in the drive write cache is lost, resulting in
corrupted logs.
Anyone else have more details?
Jord Tanner
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:57, Dror Matalon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:59:32AM -0500, Jeff wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:06:23 -0800
> > Jack Coates <[EMAIL
am relatively new to RDBMSs, so please do not laugh at me
> too loudly, you can laugh, just not too loudly and please do not point. :)
>
[snip]
--
Jord Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 11:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jord Tanner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > But CPU affinity isn't realated to hyperthreading, as far as I know.
> > > CPU affinity tries to keep processes on the same cpu in ca
familiar with the
intimate details.
--
Jord Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
ut, please
share your experiences with the list.
Jord Tanner
Independent Gecko Consultants
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:10, SZUCS Gábor wrote:
> "by default" -- do you mean there is a way to tell Linux to favor the second
> real cpu over the HT one? how?
>
> G.
> -
m It is all white box stuff, but they have
some really cool gear.
--
Jord Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
;
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Seq Scan on notiz_objekt a (cost=0.00..56125.80 rows=15561 width=12)
> (actual time=0.13..2300.74 rows=31122 loops=1)
>SubPlan
> -> Seq Scan on notiz_gelesen b (cost=0.00..1.79 rows=1 width=0)
> (actual time=0.07..0.07 rows=0 loops=31122)
> T
RAM, but only 2G of swap.
I'm sure others on the list will have more definitive opinions.
--
Jord Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
sub
