Magnus Hagander wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner escribió:
yeah - the test install is available on
http://reviewdemo.postgresql.org if people want to test judge for
themself - contact magnus or me if you need permissions to do/test
stuff there.
Thanks. I tried submittin
Christopher Browne wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 9:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gregory Stark escribió:
For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs.
Perhaps it would be, if it worked on Windows ... Not that I care, but I
bet Magnus would.
http://code.google.com
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 23:59 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > Nw, I know work_mem is not "total per process limit", but
> > rather per sort/hash/etc operation. I know the scheme is a bit
> > sketchy, but I think this woul
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 08:45 +0600, Markus Bertheau wrote:
> What about allowing shared_buffers to be only greater than it was at
> server start and allocating the extra shared_buffers in one or more
> additional shm segments?
Sounds possible.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadra
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:22 +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 10:54 PM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Decibel! wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, this problem goes way beyond OOM. Just try and configure
> > > work_memory aggressively on a server that might see 50 database
> > > connecti
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is a tangent but are these actual Postgres processes? What's the logic
behind trying to run a 1,000 processes on a box with 16 cpus?
We should certainly be careful about trying to eliminate contention in
this scenario at
2008/2/8, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> >> while we are at it -- one feature would be great for 8.4, an
> >> ability to shange shared buffers size "on the fly".
>
> > Sha
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:32:41 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you want counts or actual output?
% time seconds usecs/call callserrors syscall
-- --- --- - -
58.221.597638 33 47795
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:04:44 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Following up with this... 22G in one hour, with xlogs on a different
> > partition. Just looking at we are averaging 3-5% IOWait, further we
> > are only writing ~ 2Megs a sec
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Following up with this... 22G in one hour, with xlogs on a different
> partition. Just looking at we are averaging 3-5% IOWait, further we are
> only writing ~ 2Megs a second.
It might be interesting to capture some strace output and get a sense of
w
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:47:22 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know Luke has mentioned some issues in the past as well around CPU
> > boundness with an upper limit of 300M/s (IIRC) but even that doesn't
> > equate to what is going on he
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:37:39 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't, but do now and am testing. The way this is currently
> designed is:
>
> /data1 (8 disks RAID 10)
> /data2 (8 disks RAID 10)
> /pg_xlogs (2 disks RAID 1)
>
> /data1 is what is primarily written against for
"Fabien COELHO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ISTM that a decentralized or distributed SCM for PostgreSQL would be a bad
> move, however great it would be at branching and merging. For me it is a
> philosophy question: if PGSQL is a "common work", then everything should be
> open and shared, and
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:20:26 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks to me like you're disk-bound (and your kernel is pretty bad at
> distinguishing "idle" from "disk wait" states). Plain COPY into an
> index-less table ought to be writing fairly linearly, so I'm surprised
> you aren't a
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Some vmstat and oprofile investigation seems called for. Right now
>> we're just guessing about what the bottleneck is.
> vmstat -adSK 5
> ...
Looks to me like you're disk-bound (and your kernel is pretty bad
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:47:22 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know Luke has mentioned some issues in the past as well around CPU
> > boundness with an upper limit of 300M/s (IIRC) but even that doesn't
> > equate to what is going on he
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I vote we just decide that GSS isn't going to be supported on protocol
>> V2, and put a suitable error message into the server for that. It
>> doesn't seem to me that this combination is worth the amount of
>> contortions it would re
>
> Surely it should be the inverse of the solution for output,
> eg TMMon selects localized input.
>
After some investigation in how gettext works, I would like to have your
opinion about how to
implement this TODO item.
Starting with TO_CHAR:
When the TM prefix is used in TO_CHAR (for exa
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
>> while we are at it -- one feature would be great for 8.4, an
>> ability to shange shared buffers size "on the fly".
> Shared memory segments can't be resized... There's not e
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a tangent but are these actual Postgres processes? What's the logic
> behind trying to run a 1,000 processes on a box with 16 cpus?
We should certainly be careful about trying to eliminate contention in
this scenario at the cost of making things
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> Nw, I know work_mem is not "total per process limit", but
> rather per sort/hash/etc operation. I know the scheme is a bit
> sketchy, but I think this would allow more memory-greedy
> operations to use memory, while taking in co
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner escribió:
yeah - the test install is available on http://reviewdemo.postgresql.org
if people want to test judge for themself - contact magnus or me if you
need permissions to do/test stuff there.
Thanks. I tried submitting a review request agains
"Jignesh K. Shah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for about 500users :
> For about 700 Users:
> At 1000 users
This is a tangent but are these actual Postgres processes? What's the logic
behind trying to run a 1,000 processes on a box with 16 cpus? They're all just
going to be queuing up for i/o re
On Feb 7, 2008 9:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory Stark escribió:
>
> > For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs.
>
> Perhaps it would be, if it worked on Windows ... Not that I care, but I
> bet Magnus would.
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/
"Unfor
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, we can provide mirrors of the CVS repository in multiple formats.
> And those mirrors exist already, I remember a GIT and a Subversion mirror off
> the top of my head, and I bet there's others. After we have that, the master
> version c
Stefan Kaltenbrunner escribió:
> yeah - the test install is available on http://reviewdemo.postgresql.org
> if people want to test judge for themself - contact magnus or me if you
> need permissions to do/test stuff there.
Thanks. I tried submitting a review request against anoncvs but it
fa
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I'm not sure I would be proud to use such a stupidly named tool for a
> "common work". I really do not share Linus humor, and apparent contempt
> for other people. GIT implements "I want to chose whom I work with, and
> don't care about the others, and don't ever want to h
Fabien COELHO wrote:
ISTM that a decentralized or distributed SCM for PostgreSQL would be a
bad move, however great it would be at branching and merging. For me
it is a philosophy question: if PGSQL is a "common work", then
everything should be open and shared, and a centralized systems make
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gregory Stark escribió:
For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs.
Perhaps it would be, if it worked on Windows ... Not that I care, but I
bet Magnus would.
There's fairly good tools to convert from one version control system to
another. Especially
Mark Mielke wrote:
Perhaps he didn't read the instructions. See below for a 5 minutes 34
elapsed time. This includes extracting SVN over the network using SVN.
And just to be complete, here is git at 2 minutes 13 seconds. Not that
these times matter at all, but in case anybody thinks they do..
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
So, again, the question is has anyone really used it? Is it the
best thing since sliced bread, or not so much?
I think it is about the equivalent of replacing a mailing list by Yahoo
Groups. It has more special effects
Dear Mark,
I encourage all to keep their minds open.
Good:-)
My 0.02 EUR (or even less) on the recurrent SCM flame war on the list.
ISTM that a decentralized or distributed SCM for PostgreSQL would be a bad
move, however great it would be at branching and merging. For me it is a
philosop
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I've never heard any
complaints about building svn from source before for *developers*. I think
that's just as easy as anything else.
[ shrug... ] The message I quoted was from
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gregory Stark escribió:
For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs.
Perhaps it would be, if it worked on Windows ... Not that I care, but I
bet Magnus would.
To summarize what I care about: I don't really care if I can't *commit*
from Windows - I n
On Feb 7, 2008 9:23 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the very least, I suggest you replicate the experiment before
> asserting you know more about it than someone who's tried.
Will you accept the testimony of someone who has built an SVN *server*
entirely from source on Slackware Linu
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I've never heard any
complaints about building svn from source before for *developers*. I think
that's just as easy as anything else.
[ shrug... ] The message I quoted was from Bob Frie
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Subversion - 4-6 hours (depends on a multitude of packages and will
only work with specific versions which you
learn about the hard way at build time).
I have seen one of these nightmare Subversion installs b
Gregory Stark escribió:
> For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs.
Perhaps it would be, if it worked on Windows ... Not that I care, but I
bet Magnus would.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prom
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I've never heard any
> complaints about building svn from source before for *developers*. I think
> that's just as easy as anything else.
[ shrug... ] The message I quoted was from Bob Friesenhahn, who i
Last try for the script/results (truncating less significant portions of
output which are too big)
Staale Smedseng wrote:
her locks should have been output correctly, however.
But as Tom pointed out, the dynamic locks were not in the equation. So
now we're measuring all lock waits instead o
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In terms of picking an SCM candidate, I don't think "time to install
>> from source" is a legitimate concern. Installing from source is great,
>> but if the package needs to be installed from source, it is not we
Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> So, again, the question is has anyone really used it? Is it the
> best thing since sliced bread, or not so much?
I think it is about the equivalent of replacing a mailing list by Yahoo
Groups. It has more special effects, and no doubt some peop
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:00:33 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
I am not arguing any particular solution but home brewing a
solution so people can stay on what is definitely a dying SCM is
dumb. There are so many tools available to
There's some code in postgres.c that is intended to catch problems
in copyfuncs/equalfuncs support for parsetree nodes. I seem to recall
that it was once enabled by default in debug builds, but that hasn't
been true for several years now. Investigation of bug #3940 shows
that we've allowed some p
Please, can you provide a test case? Which command does fail?
Thanks Zdenek
Vladimir Kokovic wrote:
Hi all,
I am using version 8.3.0 of the source and compiled it with next options:
PostgreSQL config.status 8.3.0
configured by ./configure, generated by GNU Autoconf 2.59,
with optio
Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In terms of picking an SCM candidate, I don't think "time to install
from source" is a legitimate concern. Installing from source is great,
but if the package needs to be installed from source, it is not well
enough supported by the co
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le Thursday 07 February 2008 17:19:26 Tom Lane, vous avez écrit :
Not having looked into exactly how it works and if it's something we
want, but if we want to, any reason we can't just point it at the svn
mirror?
Synchronization problems scare me.
AIUI we're talking ab
Le Thursday 07 February 2008 17:19:26 Tom Lane, vous avez écrit :
> > Not having looked into exactly how it works and if it's something we
> > want, but if we want to, any reason we can't just point it at the svn
> > mirror?
>
> Synchronization problems scare me.
AIUI we're talking about one way s
On Feb 5, 2008 10:54 PM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
> >
> > Yes, this problem goes way beyond OOM. Just try and configure
> > work_memory aggressively on a server that might see 50 database
> > connections, and do it in such a way that you won't swap. Good luck.
>
> That
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In terms of picking an SCM candidate, I don't think "time to install
> from source" is a legitimate concern. Installing from source is great,
> but if the package needs to be installed from source, it is not well
> enough supported by the community to be
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know Luke has mentioned some issues in the past as well around CPU
> boundness with an upper limit of 300M/s (IIRC) but even that doesn't
> equate to what is going on here as we are not getting anywhere near
> that.
Some vmstat and oprofile investi
Tom Lane wrote:
From a relative time to install from source standpoint it looks like
this:
CVS- 10 minutes (no external dependencies)
GIT- 8 minutes (no external dependencies)
Mercurial - 1 minute (depends on Python)
Subversion - 4-6 hours (depends on a multitude of packag
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I repeat. I am not arguing a particular solution. I am arguing against
> creating more internal infrastructure and the relevant support
> requirements when other solutions exist.
Who said anything about internal infrastructure? We'd be helping
anoth
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:00:33 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
I am not arguing any particular solution but home brewing a
solution so people can stay on what is definitely a dying SCM is
dumb. There are so many tools available to
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Magnus Hagander wrote:
No. It's on the list, but other things around the release haev priority.
I just returned from my Europe trip and have many things to do :)
//Magnus
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:43:09PM -0800, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Hi guys any updates on this? Pi
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 18:12, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I just realised you are using a lookup to get the text for the name of
> the lock. You used the same lookup table for both releases?
Oh, it wasn't quite that bad. :-) The two DTrace scripts had been
revised to correspond with the two different dec
I dont think my earlier message got through..
We use separate lookup tables for 825 and 83 based on the respective
lwlock.h for that version.
-Jignesh
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:29 +0100, Staale Smedseng wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
I am wo
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:07 -0500 (EST)
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > 8.2.6 after 2 hours has restored 41GB.
>
> I've been doing a long bulk import job recently (COPY) on a box with
> more spindles than yours (but with a dumb controller)
Josh,
Try it out. Setup a review-board installation, point it at your SVN
mirror. As long as people can "post" diffs (and from the the
screenshots, it looks like it has a "diff file" browse button), it
doesnt' really matter what "it" uses as it's backend, does it?
And if it turns out to be a g
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:00:33 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake escribió:
>
> > I am not arguing any particular solution but home brewing a
> > solution so people can stay on what is definitely a dying SCM is
> > dumb. There are so many tools available to us that we
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:29 +0100, Staale Smedseng wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I am wondering if the waits are being
> > attributed to the right locks --- I remember such an error in a previous
> > set of dtrace results, and some of the other details such as claiming
>
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> I am not arguing any particular solution but home brewing a solution so
> people can stay on what is definitely a dying SCM is dumb. There are
> so many tools available to us that we *don't* have to modify, bend,
> break or if you like, improve that any argument outside
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
8.2.6 after 2 hours has restored 41GB.
I've been doing a long bulk import job recently (COPY) on a box with more
spindles than yours (but with a dumb controller) and I too am stuck at
that speed; I calculate a consistant 19.6GB/hour. The actual dis
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:11:32 -0500
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Joshua D. Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Ergghh o.k. I am definitely missing something in the environment. By
> > your numbers I should be well over 100GB restored at 2.5 hours. I am
> > not. I am only 38GB in.
>
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:19:26 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:50:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm, the info on that last page might be out of date, but what it
> >> says is that the only SCMS they really supp
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:20:49 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:47:08 -0500
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Restore file 220G
> >>>
> >>> 8.2.6 and 8.3.0 are configured identically:
> >>>
> >>> sh
Hi all,
I am using version 8.3.0 of the source and compiled it with next options:
PostgreSQL config.status 8.3.0
configured by ./configure, generated by GNU Autoconf 2.59,
with options \"'--enable-cassert' '--enable-debug' '--enable-nls'
'--enable-integer-datetimes' '--with-perl' '--with-pytho
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:47:08 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Restore file 220G
8.2.6 and 8.3.0 are configured identically:
shared_buffers = 8000MB
work_mem = 32MB
maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
fsync = off
full_page_writes = off
checkpoint_segments =
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:50:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, the info on that last page might be out of date, but what it says is
>> that the only SCMS they really support 100% is SVN. The other ones they
>> claim support for don't work [well/at a
* Joshua D. Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Ergghh o.k. I am definitely missing something in the environment. By
> your numbers I should be well over 100GB restored at 2.5 hours. I am
> not. I am only 38GB in.
I'm guessing you've checked this, so don't shoot me if you have, but
How was the
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:47:08 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Restore file 220G
> >
> > 8.2.6 and 8.3.0 are configured identically:
> >
> > shared_buffers = 8000MB
> > work_mem = 32MB
> > maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
> > fsync = off
> > full_page_writes = off
> > checkpoint_s
James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The curre nt *plan* is for a 14 month cycle. And it will probably
> slip. Some of the queued items are going to be very old by the time
> you go to 8.4 on this program, which seems a shame.
What? The plan is to deal with them next month (in the first
Staale Smedseng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good catch. We've checked the DTrace scripts against the respective
> versions of lwlock.h, and the FirstLockMgrLock is off (this is actually
> the results for FirstBufMappingLock).
> However, this is the last lock in the enum that we trace, the other
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am wondering if the waits are being
> attributed to the right locks --- I remember such an error in a previous
> set of dtrace results, and some of the other details such as claiming
> shared lock delays but no exclusive lock delays for FirstLockMgrL
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:09:24AM +, Dave Page wrote:
>> What do other large build systems do?
> FWIW, the MSVC build ends up writing the list of object files to a temp
> file and then having the linker read that list. (This is all done behind
> t
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I have been testing a migration for a week now trying to get it into a
reasonable state. This is what we have:
Restore file 220G
8.2.6 and 8.3.0 are configured identically:
shared_buffers = 8000MB
work_mem = 32MB
maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
fsync = off
full_pa
S. Horio wrote:
> We are investigating the following error:
>
> ERROR: XX000: xlog flush request 1/50B823D8 is not satisfied --- flushed
> only to 1/50A711B0
>
> OS : Windows XP SP2
> Version : PostgreSQL8.1.4
Please upgrade to a supported version, which for Windows means either
8.2.6 or 8.3.
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I could do a demo install on the trackerdemo jail - that one seems to
have most of the prequisits and would not need work to get going. Not
sure I want to install MySQL there though - so we would have to go
with the sqlite backend for the t
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
I could do a demo install on the trackerdemo jail - that one seems to
have most of the prequisits and would not need work to get going. Not
sure I want to install MySQL there though - so we would have to go
with the sqlite backend for the test ;-)
Umm, we ne
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:50:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le Wednesday 06 February 2008 21:35:54 Peter Eisentraut, vous avez �crit�:
Yes, I feel we could use a group writeable patch queue of some sort.
Perhaps an IMAP server s
I need to restore two records from a lost transaction and I am having only
the WAL file, managed by Postgresql 7.4.17. The structure of records is:
* Record 1: varchar(400)[] with exact 191 elements, where al least 185
elements are just "*" and at most 6 are string with length>1. Like this
{first
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I have a patch working for me, I've sent it over to Gevik for testing in
his environment. Attached here if somebody else wants to play.
Looks OK.
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0,
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:30PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Am I correct to assume that HEAD is still 8.3? Or in other words, the bug
> fixes I just committed are they part of the 8.3 branch automatically and
> thus be included in 8.3.1?
Yes, it has not been branched yet.
//Magnus
---
Am I correct to assume that HEAD is still 8.3? Or in other words, the bug
fixes I just committed are they part of the 8.3 branch automatically and
thus be included in 8.3.1?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 06:12:17AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> >
> >>I might be very wrong, but when I try to install 8.3 on Windows with NLS
> >>options selected, no share/locale files are insta
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Gevik Babakhani wrote:
I might be very wrong, but when I try to install 8.3 on Windows with NLS
options selected, no share/locale files are installed. could someone please
test or confirm this?
Yes, it's broken. It seem
Zdenek is right.
Normal inlining using -O3 or higher means inlining within the source
file. I currently try to see the effect of inlining over all the
sources. The -xipo flag is specific to the Sun Studio (version 12)
suite. It creates large objects that now include meta data for the
fina
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:50:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Le Wednesday 06 February 2008 21:35:54 Peter Eisentraut, vous avez �crit�:
> >> Yes, I feel we could use a group writeable patch queue of some sort.
> >> Perhaps an IMAP server setup could
Peter Eisentraut napsal(a):
Paul van den Bogaard wrote:
The SunStudio compiler we are using fortunately has an option for
this. Unfortunately there are restrictions. One restriction I face is
its inability to deal with "ld -r"s. These are used in the build
environment to create all the SUBS
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> I might be very wrong, but when I try to install 8.3 on Windows with NLS
> options selected, no share/locale files are installed. could someone please
> test or confirm this?
Yes, it's broken. It seems the change in Install.pm rev
Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 schrieb Dave Page:
> What do other large build systems do?
I strongly suspect that they just fail unless run with GNU tools or some other
well-defined tool set.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadc
Le jeudi 07 février 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Hmm, the info on that last page might be out of date, but what it says is
> that the only SCMS they really support 100% is SVN. The other ones they
> claim support for don't work [well/at all] with the post-review tool.
Maybe this is all to naive to
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:09:24AM +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've sometimes wondered whether the SUBSYS.o files really offer any
> > advantage compared to just linking all the individual .o files. They
> > certainly eat disk space
Gregory Stark napsal(a):
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You can flush a pages by msync() function which writes dirty pages on
disk. I don't see any other problem.
Then you need to learn more. The side of the problem that is hard to
fix is that sometimes we need to prevent pages f
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 20:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 20:03 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> > I wonder how hard it would be to shove the clog into regular shared
> > memory pages and let the clock sweep take care of adjusting the
> > percentage of shared mem allocated to th
We are investigating the following error:
ERROR: XX000: xlog flush request 1/50B823D8 is not satisfied --- flushed
only to 1/50A711B0
OS : Windows XP SP2
Version : PostgreSQL8.1.4
It seems that "postmaster" or "autovacuum" process is
executed simultaneously, and it is affecting the WAL
r
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> You can flush a pages by msync() function which writes dirty pages on
>> >> disk. I don't see any other problem.
>> >
>> > Then you need to learn more. The side of the problem that is hard to
>> > fix is that sometimes we need to prevent pages f
On Feb 6, 2008 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've sometimes wondered whether the SUBSYS.o files really offer any
> advantage compared to just linking all the individual .o files. They
> certainly eat disk space, but perhaps they save some time ... or perhaps
> not, especially in
98 matches
Mail list logo
