Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:20:19AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:48:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > I kind of agreed with Tom about just aborting transactions that held > > >

Re: [HACKERS] About subxact and xact nesting level...

Thomas Munro writes: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:24 PM, wrote: >> The file xact.c contains references to sub-transactions (subxact) and >> transaction nesting level, but no obvious documentation about what these >> correspond to in SQL. >

Re: [HACKERS] About subxact and xact nesting level...

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:24 PM, wrote: > Still trying to find my way around the source code… > > > > The file xact.c contains references to sub-transactions (subxact) and > transaction nesting level, but no obvious documentation about what these > correspond to in SQL. A search

[HACKERS] About subxact and xact nesting level...

Still trying to find my way around the source code… The file xact.c contains references to sub-transactions (subxact) and transaction nesting level, but no obvious documentation about what these correspond to in SQL. A search shows that plpython supports something called “proper sub

Re: [HACKERS] Html parsing and inline elements

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Marcelo Zabani wrote: > Hi, Tom, > > You're right, I don't think one can argue that the default parser should > know HTML. > How about your suggestion of there being an HTML parser, is it feasible? I > ask this because I think that a lot of

Re: [HACKERS] Windows 7, Visual Studio 2010: building PgAdmin3

zeray87 wrote: Hello guys, This is my first ever post and here goes my apology for being newbie. I have been able to build PgAdmin3 after several days of hassle on building PgAdmin3 using build-wxmsw.bat. If I remember it right for PgAdminIII needed mingw now. Thanks. -- Yury Zhuravlev

Re: [HACKERS] old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Currently we do the test for old snapshot (TestForOldSnapshot) for hash > indexes while scanning them. Does this test makes any sense for hash > indexes considering LSN on hash index will always be zero (as hash

[HACKERS] old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index

Currently we do the test for old snapshot (TestForOldSnapshot) for hash indexes while scanning them. Does this test makes any sense for hash indexes considering LSN on hash index will always be zero (as hash indexes are not WAL-logged)? It seems to me that PageLSN check in TestForOldSnapshot()