Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe we need to split this into two pieces, given Tom's legitimate
>> concern about semaphore use. How about we increase the allowed range
>> for shared_buffers and max_fsm_pages, as proposed in my patch, and
>> leave the max_connect
""Gregor Zeitlinger"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Also, I was wondering whether it is always safe to copy the current WAL
> file, i.e. may the current WAL file be invalid in any circumstance?
>
If you mean "current WAL file" is the xlog segment in use, then it is
dangerous. We only backup the
--- Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> I have a patch like this. But this was for 7.4.x. I have to take a
> look
> at it.
>
The patch is attached. It implements day and month i18n. I fixed a few
misspelling comments. Docs is attached too.
template1=# select to_char(now(), '
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 09:38:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Are you suggesting that COLLATE will impose comparison semantics on
> all datatypes including non-string types? If so, I'd be interested
> to know what you have in mind. If not, claiming that it makes the
> issue go away is nonsensical.
Hello,
as far as I have understood, the WAL backup that you control via
"archive_command" is the PostgreSQL equivalent to what other databases let you
do with an incremental backup. That is, if you don't forget to include the
current WAL block.
I have found a script to determine the current
