I think this commit was ill-advised:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a03feb9354bda5084f19cc952bc52ba7be89f372
In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered into the
system catalogs in one transaction, then the two table scans occur in a
-
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> ProcArrayLock looks like a tougher nut to crack - there's simply no
> way, with the system we have right now, that you can take a snapshot
> without locking the list of running processes. I'm not sure what to
> do about that, but we're probabl
Different ranges over the same subtype make sense when using different
total orders for the subtype. This is most apparent with text collation,
but makes sense (at least mathematically, if not practically) for any
subtype.
For instance:
[a, Z)
is a valid range in "en_US", but not in "C", so it ma
On lör, 2011-06-25 at 13:36 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> However, since this is really just a case of unused variables and not
> a leaked connection, I'm inclined to just fix git master -- comments
> on that?
Please put it into 9.1 as well, so we can get a clean compile with gcc
4.6 there.
--
Sen
On 06/14/2011 07:41 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Otherwise the connection might not get freed. Could someone verify
>> that?
>
> ISTM that the root problem is that dblink_send_query calls DBLINK_GET_CONN
> though it doesn't accept the conne
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> BTW, isn't bitgetpage() in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c missing
> PredicateLockTuple() and CheckForSerializableConflictOut() calls in
> the codepath for a lossy bitmap? In the non-lossy case,
> heap_hot_search_buffer() takes care of it, but not in the lossy
> case.
I think
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > New patch attached, with that one-line change.
>
> Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to
> commit?
1. Patch does not apply to master cleanly, and it'
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:35:08PM +0800, HuangQi wrote:
> Hi,
>I'm trying to debug a modification for the query planner. But I found it
> seems the data structure of my planned query is incorrect. I was trying to
> print out the data structure by use the "p" command in gdb which is quite
> inc
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> * Wouldn't it be natural to measure the performance benefits of
> disc-bound tests in an SSD setup?
>
Sure, it would be great to run performance tests on SSD drives too.
Unfortunately, I don't have corresponding test platform just now.
..
On 2011-06-06 09:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
took about 15 hours without the patch, and 2 hours with it. That's
quite dramatic.
With the precense of robust consumer-class SSD-drives that can be
found in sizes where they actually can fit "many" database usage
scenarios. A PostgreSQL version is
10 matches
Mail list logo
