On 25 June 2011 01:59, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 19:01:49 -0400 2011:
I would tend to think of the not-null-ness that is required by the
primary constraint as a separate constraint, not an intrinsic part of
the primary
On 2011-06-06 09:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
took about 15 hours without the patch, and 2 hours with it. That's
quite dramatic.
With the precense of robust consumer-class SSD-drives that can be
found in sizes where they actually can fit many database usage
scenarios. A PostgreSQL version is
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
* Wouldn't it be natural to measure the performance benefits of
disc-bound tests in an SSD setup?
Sure, it would be great to run performance tests on SSD drives too.
Unfortunately, I don't have corresponding test platform
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:35:08PM +0800, HuangQi wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to debug a modification for the query planner. But I found it
seems the data structure of my planned query is incorrect. I was trying to
print out the data structure by use the p command in gdb which is quite
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
New patch attached, with that one-line change.
Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to
commit?
1. Patch does not apply to master
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
BTW, isn't bitgetpage() in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c missing
PredicateLockTuple() and CheckForSerializableConflictOut() calls in
the codepath for a lossy bitmap? In the non-lossy case,
heap_hot_search_buffer() takes care of it, but not in the lossy
case.
I think the
On 06/14/2011 07:41 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Otherwise the connection might not get freed. Could someone verify
that?
ISTM that the root problem is that dblink_send_query calls DBLINK_GET_CONN
though it doesn't accept
On lör, 2011-06-25 at 13:36 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
However, since this is really just a case of unused variables and not
a leaked connection, I'm inclined to just fix git master -- comments
on that?
Please put it into 9.1 as well, so we can get a clean compile with gcc
4.6 there.
--
Sent
Different ranges over the same subtype make sense when using different
total orders for the subtype. This is most apparent with text collation,
but makes sense (at least mathematically, if not practically) for any
subtype.
For instance:
[a, Z)
is a valid range in en_US, but not in C, so it makes
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
ProcArrayLock looks like a tougher nut to crack - there's simply no
way, with the system we have right now, that you can take a snapshot
without locking the list of running processes. I'm not sure what to
do about that,
I think this commit was ill-advised:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a03feb9354bda5084f19cc952bc52ba7be89f372
In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered into the
system catalogs in one transaction, then the two table scans occur in a
-
11 matches
Mail list logo
