On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 09:22:22PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Alexander Björnhagen
> wrote:
> > And so we get back to the three likelihoods in our two-node setup :
> >
> > 1.The master fails
> > - Okay, promote the standby
> >
> > 2.The standby fails
> > - Okay,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:34:25AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> from postgresql.conf.sample:
> >>
> >> #replication_timeout = 60s # in milliseconds; 0 disables
> >>
> >> Seconds or milliseconds? I would suggest we just remove the "in
>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:28:58PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:22:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 17 11:17:58 -0400 2012:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:57:25AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 20
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > FYI, I am planning to go ahead and package this tool in /contrib for PG
> > 9.3.
>
> Isn't this exactly what we already did, in 9.2, in the form of
> contrib/pg_test_timing?
On 26.8.2012 00:19, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> attached is a patch that adds support for random sampling in pgbench, when
>> it's executed with "-l" flag. You can do for example this:
>>
>> $ pgbench -l -T 120 -R 1 db
>>
>> and then only
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:01:25PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 06:55:14PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > >Well, it'd be nice to allow substitution there ...
> > >
> > >>What we can't easily do is to allow quotes to prevent variable
> > >>substitution in these whole-line
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> attached is a patch that adds support for random sampling in pgbench, when
> it's executed with "-l" flag. You can do for example this:
>
> $ pgbench -l -T 120 -R 1 db
>
> and then only 1% of transactions will be written into the log
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:29:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I assume we want to apply this patch based on discussion that we should
> allow a wider range of date/time formats.
Applied, thanks.
---
>
> On Mon, Aug 29
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:03:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> The pg_stat_replication view exposes all the fields in
> >> StandbyReplyMessage *except* for the timest
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:54:53PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > On 8/10/12 7:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > >> What about having single user mode talk fe/be protocol, and talk to it
> > >> via a UNIX pip
2012/8/25 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> It is a responsibility of FDW extension (and DBA) to ensure each
>> foreign-row has a unique identifier that has 48-bits width integer
>> data type in maximum.
>
> It strikes me as incredibly short-sighted to decide
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:46 PM
> To: David Johnston
> Cc: Jeff Davis; Vlad Arkhipov; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] temporal support patch
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:17 PM, David J
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:17 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> Ideally the decision of whether to do so could be a client decision. Not
> storing intra-transaction changes is easier than storing all changes.
Not really. If you don't care about suppressing intra-transaction
changes, you can essentiall
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> It is a responsibility of FDW extension (and DBA) to ensure each
> foreign-row has a unique identifier that has 48-bits width integer
> data type in maximum.
It strikes me as incredibly short-sighted to decide that the row
identifier has to h
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think the thing we need to look at is what percentage of our code
>>> churn is coming from stuff like this, versus what percentage of it is
>>> coming fr
* Jeff Janes:
> I don't see the virtue of this in this case. Since the index is not
> unique, why not just put the index on (a,b,c,d) and be done with it?
AFAICT, SQLite 4 encodes keys in a way that is not easily reversed
(although the encoding is injective, so it's reversible in principle).
The
16 matches
Mail list logo
