[HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
Am I correct in the thought that the various files listed below are not used by the database and can be safely removed? There were no other active db connections when I issued this command. I think truncate (Slony) left them behind. ssdb=# select file from pg_ls_dir('base/'|| (select oid

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am I correct in the thought that the various files listed below are not used by the database and can be safely removed? There were no other active db connections when I issued this command. I think truncate (Slony) left them behind. I don't particularly

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am I correct in the thought that the various files listed below are not used by the database and can be safely removed? There were no other active db connections when I issued this command. I think

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At some point it must have failed in copying the data across, aborted, and restarted. Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up created files. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At some point it must have failed in copying the data across, aborted, and restarted. Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up created files. The only thing I can come up with is that perhaps someone forcefully gave it a

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up created files. The only thing I can

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: % 1960 2006-05-02 17:03:19 EDTLOG: 0: server process (PID 10171) exited with exit code 1 Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Darcy Buskermolen
On Friday 05 May 2006 13:11, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: % 1960 2006-05-02 17:03:19 EDTLOG: 0: server process (PID 10171) exited with exit code 1 Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. No, there are no calls to exit() in the

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: % 1960 2006-05-02 17:03:19 EDTLOG: 0: server process (PID 10171) exited with exit code 1 Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. It doesn't appear so. It does have

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. It doesn't appear so. It does have this though: Well, a SIGTERM would have resulted in a bleat in the postmaster log. The striking

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

2006-05-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 18:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. It doesn't appear so. It does have this though: Well, a SIGTERM would have

[HACKERS] 8.1.3?

2006-02-01 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Hey guys, When do you reckon 8.1.3 will be released? That has the massive speedup on GiST index creation, right? I'm planning on a major upgrade soon, but the greatest time in reload is taken up by index creation time, so I'll hang out for 8.1.3. Any ETA? Chris

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3?

2006-02-01 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When do you reckon 8.1.3 will be released? We haven't really thought about it yet ... if you're desperate for that tsearch2 patch, you could pull REL8_1_STABLE branch tip from CVS and use that ... regards, tom lane