[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, same random number generation is not the

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 5/13/16 5:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: If we do decide to change the numbering strategy, there are quite a few small details that probably ought to be fixed while we're at it. I think it'd be a good idea to start separating "devel" or "betaN" with a dot, for instance, like "10.devel" not "10devel".

Re: [HACKERS] Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

On 4/29/16 10:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables without pg_upgrade or other modification). Technically, this is exactly what pg_upgrade does. I think what you really mean is for the backend binary to be able to read the

Re: [HACKERS] Just-in-time compiling things (was: asynchronous and vectorized execution)

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Konstantin Knizhnik writes: > >> Latest information from ISP RAS guys: them have made good progress >> since February: them have rewritten most of methods of Scan, Aggregate >> and Join to LLVM API. > > Is their

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM Andres Freund wrote: > I think it's a good idea to run a force-parallel run on some buildfarm > members. But I'm rather convinced that the core tests run by all animals > need some minimal coverage of parallel queries. Both because otherwise >

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 15/05/16 14:42, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa > wrote: On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote: +1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc. It will hopefully

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > > On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> +1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc. >> >> It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the confusion the >> current versioning

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote: +1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc. It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the confusion the current versioning scheme has (I too heard way to many times about people using postgres8 or postgres9). Even

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: >> I think moving to a two-number format is a mistake: what exactly will >> PQserverVersion() return in that case? > > For, say, 10.2 it would be 12, equivalent to 10.0.2

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> >> Yes, same random number generation is not the problem. In windows apart > >> >> from EEXIST error, EACCES also needs to be

Re: [HACKERS] Losing memory references - SRF + SPI

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Anderson Carniel wrote: > Thank you very much Joe. > > I have followed the crosstab() implementation and understood the idea of per > query memory context. Now, I am using a unique SPI instance (which I perform > several sql queries), process