On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Matt Burke wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Old row versions have to be kept around until they're no longer of
>>> interest to any still-running transaction.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> Regarding the
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Matt Burke wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Old row versions have to be kept around until they're no longer of
>> interest to any still-running transaction.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Regarding the snippet above, why would the intermediate history of
> multip
Robert Haas wrote:
> Old row versions have to be kept around until they're no longer of
> interest to any still-running transaction.
Thanks for the explanation.
Regarding the snippet above, why would the intermediate history of
multiply-modified uncommitted rows be of interest to anything, or is
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Matt Burke wrote:
>> Hi. I've only been using PostgreSQL properly for a week or so, so I
>> apologise if this has been covered numerous times, however Google is
>> producing nothing of use.
>>
>> I'm trying to im
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Matt Burke wrote:
> Hi. I've only been using PostgreSQL properly for a week or so, so I
> apologise if this has been covered numerous times, however Google is
> producing nothing of use.
>
> I'm trying to import a large amount of legacy data (billions of
> denormali
Hi. I've only been using PostgreSQL properly for a week or so, so I
apologise if this has been covered numerous times, however Google is
producing nothing of use.
I'm trying to import a large amount of legacy data (billions of
denormalised rows) into a pg database with a completely different schem
