Darren Duncan wrote:
This matter reminds me of a discussion on the SQLite list years ago
about whether pragma synchronous=normal or synchronous=full should be
the default, and thankfully 'full' won.
Right now, when I see deployments in the field, serious database servers
setup by
On tor, 2010-09-30 at 15:07 -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
It's too bad there is no cross-platform way to ask what level of
hardware-syncing is available.
Why would the user want to ask this? As far as the user is concerned
either there are only two levels: synced or not synced. If it's not
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can we please change the comment lines below the patch heading to have the
real name instead of the postgresql.org ID?
Patch by Pavel Stehule
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 17:25, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
When the being written to segmnt copmletes moves to the final
location, he'll get an extra whole copy of the file. But of the
move can be an exec of his scritpt, the
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello,
there is updated version - with support of window clause. The limits
are work_mem for using inside window aggregate or unlimited when it is
used as standard query.
This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
I ran a few more performance tests on this patch. Here's what I got
for the tests Leonardo posted originally:
* 2M rows: 22 seconds for seq. scan, 24 seconds for index scan
* 5M rows: 139 seconds for seq. scan, 97 seconds for index scan
* 10M rows: 256 seconds seq. scan, 611
On 29 September 2010 20:46, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Attached is a a slightly updated version of this with the bitrot fixed.
cheers
andrew
Hi,
I had a quick look at this last night. I haven't had time to give it a
full review, but I did spot a couple of things:
1). It
Hello
2010/10/1 Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com:
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello,
there is updated version - with support of window clause. The limits
are work_mem for using inside window aggregate or unlimited when it is
used as standard query.
This patch needs
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
It's actually intentional. If we create a file at first, there is no
way to figure out exactly how far through a partial segment we are
without parsing the details of the log. This is useful both for the
admin (who can
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But that's not what Tom is talking about, I don't think: you might
also want a way to explicitly whack the flag in pg_control around.
That would
While tackling the top-level CTEs patch, I found that INSERT ...
VALUES isn't aware of ORDER BY / LIMIT.
regression=# CREATE TABLE t1(x int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1),(2),(3) LIMIT 1;
INSERT 0 3
regression=# TABLE t1;
x
---
1
2
3
(3 rows)
regression=# TRUNCATE t1;
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
* Support multiple standbys with various synchronization levels.
Not required for that case.
IMHO at least we'll still need to support asynchronous standbys in the same
mix, that's an existing
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The standby can already use restore_command to fetch WAL files from the
archive. I don't see why the master should be involved in that.
To make the standby use restore_command to do that, you have to
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:13, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
It's actually intentional. If we create a file at first, there is no
way to figure out exactly how far through a partial segment we are
without
On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But that's not what Tom is talking about, I don't think: you might
also want
On 10/01/2010 04:35 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
2). In enum_ccmp(), when you cache the full list of elements, you're
not updating mycache-sort_list_length, so it will keep fetching the
full list each time. Also, I think that function could use a few more
comments.
Good catch. Will fix.
3). I
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But that's not what Tom is talking about, I don't think: you might
also want a way to
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
tuplesort.c, but I would to verify a concept now.
Sorry for delay. I read the patch and it seems the result is sane. For
window
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
tuplesort.c, but I would to verify a concept now.
Sorry for delay. I read the patch and it
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of jue sep 30 16:38:11 -0400 2010:
When I read the description of the algorithm, I can't imagine a
situation where --patience would make the diff *worse*. I was
somewhat afraid (based on the name) that it would be slow; but
if it is slower, it hasn't
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of jue sep 30 16:38:11 -0400 2010:
When I read the description of the algorithm, I can't imagine a
situation where --patience would make the diff *worse*. I was
somewhat
I hope this is the right forum to talk about git.postgresql.org
My community login is singh.gurjeet, but our setup seems to not like the
special character there; users/singh.gurjeet/postgres is rejected.
Would it be a problem if I requested users/gsingh/postgres ? I hope that
doesn't cause any
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:50, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope this is the right forum to talk about git.postgresql.org
My community login is singh.gurjeet, but our setup seems to not like the
special character there; users/singh.gurjeet/postgres is rejected.
Would it be a
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
tuplesort.c, but I would to verify a concept now.
Sorry for delay. I read the patch and it
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
There is a very simple example posted on some of the blog posts
that goes something like
xyz
and the xyz is moved to the front. In this
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 07:48:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I proposed to implement the return-immediately at first because it
doesn't require standby registration. But if many people think that
the wait-forever is the core rather than the return-immediately,
I'll follow them. We can
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.netwrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:50, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope this is the right forum to talk about git.postgresql.org
My community login is singh.gurjeet, but our setup seems to not like the
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:09, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:50, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope this is the right forum to talk about git.postgresql.org
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:29:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar sep 28 10:26:54 -0400 2010:
Then:
- Begin a sequential scan with the following set of quals.
-
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can we please change the comment lines below the patch heading to
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:36, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:36, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But that's not
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If this patch tries to force the entire sort to happen in memory,
it is not committable.
What about array_agg()? Doesn't it exceed memory even if the huge data come
in?
Yeah, but for array_agg the user
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
tuplesort.c, but
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Leonardo Francalanci m_li...@yahoo.it wrote:
I guess that if the planner makes a wrong choice in this case (that is,
seq scan + sort instead of index scan) there's no way for cluster to
behave in a different way. If, on the contrary, the create table... uses
the
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:29:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, that might be better. Is it reasonable to assume we always
want to push down as much as possible, or do we need to think about
local work vs. remote work trade-offs?
In cases where the
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:40, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:36, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If this patch tries to force the entire sort to happen in memory,
it is not committable.
What about array_agg()? Doesn't it exceed memory even if the huge data come
in?
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
I proposed to implement the return-immediately at first because it doesn't
require standby registration. But if many people think that the wait-forever
is the core rather than the return-immediately, I'll follow them. We can
implement the
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
Another suggestion?
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort and then
have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending on whether the
sort result is all in memory or not.
regards, tom lane
--
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
Another suggestion?
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort
and then have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending
on whether the sort result is all in memory or not.
Would it
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
Another suggestion?
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort and then
have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending on whether the
sort result is all in memory or not.
Hm?
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort and then
have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending on whether the
sort result is all in memory or not.
Hm? The problem we
On 1 October 2010 15:41, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane
man git-pull sayeth
In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
git merge FETCH_HEAD.
However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly. How do
you *really* update your local repo without an extra git fetch step?
Poking around, it looks like each
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort and then
have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending on whether the
sort result is all in
2010/10/2 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
Another suggestion?
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort
and then have two code paths for retrieving the median, depending
on
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 10:54:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:29:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, that might be better. Is it reasonable to assume we always
want to push down as much as possible, or do we need to think about
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
man git-pull sayeth
In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
git merge FETCH_HEAD.
However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly. How do
you *really* update your local
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca writes:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
man git-pull sayeth
In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
git merge FETCH_HEAD.
However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly.
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah, I don't want a merge. I have these config entries (as per our
wiki recommendations):
[branch master]
rebase = true
[branch]
autosetuprebase = always
and what I really want is to update all my
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:53, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca writes:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
man git-pull sayeth
In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by
git merge FETCH_HEAD.
On 01.10.2010 18:53, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I've noticed that git push will reject an attempt to push an
update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
if I am not trying to push anything for those branches. That's
pretty annoying too; is there a way around that?
Yeah,
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:53, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I've noticed that git push will reject an attempt to push an
update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
if I am not trying to push anything for those
On 10/01/2010 12:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net writes:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:53, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I've noticed that git push will reject an attempt to push an
update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
if I am
On 10/01/2010 01:08 PM, I wrote:
git push origin HEAD pushes the current branch, whatever it might
be. That might be a useful alias for you to set up.
Oh, and you can change the default by setting push.default to 'current'
instead of 'matching', which is the default default ;-) man
On Friday 01 October 2010 18:48:25 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 01.10.2010 18:53, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I've noticed that git push will reject an attempt to push an
update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
if I am not trying to push anything for those branches.
2010/10/1 Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
The implementation I would've expected to see is to do the sort and then
have two code paths for retrieving the median,
Would this be correct?
DatumGetTimestamp(DirectFunctionCall3(timestamp_in, CStringGetDatum(time),
PointerGetDatum(0), Int32GetDatum(MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION)));
This is how timestamp_in starts, *#ifdef NOT_USED* is a litle bit confusing.
Datum timestamp_in(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
char *str =
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:40, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 16:36, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I've noticed that git push will reject an attempt to push an
update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even
if I am not trying to push anything for those branches. That's
pretty annoying too; is there
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote:
How much overhead do you have with resource option?
getrusage() calls for each tuple might have considerable overheads.
How much difference between (analyze) and (analyze, resource) options?
Here's strace -c
On fre, 2010-10-01 at 16:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Personally, I don't see any advantage at all of git.postgresql.org
over github for a development repository. Others may have different
opinions, of course.
My personal objection is merely that it was apparently semi-unilaterally
decided
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In the particular case here, the dictionary structures could probably
safely use such a context type, but I'm not sure it's worth bothering
if the
On 10/01/2010 01:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
If you want that as a default behaviour:
For example, to default to pushing only the current branch to origin use git
config remote.origin.push HEAD. Any validrefspec (like the ones in the
examples below) can be configured as the default for git
Hello
2010/10/1 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In the particular case here, the dictionary structures could probably
safely use such a context
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:52 +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
While tackling the top-level CTEs patch, I found that INSERT ...
VALUES isn't aware of ORDER BY / LIMIT.
regression=# CREATE TABLE t1(x int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1),(2),(3) LIMIT 1;
INSERT 0 3
That looks
On 10/01/2010 01:08 PM, I wrote:
git push origin HEAD pushes the current branch, whatever it might
be. That might be a useful alias for you to set up.
Oh, and you can change the default by setting push.default to 'current'
instead of 'matching', which is the default default ;-) man
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 10/01/2010 01:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
If you want that as a default behaviour:
For example, to default to pushing only the current branch to origin use git
config remote.origin.push HEAD. Any validrefspec (like the ones in the
examples below)
Hello
updated version
* memsort removed
* window aggregate support blocked
Regards
Pavel
2010/10/1 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2010/10/1 Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
2010/10/2 Tom Lane
Marios Vodas mvo...@gmail.com writes:
This is how timestamp_in starts, *#ifdef NOT_USED* is a litle bit confusing.
Datum timestamp_in(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
char *str = PG_GETARG_CSTRING(0);
#ifdef NOT_USED
Oidtypelem = PG_GETARG_OID(1);
#endif
int32
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
2010/10/1 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In the particular case
On 10/1/10 4:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
And
have PG poll that text file periodically so that you could update it and
it would fail over?
Hmm.. instead of that text file (i.e., recovery.conf), trigger file is
periodically polled by the standby server.
I'm not sure I understand the
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Then instead of having a trigger file, the admin could just update the
status file in recovery.conf and save it (or overwrite the file).
This doesn't seem like a terribly bright idea. We've expended megabytes
of list traffic on arguing about automatic
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
An interesting exercise it so think about what
real-life lines you could have which would have multiple occurrences
in this pattern, and think about whether you would then prefer the
--patience output, especially
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Our current arrangement of having a postgresql.conf file, a
recovery.conf file, and potentially a trigger file (during final
recovery) seems horribly hackish and impossible to manage neatly.
all the contrary, IMHO what we
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Leonardo Francalanci m_li...@yahoo.it wrote:
I ran a few more performance tests on this patch. Here's what I got
for the tests Leonardo posted originally:
* 2M rows: 22 seconds for seq. scan, 24 seconds for index scan
* 5M rows: 139 seconds for seq.
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
regression=# create or replace function array_agg_transfn_strict(internal,
anyelement) returns internal as 'array_agg_transfn' language internal
immutable;
CREATE FUNCTION
regression=# create aggregate array_agg_strict(anyelement) (stype =
79 matches
Mail list logo
