Hannu,
1) possibility to explicitly change table status to READ-ONLY .
2) setting a flag CAN_OMIT_HEAP_CHECK after REINDEX TABLE for tables
that are READ-ONLY
3) changing postgres planner/executor to make use of this flag, by not
going to heap for tuples on tables where CAN_OMIT_HEAP_CHECK
On 4/22/2005 3:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tuples fetched is the number of raw, possibly dead tuples fetched from
the heap. Tuples returned is the number of alive tuples ... IIRC.
No, count_heap_fetch only counts tuples that have already passed the
snapshot test.
You make some good points below. I personally think C++ would be an
interesting change. It would bring additional functionality to the
language, but patch application would also have to filter C++ feature
additions along with the code changes themselves, and there is
variability in C++
-Original Message-
From: Dann Corbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:08 PM
To: Andrew Dunstan; Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 11:58:44AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
Dave Held wrote:
Consider inline functions. In C, you have to implement them as
macros
No -- inline functions are in C99, and of course there have been GCC
extensions with similar (but not identical) semantics for many years.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!! :)
[...]
I recall saying something like this when we
If it is ok with you, I'll review these for a General Bits article
and then link them up at varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits
with some of the other talks I've collected.
--elein
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:33:49PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
A few hours ago, I gave a talk at linux.conf.au on the
You should read the archives of this list; there was a pretty long
thread about this a few months ago. IIRC the consensus after much debate
was that this feature would add benefit in many instances, especially on
large tables where only a small amount of data changes.
Also, I think there is value
* Greg Stark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the 'md5' method the server will send will send a randomly
generated salt to the client which will then concatenate the user's name
to the password, perform an md5 on that result, then concatenate the
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 17:27 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 22:27:01 -0400,
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHA2 would also be nice.
I think the new hash functions are called SHA256 and SHA512.
For Postgres' purposes the recent weaknesses found in SHA1 and
10 matches
Mail list logo
