Where have you found this?
I've been looking for that but have not found it. I run a rh9 system, do
you have something newer? Maybe I have just not looked in the right place
in the documentation.
Glibc 2.3 implements both reentrant and a thread local locale APIs.
The reentrant API
needs to change the internal format to use a larger base, as Tom
suggested.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
) operations need long long support to implement in a
straightforward fashion.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message
base-1
representation --- four decimal digits per int16 --- and then eliminate
the distinction between storage format and computation format. See past
discussions in the pghackers archives.)
That sounds like it would help a lot. I certainly don't have any hard
evidence yet. Thanks for the pointe
Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely if we have an write exclusive table lock we can rewrite tuples
in place rather than creating new versions with its corresponding 2x
space requirement.
Nyet. Consider transaction rollback.
Well, the first thing to consider
Mark Butler wrote:
I did several tests with functions designed to sum the number 12345 a million
times. The results are as follows (Pentium II 450, Redhat 6.2):
Postgres PL/PGSQL original numeric:14.8 seconds
Postgres PL/PGSQL modified numeric:11.0 seconds
Postgres PL/PGSQL
---
Any ideas?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Thanks. I didn't realize the need to move the DOUBLE token from the TokenId to
the ColId production. Will this patch be integrated into the head branch?
- Mark Butler
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Mark Butler writes:
I was trying to make a minor change today to the gram.y file to make
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
Yes, good. Do we want this in 7.1.0 ? Seems, yes :-(
I agree this change is very good idea, but 7.2 is probably a better target.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
3. Done
}
Does this sound reasonable? Also, is anyone working on ALTER TABLE DROP
COLUMN right now?
Speaking of which, couldn't we make it so that UPDATES and DELETES running
under an exclusive table lock do an inline vacuum?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast
a "DOUBLE" synonym for it shouldn't make much of a
difference. Right?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
). Intermediate results could
be stored using a 128 bit format to avoid loss of precision.
Any comments?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
There are several ways to solve the problem:
1. Convert to common numeric format for all numbers, ala Oracle
2. Promote for comparison during the index scan
3. Promote index boundary values for comparison in query planner only
Convert back to index column type for actual scan
Option 1
for application portability testing or emulate Oracle's outer join
syntax, as a couple of examples.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
ame
number. (Oracle certainly doesn't)
Any comments?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
15 matches
Mail list logo
