Re: [HACKERS] PG 8.2
Hi Guys, thank you for the info. I asked the question because I thought that there is something like (pre-beta, not-officially relased) version Of PG 8.2 ;) . I will try with CVS. Thanks . Milen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:34 PM To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Andrew Dunstan; Milen Kulev Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG 8.2 On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:07:44PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Andrew, It does not yet exist. When it is released you will be able to download it from www.postgresql.org. That is some months away. I would have just said We don't know. If you can figure it out, let us know what's in 8.2, it will save us a lot of arguing. Ha! Anyway, you can get what will eventually become 8.2 via anonymous CVS, but it's still under active development, so caveat emptor. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[HACKERS] PG 8.2
Hi guy, Where I con download Postgres 8.2 from ? Regards Milen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
[HACKERS] PG process architecture
Hi listers, I am experienced Oracle DBA und now I was given a task to evaluate Postgresql. May first goal is to compare the architecture of Oracle and Postgres. After reading the fine manuals and several mailing lists, I have found that the following parameters are analogous in PG vs Oracle shared_buffers - db_cache_size wal_buffers - log_buffer shared_buffers and wal_buffers are residing in shared memory segments. My questions is: Where PG is storing data dictionary information (coming form system pg_* tables) while parsing the queries ? I suppose each each background process is parsing (and eventually caching) the parsed SQL statements in his own memory (within each backend process), aka there is no SHARED_POOL as in Oracle. That would mean that backand processes don't have a common place to check whether sa same SQL query (with the same planner environment) is already parsed (and ready for execution). That would mean that each backend process could reuse only his own parsed statements (provided that bind variables are used) Is there any parameter (apart from geqo_pool_size, I suppose) that limits the size of this private pool memory in each backend process? Consider the following scenario. If I have a system with 50 or 100 connection (and the corresponding 100 backend processes), and one session creates an index on a given table, how do the other 99 processes notice that they can use (or at least estimate the appropriatness of the usage of) the new index ? How PG ist doing this ? I would be very grateful if someone can sched some light /links, previous postings, comments/ on this topic. Regards, Milen -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] PG process architecture
Hi Harris, from oracle DBA point of view Enterprise DB is VERY cool. My boss will be very happy to hear that there a way to get (paid) support for a PG DB. But at the end I want to undestand how PG (and its clone Enterprise DB ) is working ;) . Hopefully I don't need to read the whole source of PG (several times) to understand a little bit deeper the internal mechanics of PG. Regards. Milen. --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- Von: Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Milen Kulev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] PG process architecture Datum: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:44:31 -0500 As an Oracle DBA, you may want to take a look at EnterpriseDB ( http://www.enterprisedb.com/) On 1/11/06, Milen Kulev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi listers, I am experienced Oracle DBA und now I was given a task to evaluate Postgresql. May first goal is to compare the architecture of Oracle and Postgres. After reading the fine manuals and several mailing lists, I have found that the following parameters are analogous in PG vs Oracle shared_buffers - db_cache_size wal_buffers - log_buffer shared_buffers and wal_buffers are residing in shared memory segments. My questions is: Where PG is storing data dictionary information (coming form system pg_* tables) while parsing the queries ? I suppose each each background process is parsing (and eventually caching) the parsed SQL statements in his own memory (within each backend process), aka there is no SHARED_POOL as in Oracle. That would mean that backand processes don't have a common place to check whether sa same SQL query (with the same planner environment) is already parsed (and ready for execution). That would mean that each backend process could reuse only his own parsed statements (provided that bind variables are used) Is there any parameter (apart from geqo_pool_size, I suppose) that limits the size of this private pool memory in each backend process? Consider the following scenario. If I have a system with 50 or 100 connection (and the corresponding 100 backend processes), and one session creates an index on a given table, how do the other 99 processes notice that they can use (or at least estimate the appropriatness of the usage of) the new index ? How PG ist doing this ? I would be very grateful if someone can sched some light /links, previous postings, comments/ on this topic. Regards, Milen -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
