On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 4/9/15 8:58 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > Well, you can have two approaches to this, either allow some specific
> > set of keywords that can be used to specify limit, or you let sampling
> > methods interpret parameters, I believe the
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> All in all, this is a bit clumsy and very time-consuming to pull off in
practice, but it's possible at least if the conditions are just right.
>
> What should we do about this? Make it configurable on a per-table basis?
I think making
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 05:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> What should we do about this?
>>
>>
>> I bet that there are at least 1000 covert channel attacks that are more
>> practically
On 04/10/2015 05:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Apr 9, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What should we do about this?
I bet that there are at least 1000 covert channel attacks that are more
practically exploitable than this.
Care to name some? This is certainly quite cumbersome to
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/11/15 8:21 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Attached is a series of patch rebased on current HEAD, there were some
> > conflicts after perl-tidying the refactoring patch for MSVC. Note that
> > this series still uses PGXS in the Makefiles, I am fine to update them
> > i
On 04/12/2015 02:56 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 10/04/15 18:03, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-04-07 17:08:16 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm starting benchmarks now.
What I'm benchmarking here is the WAL overhead, since that's what we're
debating.
The test setup I used was a pgbench scale 10 i
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> +typedef struct PgBackendSSLStatus
> >> +{
> >> +/* Information about SSL connection */
> >> +int ssl_bits;
> >> +boolssl_compress
On 10 April 2015 at 15:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> What is your intended use case for this feature?
Likely use cases are:
* Limits on numbers of rows in sample. Some research colleagues have
published a new mathematical analysis that will allow a lower limit
than previously considered.
* Time
ok, I will try it using git master branch source code. thanks! Of course, using
gsp-all-latest.patch this time.
At 2015-04-12 14:23:46, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM, 彭瑞华 wrote:
>> I am using postgesql 9.4.0. Thanks for your great work on grouping sets
>> patch ef
On 04/11/2015 07:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/11/2015 05:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
I have just noticed something slightly odd. The traces (obtained by
setting client_min_messages to debug1) from the blackhole FDW show that
the handler function is called each time an
On 04/11/2015 06:03 AM, David Rowley wrote:
Attached is a small patch which removes some duplicated words that have
crept into some comments.
Thanks, applied.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postg
11 matches
Mail list logo
