On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:36:41PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
One option that would simplify things is to fix only non-Windows in the
back
branches, via socket protection, and
On 09/17/2014 01:51 AM, Tapan Halani wrote:
Hello everyone..i am new to PostgreSQL project. I had prior experience
with sql+ , with oracle 11g database server. Kindly help me grasp more
about the project.
Since you're asking on pgsql-hackers, you're presumably interested in
getting involved in
On 20 September 2014 14:08, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com
wrote:
Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes
the above test cases.
Obviously this needs to be fixed in 9.4 and
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I have a table
start, reason, km
=
2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
2014-01-01 09:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 10:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 11:00:00, private, 8
and I would reduce these rows to
2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I have a table
start, reason, km
=
2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
2014-01-01 09:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 10:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 11:00:00,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 09/17/2014 01:51 AM, Tapan Halani wrote:
Hello everyone..i am new to PostgreSQL project. I had prior experience
with sql+ , with oracle 11g database server. Kindly help me grasp more
about the project.
Since you're
Hi Pavel (and others),
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I have a table
start, reason, km
=
2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
2014-01-01 09:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 10:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 11:00:00, private, 8
and I would reduce
2014-09-21 14:30 GMT+02:00 Mart Kelder m...@kelder31.nl:
Hi Pavel (and others),
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I have a table
start, reason, km
=
2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
2014-01-01 09:00:00, commerc, 20
2014-01-01 10:00:00,
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 20 September 2014 14:08, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com
wrote:
Fortunately it looks pretty trivial though. The patch attached fixes
the
Hi Pavel (and others),
Op zondag 21 september 2014 15:35:46 schreef u:
2014-09-21 14:30 GMT+02:00 Mart Kelder m...@kelder31.nl:
Hi Pavel (and others),
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I have a table
start, reason, km
=
2014-09-21 17:00 GMT+02:00 Mart Kelder m...@kelder31.nl:
Hi Pavel (and others),
Op zondag 21 september 2014 15:35:46 schreef u:
2014-09-21 14:30 GMT+02:00 Mart Kelder m...@kelder31.nl:
Hi Pavel (and others),
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
I tried to solve following task:
I
Pavel == Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Pavel Hi
Pavel I tried to solve following task:
Pavel I have a table
Pavel start, reason, km
Pavel =
Pavel 2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
Pavel 2014-01-01 09:00:00, commerc, 20
Pavel 2014-01-01 10:00:00, commerc,
Hey, sorry I what I say is obvious for you .
If I understood your problem correctly, it is strictly equivalent to this
one :
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Count-of-records-in-a-row-td5775363.html
there is a postgres trick to solve this problem :
what you want is essentially generate a
2014-09-21 17:51 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk:
Pavel == Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Pavel Hi
Pavel I tried to solve following task:
Pavel I have a table
Pavel start, reason, km
Pavel =
Pavel 2014-01-01 08:00:00, private, 10
2014-09-21 18:08 GMT+02:00 Rémi Cura remi.c...@gmail.com:
Hey, sorry I what I say is obvious for you .
If I understood your problem correctly, it is strictly equivalent to this
one :
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Count-of-records-in-a-row-td5775363.html
there is a postgres trick
Tom Lane wrote:
Rahila Syed rahilasyed...@gmail.com writes:
Please find attached patch to compress FPW using pglz compression.
Patch not actually attached AFAICS (no, a link is not good enough).
Well, from Rahila's point of view the patch is actually attached, but
she's posting from the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
I have been poking at that during the long flight back from Chicago
and created the attached patch that makes pg_dump able to create a
replication slot (hence have pg_dump put its hands on a synchronized
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2014-09-19 17:29:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I generally have serious doubts about disabling it generally for
read workloads. I imagine it e.g. will significantly penalize
workloads where its likely that a cleanup
I have observed a scope of considerable performance improvement in-case of
index by a very minor code change.
Consider the below schema:
create table tbl2(id1 int, id2 varchar(10), id3 int);
create index idx2 on tbl2(id2, id3);
Query as:
select count(*) from tbl2 where id2'a'
On 8/28/14, 12:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
At least in situations that I've encountered, it's typical to be able
to determine the frequency with which a given table needs to be
vacuumed to avoid runaway bloat, and from that you can work backwards
to figure out how fast you must process it in
On 9/16/14, 8:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think the main reason for slight difference is that
when the size of shared buffers is almost same as data size, the number
of buffers it needs from clock sweep are very less, as an example in first
case (when size of shared buffers is 12286MB), it
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
3.
I find existing comments okay, is there a need to change
in this case? Part of the new comment mentions
obtaining start LSN
22 matches
Mail list logo
