Will 7.5 fix the issue of the over-zealous locking with foreign key
constraints - where two separate transactions can't simultaneously insert
records that reference the same parent record?
Wes
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscri
On 7/8/04 11:28 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I have removed the changes I just added to allow threads for 7.4.X
> on OSX. This stuff had to be dealt with before 7.4 final, and I don't
> want to play with it at this point. 7.5 thread testing is automatic so
> people will h
Your message from 7/2 just showed up today.
> db=# explain analyze SELECT id FROM object WHERE name ~ '^Jon V';
I use leading substring indexing all the time. Try:
SELECT id FROM object WHERE name like 'Jon V%';
Wes
---(end of broadcast)---
T
If max_fsm_pages is too small and I have space not reclaimed by vacuum, if I
increase max_fsm_pages and restart postmaster, will the next VACUUM ANALYZE
relcaim all overlooked pages or must I do a VACUUM FULL?
Wes
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: th
On 6/26/04 3:01 PM, "Keary Suska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I attempted to compile 7.4.3 with enable-thread-safety but it fails and
>> says it's not supported. My configure command was:
>>
>> ./configure --enable-thread-safety
>
> This is what I did for 10.3.4/7.4.2:
>
> 1. Enabled thread s
On 5/19/04 6:49 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a 7.2.1 backend running VACUUM which appears to be blocking all other
>> processes. I have issued SIGTERM and SIGINT directly to that backend and
>> also killed the client process, but the VACUUM continues chewing up CPU and
>> b
On 5/9/04 1:58 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure how either of these techniques map into ecpg though.
> If you want to use ecpg then I'd suggest bringing up the question on
> pgsql-interfaces --- the ecpg gurus are more likely to be paying
> attention over there.
I got som
On 5/9/04 9:32 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure it is a network problem? What performance do you get
> if you run the same test program locally on the database machine?
> How about issuing the same sort of FETCH commands via a psql script?
Yes, it is definitely due to the
On 4/27/04 11:48 PM, "David Garamond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean software RAID is actually safer than hardware RAID?
> (Since the OS and processor is usually more reliable than a disc
> controller).
I'm not sure I would jump to that conclusion. If a controller went bad and
trash
On 4/26/04 3:25 PM, "Glen Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds an aweful lot like RAID level one :-) Why would a DB system need to
> do what RAID already does quite well?
One case I can think of is where the shadow is on a separate system (e.g. a
SAN or NetApps, another linux box, etc.).
On 4/25/04 11:06 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, CVS is ready. I unconditionally defined:
>
> -D_REENTRANT -D_THREAD_SAFE -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS
>
> for all ports. It can't hurt if they are not supported, but it makes
> our job easier for porting. It allowed me
On 4/25/04 4:21 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I just did some major wacking of the thread stuff and tried it on
> FreeBSD 4.9. It failed because getpwuid() isn't thread-safe on that
> platform, and there isn't a getpwuid_r() function, but it did pick up
> -pthread as a vali
I've got a 2 hour index build that has been running for 9 hours. With 'ps
-efl' I see that there is a VACUUM ANALYZE running that started 24 hours ago
and my index build is 'wating'. I sent a SIGINT to postmaster and it kicked
all sessions out, but the VACUUM is still running so postmaster won't
On 4/6/04 10:54 AM, "Jan Wieck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Cursors seem as if they have some nice performance benefits (esp. if
>> you're not using all rows found), but their usefulness drops
>> considerably since you must leave a transaction open.
>
> And now you know why they are so good if
On 4/4/04 11:43 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, new patch applied that causes all threads to wait until the parent
> checks their thread-specific pointers. I ran 1000 tests and all passed.
> Hopefully it will good for you too.
I'll try to give it a test tonight.
>> Dumb ques
On 4/4/04 7:28 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I know the cause of this. The problem is that sometimes hostnames
> don't resolve, and the bigger problem is that it requires an internet
> connection to run the tests. The attached patch tests for 'localhost'
> and your local h
> I have applied the following patch to CVS head which does a getpid() in
> the loop, rather than nothing. getpid() should force a system call,
> which will make it more likely for the other thread to get CPU time and
> complete its tests.
Works for me...
However, there seems to be a reliability
On 4/1/04 6:00 PM, "Manfred Koizar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what are your settings for random_page_cost, effective_cache_size,
> and sort_mem?
I didn't read close enough last time. Random_page_cosst, cpu_tuple_cost,
cpu_index_tuple_cost, and cpu_operator_cosst are all at default.
Effect
On 3/25/04 3:43 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume you were using 7.4.0, rather than 7.4.2. Current CVS has in
> template/solaris:
>
>
> # tools/thread/thread_test must be run
> # -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS enables 5-arg getpwuid_r, among other
> things
> if test "$GCC" =
On 3/10/04 10:03 AM, "Csaba Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is the foreign key. Checking foreign keys in postgres is implemented
> by locking the corresponding row in the parent table. So if you have 2
> transactions inserting rows which reference the same keys in the parent
> table in rever
20 matches
Mail list logo
