On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Manuel Cabido wrote:
I would like to inquire if in the next release of postgresql the database
will have to be compacted into a single file like what Interbase
database supports? I find this feature convenient because it will simplify
the updating of your database
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Valter Mazzola wrote:
Excuse my ignorance.
Is there a way to replace the shmem and sem (ipc.c) to use files. In this
way we can have a sort of a parallel server using GFS.
...
Besides the slowness of file IO, it also doesn't make sense to have a
shared memory area for
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, mlw wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Does this requested chagne have to do with Apache or PostgreSQL?
I suspect it is a request that live postgresql processes can linger
around after a connection is completed and be re-assigned to a new
connection as soon as one comes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
We recently had a very satisfactory contract completed by
Vadim.
Basically Vadim has been able to reduce the amount of time
taken by a vacuum from 10-15 minutes down to under 10 seconds.
...
What size database was that on?
I looking at
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Junfeng Zhang wrote:
All the major operating systems should have POSIX threads implemented.
Actually this can be configurable--multithreads or one thread.
I don't understand this. The OS can be configured for one thread? How
would that be any of use?
Thread-only
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
...
Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative,
leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems
under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a
long time to just sit
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote:
This is just a curiosity.
Why is the default postgres block size 8192? These days, with caching
file systems, high speed DMA disks, hundreds of megabytes of RAM, maybe
even gigabytes. Surely, 8K is inefficient.
I think it is a pretty wild assumption to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, carl garland wrote:
perhaps why, even at 5 clients, the page views he shows never went
significantly above 10/sec?
I think alot of it has to do with the web server/db setup not pg. They are
using Apache/PHP and looking at their code every page has the additional
