Gregory Stark wrote:
Why is configure even checked in to CVS?
Right now you don't even need autoconf installed to build out of CVS. Do
we want to impose that as an extra requirement? And if we did it would
need to be the same one used to cut tarballs, or one provably compatible.
che
Hi,
Please read the below is some skepticism. I am not an expert with
regard to statistics and vacuum internals. Hopefully it just keeps the
thinking caps moving.
Tom Lane wrote:
There was some discussion in pgsql-performance about the problem that
the live-and-dead-tuple counts that ANALY
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> My goodness that's a hardware-dependent proposal. Shall we discuss
>>> how many CPUs there are where an integer division is *slower* than
>>> a floating-point op?
>
>> Do you have one in mind,
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking at the autovacuum log output,
>>
>>> 2007-11-13 09:21:19.830 PST 9458 LOG: automatic vacuum of table
>>> "specdb.public.txn_log_table": index scans: 1
>>> pages: 11 removed, 105 remain
>>> tuples: 3147
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) writes:
>> configure (r1.570 -> r1.571)
>>
>> (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570&r2=1.571)
>
> It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
>
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 07:46:58AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> Have you yet given any advantages of contains over @@ ?
>
>> Familiarity for users of SQL Server that are migrating? ;-)
>> (http://msdn2.micro
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it's a bit insane. Keeping a few Autoconf versions around
>> isn't
>> hard at all. We have been doing it for years. (Hint: ./configure; make;
>> make install)
>
Matthew Grosso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in 8.1, how do I find the relfrozenxid of a table?
You don't ... 8.1 doesn't track that.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space
in 8.1, how do I find the relfrozenxid of a table?
we're running 8.1.9, and have turned off autovacuum for a wee bit too
long...
thanks to the verbose warnings, we still have a few million transactions
left before it locks up, although thats not much time for us.
I'd like to focus vacuum on the
Hi,
Looking again at bug report [1], I agree that's a glibc bug. Numbers in
pt_BR has its format 1.234.567,89; sometimes the format 1234567,89 is
acceptable too, ie, the thousand separator is optional. I guess that
some locales use the 'optional' thousand separator too (yep, they are
all broken to
There was some discussion in pgsql-performance about the problem that
the live-and-dead-tuple counts that ANALYZE reports to the stats
collector don't reflect insert-in-progress tuples properly:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-11/msg00225.php
I proposed a patch here:
http://ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
