Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (I believe the previous discussion also agreed that we wanted to
>> postpone the freezing of now(), which currently also happens at
>> BEGIN rather than the first command after BEGIN.)
> That doesn't make sense to me
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I believe the previous discussion also agreed that we wanted to
> postpone the freezing of now(), which currently also happens at
> BEGIN rather than the first command after BEGIN.)
That doesn't make sense to me: from a user's perspective, the "start
of the
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe the previous discussion also agreed that we wanted to postpone
> the freezing of now(), which currently also happens at BEGIN rather than
> the first command after BEGIN.
Or should that happen at the first call to now()?
/me should ge back and try
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 02:16:56PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> otherwise-unoccupied connection in the pool, in effect, doing a sort
> of "vacuum" of the connections. I don't get very favorable reactions
> when I suggest that, though...
Because it's a kludge on top of another kludge, perhap
Will LaShell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Can't the backend be made to delay the "real" start of transaction until
>> the first query gets executed ?
> That seems counter intuitive doesn't it? Why write more code in the
> server when the client is the thing that has the
After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hannu Krosing), an earthling,
wrote:
> Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:13:
>> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rajesh Kumar Mallah)
>> wrote:
>> > INFO: "profiles": found 0 removable, 369195 no
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:13:
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rajesh Kumar Mallah) wrote:
INFO: "profiles": found 0 removable, 369195 nonremovable row versions in 43423 pages
DETAIL: 246130 dead row versions canno
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:13:
>> I have seen this happen somewhat-invisibly when a JDBC connection
>> manager opens transactions for each connection, and then no processing
>> happens to use those connections for a long time. The
Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 14.11.2003 kell 16:13:
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rajesh Kumar Mallah)
> wrote:
> > INFO: "profiles": found 0 removable, 369195 nonremovable row versions in 43423
> > pages
> > DETAIL: 246130 dead row versions cannot be removed
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rajesh Kumar Mallah)
wrote:
> INFO: "profiles": found 0 removable, 369195 nonremovable row versions in 43423 pages
> DETAIL: 246130 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
> Nonremovable row versions range from 136 to 2036 bytes long
On Friday 14 November 2003 12:51, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> my database seems to be taking too long for a select count(*)
> i think there are lot of dead rows. I do a vacuum full it improves
> bu again the performance drops in a short while ,
> can anyone please tell me if anything worn
Hi ,
my database seems to be taking too long for a select count(*)
i think there are lot of dead rows. I do a vacuum full it improves
bu again the performance drops in a short while ,
can anyone please tell me if anything worng with my fsm settings
current fsm=55099264 (not sure how i calculate
12 matches
Mail list logo
