On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 08:30:55AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes not
good for postgres on a mosix cluster.
It seems that almost all the postgres processes remain in the `home'
node.
Please notice that I am not underestimating
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:10:26PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 11 Oct 2002 at 8:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
I'd be curious to hear in a little more detail what constitutes not
good for postgres on a mosix cluster.
Well, I guess in kind of replication we are talking here, the
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:07:00PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
[ pgsql-patches removed from Cc: list ]
Anuradha Ratnaweera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I
have already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner.
Did you
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
We don't think it is needed, except perhaps for Win32 and Solaris, which
have slow process creation times.
Thanks, Bruce. But what I want
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
It may be optional some day, most likely for Win32 at first, but we see
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:08:21PM -0400, Curtis Faith wrote:
2) Including the pros and cons of the feature/implementation and how close
the group is to deciding whether something would be worth doing. - I can
also do this.
The pros and cons of many such features have been discussed over
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:04:29PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 11 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:54:15PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
I will look at it, too. Thanks for the link. In some cases, starting
anew is faster than learning
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:53PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Well, I don't think adding support for multiple slaves to usogres would be that
problematic. Of course if you want to load balance your application queries,
application has to be aware of that. I will not do sending
Hi all,
I am trying to add some replication features to postgres (yes, I have
already looked at ongoing work), in a peer to peer manner. The goal
is to achive `nearly complete fault tolerence' by replicating data.
The basic framework I have in mind is somewhat like this.
- Postmasters are
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: convince us why we
should use it. The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong
end in
Consider the following query on a large table with lots of different
`id's:
SELECT id FROM my_table GROUP BY id ORDER BY count(id) LIMIT 10;
It has an (usually unique) index on id. Obviously, the index helps to
evaluate count(id) for a given value of id, but count()s for all the
`id's
My 3rd attempt to post ...
Consider this query on a large table with lots of different IDs:
SELECT id FROM my_table GROUP BY id ORDER BY count(id) LIMIT 10;
It has an index on id. Obviously, the index helps to evaluate count(id)
for a given value of id, but count()s for all the `id's
12 matches
Mail list logo
