"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've implemented buffer recycling, as previously described, patch being
> posted now to -patches as "scan_recycle_buffers".
>
> - for VACUUMs of any size, with the objective of reducing WAL thrashing
> whilst keeping VACUUM's behaviour of not spoiling t
Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we consider this thoroughly and compile a suitable syntax that covers
> all bases it could be used as the basis of the standard definition or be
> close to what ends up in the standard.
I'll bet you a very good dinner that the word SKYLINE will never
Naz Gassiep wrote:
Let us not do the same to
SQL and implement SKYLINE on our own, only to have other DBMS vendors
implement it in different ways and then finally when the SQL standard
includes it they try to make some kind of average approximation of the
implementations resulting in *none* o
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size.
Oh really ...
> Doesn't this mean that there is some place where the return value of
> malloc is not checked for null ?
You can see for yourself that the value *is* checked in
Hello,
I didn't get any response on the GENERAL list so i'm escalating this
We have several independent database servers with ~50GB+ databases running
postgres 8.0.x. We are planning to upgrade these databases to postgres
8.2.xover the weekend
We plan to use the following steps to upgrade
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
> > table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
> > the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome bu
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 11:22 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking
> >>> we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
> >
> > So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables who
Edward, Heikki,
> In my experience, EAV
> schemas are usually result of improper database design by someone not
> understanding the relational theory and the principles of normalization.
Edward, you should be aware that EAV schema are a source of disagreement among
database designers. Some deve
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the "index
the table is clustered on". That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to
I do see your points regarding the existence of use cases for this
feature, and I agree that at worst, the implementation of this feature
would provide a way to greatly simplify query design and at best provide
a whole new method of obtaining decision supporting data from a
relational database.
Gregory Stark wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been thinking
we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
So we would have "clustered tables" which are tables whose heap is ordered
according to an index and separately "clustered indexes" which are
Hi,
I know the answer :)
I tried to find the patch that caused the failure, and when doing so,
rechecking a build which had succeeded now failed. So this was an
environment problem.
The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size. I hadn't
thought of that because I had origin
12 matches
Mail list logo
