Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here are the diffs for the regression test failures on Solaris 8.
> The tests work fine on Redhat9 and Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.
... and most other platforms ...
> select 1/0;
> ! ERROR: floating-point exception
> ! DETAIL: An invalid floating-p
Hi,
While configuring OpenCRX by using Postgresql i am facing probmelm.
The problem while creating db using the command ( createdb -h
localhost -E utf8 -U system crx-CRX ) .
Erro:
createdb: could not connect to database template1: could not connect
to server:
Connection refused
Is the se
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 23:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It is not a 100% solution because it does not
> cover the case where a waiting exclusive locker is released, then a new
> shared locker arrives at the lock before the exclusive locker is given
> any cycles to acquire the lock. However I don't se
The failure that I posted earlier for 8.0.0beta5 on Solaris 8/SPARC
with gcc-3.4.0 and -O3 can be worked around by disabling the interblock
scheduling. I used the following gcc options and 8.0.0beta5 built fine
on the SPARC Solaris 8 machine:
gcc -O3 -fno-sched-interblock ...
The Redhat 9 and Red
To a degree you are correct. AFAIK new downloads could not start if the
tracker crashed. The tracker is the traffic cop that tells peer nodes
about each other. I dont believe the tracker that comes from the main
bit torrent author allows for multiple trackers with a common data
repository, bu
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Bort, Paul wrote:
> > From: Kenneth Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
> > The simplest idea I had was to pre-layout the WAL logs in a
> > contiguous fashion
> > on the disk. Solaris has this ability given appropriate FS
> > parameters and we
> >
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
No you can not, but the tracker isn't very resource intesive from my past
experience. I can host it if needed.
It wasn't that that I was thinking of ... just wondering if there was some
Here are the diffs for the regression test failures on Solaris 8.
The tests work fine on Redhat9 and Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.
Ken Marshall
*** ./expected/errors.out Sat Mar 13 22:25:17 2004
--- ./results/errors.outTue Nov 23 14:09:45 2004
***
*** 297,303
-- Chec
Oops! vertigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Hello
> I need to "pg_dump" my database, but i want only to receive sql
> commands which will insert row which were inserted into database
> today. Is there any way to do it ?
> I have large database and i want to make "incremen
Hello
I need to "pg_dump" my database, but i want only to receive sql commands
which will insert row which were inserted into database today. Is there
any way to do it ?
I have large database and i want to make "incremential backups".
Thanx
Michal
---(end of broadcast)---
I wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> AFAICS, that is not the case. See lwlock.c, circa line 264: in LW_SHARED
>> mode, we check if "exclusive" is zero; if so, we acquire the lock
>> (increment the shared lock count and do not block). And "exclusive" is
>> set non-zero only when
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > We have discussed this at length and no one could state why having an
> > > timeout per lock is any better than using a statement_timeout.
> >
> > Ac
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Anyway, it shows a situation where it would be nice to differentiate
>> between statement_timeout and lock_timeout OR it demonstrates that I
>> should be using userlocks...
> Wouldn't a LOCK NOWAIT be a better solution? That is new
Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > We have discussed this at length and no one could state why having an
> > timeout per lock is any better than using a statement_timeout.
>
> Actually, I hit one.
>
> I have a simple queue and a number of processe
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 22:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> We have discussed this at length and no one could state why having an
> timeout per lock is any better than using a statement_timeout.
Actually, I hit one.
I have a simple queue and a number of processes pulling jobs out of the
queue. D
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Better yet, could TRIGGER functions be allowed to
> return nothing (ala VOID)?
> Which would tell the backend to assume that the row wasn't changed and
> proceed with its handling. This is the preferred approach, IMHO... but
> I think is the har
ronzo wrote:
> Hi
>
> Was already implemented the timeout on the "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE"
> (non-blocking lock) and/or is possible known if the lock exist on the
> specified ROW before executing the SELECT?
>
> Please note: ours need is the timeout/verify at the ROW level, not at the
> table le
Hello, Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
plpgsql did not support @id as parameter(need double-quote), somebody suggest
me to use vid
for parameter. When use vid as parameter for plpgsql, in C# program we use
@vid, Npgql
will delete @, then pass vid to plpgsql. So I want to change Npgsql not to
delete @
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arnold.Zhu wrote:
| I want to use @id, @name as plpgsql's parameter, then I've no need to
change C# source,
| only change Npgsql driver not to trim "@" and stored procedure to plpgsql.
|
Hi Arnold,
Npgsql already supports parameter names starting with @
Neil Conway wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > --help and --version are the standard options that are supported
> > everywhere. In the era before we had long options everywhere, we
> > implemented -V as an alternative in some programs, in particular those
> > in and around initdb, because of
Now that pgmemcache is getting more use, I've heard a couple of groans
regarding the need to have two functions with exactly the same code
body. This is necessary because there is no generic way of handling
NEW/OLD. For example:
[snip] Err... wait, this is a classic case of send first then
f
Now that pgmemcache is getting more use, I've heard a couple of groans
regarding the need to have two functions with exactly the same code
body. This is necessary because there is no generic way of handling
NEW/OLD. For example:
db=# CREATE FUNCTION schma.tbl_ins_upd() RETURNS TRIGGER AS 'BEG
Hi,
I have an intermittent bug in PL/Java that only shows up on Win32. Is
there any way of debugging the postgres.exe process that corresponds to
your connection on a win32 (MinGW) platform?
I have a MinGW environment with gdb but I can't figure out how to make
gdb attach to a running process i
I think a summary of where the discussion went might be helpful
(especially for me after a week or so away doing perl).
There were a number of approaches suggested, which I will attempt to
summarize in a hand wavy fashion - (apologies for any misrepresentation
caused):
i) Rewrite max/min que
Oliver,
The patch works for me. Thanks. Things look good now against an 8.0
server. (I still have a lot more testing to do though).
However I still have problems against a 7.4 server with the 8.0 jdbc
driver. (ERROR: no value found for parameter 1). You mentioned that
you had found this bug
Tom Lane said:
> Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems that the check in src/pl/plperl/plperl.c
>> eval_pv((safe_version < 2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
>> is not working quite as expected (CVS HEAD from today):
>
> Yah know, I looked at that on Monday and said to myself "Se
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
No you can not, but the tracker isn't very resource intesive from my
past experience. I can host it if needed.
It wasn't that that I was thinking of ... just wondering if there was
some way of having it redundant, instead of centr
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
No you can not, but the tracker isn't very resource intesive from my past
experience. I can host it if needed.
It wasn't that that I was thinking of ... just wondering if there was some
way of having it redundant, instead of centralized ... nice thing abo
No you can not, but the tracker isn't very resource intesive from my
past experience. I can host it if needed.
Gavin
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
...so the very first client is the real server
that must be run 24/24.
I don't think thi
On November 23, 2004 06:18 pm, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 12:47:28PM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > I'm guessing we need to add some more configure logic to detect gcc
> > versions 3.4 on sparc trying to produce 64bit code and disable
> > optimizations, or else bail out and
We do all of our encryption in the middleware:
1) translate our data which requires encryption into an XML string
2) compress + encrypt, yielding byte [].
3) Store byte [] as a bytea column.
The resulting byte arrays are relatively small in our case (1 -> 3K),
so bytea has
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seen in passing when running valgrind against a CVS HEAD build:
>> ==28598== Syscall param write(buf) contains uninitialised or unaddressable
>> byte(s)
> Anything to be concerned about?
AFAIK this represents valgrind complaining because we have writte
Hi fellows, I need to encrypt fields of data type
LO (LO is included in the contrib section of PostgreSQL) and I don’t know
if pgcrypto is the way to do that or there is another way. If anyone knows the
answer of my problem or know an alternative way to do this, I’ll appreciate
you can sha
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Speaking of which, the "exclusive" field is declared as a "char"; I
> wonder if it wouldn't be more clear to declare it as "bool", and treat
> it as a boolean field.
I coded it that way because I was thinking of it as a count (0 or 1),
for symmetry with
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAICS, that is not the case. See lwlock.c, circa line 264: in LW_SHARED
> mode, we check if "exclusive" is zero; if so, we acquire the lock
> (increment the shared lock count and do not block). And "exclusive" is
> set non-zero only when we _acquire_ a
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LWLockRelease() currently does something like (simplifying a lot):
> ...
> This has the nice property that locks are granted in FIFO order. Is it
> essential that we maintain that property?
Not really, although avoiding indefinite starvation is important.
Title: RE: [Testperf-general] Re: [HACKERS] ExclusiveLock
> From: Kenneth Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip]
> The simplest idea I had was to pre-layout the WAL logs in a
> contiguous fashion
> on the disk. Solaris has this ability given appropriate FS
> parameters and we
> should be
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We do need to do something about the fact that EXECUTE can't access
>> plpgsql variables, though I'm afraid that fixing that is going to
>> require a rather complete overhaul of plpgsql :-(.
> I think the idea of rewriting PL/PgSQL from scratch has merit (and it's
> something that I think would be well worth doing). IMHO it's not really
> worth the trouble to fork the existing code base and add new features to
> something that, hopefully, has a limited life span.
I dunno, I kind of
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
--help and --version are the standard options that are supported
everywhere. In the era before we had long options everywhere, we
implemented -V as an alternative in some programs, in particular those
in and around initdb, because of the version cross-checking it does
u
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I thought the new readers will sit after the writer in the FIFO queue so
the writer will not starve.
AFAICS, that is not the case. See lwlock.c, circa line 264: in LW_SHARED
mode, we check if "exclusive" is zero; if so, we acquire the lock
(increment the shared lock count and
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > My guess is the existing behavior was designed to allow waking of
> > multiple waiters _sometimes_ without starving of exclusive waiters.
>
> Well, I think the current algorithm *does* allow starvation, at least in
> some situations. Consider a worklo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
My guess is the existing behavior was designed to allow waking of
multiple waiters _sometimes_ without starving of exclusive waiters.
Well, I think the current algorithm *does* allow starvation, at least in
some situations. Consider a workload in which a new shared reader
arr
Neil Conway wrote:
> LWLockRelease() currently does something like (simplifying a lot):
>
> acquire lwlock spinlock
> decrement lock count
> if lock is free
> if first waiter in queue is waiting for exclusive lock,
> awaken him; else, walk through the queue and awaken
>
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:25:17 -0500
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> #0 0x483cafeb in kill () from /usr/lib/libc.so.12
> #1 0x483cd0af in __libc_mutex_catchall_stub (m=1212478892)
> at /usr/src/lib/libc/thread-stub/thread-stub.c:112
> #2 0x4843f0f7 in free (ptr=)
> at /u
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We do need to do something about the fact that EXECUTE can't access
> plpgsql variables, though I'm afraid that fixing that is going to
> require a rather complete overhaul of plpgsql :-(. But it needs one
> anyway.
Why do you think that
Neil Conway wrote:
> The "--help" output for most of the binaries we install does not
> include the "-V" option (just its alias, --version). Is this
> intentional?
>
> (Note that we still document this option in the reference pages for
> some commands, and initdb's help output does include "-V".)
Mike Rylander wrote:
As an alternative, what would be the possibility of creating a new PL
as a contrib module, say PLPGSQL_NG, to move forward with extensions
like this and perhaps EVALUATE?
I think the idea of rewriting PL/PgSQL from scratch has merit (and it's
something that I think would be we
Seen in passing when running valgrind against a CVS HEAD build:
==28598== Syscall param write(buf) contains uninitialised or unaddressable
byte(s)
==28598==at 0x1BABC558: write (in /lib/libc-2.3.4.so)
==28598==by 0x1BA7165D: (within /lib/libc-2.3.4.so)
==28598==by 0x1BA715FE: _IO_do_wr
Oliver Jowett wrote:
Perhaps PerformCursorOpen should copy the query tree before planning, or
plan in a different memory context?
Patch attached. It moves query planning inside the new portal's memory
context. With this applied I can run Barry's testcase without errors,
and valgrind seems OK wit
Barry Lind wrote:
I also have the test case (in java) down to the bare minimum that
generated the following output (that test case is attached). (Note that
if the FETCH in the test case is not executed then the backend crashes;
with the FETCH you get an error: "ERROR: unrecognized node type: 0")
I
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 07:57 +, PaweX Niewiadomski wrote:
> I saw discussion about bitmap indexes few weeks ago. I wonder if
> any of you is working on it (in secret)?
For what it's worth, I don't know of anyone working on them.
> I will be chosing subject
> of my master thesis and thougth abo
LWLockRelease() currently does something like (simplifying a lot):
acquire lwlock spinlock
decrement lock count
if lock is free
if first waiter in queue is waiting for exclusive lock,
awaken him; else, walk through the queue and awaken
all the shared waiters until we
53 matches
Mail list logo
