On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Tim elatl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Josh,
Thanks for help. Attached is a patch including changes suggested in your
comments.
Excerpts from Josh's message On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:57 PM:
1. It wasn't clear to me whether you're OK with Aron's suggested
tweak,
On sön, 2011-08-07 at 00:41 -0400, Tim wrote:
Thanks for help. Attached is a patch including changes suggested in your
comments.
Please put the new option 'l' in some sensible order in the code and the
help output (normally alphabetical). Also, there should probably be
some update to the
Excerpts from Josh's message On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM:
could we figure out what that limit should be based on
max_locks_per_transaction?
It would be nice to implement via -l max instead of making users do it
manually or something like this -l $(grep max_locks_per_transaction.*=
In 9.0 (as in earlier versions) a former standby host has to do a full
checkpoint before becoming available as an independent database instance
in either switchover or failover scenarios.
For most combinations of of bigger than minimal shared buffers and
non-memory-speed disks this can take from
So add a bunch of macros on top for the two or three (five?) most common
cases -- say those that occur 3 times or more.
I could go for that.
OK, I'll try to implement according to the idea.
I'm under implementation of this code according to the suggestion.
However, I'm not sure whether it
Excerpts from Peter's message On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:49 AM:
Please put the new option 'l' in some sensible order in the code and the
help output (normally alphabetical). Also, there should probably be
some update to the documentation.
I have alphabetized the help output, and one piece of
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In 9.0 (as in earlier versions) a former standby host has to do a full
checkpoint before becoming available as an independent database instance
in either switchover or failover scenarios.
For most combinations of of
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
This seems like a good design. Now what would be really cool is if
you could observe a stream of queries like this:
SELECT a, b FROM foo WHERE c = 123
SELECT a, b FROM foo WHERE c = 97
SELECT
On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 11:15 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm, you mean reverse-engineering the parameterization of the query?
Yes, basically re-generate the query after (or while) parsing, replacing
constants and arguments with another set
On lör, 2011-08-06 at 12:58 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
Right now \d gives:
Table public.foo
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
a | integer | not null
b | integer |
c | integer |
Check constraints:
foo_b_check CHECK (b IS NOT NULL)
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I think we'll be a lot better off with the framework discussed last
year: build a generic plan, as well as custom plans for the first few
sets of parameter values, and then
On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In 9.0 (as in earlier versions) a former standby host has to do a full
checkpoint before becoming available as an independent database instance
in either switchover or
Hi all, does anybody work on this TODO item?
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#PL.2FpgSQL
I didn't find any related posting/bug report.
w.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
I'm under implementation of this code according to the suggestion.
However, I'm not sure whether it is really portable way (at least, GCC
accepts),
and whether the interface is simpler than as Robert suggested at first.
#define
I suspected $SUBJECT from the beginning, and I've now put in enough work
to be able to prove it. The attached test program reliably fails within
a few minutes of being started, when run with 8 worker processes on an
8-core PPC machine. It's a pretty simple token passing ring protocol,
and at
Hi!
There is last version of patch. There is the list of most significant
changes in comparison with your version of patch:
1) Reference counting of path items was added. It should helps against
possible accumulation of path items.
2) Neighbor relocation was added.
3) Subtree prefetching was
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Tim elatl...@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpts from Josh's message On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM:
could we figure out what that limit should be based on
max_locks_per_transaction?
It would be nice to implement via -l max instead of making users do it
manually or
[I've included a summary of the thread and Bcc'd this to perl5-porters
for a sanity check. Please trim heavily when replying.]
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 09:42:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
So doesn't this look like a bug in the perl module that sets the
signal handler and doesn't restore
On 08/07/2011 07:06 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
After a little digging and some discussion on the #p5p channel [thanks
to ilmari++ leont++ and sorear++ for their help] it seems that local(%SIG)
doesn't do what you might expect. The %SIG does become empty but the OS
level handlers, even those
Thanks Josh,
I like the ability to bail out on PQTRANS_INERROR, and I think it's a small
enough fix to be appropriate to include in this patch.
I did consider it before but did not implement it because I am still new to
pgsql-hackers and did not know how off-the-cuff.
So thanks for the big
I noticed that psql document wrongly says that \d+ command shows
per-table FDW options of a foreign table, but in fact, per-table FDW
options are shown only in the result of \det+ command. Attached patch
removes this wrong description.
This fix should be applied to 9.1 too.
Regards,
--
Shigeru
21 matches
Mail list logo
