Greg Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Greg Smith wrote:
> >>The archives are at
> >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cluster-hackers/ but it's not
> >>listed at http://archives.postgresql.org/ for some reason.
> >
> >Because it wasn't added to the database. It seems we've gotten sloppy
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
We've got pgsql-cluster-hackers to discuss this
particular area.
Huh, is this a new list? It wasn't added to wwwmaster's list of lists,
apparently, right?
The archives are at
http
Greg Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> >>We've got pgsql-cluster-hackers to discuss this
> >>particular area.
> >
> >Huh, is this a new list? It wasn't added to wwwmaster's list of lists,
> >apparently, right?
>
> The archives are at
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
We've got pgsql-cluster-hackers to discuss this
particular area.
Huh, is this a new list? It wasn't added to wwwmaster's list of lists,
apparently, right?
The archives are at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cluster-hackers/ but it's
Greg Smith wrote:
> We've got pgsql-cluster-hackers to discuss this
> particular area.
Huh, is this a new list? It wasn't added to wwwmaster's list of lists,
apparently, right?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Promp
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
My suggestion would be to start a new thread entirely.
And mine would be to drop this whole topic altogether until after the
CommitFest is over, and instead focus on the replication features
already committed that need work before beta can even start. Only
reason I
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:50 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Please rename this thread. I think that several people to whom it's
> relevant aren't replying to it because of the deceptive name. Thanks.
>
Except that it is. This thread was about whether or not, Mammoth would
be considered to
All,
Please rename this thread. I think that several people to whom it's
relevant aren't replying to it because of the deceptive name. Thanks.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
> > cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
> > value or similar value in the same table, and I can't think of a case
> > where this would help. Can others? It
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:43:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> > > default for performance?
> >
> > Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good
Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
value or similar value in the same table, and I can't think of a case
where this would help. Can others? It is a good question.
pg_attribute would commonly
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:43:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> > default for performance?
>
> Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
> cluster is only good
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Is it worth us marking any system catalog indexes as clusterable by
> default for performance?
Not sure. Most of the system stuff is loaded in a pretty good order, and
cluster is only good if you are going after seveal rows of identical
value or similar value in t
There are several replication projects underway
that can provide varying levels of functionality - by utilizing one of these,
you could have a 'cluster', but it would not be the same functionality as you
would get from a comercial cluster such as Oracle...
see the /contrib folder for severa
14 matches
Mail list logo
