Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL roadmap for 8.2 and beyond.
Would the PG Dev group be working on update-able views for 8.2 ? I know that there is a work-around using rules, the SAMS book does claim that 8.0 has readonly views. I don't think that this has changed in 8.1 no ? Cheers, Aly. Bruce Momjian wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gavin Sherry: Grouping sets Recursive queries The recursive queries is a long-awaited feature. Does the fact that the feature is listed for Gavin Sherry mean that Gavin is actually working with the feature at the moment? Does anybody know the current state of this feature or know when it will be public available? No, it just means he has worked on it in the past. However, I no longer see his name on the item in the current TODO. -- Aly S.P Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] DTrace?
From what I understand DTrace is rather tough to use. Secondly it will provide Solaris only information, so if you are suggesting helpfulness for just Solaris, then yes it would be. I don't think that DTrace is available for Solaris 8 and 9, the company I work for is still on 8 with possibly some 7's hanging around somewhere, which is where I expect alot of people to still be, Solaris 10 hasn't been adopted as widely as expected by Sun, it may gain some momentum with OpenSolaris, but we shall have to see. karen hill wrote: I skimmed the thread Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches. Wouldn't Solaris 10's DTrace be helpful in seeing what's going on? It seems DTrace was meant for these types of problems. __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Aly S.P Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] postgresql clustering
I think its a great idea to give it a shot, maybe you can present a proposal to the list of how you wish to go about it. There could be some experts on the list who may give you some input and direction. Aly. David Fetter wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:01:08PM +0300, Rafik Salama wrote: Dear Sirs I know that that postgresql can be configured for high availability over a clustered environment using pgcluster, Do you have a case study showing this? I am currently studying in my masters the clustering using MPI and OpenMP, PVM and others packages and I have to do a project, so I was thinking to use this opportunity to start implementing the clustering over postgresql using any of the above packages. What do you think? Let a thousand schools of thought content. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Cheers, D -- Aly Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] initdb profiles
Hello All, Please allow me to put a disclaimer, I am no serious PG hacker, but would it be possible to allow for a simple config script to be run (which would work even via /etc/init.d) which could be used to generate a config file for initdb, which initdb could read and do its thing ? This script could say do you wish to do a manual adjustment or accept the default values, and then initdb could feed off that file. Does this create too much work or is it disadvantageous. Cheers, Aly. On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I accept the run from init.d argument. So then, is there a case for increasing the limits that initdb works with, to reflect the steep rise we have seen in typically available memory at the low end? There is a compromise that I think we cannot make. For production deployment, shared buffers are typically sized at about 10% to 25% of available phyiscal memory. I don't think we want to have a default installation of PostgreSQL that takes 10% or more of memory just like that. It just doesn't look good. I have a single instance of apache running on this machine. It's not doing anything, but even so it's consuming 20% of physical memory. By contrast, my 3 postmasters are each consuming 0.5% of memory. All with default settings. I don't think we are in any danger of looking bad for being greedy. If anything we are in far greater danger of looking bad from being far too conservative and paying a performance price for that. There's nothing magical about the numbers we use. So the question whether initdb should by default consider up to 1000 or up to 4000 buffers is still worth discussion, but doesn't solve the tuning issue to a reasonable degree. True, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Aly S.P Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Version number in psql banner
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Darcy Buskermolen wrote: Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say something along the lines of psql client version foo connected to server bar version sfoo I second this, I think that something like psl client version 8.03 connected to server db01 running PostgreSQL version 8.1 would be real swell. Cheers, Aly. -- Aly S.P Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
