[HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] PGDay.IT 2015 - Call for Papers

2015-07-09 Thread desmodemone
The 9th edition of the Italian PostgreSQL Day ( PGDay.it 2015 ) will be held on Friday , 23th October 2015 in Prato, Italy. The International Call for Papers has opened and will close on 8th August 2015. For more information about the conference and the International Call for Paper, please visit

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Incremental Backup

2014-08-01 Thread desmodemone
2014-08-01 18:20 GMT+02:00 Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote: c) the map is not crash safe by design, because it needs only for incremental backup to track what blocks needs to be backuped, not for consistency

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Incremental Backup

2014-07-31 Thread desmodemone
2014-07-31 8:26 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:00 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I think it's very useful an incremental/differential backup method, by the way the method has two drawbacks: 1) In a database

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Incremental Backup

2014-07-30 Thread desmodemone
2014-07-29 18:35 GMT+02:00 Marco Nenciarini marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it : Il 25/07/14 20:44, Robert Haas ha scritto: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Marco Nenciarini marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] In-Memory Columnar Store

2013-12-11 Thread desmodemone
2013/12/9 knizhnik knizh...@garret.ru Hello! I want to annouce my implementation of In-Memory Columnar Store extension for PostgreSQL: Documentation: http://www.garret.ru/imcs/user_guide.html Sources: http://www.garret.ru/imcs-1.01.tar.gz Any feedbacks, bug reports and

[HACKERS] Fixed Cardinality estimation with equality predicates between column of the same table

2013-06-21 Thread desmodemone
Hi all, I see a strange behavior ( for me ) on 9.2 (but seems the same on 9.1 and 9.3) of the optimizer on query like that : /* create a table with random data and 2 rows */ create table test1 ( id int not null primary key, state1 int not null default 0, state2 int not null

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql 9.1 replication failing

2011-12-01 Thread desmodemone
Hello Jim, I think you not have other possibilities if the archives are corrupted and there are no possibilities to restore it, you need to recreate the standby starting from a base backup. Kind Regards 2011/12/1 Jim Buttafuoco j...@contacttelecom.com Simon, What do you mean,

Re: [HACKERS] So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

2011-10-22 Thread desmodemone
2011/10/22 Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de On Friday, October 21, 2011 08:14:12 PM Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I

Re: [HACKERS] BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key

2011-10-18 Thread desmodemone
a patch. Regards, Mat 2011/10/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com wrote: Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one! I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first

Re: [HACKERS] BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key

2011-10-18 Thread desmodemone
2011/10/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com wrote: Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one! I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just

[HACKERS] BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key

2011-10-17 Thread desmodemone
Hello there, two guys of our developer team ( Lorenzo and Federico ) have seen a strange behaviour (in 8.4 and 9.1.1 ) on update, and I think is a bug or something really strange or I not understand correctly this behavior . I explain now ( begin transaction or auto commit is

Re: [HACKERS] BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key

2011-10-17 Thread desmodemone
add primary key(a) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE ; update testup set a=a+1 ; UPDATE 2 commit; Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one! Regards, Mat 2011/10/18 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com writes: create table testup ( a int ) ; alter table testup add