2016-12-26 8:30 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> Hello Jim,
>
> If you want to ignore performance, there are things you can do with
>> non-transactional variables that are simply not possible with tables. But
>> even ignoring that, the performance cost of temp tables is massive compared
>> to variabl
Hello Jim,
If you want to ignore performance, there are things you can do with
non-transactional variables that are simply not possible with tables. But
even ignoring that, the performance cost of temp tables is massive compared
to variables.
Ok, then read "variables are like tables" instea
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/23/2016 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> So what to do? We could run around and fix these individual cases
>>> and call it good, but if we do, I will bet a very fine dinner that
>>> more such errors will sneak in before long. Se
On 2 December 2016 at 07:36, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> I've updated the patches after fixing the issue. Multiple rounds of
> regression passes for me without any issue. Please let me know if it works
> for you.
>
Hi Pavan,
Today i was playing with your patch and running some tests and found
some
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On December 25, 2016 1:21:43 AM GMT+01:00, Joel Jacobson
> wrote:
>
>>Is it really a typical real-life scenario that processes can be
>>waiting extremely often for extremely short periods of time,
>>where the timing overhead would be signif
On 25 Dec. 2016 14:49, "Tom Lane" wrote:
No. This has been looked into repeatedly in the past, and we simply
don't want to deal with it. Quite aside from the impact on the server
(which would be extensive), it would break every nontrivial application,
and force them all to try to deal with ea
On 2016-12-25 13:38, Erik Rijkers wrote:
'the the' -> 'the'
and
'ie' -> 'i.e.'
Although (concening the latter change) the present counts are 'ie'
428, and 'i.e.' 428.
so it might be debatable (but let's not)
Sorry; I meant: 'ie' 428, and 'i.e.' 305.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing li
On December 25, 2016 1:21:43 AM GMT+01:00, Joel Jacobson
wrote:
>Is it really a typical real-life scenario that processes can be
>waiting extremely often for extremely short periods of time,
>where the timing overhead would be significant?
Yes. Consider WAL insertion, procarray or other simil
'the the' -> 'the'
and
'ie' -> 'i.e.'
Although (concening the latter change) the present counts are 'ie' 428,
and 'i.e.' 428.
so it might be debatable (but let's not)
thanks,
Erik Rijkers
--- src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c.orig 2016-12-25 13:29:28.715237491 +0100
+++ src/backend/commands
Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] wrote:
> Quite aside from the impact on the server (which would be extensive),
it would break every nontrivial application, and force them all to try
to deal with each possible folding behavior.
I have read through the various threads related to this issue that
10 matches
Mail list logo
