping, that is *not*
> what I have in mind for the implementation. I do not want to trap errors upon
> insert or copy from. Rather, I wish to implement functionality that would
> allow
> alte
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you know, many databases that run on Linux / Unix systems have a GUI
> installer which make installation easier and more attractive for some
> people.
>
> Our Windows Installer is very attractive, for example.
>
> Now, I and Burcu Guzel, who is a Senior Program
Folks,
The subject of this letter is referring to giving INSERT and COPY FROM STDIN
the ability to alter the destination of rows that violate any constraints named
in a user specified set.
BTW, just in case anyone thinks that James is not addressing a real and
widespread problem, Joe Conway
James,
I am seeking, as many others are or have, to improve the performance on bulk
loads to live systems where constraint violations may occur and filtering can
be done more efficiently within the backend.
Primarily, I'm concerned with UNIQUE violations. However, I think tackling the
general c
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've now tested this patch at home w/ 8.2HEAD and it seems to fix the
> bug. I plan on testing it under 8.1.2 at work tommorow with
> mod_auth_krb5, etc, and expect it'll work there. Assuming all goes
> well and unless someone objec
hassane ariouat wrote:
> bonjour je suis etudiant en informatique et mon theme de fin d'année
> se porte sur les methodes d'indexation des données spatials.
> et je compte implementer une methode dans postgresql et je vous
> serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir m'attribuer de la doccumentation
> po
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I realize it's not entirely fair (given that it was years ago) to ask
> this, but, anyone happen to know why the patch wasn't accepted? It
> almost patched cleanly against current HEAD even. I went ahead and
> made the few changes b
On Sun February 5 2006 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT the data structures you are worried about don't have any readily
> predictable size, which means there is no good way to keep them in
> shared memory --- we can't dynamically resize shared memory. So I think
> storing the rules in a table and
bonjour je suis etudiant en informatique et mon theme de fin d'année se
porte sur les methodes d'indexation des données spatials.
et je compte implementer une methode dans postgresql et je vous serais
reconnaissant de bien vouloir m'attribuer de la doccumentation pour la facon
dont en integre un
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> So what you load are the already processed rules? In that case you
> could probably use the buffer management system. Ask it to load the
> blocks and they'll be in the buffer cache. As long as you have the
> buffer pinned they'll stay there.
... until you get to t
> > The *REALM* is not checked, however. This can cause problems if you
> > have a multi-realm system (where the realms already trust
> each other,
> > because the KDC has to give out the service ticket) where
> you have the
> > same username existing in multiple realms representing
> differe
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The *REALM* is not checked, however. This can cause problems if you have
> a multi-realm system (where the realms already trust each other, because
> the KDC has to give out the service ticket) where you have the same
> username existing in multiple re
On Sun February 5 2006 14:43, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> So what you load are the already processed rules? In that case you
> could probably use the buffer management system. Ask it to load the
> blocks and they'll be in the buffer cache. As long as you have the
> buffer pinned they'll stay th
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:31:23PM +, Richard Hills wrote:
> I have a number of functions which modify tables based on complex rules
> stored
> in script-files. I wrote a parser for these files as a separate program first
> before incorporating it as a shared object, subsequentially it loads
On Sun February 5 2006 14:11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> This is the generally accepted method. Please remember that when
> sharing structures you have to worry about concurrency. So you need
> locking.
Of course - I have already implemented locking with semaphores (I may simply
use one big
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. Change memory context to TopMemoryContext and palloc everything there.
> (However, I believe this still isn't shared between processes?)
Nope.
> 2. Use the shmem functions in src/backend/storage/ipc/shmem.c to create a
> chunk of shared memory and use this (Altho
> > > You'll still need to run the postmaster frmo pg_ctl to
> get the "run
> > > as admin" part. The only part that could be moved is the
> Job Object
> > > for management. And you're normally not going to need
> that one when
> > > you're not running as a service. Maybe sometimes, but I
>
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:03:59PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Change memory context to TopMemoryContext and palloc everything there.
> (However, I believe this still isn't shared between processes?)
Not shared, correct.
> 2. Use the shmem functions in src/backend/storage/ipc/shmem.c to
Dear all,
I am writing a C-language shared-object file which is dynamically linked with
postgres, and uses the various SPI functions for executing queries from
numerous trigger functions.
My question is thus: what is the best method for a dynamically linked object
to share memory with the same
> Greetings,
> I was trying to build source build postgres 8.1.x with MIT
> Kerberos 5 1.4.x implementation.
> The whole thing bombs out. After some digging, I had to hack
> the autoconf script (configure.in) to properly account for
> the way the libraries are built for 1.4.x. I don't know
> w
25 matches
Mail list logo
