Is this a TODO?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:57:59PM -0400, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
I find that some clients (DBVisualizer for one) do exactly that -
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:54:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:57:59PM -0400, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
I find that some clients (DBVisualizer for one) do exactly that -
execute the COMMIT;BEGIN
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah. We agreed in principle awhile back to fix this on the backend
side by postponing the actual transaction start until the first command
after BEGIN. I looked at this just before 7.4 feature freeze, but
decided it wasn't quite trivial and I hadn't time to
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:31:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah. We agreed in principle awhile back to fix this on the backend
side by postponing the actual transaction start until the first command
after BEGIN. I looked at this just before 7.4 feature
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
I find that some clients (DBVisualizer for one) do exactly that -
execute the COMMIT;BEGIN sequence, and leaves idle
transactions on a consistent basis.
The 7.5 JDBC driver has been fixed to avoid this problem.
Kris Jurka
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. We agreed in principle awhile back to fix this on the backend
side by postponing the actual transaction start until the first command
after BEGIN.
Actually, my patch is waiting for you to review it ;-) On the other
hand, since I'm already
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Several things. I think I wrote them along with my previous patch. The
visibility rules and the pg_clog protocol are what comes to mind
immediately. This is the difficult part.
Difficult part? I think those are easy --- they are narrow and already
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Chaney
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] postgresql idle
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 09:12:27PM -0400, Jon Pastore wrote:
This perl script is designed to handle payment posting for an
application we developed. It runs
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Jon Pastore wrote:
pgsql thought there was a transaction in progress and was waiting
for it to complete when in fact the commit had already taken place.
Come again? That doesn't sound possible. What ismore likely is that
somebody issues COMMIT;BEGIN;
I find that some clients (DBVisualizer for one) do exactly that -
execute the COMMIT;BEGIN sequence, and leaves idle
transactions on a consistent basis.
On Apr 29, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Jon Pastore wrote:
pgsql thought there was a
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 09:12:27PM -0400, Jon Pastore wrote:
This perl script is designed to handle payment posting for an application we
developed. It runs fine on our development server which is running apache
1.3.27 on ES 2.1
on the production server the script hangs and we see the
I have a strange
error.
when I do a ps aux
I get:
postgres
15018 0.0 0.6 9192 7396
? S
09:20 0:00 /usr/bin/perl
/www/nexum/cgi-bin/accounting/posting/automatic_postingpostgres 15019
0.0 0.3 25696 4176 ?
S 09:20 0:00 postgres: postgres nexum [local]:
idle
a little bit about
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
