> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: 03 July 2006 23:56
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: [HACKERS] buildfarm stats
>
>
> Sometime in late June the buildfarm passed 50,000 builds reported on.
> Here ar
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
> Sent: 04 July 2006 05:53
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: [HACKERS] system info functions
>
> (1) The docs claim that pg_get_viewdef() returns the "CREATE VIEW
> command f
Mark,
I don't know how it will exactly works in postgres but my expectations are:
Mark Woodward wrote:
Is there a difference in PostgreSQL performance between these two
different strategies:
if(!exec("update foo set bar='blahblah' where name = 'xx'"))
exec("insert into foo(name, bar) value
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 11:59:27AM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Mark,
> I don't know how it will exactly works in postgres but my expectations are:
>
> Mark Woodward wrote:
> >Is there a difference in PostgreSQL performance between these two
> >different strategies:
> >
> >
> >if(!exec("update fo
Thank you for the feed-back. In fact the risk seems neglibible, but it means that at least I'm not misunderstanding what that code does...Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: paolo romano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> My doubts now concern MultixactID wrap-around management. > Afaics, it is pos
> > >Is there a difference in PostgreSQL performance between these two
> > >different strategies:
> > >
> > >
> > >if(!exec("update foo set bar='blahblah' where name = 'xx'"))
> > >exec("insert into foo(name, bar) values('xx','blahblah'"); or
In pg, this strategy is generally more efficient,
"Dave Page" writes:
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
>> Should we change the documentation, or the implementation of
>> pg_get_viewdef()?
> Documentation, unless we want to break apps that use the function.
... such as pg_dump.
regards, tom lane
---
I just noticed this warning:
gcc -O -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -g
-pthread -D_REENTRANT -D_THREAD_SAFE -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -fpic
-DFRONTEND -I. -I../../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -I/usr/includ
Just wanted to make clear to Hackers that the gates are now open to
include other parameters for CREATE INDEX, as originally requested here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00851.php
The new WITH (param=value...) syntax could easily be extended to include
a variety of oth
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just wanted to make clear to Hackers that the gates are now open to
> include other parameters for CREATE INDEX, as originally requested here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00851.php
Just to follow up on the discussion of that t
> Thanks for the stats Andrew. Out of interest, can you easily tabulate
> the number of failures against OS?
Or, more generally, even put a dump of the DB (without personal infos
of course :) somewhere?
Bye, Chris.
PS: and don't say you're running it in MySQL ;)
---
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 22:14, Chris Mair wrote:
> > Thanks for the stats Andrew. Out of interest, can you easily tabulate
> > the number of failures against OS?
>
> Or, more generally, even put a dump of the DB (without personal infos
> of course :) somewhere?
>
> Bye, Chris.
>
> PS: and don't say
12 matches
Mail list logo
