Hello guys,
This is my first post to this list..
I'm using PostgreSQL8.3.3 and I moved postgresql.conf to the
outside of DATA direcotory, and invoked postgres via pg_ctl
as following.
pg_ctl -w -D /data -o '--config-file=/home/hirano/postgresql.conf' start
This seems to work well, but when I ch
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The attached patch (executor_hook.patch) modifies HEAD as follows.
> >
> > - Add "tag" field (uint32) into PlannedStmt.
> > - Add executor_hook to replace ExecutePlan().
> > - Move ExecutePlan() to a global function.
>
> The executor_hook.patch is fair
(Go back to -hackers)
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No action on this seen since last commitfest, but I think we should do
> something with it, rather than just ignore it.
I will have a plan to test it on RAID-5 disks, where sequential writing
are much better than random writing. I'll
I've been thinking about the complaint here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-07/msg00201.php
and I think that the real issue boils down to the fact that timestamp
input checks a name against the timezone abbrevs list first, and the
zic database second; whereas the various forms of
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Freitag, Juli 04, 2008 11:31:07 +0200 Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just noticed that setting log_rotation_age to a value larger than 24
>> days results in rather weird output (I have not actually tested yet if
>> that affect
OK, this one should work against CVS HEAD.
Dean.
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Auto-explain patch> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008
> 16:42:55 +0100> > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 16:58 +, Dean Rasheed wrote:> >
> Here is an
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 16:58 +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Here is an updated version of the patch
Dean,
I'm getting 4 chunks fail when trying to apply your patch onto CVS HEAD.
I'm sure its just a little bitrot. Can you update the patch please?
Thanks,
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadra
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just a personal request, but I would like a permanent URL that points to
> the in-progress commit page and is only changed when the commit fest of
> _over_.
>
Well, most of the time there isn't any commitfest "in-progres
Dave Page wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Hmm, looks like some of the things I was thinking about have been added
> >> recenelt... cool. One question I have still remains though, on the main
> >> develope
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:58:38PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:18:17AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > Run git-clone
> > http://git.postgresql.org/git/~davidfetter/postgresql/.git
> > instead. "git://..." apparently doesn't work on that repository (I
> > don't know
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:18:17AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> Run git-clone http://git.postgresql.org/git/~davidfetter/postgresql/.git
> instead. "git://..." apparently doesn't work on that repository (I don't
> know why not).
Is this the official recursion archive now? Can we commit there
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm, looks like some of the things I was thinking about have been added
>> recenelt... cool. One question I have still remains though, on the main
>> developer page (http://wiki.postgre
2008/7/6 Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 17:39 +0900, H.Harada wrote:
>
>> Is there security/performance issue about this?
>
> Performance, yes.
>
> If we need access to more rows than will fit within work_mem we have a
> problem and will need to restart sort. Giving rand
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, I had just assumed without looking too closely that it was stats
target times a fudge factor. What is the rationale for doing it as
above? I don't think I like the idea of the limi
On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 17:39 +0900, H.Harada wrote:
> Is there security/performance issue about this?
Performance, yes.
If we need access to more rows than will fit within work_mem we have a
problem and will need to restart sort. Giving random access to all
tuples in the current window, whateve
2008/7/6 Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I think there are two types of functions for windowed mode.
>> - windowed aggregate
>> this type of function is exactly same as normal aggregate. So we use
>> functions that have been in pgsql already. Actually in my patch above,
>> I didn't introduce an
16 matches
Mail list logo
