Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #4796: Recovery followed by backup creates unrecoverable WAL-file

2009-05-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 18:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I didn't read this thread earlier, but now that I have, it seems to be > making a mountain out of a molehill. We've discussed a complex issue to pursue other nascent bugs. It's confused all of us at some point, but seems we're thru that now.

Re: [HACKERS] bytea vs. pg_dump

2009-05-16 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Bernd Helmle wrote: --On Mittwoch, Mai 06, 2009 19:04:21 -0400 Tom Lane wrote: So I'm now persuaded that a better textual representation for bytea should indeed make things noticeably better here. It would be useful though to cross-check this thought by profiling a case that dumps a comparab

Re: [HACKERS] bytea vs. pg_dump

2009-05-16 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Bernd Helmle wrote: >> >> --On Mittwoch, Mai 06, 2009 19:04:21 -0400 Tom Lane >> wrote: >> >>> So I'm now persuaded that a better textual representation for bytea >>> should indeed make things noticeably better here.  It would be >>>

[HACKERS] where EXEC_BACKEND?

2009-05-16 Thread abdelhak benmohamed
hi, actually i try to execute postgres step by step (on paper) i don't retreive where EXEC_BACKEND is initialized can any one help me? it is very important for me thanks

Re: [HACKERS] where EXEC_BACKEND?

2009-05-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
abdelhak benmohamed wrote: hi, actually i try to execute postgres step by step (on paper) i don't retreive where EXEC_BACKEND is initialized can any one help me? it is very important for me thanks normally it is added to the CPP_FLAGS by configure, if needed (i.e. for the Windows gcc bui

Re: [HACKERS] where EXEC_BACKEND?

2009-05-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
abdelhak benmohamed wrote: > hi, > > actually i try to execute postgres step by step (on paper) > i don't retreive where EXEC_BACKEND is initialized > can any one help me? > it is very important for me Nowhere. If you want it, you have to define it manually in pg_config_manual.h. EXEC_BACKEND i

[HACKERS] generate_series from now to infinity...

2009-05-16 Thread Dickson S. Guedes
Hi all Is a simple "SELECT generate_series(now(), CAST('infinity'::date AS timestamp), interval '1 hour');" working forever, an expected behavior? regards... -- Dickson S. Guedes - mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br -- Sent via p

Re: [HACKERS] generate_series from now to infinity...

2009-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
"Dickson S. Guedes" writes: > Is a simple "SELECT generate_series(now(), CAST('infinity'::date AS > timestamp), interval '1 hour');" working forever, an expected > behavior? Uh, what were you expecting it to do? Actually, I believe it will fail eventually when the repeated additions overflow ...

Re: [HACKERS] Optimizing Read-Only Scalability

2009-05-16 Thread Jignesh K. Shah
Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 16:21 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: So we can optimize away the scan through the procarray by doing two "if" tests, one outside of the lock, one inside. In normal running, both will be optimized away, though in read-only periods we would avoid much work

Re: [HACKERS] generate_series from now to infinity...

2009-05-16 Thread Brendan Jurd
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Dickson S. Guedes" writes: >> Is a simple "SELECT generate_series(now(), CAST('infinity'::date AS >> timestamp), interval '1 hour');" working forever, an expected >> behavior? > > Uh, what were you expecting it to do? It appears that any genera