Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom, do you have a plan to make a back patch for 7.0.3?
No, I don't. No time for it now.
I got a bug report from a user with a script to reproduce the
problem. Seems the backend consumes infinite memory.
Not infinite, surely ;-) ... but
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you like I'll post the patch, but it strikes me as a waste of list
bandwidth --- anyone who is likely to actually review it is perfectly
capable of doing cvs diff for themselves ...
Posting patch is only useful if you want people to review it.
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom, do you have a plan to make a back patch for 7.0.3?
No, I don't. No time for it now.
I got a bug report from a user with a script to reproduce the
problem. Seems the backend consumes infinite memory.
Not infinite, surely ;-) ... but possibly more
"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
Also, is TOAST-table vacuuming fixed now?
Still broken. Hiroshi had muttered something about fixing
the internal commit of VACUUM so that it's more like a real
commit --- including advancing the transaction ID --- but
still doesn't release the exclusive lock
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Totally agree. In the old days, we posted all our patches to the list
so people could see. We used to make cvs commits only on the main
server, so we had the patch handy, and it made sense to post it. Now
that we have remote cvs, we don't do it as
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001215 10:34] wrote:
sorry, meant to respond to the original and deleted it too fast ...
Tom, if the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is such that there is a
performance decrease, *please* apply the
It seems that Tom has committed his fixups but we're still waiting
on Vadim?
Sorry guys, I'm busy with WAL issues currently.
CRC will require initdb, so it's better to implement it
first...
Also, is TOAST-table vacuuming fixed now?
Vadim
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you like I'll post the patch, but it strikes me as a waste of list
bandwidth --- anyone who is likely to actually review it is perfectly
capable of doing cvs diff for themselves ...
Posting patch is only useful if you want people to review it. They
* Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001215 10:34] wrote:
sorry, meant to respond to the original and deleted it too fast ...
Tom, if the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is such that there is a
performance decrease, *please* apply the fix ... with the boon that OUTER
JOINs will
Also, is TOAST-table vacuuming fixed now?
Still broken. Hiroshi had muttered something about fixing
the internal commit of VACUUM so that it's more like a real
commit --- including advancing the transaction ID --- but
still doesn't release the exclusive lock held by VACUUM.
Basically
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
It seems that Tom has committed his fixups but we're still waiting
on Vadim?
Sorry guys, I'm busy with WAL issues currently.
CRC will require initdb, so it's better to implement it
first...
Also, is TOAST-table vacuuming fixed now?
Can
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you like I'll post the patch, but it strikes me as a waste of list
bandwidth --- anyone who is likely to actually review it is perfectly
capable of doing cvs diff for themselves ...
Posting patch is only useful if you want people to review it.
Sorry guys, I'm busy with WAL issues currently.
CRC will require initdb, so it's better to implement it
first...
Also, is TOAST-table vacuuming fixed now?
Can someone please remind me? CRC allows us to know of WAL log is
corrupt?
Currently WAL has no means to know is log data
I've been looking into Brian Hirt's complaint that 7.0.3 and 7.1 are
lots slower than 7.0.2 in planning big joins. The direct cause is that
since we now deduce implied equality clauses, the system has more
potential join paths than it used to --- for example, given "WHERE
a.x = b.y AND b.y =
* Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001213 15:18] wrote:
I'm trying to resist the temptation to make this change right now :-).
It's not quite a bug fix --- well, maybe you could call it a performance
bug fix --- so I'm kind of thinking it shouldn't be done during beta.
OTOH I seem to have lost
sorry, meant to respond to the original and deleted it too fast ...
Tom, if the difference between 7.0 and 7.1 is such that there is a
performance decrease, *please* apply the fix ... with the boon that OUTER
JOINs will provide, would hate to see us with a performance hit reducing
that impact
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're saying that you're OK with the work Vadim has done please
let him know, I'm assuming he hasn't committed out of respect for your
still standing objection.
Well, I'm still against committing it now, but I only have one core
vote, and I seem
17 matches
Mail list logo
