over
time. In general, we should be less worried about the age of a bug vs
our expectations that users are likely to hit that bug now, which does
seem high based on the above numbers.
In the meantime, it's certainly worth warning users, providing help on
how to determine if this is a l
a major
major version changes.
Given the overhead from a development standpoint is low, whats the
better user experience: delay removal for as long as possible (~10
years) to narrow the likely of people being affected, or make such
changes as visible as possible (~6+ years) so that people have c
in the
presence of node failures is a non-trivial problem. Still, I'd prefer
to see Postgres head in the direction of providing more options in
this area rather than drawing a firm line at being a CP-oriented
system.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
be interested
in looking at it.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
* Robert Treat:
Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't
willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides
checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
off
to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
off that will be asked for? Yes, it is unfair of course, but it's
interesting how small the camp of those using checksummed filesystems
is.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
magic than people would
like. :-)
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
. Just operating on an
explicit one instead will be simpler and more robust.
lmk if you need help, we'll be doing this with some of our tools /
projects anyway, it probably wouldn't hurt to coordinate.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
in advance.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11/08/2011 05:07 PM, Robert Treat wrote:
It's already easy to get good enough numbers based on user space
tools with very little overhead, so I think it's more important that
the server side tool be accurate rather than
space
tools with very little overhead, so I think it's more important that
the server side tool be accurate rather than fast. Of course, if we
can get both, that's a bonus, but I'd rather not go that route at the
expense of accuracy. Just my .02.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting
independent.
If they aren't I don't think we need both columns. +1 for leaving them
independent though.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
they are working on, at the risk that we'd need to build
more complex parsing into the various monitoring scripts, but I guess
it's no worse than before (and I guess probably easier on some level).
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
So, we
and break backwards compatibility.
Updating the tools will be simple for those who need it, and make a
view to work around it will be simple for those who don't. Happy to
add an example view definition to the docs if it will help.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent
be possible.
It's possible to run a replica without having a recovery.conf file
is not the same thing as If someone makes a recovery.conf file, it
won't break my operations. AIUI, you are not supporting the latter.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql
.
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
the biggest criticism we've gotten is that it wasn't
written in python, for some of you that might be a plus though ;-)
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
listed yet... guess I should go pester him).
Robert Treat
conjecture: xzilla.net
consulting: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
the 100 patch pile up in CF#4, there's no
expectation that those patches will be committed, just that they can
be sanity checked for the 9.2 release.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
CF #1: June 1-30
CF #2: August 1-31
CF #3: October 1-31
CF #4 (one week shortened CF): December 1-7
CF
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 04:00, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
I have a server where I wanted to do some reporting on a standby, and
wanted to set the max standby delay to 1 hour. upon doing that, i get
in microseconds.
OTOH, maybe it's a bug? The default resolution is in milliseconds, and
you can't set it to anything less than that (afaict). I asked on irc
and the consensus seemed to be that the internal representation is
off, are we missing something?
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
hiring
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:21, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net writes:
Did anything ever come of this discussion?
I think it's a TODO --- nothing done about it as yet, AFAIR.
On one
to
the database.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
hiring: l42.org/Lg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
stop part).
ISTM this fails in general, so not blaming pg_upgrade; I think there
should probably be a fix in pg_dumpall to create all roles first
before running the alters, but there might be some other options.
Thoughts?
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
hiring: l42.org/Lg
the information when you need
it.
Robert Treat
http://www.xzilla.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
the primary.
HTH, looks pretty good at first glance.
Robert Treat
http://www.xzilla.net
the idea of building this
directly into pg_dump. (The only thing better would be to make everything
thing sql callable, but that's a problem for another day).
Robert Treat
http://www.xzilla.net
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 15:07 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
If more than one standby server specifies synchronous_replication,
then
whichever standby replies first will release waiting commits.
I don't want you
in
this context, so I am hoping someone can help clarify it for me?
Robert Treat
http://www.xzilla.net
with fast storage rather than slow storage, the better
off you'd be (and that random_page_cost is not so wholly inclusive enough to
do this for you).
Robert Treat
http://www.xzilla.net
what to do if you want to leave off the CONSTRAINT name clause.
Because this seems plain weird.
+1
Robert Treat
play: http://www.xzilla.net
work: http://www.omniti.com/is/hiring
it super
consistent, then I think you need to include it.
Robert Treat
play: http://www.xzilla.net
work: http://www.omniti.com/is/hiring
things
like managing failover scenarios when you have multiple slaves, and it's the
lack of capabilities around those kinds of things that hurt postgres
adoption much more than it being hard to set up.
Robert Treat
play: http://www.xzilla.net
work: http://omniti.com/is/hiring
on it, but thought
I'd ask first.
--
Robert Treat
Play: http://www.xzilla.net
Work: http://omniti.com/is/hiring
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
interesting year with GSoC,
and hoping you'll join in.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't
downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite
plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres.
Translation: we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me
with PostgreSQL. I'm not saying there aren't
downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite plus, and
imho that name has to be Postgres.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql
doesn't matter, as long
as I can select it out. Bonus points for being able to get information from
the hot standby.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
to provide some additional
facilities after the fact as we get more of these systems deployed.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
=aclexplode
HTH
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
. Given that this time the
must-have feature is already in the tree, I think you will find people coming
around quickly to the side of pushing things out rather than fighting to get
things in.
Just my .02
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
On Sunday 10 January 2010 01:38:07 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
... I don't see much sense in worrying about it now; the 2 weeks between
end of CF and Beta are when we need to be cut-throat. Given that this
time the must-have feature is already
of the failure has been addressed and a correctly designed test
executed.
I will wait a day for your confirmation and/or other's comments.
Looks good from my end, thanks Simon.
Robert Treat
http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
to back.
LMK if you have any questions.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Jan 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 14:41 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
Doing some testing with 8.5alpha3, my standby crashed this morning
whilst
doing some testing. Seems I have a core file, so thought I would
send a report.
Version: PostgreSQL 8.5alpha3
On Jan 7, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 16:56 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
Not much more to send really.
No problem. I can see what causes it, nothing more required, thanks.
What I don't fully understand yet is why the error hasn't shown itself
before, because
.
I got the impression that this is doable with current SEPostgres stuff, would
be nice to see a little more detailed writeup on how to do it. Especially if
it could be linked to the hosting providors page in the wiki.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http
save
me some trouble. Thanks in advance.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
in
stand-alone mode that had system indexes disabled...I could be misremembering
that so that the postmaster would start, I just couldn't connect unless in
stand-alone. In any case this does seem less than ideal, but if there aren't
any better options...
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http
and most people don't need or want it.
That's too bad. I'd much rather see someone implement something closer to
Oracle's number type.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
a good job at finding corrupted xlogs. istr Theo
submitted a patch, but I think the author had abandoned it. Personally I'd
love to see it moved into postgresql proper (and get the cleaning/updating
that implies).
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 14:03:14 Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 28 April 2009 20:43:38 Robert Treat wrote:
We had started down the path of making a function to read deleted tuples
from a table for a DR scenario we were involved with once. The idea was
that you could do
got
less agressive about this after a few people reported to me that they had run
out of lock slots on thier systems. Now, you'd think that ~300 lock slots
wouldn't make that much difference, but it did make me a little nervous; so I
thought I'd mention it.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http
delete/update, at the cost of having to sift through extra data,
they would make that trade in a heartbeat.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
, I often do \df *.sin when looking for a function I'm not sure of where it
lives exactly; this being on current (=8.3) releases, but many of the
systems involve a fair number of schemas, that might not be a common
practice, but perhaps should be.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http
/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist
Fixed.
Thanks! :)
Yes, thanks!
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
with an
external log rotation tool.
Hey! We were just complaining about this behavior the other day at $dayjob. We
were considering hacking our build to make it stop doing this ourselves, but
decided to use syslog in the end. Nice to see this feature disappear. :-)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http
will join in. Outside of that I think we're wasting our time on this.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
schema? People who took my advice and did that for tsearch were mighty happy
when 8.2 broke at the C level, and when 8.3 broke all around. Doing that for
hstore now would make the transition a little easier in the future as well.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting
at your list of twenty things and see what can be
delegated out to others.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org
works.
I think this bypasses a lot of the issues which Tom raises, but I'd want
to think about the various permutations some more.
How bad of an idea would it be to split set session authorization to be
privilege specific, and set role to focus on configiuration?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 03:22:30 Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 21:11 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 16:43:54 Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 13:33 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
You raised that as an annoyance previously because it means
wondering if there might be other performanace implications that I'm not
aware of? Anyone ever run with 6 figure fsm relations (not just pages)
before?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
), right ?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
strong warnings in the migrator docs
about this case imho.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
/process difference, is also be available for pg_dump, and has
existing mindshare with autovacuum workers.
not having a short option seems ok to me too, but I really think -N is a bad
idea.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
index 3380b80..ddf23d8 100644
--- a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
+++ b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
@@ -118,6
inclined to think
they aren't in there, but can someone confirm for our release announcement if
8.3.6 et al have Argentinian timezone updates? (Or any other updates we
should mention) TIA
Robert Treat
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [pgsql-slavestothewww] New News Entry (id
On Friday 06 February 2009 10:43:30 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
I know that the fedora tzdata-2009a packages have the Argentian changes
(as well as some others depending on version of fedora), but I'm not
sure what is includedin the original package
manageable (right up untill the end, when
we stopped the cycle), and also delivered us some really big features along
the way.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
and developers.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
dev
cycles than I'm talking about for 8.5. And I think most people (aka not the
patch authors :-) would have been willing to push the stuff we're dealing
with now if they knew the next release would be closer to 6 months than 14
months.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 12:35:42 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 08:55:56 Magnus Hagander wrote:
We're still going to have to pay the full cost of doing a release every
time. With beta/rc management, release notes
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 20:12:40 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
The revisionism was that of remarkable failure. That was our shortest
release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the
commitfest process.
But I think what is important here
to help.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
of an
issue)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
on will give them something
as good as what they are getting now. So yeah, HS appeals to future users as
well.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
- release 8.6
rinse, repeat
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 18:51:01 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
Now I am starting to think that we cannot prevent large patches from
showing up at the end of a cycle no matter what, and the only way to
really solve that problem is to lesson the pain
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 19:04:49 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 10:34:59 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
We have tried the short release cycle before, it was called 8.2. It
fails, remarkably.
I think this is a bit of revisionsit
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 21:07:48 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
The more I think about it, the more I feel that where we failed for 8.3
was not having a short 8.4 cycle lined up, which would give more freedom
to bump patches to the next release.
Heh
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 20:21:41 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 00:27:10 Tino Wildenhain wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
Ref: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00198.php
1. Create a generic
, one hurdle on Solaris, I had to get a different version of patch to
handle Simon's diff... ugh!)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
a --no-stats flag.
This is a documentation only patch, not tied to a recent code change.
s/varriable/variable/g
also, I forget which way is proper, but you're inconsistent with your closing
tags for application in that paragraph (using both /application and /)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture
to any of us. (Though
for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a
copyright notice at all).
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
and destroy
the slave. With query cancel, you might be annoyed to see the queries
canceled, but theres no way that you would destroy the slave. (That might not
have been what he meant though)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql
for queries, are probably enough for a
first go around (especially if you can get the query canceling to work only
when changes are made to the specific database in question)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
can be
done online. (This might require some extra modules / high end version of
Oracle, please consult your local Oracle wizard for more details)
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
, if you have a
patch for 8.4 that is already submitted but not committed, keep hacking!
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
On Monday 28 January 2008 05:37:03 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Treat:
Note we've been using Theo's plperl bytea patch on one of our
production servers for some time; if anyone wants access to that
lmk.
I'm interested. Could you post a pointer to this code, please?
I had to do some
not excited about adding this one.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
diminshing returns from increasing dst. I think the way to do this would be
to plot dst setting vs. query time; Robert, do you think you could modify
your test to measure prepare time and then execute time over a series of
runs?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting
for?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
multiple times per
statement wouldn't it? That behavior might be rather surprising for folks. I
guess the alternative is to have it fire only on the parent in an inheritance
stack. I'm not sure that's much more defensible, but maybe it's more
practical?
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http
, but it would allow
for easily tracking these via dtrace if we had one.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref
1 - 100 of 828 matches
Mail list logo
