Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for making clearly understandable my patch!
> We might want to call GetCheckpointProgress something
> else, though. It doesn't return the amount of progress made, but rather
> the amount of progress we should've made up to that point or we're
Hiroki Kataoka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > But does it
> > work for tables that have a small hot part that's updated very
> > frequently?
>
> I think there is no problem. Bloating will make pages including the
> unnecessary area which will not be accessed. Soo
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We discussed it a long time ago already, but I really wished the DSM
> wouldn't need a fixed size shared memory area. It's one more thing the
> DBA needs to tune manually. It also means we need to have an algorithm
> for deciding what to keep in t
"William Lawrance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This program that does "PQprepare" and then
> "PQexecPrepared" has worked previously, but doesn't
> work now.
> ...
> strcpy(openStmt, "declare C1 cursor for select cola"
>" from tprep"
>" where
Hi,
I don't insist the name and the default of the GUC parameter. I'm
afraid wal_fullpage_optimization = on (default) makes some confusion
because the default behavior becomes a bit different on WAL itself.
I'd like to have some more opinion on this.
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
With D
Uma Krishnan wrote:
> Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how it
> compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using
> select, I'd like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
>
> I looked at the source code, but could find the place
Uma Krishnan wrote:
> Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how
> it compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using
> select, I'd like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
>
> I looked at the source code, but could find the place
Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how it
compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using select, I'd
like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
I looked at the source code, but could find the place where Postgres SQL
gra
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was afraid of that. Well, at least get a dump of page 104 in that
>> index so we can see what's on-disk.
> Sure - I'll have to try with 8.1/8.2 unless you have a pg_filedump
> that'll work with -HEAD?
No, I don't, but a plain hex/asci
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
If you want to poke at it, I'd suggest changing the ERROR to PANIC
(it's in bufmgr.c) to cause a core dump, run installchecks till you
get a panic, and then look around in the dump to see what you can find.
It'd be particular
One of the few situations where I experience poor performance under PostgreSQL,
compared to other, commercial databases, is when an EXISTS predicate is used.
Actually, these often do perform quite well, but there are some situations
where there are optimizations available which other products d
Marko Kreen wrote:
> The UUID generation functions are tagged IMMUTABLE,
> shouldn't they be VOLATILE?
Some of them should be. Let me recheck that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You c
The UUID generation functions are tagged IMMUTABLE,
shouldn't they be VOLATILE?
--
marko
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
Marcin Waldowski wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
No, it's definitly the right primitive. But we're creating it with a
max
count of 1.
>>> That's definitely wrong. There are at least three rea
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you want to poke at it, I'd suggest changing the ERROR to PANIC
>> (it's in bufmgr.c) to cause a core dump, run installchecks till you
>> get a panic, and then look around in the dump to see what you can find.
>> It'd be particularly int
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've been seeing this failure intermittently on Narwhal HEAD, and once
>> on 8.1. Other branches have been OK, as have other animals running on
>> the same physical box. Narwhal-HEAD is run more often than any other
>> builds however.
>
>>
rancpine cui wrote:
> Hello
> I am confused about the ideas of "session"&"backend"&"process" when I
> read the lmgr part of source code. What's the difference among them?
They are all the same.
--
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Hello
I am confused about the ideas of "session"&"backend"&"process" when I
read the lmgr part of source code. What's the difference among them?
Thanks,
Ranc.
18 matches
Mail list logo
