Hi All,
Please see the version 11 of HOT patch posted on -patches.
The concept of marking the pruned tuples with LP_DELETE and
reusing such tuples for subsequent UPDATEs has been removed
and replaced with a simpler mechanism of repairing the page
fragmentation as and when possible.
The logic of
I have question on Locks and waiting. In the readme pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/README
Each waiter is awoken if (a) its requestdoes not conflict with already-granted locks, and (b) its request doesnot conflict with the requests of prior un-wakable waiters.
Let us imagine if there is Process
Hi,
How do I connect postgres table structures and view structures to an
existing svn repository?
Thanks,
--
John J. Mitchell
Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2007 14:52 schrieb John Mitchell:
> How do I connect postgres table structures and view structures to an
> existing svn repository?
This question does not relate to the development of PostgreSQL. Please ask on
a different mailing list.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://develope
kenneth d'souza wrote:
> Let us imagine if there is Process P which is holding a lock and
> there are individual waiters p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 requiring the same
> lock. Now since they are in conflict it is sure that there will be
> wait queue that will get generated as in p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6.
> Imagine
Let us know when/if and we'll pay command prompt to install the base OS on
the system. All that we're waiting on at this point is the final on the OS.
Gavin
On 7/31/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hey, this is looking like a serious case of
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I've started reading the GIT patch to see if I can help with the review.
Thanks.
> First thing I notice is that there are several things that seems left
> over; for example the comments in pg_proc for the new functions are
> incomplete.
>
> ...
> I'm also finding a certai
\On Jul 29, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
improvement that went into that release. I could test turning it
back on this week if you like -- I certainly would like to have my
blks_read/cach_hits stats back. Toggling stats_block_level will
respond to a
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> What is a basis of your assumption ? In my opinion, it's very limited
>> use of text search, because it doesn't supports ranking. For 4-5 years
>> of tsearch2 usage I never used it and I never seem in mailing lists.
>> This is very user-oriented featur
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> > And if we have to require the configuration name in CREATE INDEX, it has
> > to be used in WHERE, so we might as well just remove the default
Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >> What is a basis of your assumption ? In my opinion, it's very limited
> >> use of text search, because it doesn't supports ranking. For 4-5 years
> >> of tsearch2 usage I never used it and I never seem in mailing lists.
> >> This
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
What is a basis of your assumption ?
>> I think I asked about this kind of usage a couple years back;...
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-10/msg00475.php
>> http://archives.postgres
Ron Mayer wrote:
> We need more feedback from users.
> >>> Well, I am waiting for other hackers to get involved, but if they don't,
> >>> I have to evaluate it myself on the email lists.
> >> Personally, I think documentation changes would be an OK way to
> >> to handle it. Something that ma
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I've started reading the GIT patch to see if I can help with the review.
> As the patch stands, I tried to keep it as non-invasive as possible,
> with minimum changes to existing APIs. That's because in the winter we
> were discussing changes t
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> I wish I knew this myself. :-) Whatever I had done happened to work
>> but that was largely through people on IRC walking me through it.
>
> This illustrates the major issue --- that this has to be simple for
> people to get started, while keeping the c
I used NPGSQL .NET driver to connect PGSQL 8.2.4 database to VB.NET. As
stated on NPGSQL page, it doesn't seem to provide seamless integration and
performance with .NET. Instead when I used ODBC, the performance was
comparatively better. What's the reason? When can we expect .NET driver that
provid
16 matches
Mail list logo